In an effort to fight obesity and improve the health of his constituency, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has introduced a proposal that would ban the use of food stamps to purchase soda and other unhealthy drinks. Some people say in a paternalistic attempt to control the poor, Mayor Bloomberg has introduced an intrusive measure that condescendingly curbs their freedom.

Bloomberg’s recent proposal has hit a nerve; after all, guzzling soda (actually, guzzling in general) out of Big Gulp 7-11 cups is as American as the good ol’ red, white and blue. Actually, it’s the freedom to make the choice to ruin one’s health by drinking soft drinks that is at stake. Which is more important? The freedom of choice when it comes to food, or the possibility of improving people’s health by official means? While I understand the concern that the proposed policy is paternalistic, I fully support Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal.

There is no question that there is an obesity epidemic in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 percent of the population of New York state is considered obese. While it may seem condescending to tell people what they can and cannot eat just because they receive government assistance, no one would argue for food stamps being used for cigarettes or cat litter. Neither of those products has any nutritional value. The sad truth, however, is that if food stamps were redeemable for kitty litter, someone would take advantage of this. People don’t always make the best decisions, particularly about what they eat. Spending your own money on ice cream and Mountain Dew is one thing, but spending public money to indulge your sweet tooth is quite another.

Of course, making ice cream taboo isn’t part of the proposal. Even ice cream has calcium, I guess. But why not buy some milk instead? While it can be difficult to draw the line between what has nutritional value and what does not, there are some “foods” that clearly have no value. Soda is one of the most obvious. It’s a start, but I think the adage “go big or go home” could be applied to this situation. Why stop at soda and energy drinks? It would not be excessive to exclude, say, potato chips. The benefits of a healthier populace would greatly outweigh the loss of some choice. The point of food stamps is to provide sustenance to those who could not otherwise afford it. By accepting government assistance, you make a trade-off, ceding some of your freedom for food.

Freedom is a tricky concept. Having the most possible choices, with no restrictions, is obviously not optimal. No one but the fringe flavors of libertarians seriously contests “condescending” government measures like FDA food regulations, the illegality of heroin or speed limits. One of the best things about government regulations is that they restrict people’s choices in order to improve other aspects of their lives. Of course, it would be absolutely insane, and absolutely unenforceable, for unhealthy food to be banned in general. That would make life unbearable on an Orwellian scale. Pie is just as important as freedom of speech, as far as I’m concerned. But within the realm of government-sponsored programs, including food stamps and public schools, restrictions that promote healthy eating are beneficial. More choice is not necessarily the most important criterion, mainly because people (everyone, not just poor people; I’m sure even Warren Buffett eats French fries) don’t always make the best decisions. The purpose of food stamps is to provide nutrition. Soda is a black hole of sugary oblivion and doesn’t deserve public money.