Oluwatofunmi Ogunkoya March 14, 2024 Mod 5 Arc 2 Argument Task. Do you ever feel like you are being controlled by someone to do something against your will? I will be writing about how the government used the soda ban to control the citizens of New York without them making that decision. The government should not regulate personal choices like was done with the New York City ban because it limits us from making the decisions we want, and goes against what this country stands for.
Should soda really be considered as hazardous or toxic as people make it seem? In the texts “Three Cheers for the Nanny State”, “Ban the Ban”, and “Sodas a Problem But…”, it all shows evidence on how the soda ban is good or how it is bad. Also they talk about how it is harmful but is it really that harmful to where there is a need to ban it. Although some people may think the soda ban is a great idea there are numerous downsides to it such as only eliminating certain sizes, more harmful things to worry about, and that fact that there is no purpose behind the ban. The soda ban is a bad idea because it only eliminates certain sizes over 16oz.
This displays the idea of the “slippery slope” mentioned in the same article. The evidence proves that the soda ban should not have even been considered in the first place because nothing is wrong with a company selling legal drinks to consumers. Others argue that the soda ban is helpful, because it encourages a healthier lifestyle. The soda ban would decrease obesity and
“That’s what life is all about, isn’t it? Choices, informed decisions... what I do not respect is having my civil liberties stripped away.” , stated by Karin Klein in the short article, Ban the Ban!. One of the many values of the American life, is freedom, but to have options of what you can drink, to be taken away from you isn’t honestly moral.
The government should not regulate personal choices like it did with the New York City soda ban because it violates the U.S. Constitution and what it stands for. The soda ban is causing people to not make their own choice on what they want to buy. One reason the soda ban is bad is because it has stripped the rights of the citizens that live in New York. I say this because the soda ban has removed the rights of the citizens that America has given them. The ninth amendment allows U.S citizens the right to privacy and freedom of choice.
To begin with, the soda ban would benefit the public because soda is the reason why numerous of people are unhealthy. According to
Limiting the amount of soda a person can purchase is not a good idea, despite its benefits. The regulation itself has a multitude of problems, such as how there are many contradictions, how involved the government is, and how the ban doesn’t really improve health. The many contradictions in the soda ban lead to many workarounds, proving how much of a bad idea the law is. According to “Soda’s a Problem But…”, an opinion
¨Several critics questioned why the city was making proposal on sugary drinks a priority when some city schoolchildren have no physical education classes.¨ (Washington TImes) In New York, Mayor Bloomberg placed a law on the sizes of soda citizens are allowed to get. However, this caused a lot of controversy on whether the ban was good or bad. Despite the amount of people supporting the ban´s choice, the ban does have some downsides on it. It is not a good idea to limit the amount of a soda a person can purchase (or propose the ban) because it's not applying to all, it's taking rights away from people, and itś not a big deal.
There is an estimated 70,000 premature deaths per year in the United Kingdom (UK) due to poor diet (Gallagher). After a successful tax on sugary drinks in Mexico, it is estimated that a tax of at least 20% would be needed to deter customers from buying drinks in the UK. If the government imposed a 20% tax on sugary drinks, it would likely decrease quantity demanded as expected, lead to a tax revenue for the government, and create positive externalities, which are benefits to a third party. Figure One shows that the price increase in litres of sugary drinks will decrease quantity demanded.
The New York soda ban was a big issue for citizens. There are a lot of Americans that are obese and were worried about the ban of large size sodas. The ban was rejected and there is a good reason. Banning sodas is not the solution for obesity. The New York soda ban is not effective and people need to understand that it is not just sodas that causes it.
The soda ban is a defective idea in itself because of the loopholes in the plan. As Karin Klien talks about the problem in her article “Sodas a Problem but…”, “Convenience stores such as 7-Eleven are overseen by State and would be exempt , but a Burger King across the street would be restricted” (Klien, 288). In addition, there isn’t a need for this soda ban because it makes no sense for a customer at a fast food restaurant (like Subway) to walk across the street and go to a 7-eleven, which is a state-ran store that has drinks that are over 16oz., and even over 64oz. People could even go to a grocery store and buy a 2-liter bottle of the sugary drink because it isn’t run by the city. Another way the soda ban contradicts itself is because of how you’d get the same amount of sugar if you were to drink a drink from a smoothie
Although drinking soda can be fun, it's good for people to limit their soda they can purchase. If a person limits their amount of soda they intake, they will get excelling healthier, restrict the cognitive bias, and sugar in soda will stop being addicting. The first reason to support the claim that the soda ban should be put in place for excelling health is ¨[Soda´s] bad for you, especially in large quantities” according to Karin Klein(Klein). This shows that the soda ban should be put in place because people would have to think about the soda they would be drinking and buying. Not to mention there are many
Did you know that 60% of adults and one in four children in Australia are overweight or obese, making us one of the most overweight developed nations? Almost half of our population comsumes a sugary drink each day. I believe that it is about time we do something about this. With sugary drinks and weight related health problems closely linked, leading experts from the cancer Council, diabities Australia and the Heart foundation say the sugar tax would be a great solution.
That is why many propose regulating the purchases of carbonated drinks pact with sugar, or more commonly known as soda. One can of soda contains about 2.5 tablespoons of sugar, and on average, 9% of the daily calories consumed per person is from soda. Due to the high numbers of obesity in America, soda’s and other drinks high in sugar, should be regulated. Obesity can lead to many health problems. Some issues that can potentially occur because of what the person is eating include diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, body pains, and potential death (in fact, one article in The New York Times claimed sugar, more particularly soda, to “might just be the biggest killers via preventable disease in the country”
For a will, the sugar-sweetened drink has been taxed and are improving people diet and there is a lot of research on junk food is taxed and how it can also improve people diet. In places were sugar drinks have been taxed the person paying for there drink is taxed but for junk, food researcher has shown that taxing the people will have no impact. If people are not taxed than manufacturers should be taxed, and studies have shown when manufacturers are taxed than they are more likely to increase prices which will stop people from buying junk food and look for healthier food. Junk food has caused an increased rate of obesity and one way the government is trying to fight this is by having fat taxes which tax just unhealthy food and sugar-sweetened drinks. When junk food is being taxed than people will more incline to buy healthy food and drinks, this is only possible when the manufacturers are taxed.
