I already stated in questions one above the New York City limitation on the size of sodas has the same constitutional issues with the Philadelphia “Soda Tax”, both are unconstitutional even the major justified that it will be to promote better health of the population of New York, no law can really dictate what people has to put in their body. The tax is discriminatory as it only targeted on big sodas. The only difference between the two is that the New York City limitation on the size of sodas is not to raise any revenue and there was no tax per size or ounce while the Philadelphia “ soda Tax “ is mainly to boost the state revenue.
In 1773, colonists living in the British Empire led an uprising and revolt against the British Government. They resisted the heavy taxation that the British Government had charged in order to raise revenues. The colonists objected the taxation with protests and boycotts, claiming that this act is forbidden according to the British Constitution. They felt that taxes are collected to provide services and shouldn’t serve as a way to earn revenue. The government eventually eliminated much of the taxes, but left a tariff on tea intact. Tea was a popular commodity at that time, and people saw this levy as an intrusion. The revolt escalated and eventually led to the War of Independence. The American Revolution, as it is often
Question 1 - In her article Nadia Arumugam acknowledges some of the counter arguments to her own claim. She admits that the ban does not prevent customers from buying two cans of soda if they wanted, it only forbids “food services establishments regulated by the city” to sell sugary drinks exceeding 16 ounces. Through his art, the creator of the cartoon Dave Granlund demonstrates his position on the soda ban by questioning its effectiveness. He would likely disagree with the Nadia Aruguman because if someone wants to drink more than 16 ounces, he can and he will most probably do so.
Outline I. Introduction A. States around the nation are trying to put taxes on sodas. The main reason behind this tax is that it will reduce medical cost, obesity, diabetes, and the taxes will provide money for the states. B. Negative Externalities are the failures that happen because the producers do not take into account the costs that are impose on others. The producers do not pay for these costs and they produce more of that product because they avoid these costs. II.
First of all, I do not think that this Big-Soda Ban will work in the long run. One set back of Mr. Bloomberg’s ban is that it only applies to portion size and not how many portions. So, if you are not satisfied with your 16oz drink you can just go and get another refill. Also, many restaurants offer free refills, so how much of a ban is it really? Although I will say this, according to a study
In “In Chicago, Nobody Knew the Soda Tax Could Be so Complicated” by Patrick Clinton, he points out that retailers in Cook County (Illinois) argue that the Sweetened Beverage Tax is illegal. The tax that was passed last fall and was planned to be effective by July 1, 2017, consisted of setting a tax rate per ounce on the retail sale of the drink brought so many controversies if they should keep the tax or not. Clinton explains that in the Illinois’s constitution any law has to be taxed uniformly, but the tax does not meet all the requirements. The Sweetened Beverage Tax includes any drinks with artificial sweeteners like drinks in a bottle or a mixed drink, even fountain drinks, but it excludes juices, drinks that are made by baristas, legitimate
Sodas a problem but.. Page 288 paragraph 3 it statesm :A pizza restaurant would not have a 16- ounce cup. The state didn't even agree on this, paragraph 3 page 288 it states “Bloomberg makes good decisions and helped are country out but this has no effect whatsoever. You can't buy a bunch of little sodas so what is the main point of this
In the arguments article created by Samantha Gross, one quote states, ¨Members… have accused him of attempting to institute a ´nanny state´ with far-reaching government controls that infringe on individual choice.¨ In other words, he soda ban is an abuse of governmental power, attempting to create a perfect state, by controlling the people's decisions. They are taking away a right that the people always had the access to, which is free will. As an individual, you have the power to have control over any decisions you make, even if it does affect your health. Mayor Bloomberg is essentially taking away that right, going against what the United States is built on, freedom.
The serving size for a soda is usually about 8-ounce, the allowed amount in New York is 16-ounce which is double the recommended amount, but nevertheless a 16-ounce soda is a healthier choice than the banned sizes. It is a controversial topic due to people not liking being told what they can and cannot do and them not liking having a limited number of options. Even though the soda ban has a few downsides, there are exponentially more benefits to having it. The soda ban is a great idea due to it making a healthier society, it helps us make healthier decision, and it is more of an inconvenience as in you can still get it but it takes more effort.
Their advertisement proclaimed that all they wanted to do was “protect their Freedom of Choice.” “This is New York City; no one tells us what neighborhood to live in or what team to root for,” says the narrator, as Yankees and Mets fans shout in the background. (Grynbaum, 2012). Since May 30 when Bloomberg wanted to ban the sale of soft drinks over 16 ounces in regulated food establishments such as movie theaters and sport arenas. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, recommended there be a federal study linking together sugary beverages and obesity. “The talking points are ‘Nanny State,’ that it won’t work, because people will just buy as much as they ever would, and that this disproportionately hurts the poor,” said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. (Grynbaum, 2012). People that are not middle or low class would buy as much soda as they wanted and the rest of the people would be stuck with whatever drink is leftover. The lower class minority groups seem to always get the shorter end of the stick and in most cases unless a big group of them get together their voices will not be heard. The mayor or the city council should not have the right to tell you what size soda to drink or what kind of soda to drink; We live in The United States of America and there is no law that says anything about a specific size or flavor of soda so until that day comes nobody should
In New York City the mayor is trying to ban sugary sodas to decrease the amount of obesity. Two-thirds of adults in New York are overweight, 40% of elementary and middle school students fight obesity. Is this because of the intake of sugary sodas or is it the lack of self control? "Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman" states "We are smart enough to make our own decision about what to eat and drink."
The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city
This law would have somewhat of a domino effect as it would also affect fast food chain restaurants as they wouldn’t make as much money with them losing money on the soda machines they purchase. On the contrary, the soda tax would help with “medical costs for overweight and obesity alone are estimated to be $147 billion or 9.1% of U.S. health care expenditures with half these costs paid for publicly through the Medicare and Medicaid programs”(Brownell). This quote means medical programs will invest that money into other people who have more severe conditions and not use them on some conditions that could’ve been prevented.
Many store owners might argue that if they ban super-sized soda drinks they will be receiving less money because the bigger the drink the more it costs; however, the health of the U.S citizens is much more important because the more they consume those sugary foods and
As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.
Paying taxes is something everyone does. We pay taxes on cars, property, and on our income. What about the junk food we consume? This has been debated for years that it will or will not work. How do we educate the public? Why should we do it? Where will the money be going? What groups will it serve? Prices are already high, so where is the money coming from? Everything that is done must be motivated because if not, it becomes a fad - here today and gone tomorrow. Only things that are done repetitively are made into habits. As a person, all things can be done if we have a desire and a need. Taxes on junk food and soda will not work unless everyone is educated on the utilization of revenues, health advantages, and motivated sufficiently to make a more healthy change.