I promise to lay off on the Nanny-state griping, but New York is such a target-rich environment these days.

On a subway last night I got bombarded with health-police signage — an entire car of billboard ads  — chastising passengers for drinking beverages with calories.

The one my face was squeezed into watching read (I’m closely paraphrasing here; my arms were too restricted to snap a photo): “Afternoon Sweet Tea?: You’re Drinking 18 Packets of Sugar.” And then, beneath, in small print and parentheses, “for a 23-ounce can.” The visual depicted a cup of dark liquid with either a large dollop of cellulose or a small interplanetary alien being spooned into it — presumably the former.

It was lovely. Around $60,000 worth of taxpayer loveliness, I would guess, in that one car alone.

One of the Subway Ads

As an occasional fat bastard myself, I try never to drink calories. Seems like a waste to me with all those grilled cheese sandwiches out there.  So I understand and agree with the message, and I would have zero problem with the ad campaign if it were privately funded.

I also understand there is an obesity epidemic. One trip to Disney World, where fully ambulatory fat people ride around in motorized geriatric scooters, traumatized me for a full two years.

But is government responsible for changing our behavior in ways so minute as what we drink?  And, moreover, if it assumes that responsibility, where does that responsibility end?  Does government really want to make itself the arbiter of what legal behaviors are right and wrong?

If it does, it will have to get very busy.

I traveled to Hanoi in 2002 and marveled at the public address speakers on every street corner.  Morning, afternoon, and night the government pounded audio messages into its people, not one of them north of 110 pounds.