Pros And Cons Of Banning Soda

Soda Bans Should Not Be Initiated

The government was formed to preserve the United States ideals and liberties for the people. However, in New York, Mayor Bloomberg fought to put a law in place that would limit freedoms. He proposed to stop 16oz soft drinks from being sold to combat obesity. This law may appear a little change, but nevertheless, the government should not limit the sale of sugary drinks owing to the facts that it is out of their jurisdiction to do so, it is in contrast to their purpose, and the act will not accomplish their goal of leaving obesity behind.

Regulating our consumer decisions to prevent the overconsumption of unhealthy drinks is out of the government’s place. Jonathon S. Tobin, senior editor of the Commentary magazine

Twice is not a lot, meaning that banning soda can hardly be the whole problem. But forcing people to give up that small treat is not going to make them eager to do so, and they will find sugar elsewhere. Helping the people and representing the people is the job of the government, and banning this soda movement directly refutes that mission statement. Freedoms should not be taken away, because that would mean moving backward in the timeline. The majority of New Yorkers are against the ban (Park, time.com). The people not being listened to, they are not being represented as they were promised. It’s not in the government’s job description to act as parents for Americans and choose what they can and cannot eat. And not only is this affecting individuals alone, but it is also impacting business. 7-11 and other grocery stores can still sell large sodas, while every other business cannot (Kessler, cnn.com). This exception makes it clear that the limitations being pushed upon the country are not just prohibiting the customers from buying this product, but it preventing where they can purchase it by stopping certain venders from selling it. Smaller businesses will be directly impacted by losing the ability to sell this as a product because larger institutions would have an unfair advantage, unbalancing business competition. This decision is not only

Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor, believes that the way to do that is to have the government step in. He brought up this ban to prevent the “obesity epidemic” from worsening in New York, as he believes it as his obligation to keep the people “from harming themselves” (Tobin, galesgroup.com). He hopes that the ban will spread throughout the rest of the country to diminish the extra weight carried on American ground. But whether or not soda causes people to gain weight, is beside the point in this situation, because what the mayor does not understand is that it is still taking basic rights of the people away. People also claim that drinking this large amount of soda is no better for someone than smoking, something the government can prohibit, so the mayor has a right to the ban because sugary beverages are dangerous to the public health, just as is drinking and smoking (Tobin, galegroup.com). However, consuming pop is dangerous to the individual doing it, but only to the individual, whereas smoking around others is harmful to them, too, and driving drunk is dangerous to other drivers and pedestrians, hence “public health”. Drinking too much sugar is not a concern to public safety because it does not refer to the public being in danger of another person’s actions. But the mayor uses a