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

focused on political and world-wide issues, insists this point repeatedly:
But even if we concede that drinking too much soda is an unhealthy practice, what the mayor again fails to understand is that the purpose of the government is to protect freedom, not to heedlessly infringe upon it merely for the sake of what some people may believe is doing good. (Regulating, galegroup.com)
With the New York mayor trying to avert the public from consuming too much sugar, the government is not doing what their job entitles, but rather the complete opposite. They should be the ones ensuring it is possible to buy whatever soda size the country desires, they should not be overstepping into private lives and private decisions, despite whether or not it may lessen the obesity problem. Their intentions may be positive in mind, but displayed out in reality and the movement is inappropriate. This ruling could easily further endanger “personal liberty” by setting a precedent of apparently “logical” actions that eventually build up until freedom of choice has faded (Regulating, galegroup.com). If one law has passed because it is seen as the government’s duty to protect the American people from themselves, what will stop more from coming? Just this one law could influence others like it, regardless of whether or not people should have the right to choose, creating a reality with less and less freedom. America’s health problems may be serious, but are they worth taking freedom away (Regulating, galegroup.com)? The costs outweigh the benefits of this decision: this “solution” has such a slim chance that it will prevail and lower the obesity rates, but there is no doubt that this will take an individual’s decision away. Preventing Americans from buying and selling large soft drinks is a breach into the lives of the people. The government was not created to make minor decisions for the citizens of the United States, but to protect their rights of life, liberty, and property. But if this law was ever passed it would soil those principles on which the country was founded.
The average New York citizen goes the movies only four times a year and buys snacks at the concession only twice (Park, time.com).

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

hurting consumers, but the owners of the businesses. This law will hardly benefit America, with the long term positive effects hardly drowning the negative.
Banning large amounts of soda is not going to stop people from gaining weight. The obesity problem is not going to shrink. The backing argument of this movement has no sustenance when you look at what really causes these health problems. It is a proved fact but now common sense that if you take more energy in than you let out, you will gain weight (“What”, nih.com). That can be translated into meaning that even if someone does not drink a lot of soda, but still eats too much and does not exercise, they will get heavier. It does not matter if someone is not taking in much pop, because there are other influences on weight than just one beverage. Genes, inactive lifestyle, health conditions, medication, smoking, age, and lack of sleep all contribute to obesity (“What”, nih.com). All of these factors must be taken into account if someone plans to lose weight. Some people are naturally heavy or their obligatory medicine causes them to be so. Not everyone exercises, allowing unhealthy routines to be evident and continue, as does the ban on large soft drinks. People can still drink an abundant amount of soda if they want. It’s still at grocery stores and they can buy as many little cans or bottles as they like, concluding in the same effect as a 16oz. soda. All this act does is take away freedom, that is the only assured ending. Someone can still drink all the soda they want, and in large amounts, they just cannot buy it in tall sizes everywhere. No one is going to lose weight over the ban, this is not going to end obesity in America.
The thesis argument of the supporters of the ban is that the United States has alarming rates of obesity in the country, and the health of the citizens must be prioritized and bettered.

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

different definition to make it his excuse, with which he can practically do anything, without limits to his power. Another argument of the backers for the act, argue the significance of the obesity problem. As of 2012, sixteen percent of America’s most urgent health problems were obesity (Diet, infobaselearning.com). Nevertheless, even though obesity is a growing problem and it is not going to go away on its own, this is not the way to go about lessening the situation. These complications are not going to get simpler without giving attention to the other factors of being overweight, and the solution to simplicity should not an infringement upon liberties.
In conclusion, banning the sale of large soft drinks would be a result negatively for most everyone, and that is logically the reason most are against the movement. The government forgets that they work for the people, they represent the people. The people put them in office to speak what the citizens needed, not to decide what they needed. But the government is not doing that. This ban should not be gone through with because it oversteps the government's purpose, the people do not want it, and it will not stop obesity rates from growing or living. Although it may be something small now, the precedent the law sets could change the whole United States nation and everything it stands for.