Ban The Ban ! And Soda's A Problem

Most people say that the government’s role, in our diets, is the key for a healthier life. While others may argue that it is freedom of choice to eat whatever we want. However depending on the point of view, the government’s role in shaping what we consume is either a compulsory intervention or a blatant interference on American free will. Even though we hear a good argument on the government controlling our diets, most research show that the involvement of the government on our diets has shown little to no results.

Do you think soda is such a bad thing for us humans that it has to be banned? Soda does affect human lungs and their bodies, which is why some people don’t drink soda. In the articles “Three Cheers for the Nanny State”, “Ban the Ban”, and “soda’s a problem but Bloomberg doesn’t have the solution” the author’s do not agree with the soda ban situation. The government should not regulate personal choices like what was done with the New York City’s soda ban because, this option should be made by the people, it’s their freedom to make their own decisions, and they have the right to make their own choices. In the text “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” by Sarah Conly, the author gives information about how soda shouldn’t be banned.

People think that the Soda ban would be a good thing but it isn't. Ban the Ban by Sidney Anne Stone and Soda’s a problem but… by Karin Klein are both opinion pieces, on why the soda ban is not worth it.t is not a good idea to limit the amount of soda a person can buy Americans have freedom of choice and they should make the decision of how much soda they drink. On page 287 of Ban the Ban, paragraph 2 it states, “ when you take away the option to order a soda over a certain size you have now removed mu options. I no longer have a choice this is not what this country is about” We shouldn't allow the government to make choices for us. If someone chooses the right to have a sugary drink, it's their choice and their right.

“The Cato Institute’s” Policy analyst, Radley Balko, in his article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” talks about the idea of obesity and whose fault it is. Balko’s purpose is to convey the idea that obesity is the individual’s responsibility, not the government’s or anyone else’s for that matter. Ultimately, Balko’s “What You Eat Is Your Business” has a strong hold on ethos, pathos, and logos, making for a successful and persuasive article.

On June 26, 2013, the New York Soda Ban was passed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This ban limited soft drinks over 16 oz. be sold in government-regulated establishments, to “help combat obesity.” This provoked anger over the freedom to choose and its usefulness. Richard Bress, a lawyer against the ban, said the case raised “the question of what makes us American, the right to choose.”

However this argument is weak due to the most popular places, such as fast-food chains, are affected by the ban. You would also have to go out of your way to buy more soda, which is a huge inconvenience and it will cost more money, simply because you want an unhealthy beverage. The text “Soda’s a Problem But...” Klein argues against the ban, but a lot of her pieces of reasoning are not logical, for example “People would simply buy two 16-ounce cups” (Klein 289). This is illogical because it will cost more money to buy multiple cups of soda, which would cost more money, and they may not finish the soda’s that they bought at the convenience store or restaurant.  If you bought more cups of soda you would be taking up space within your car, if you have less space you will not have anywhere else to store more valuable objects like your phone or wallet. Soda being harder to get will help us make a healthier society because it will discourage people from buying more soda than they actually

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 than smoking, something the government can prohibit, so the mayor has a right to the ban because sugary beverages are dangerous to public health, just as are 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 safety”. 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. 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

Obesity and diet related disease like diabetes are one of the biggest challenges today in America. The situation continues to worsen every day; obesity becomes a serious health crisis. Cities like Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are sounding the bell of danger by imposing a tax on the consumption of soda and sugary beverages to cutback sugar consumption; which is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Some people say that tax on soda and sugary drinks aren’t beneficial to society and don’t generate any positive effect on public health. Others say that it is a powerful weapon against the obesity epidemic invading the American population. I agree with the later. Taxes on sugary

Sugary drinks and fast foods are constantly being consumed by Americans, causing an increase in health problems. Government regulation of what we eat and drink is fair because it will increase awareness of what individuals eat and can prevent higher rates of obesity. The article by Ryan Jaslow, "Sugary drinks over 16-ounces banned in New York City, Board of Health Votes" clearly supports the banning. However, “Should the Government Regulate What We Eat?" argues that the ban puts the American values of freedom at risk. Such regulations are necessary in order to maintain a healthy environment.

