New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has successfully banned smoking in public places and trans fats from city restaurants, all in the name of public health and the greater good. Now the mayor is planning on banning the sale of sugary drinks in quantities over 16 ounces.
While the effects of such ban are debatable, I would focus my lesson on the legality of such a law and the government's ability to restrict how we choose to live our private lives. Yes, second hand smoking has been shown to cause harm to those in the vicinity of the smoker, but this ban is directed at an activity that solely harms the consumer. How far can the government intrude on our lives and when is it a government's responsibility to protect its citizens?
First, I would have my student search for laws which could be defined as "nanny" laws. We would then compile these laws and define why we believe the government has no legal right to legislate and restrict particular parts of our lives.
After doing this, we would flip the table around and brainstorm justification for such laws and how the government might have a motivation to change the personal habits of its citizenry. For the example of sugary drinks, we might consider the cost to the healthcare system to treat diseases linked to diets high in sugar. Although this might seem to be a stretch of logic, I would remind the students that many laws we think of as common sense were once controversial just like the soda ban. For instance, when cars were first becoming common, there was no licensing system in place. Today, few argue the benefits of restricting who is allowed to propel a two-ton piece of steel down a freeway at 75 miles an hour.
We would then consider the benefits of the "nanny" laws along with their legality under the limits of the Constitution. The students would then vote if the law is 1. beneficial and 2. if it can legally be implemented.
Closing the class, I would attempt to put into perspective just how restrictive these laws actually are. It is not uncommon to hear pundits warn that laws like the soda ban move the U.S. dangerously close to a Northern Korean styled government. It is not my intentions to sway my students' opinions, but I would like them to know what laws are actually like in North Korea and other more totalitarian governments.
This lesson plan sounds like a well-rounded and fair assessment of the issue. It seems to be especially effective in getting the students to think about the different issues rather than you as an instructor deciding what view they should be led to believe. It brings up different perspectives and also demands the engagement of the students. Nice job, future educator. I commend you.
ReplyDeleteAhhh I love reading these teaching ideas! I just read Matt P's ideas for a biology classroom, so it is sweet to read yours that focuses on a legality standpoint. Baller.
ReplyDeleteI literally just rambled on a previous blog about how stupid this law would be because people everywhere are proving that the real sugar in pop is "healthier" for you than the fake sugar that is in diet pop. Your take on the law is totally different due to your expertise in political science. How awesome. I actually feel like I learned a lot about laws from reading this--I knew nothing about nanny laws, not even that they existed.
Also, this post is really inspiring and makes me so happy because honestly in high school, I learned nothing about econ, history, and government combined. I know what the electoral college is, and that is about it. But I hate my lack of knowledge on it! If my high school teachers planned their lessons to teach students about what you talked about in this blog post, I would have learned so much more. And what better way to do that then by using real-life events like the soda ban?