The proposal by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to limit the size of sugary soft drinks that can be sold at entertainment venues in his city initially seemed like a plump topic for the opinion pages.
"Pesky public health issue" plus "uncomfortably assertive policy response" surely adds up to a healthy debate, does it not?
Indeed, a few columns and editorials -- one of which appeared on this website on Tuesday -- trickled across the wires, but predictably decried either the obesity epidemic (our lack of self-control) or the nanny state (our lack of self-control).
That's almost as constructive as bickering over whether it's more proper to say "soda" or "pop."
Perhaps the pithiest distillation of Bloomberg's proposal came, not surprisingly, from Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show": "It combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect."
He's right. We wouldn't want this New York nonsense spilling across the nation -- a slippery slurp, if you will. A scant 16 ounces just can't satisfy, and it's not as if soda fizz is secondhand smoke.
Then again, our caloric excesses do contribute collectively to the health care cost quandary, and that will be the case no matter which way the Supreme Court rules on "Obamacare."
If we don't want government telling us what to do, and if it isn't PC for others to tell us how to be, it would seem that a great deal is riding on sensible self-determination.
So ... are your eyes bigger than your stomach?
Don't answer that. But do consider it your personal Pepsi challenge.
Readers, what do you think? To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, please fill out this form. Follow us on Twitter @StribOpinion and Facebook at facebook.com/StribOpinion.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.