Soda has been found to, although be an enjoyable treat, have many more negative effects than good ones. Due to this, it’s not something that should be consumed on a regular basis. In New York however, the citizens appear to have thought otherwise. When Mayor Bloomberg passed a ban on the large size of fast food drinks- reducing it to 16 oz.- protests immediately broke out. Although many may believe the soda ban was a bad idea, the health problems, psychological problems, and loopholes caused by soda consumption and this law proves that it wouldn’t have been bad in the long run. The health problems caused by soda consumption prove the citizen’s best interest was in mind when making the law. To support this, “calorie-packed beverages increase the risk of diabetes, and are responsible for a big share of the ‘massive suffering and premature …show more content…
However, this is a weak and poorly supported argument because, as pointed out in some sources, this law has loopholes like every other rule. So, while one would no longer have an easy, cost-effective method of getting their over-16-ounces fix of soda, this rule has exceptions. The soda ban does not take away from our American liberty as drastically as opposers like to claim. Karin Klein’s article, “Soda’s a Problem but..”, on the matter outright states that, “..convenience stores.. are overseen,” and that, “..people could simply buy two 16-ounce cups.” It’s not like the ban’s a 16-ounce-per-person deal, it’s more like a stop-you-from-doing-something-you’ll-regret deal. Say you love some brand of chips, for lack of a better example. If you know they’re unhealthy and that you can’t stop yourself around them, would you rather have the small, individual bags or the large, family sized bags to eat in a sitting? It’s practically the same case; some people can help themselves, others not so