Soda Ban or Psychological Manipulation?

Link to Article I

Link to Article II

Mayor Bloomberg's supersized soda ban proposal, which would have prohibited eateries from selling non-diet sodas larger that 16 ounces was rejected by the Supreme Court earlier this week. In order to protect the welfare of the poor communities who are suffering from the obesity epidemic, the mayor finds the ban on sodas a moral obligation. At a press conference on Monday, Bloomberg said "we have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other, to save the lives of ourselves, our families, our friends." He will continue to press the issue and fight against the obesity crisis, which is expected to claim the lives of 70,000 Americans this year.

In an article by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow, he believes that it was wise for the Supreme Court to reject Mayor Bloomberg's proposal. According to Ablow, instead of outlawing supersized sodas, tapping into people's inherint desire to be accepted and respected by the community is a more effective way of having obese individuals refrain from picking up a large soda. Instead of spending money on enforcing the soda ban, he thinks the money would be better spent on billboards to psychologically affect the way obese people feel about drinking soda in public. The idea is to have people be shameful and self conscious of drinking 32 ounce sodas so they would opt for the smaller size. This way, they are still acting on their own free will but still making the wiser decision.

The story of Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to enforce the soda ban is ethically questionable. His intentions seem to be valid, but how can one justify taking away people's rights to eat and drink what they want? Where does the line get drawn? Once the soda ban effect, what would be the next item that people would be prohibited from consuming?  On the other hand, the number of obese individuals in the US and New York City is alarming and leaders should be making efforts to get Americans on a healthier track. In any regard, Dr. Ablow's idea of psychologically manipulating individuals to stop drinking supersized sodas seems ethically wrong in my opinion. While it is important to educate the community on the harmful effects of supersized sodas and obesity, psychological manipulation can lead to further issues such as depression and low self esteem. By making people feel shameful of their actions, it sends out the wrong message to the public and children. The more positive way to affect people's psyche is to educate and promote healthy actions, not reprimand them for their actions.

Fired for Being Gay in 2013

Link to Article

Andre Cooley, a gay man from Mississippi was allegedly fired from his job as a corrections officer due to his sexual orientation. 27 year old Cooley managed to keep the fact that he was gay a secret from his employer and colleagues until one day, when he called the cops due to a violent altercation with his boyfriend and his colleague showed up at the scene. Three days following the incident, Cooley was fired from his job. His employer denies that he was let go due to his sexual orientation and instead argues that it was because of his unprofessional behavior that reflects negatively on the organization. However, Cooley was off-duty at the time of the incident was a victim in the case. Even further, Cooley claims that he was told directly from a supervisor that he was fired for being gay.

After Cooley was fired from his job, he immediately contacted local lawyers to take on his case, but he had no luck because Mississippi is one of the 29 states in the US that do not protect discrimination based on sexual orientation in the work place. Discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, national origin, and disability are all covered under the federal law, but in these 29 states, sexual orientation and gender identity are not. This means that an employer has the right to not hire or fire people simply because they are gay. This is astounding considering that our current president supports gay rights and marriage and the majority of the general public believe that the LGBT community should have the same rights as anyone else. After investigation, Cooley was eventually granted his job back on the basis that his employer is a federal government and firing an individual for being gay goes against the constitution. However, if it were any other organization that was not apart of the government, it is likely that Cooley would not have been able to win this battle and continue to be out of a job.

This case illustrates how an action can be legal and ethically wrong at the same time. Based on the laws of Mississippi, employers can legally get away with refusing or firing employees simply based on their sexual orientation. Regardless of their work performance, intelligence, talent and excellent work ethics, sexual orientation can take precedence over one's career. Cooley was reportedly an excellent worker before he was fired and after he got his job back, but that did not stop his employer from immediately canning him when his sexual orientation was revealed. The US has dealt with unjust discrimination for decades and it is unbelievable that it still goes on today in 2013. Although it is legally acceptable, organizations must follow their personal code of ethics and mission to determine whether discrimination in any form is morally just.

Gambling or Business?

Link to Article

Intrade is an online betting site that allows people to make predictions on the outcome of hundreds of actual events throughout the world.   Similar to how stock exchanges show the value of a company share and futures show the value of commodities; prediction markets show the value in the probability of a future event.  Users on this site can buy or sell shares in a specific event from other players in the market and either make a profit or take a loss.  The company was on-track to having a successful year in 2012, until the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a lawsuit against Intrade in November, claiming that the Ireland-based company was operating an illegal online business. Intrade immediately banned all its U.S members, but this may cause trouble for the company’s future since they U.S users make up a majority of the site’s business.

However, in March of 2013, New Jersey became the 3rd state to pass an online gambling bill, which reverses the policy made by the US Department of Justice which stated that online gaming was illegal across state lines, since 1961. This turn of events and sudden change of viewpoint on this industry has presented a new way for Intrade to revive as a predictions betting site. The CFTC’s main issue with the site is its involvement in betting on currency prices and a few current events, but nothing related to wagers on politics, which has been a large source of the site’s activity. Also, Intrade also has an opportunity to obtain a license in Nevada, which allows over 20 types of games and continue it’s business with minimal restrictions.

Although Intrade has been portrayed as a gambling site, it wants to present itself more like a market or exchange, having been founded by a former stock trader.  I believe that regardless of the purpose behind the business, it presents and portrays itself with the same qualities as a casino. This may pave the way for very dangerous and potential unethical issues.  Banning of such inter-state and overseas gaming transactions has been to deter severe negative social impacts, associated with gambling addictions. Also, these used to only be limited to traveling to casinos and narrowed down to a specific set of games. A site like Intrade, unleashes a realm of possibilities which allow for wagering on anything from what the weather will be like in a week, who wins the next presidential election, or if the United States will bomb a certain country in a certain year.  I cannot help but see a slippery slope that leads to a serious social dysfunction and addiction that may appeal to a larger population that has typically not been exposed to gambling.  These ethical issues need to be closely monitored and addressed before allowing any more states to reverse the original policy made.