Debate Over Prohibition And The Bloomberg Soda Ban

Prohibition, the temperance movement, and the Bloomberg soda ban illustrate that the US constitution and legal systems are “living documents.” Both the debate over Prohibition and the soda ban were regarding the allowance of government to change legal documents and laws in response to changing times and new scientific research. In both cases, laws were proposed, and accepted, in the method of an amendment and a ban, respectively, and were ultimately changed, in the method of an amendment and an overturn, respectively. One argument was to keep the status quo and not introduce any changes, with the counterargument being that, despite freedoms promised to all Americans, if negative health and social benefits came as a result that freedom should be rescinded.

58% of New York City adults, as well as an astonishing 40% of children, are overweight or obese. Sugar is a major contributing factor to weight gain, as it is high in calories and promote fat storage. In recent years, companies have pounced on the opportunity to make money with larger portions of drinks such as soda. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided that it was time for the city to take action. In 2013, he introduced a ban on large drinks in the city. However, the ban was only on drinks like soda, not milkshakes, and not in all locations, either. The counterarguments to the ban included that it infringed on people’s liberties and that it actually was not efficient. According to one poll, people bought more soda when offered smaller portions than when buying larger portion. Additionally, 60% of New Yorkers opposed the