The Pros And Cons Of The Soda Ban

Are you proud of putting 86 grams of sugar into your body when having a large (32 o.z.) soda at McDonald’s? Or 102 grams of sugar when you drink a large (40 o.z.) soda from Burger King? In America, 86 grams of sugar with one meal is typical, and it is a problem. On average, Americans drink 44.7 gallons of soda per year, per person, yet only drink 28.3 gallons of bottled water per year. This much soda is extremely unhealthy, and that is why a soda ban was enforced in New York City, limiting soda to be sold in no more than 16 ounce cups at a time. Even though some people may think the soda ban should not be put in place, there are many reasons why it should be. It reduces health issues, it limits the amount of bad decisions made, and it does

In the opinion piece “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” by Sarah Conly, it is said, “...that sometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff…” (Conly, 277). The foolish stuff she is talking about is the act of putting such large amounts of toxic liquid into your body continuously. Additionally,the fact that such large amounts is so easy to get your hands on is a major mistake as well. It is also mentioned that, “We have a vision of ourselves as free, rational beings who are totally capable of making all the decisions we need to in order to create a good life” (Conly, 278). Our vision of a “good life” includes these large amounts of soda, which shouldn’t be okay. This “good life” that we are painting is getting embedded into people’s heads. This might make children think that you should drink soda as often as you should drink water. This soda ban would definitely limit the amount of lousy decisions

Saying that this ban takes away your rights is invalid because it is just limiting the amount of soda you can have in one cup. You can still get this drink, just in smaller quantities at a time. You don’t even have to get a smaller cup, you can go to 7-Eleven to get a double gulp filled with 186 grams of liquid sugar. This ban limits the number of places you can buy large sodas, it does not eliminate all consumption of it, meaning your civil liberties are not being taken away. The fact that you can still get soda leads to the argument that it is not effective. How do you know a ban like this is not effective when it hasn’t been done before? People argue that they are having their rights stripped away from them due to this ban, yet also argue that the ban is not effective because, “Convenience stores such as 7-Eleven… would be exempt, but a Burger King across the street would be restricted” (Stone, 288). The number of places you can get a large soda are being limited, but they are not all being wiped out. You can still go get your much needed big gulp after you get your 677 calorie Whopper. If your rights, in the form of options, are being ‘taken away’, wouldn’t that mean that the ban is working? So, I doesn’t make much sense to argue that the ban is not affective and takes away your