The history of soda in high school vending machines carries with it heavy economic interest, a plethora of lobbying and some imperative details, which we may find useful in our consideration of diet soda. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are the two major companies that compete in the soft drink arena. By the late 1990s these companies were already well established in high school vending machines, but the competitive market required quite a bit more action (Nestle 310). In fact the companies began to, as Nestle claims, “view school children as an attractive marketing opportunity, and use every possible means to promote their products to this young,

The government presently has programs in place that are meant to urge people to deal with their weight. Cities generally have parks which supply free exercise-related areas to the public. While the government offers resources for people to challenge obesity, the government should “let each [person] take responsibility for [their] diet and lifestyle.”(Balko) An individual, not the government, pays the consequences of obesity in their value of life. In fact, the government should not pay for any backlash of obesity, because it removes a person’s own accountability, but “we’re likely to make better decisions when someone else isn’t paying for the consequences.” (Balko). Obesity does not occur in a day or a week, but through a sequence of choices and routines, which form a lifestyle. A law highlights a problem and provides a solution, this procedure is often efficient in dealing with the problem. But as for the growing problem of obesity, solutions suggested are usually short term regulations which cannot always connect a multi-generational problem. Instead of taking away temptations, such as fast food chains or unhealthy foods, the government should continue encouraging people to live a healthy life. The benefit of healthy living is that it is not limited to today, if prioritized, healthy living can become a long-lasting

Obesity rates are increasing in the past few years due to unhealthy living decisions made by families. One suggested solution to this was made by the mayor of New York to implement a soda ban. This would ensure that soda could not be sold in cups over 16 oz (although there were exceptions). This will not help the city at all because people will be able to order more drinks or buy drinks from a different store. The soda ban should not be enforced; instead, we should provide healthy living classes in high school to teach kids what they should eat; so that we can target the obesity problem at a younger age and decrease the numbers.

In 2010 alone sugary- drink consumption killed almost 200,000 people. Despite it being so detrimental to health, Soda is the most popular beverage in the US and makes up almost thirty percent of all beverages consumed annually. The average person drinks over six thousand ounces of soda each year Soda consumption has been directly linked to diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and obesity. It is time for us to take action and place a “junk food” tax on soft drinks to discourage people from purchasing them. . Some people believe that a soda ban would limit personal freedom, which they believe is essential in a democracy, and past proposals was rejected because of this. However, soda is taking many lives, and it is time for us to take action; we need to make our world a happier, healthier place.

Today, research asserts soda is one of the leading causes of poor health outcomes in the United States. People define soda as carbonated beverages, or soft drinks, or fizzy drinks. A significant relationship exists between the consumption of carbonated drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental caries in the United States (Gollust et al., 52). Tax on soda is considered as a government intervention to regulate the consumption of these kinds of drinks. In fact, soda should be taxed in the United States because it discourages the consumption of soda, makes people healthier, and raises government funds.

Over the past few years the soda tax policy has become increasingly widespread, and several cities have taken a multifaceted approach to not only aim to improve public health, but to also raise total revenue to help these communities. These excise taxes are being imposed on cities like Philadelphia, which is “the poorest of the 10 largest US cities, and for many years, one of the unhealthiest” (Lavizzo- Mourey). Philadelphia’s mayor, Jim Kenney decided that a $1.5 per ounce soda tax would be efficient to restore the city’s economy and improve the public’s health. The city planned to raise approximately $92 million per year, with a goal of $7.6 million a month in tax revenue; however, city officials predicted that only $2.3 million will come through in the first collection (Vargas). A month after the tax went into full effect, the state of the economy went downhill and these communities and small