Karin Klein's Soda Ban Argument

They can argue that a ban on sugary drinks could help improve health problems such as obesity. Although it may seem reasonable like a reasonable solution, it can actually have negative effects on people. What good is a law when it can’t solve the issue it was made for. Therefore, the soda ban should not be put in place due to how it doesn’t solve the health problems it was made for. In the Washington times article by Samantha Gross, Joy Dubost, a nutritionist who works for the National Restaurant Association, explains what problems that limiting soda can cause. ‘“It’s not reasonable to blame or cite one product,”’ she said, adding that the proposal, “produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity”’ (Gross, p.g 2). In other words, banning the amount of soda that can be sold won’t solve many health problems as, obesity doesn’t originate from one source. The ban also implies that people won’t have to worry about obesity and other health crisis because they will presume that everything has been cured due to this one mandate. Not only does this mean that the ban doesn’t solve anything but it also makes sure people will stray away from issues that need to be addressed and therefore, limiting the amount of soda a person can purchase is a unproductive concept. However much people may think that limiting soda will help control these health issues, it actually does a lot more harm than

America is growing as a nation, and its citizens are growing in pant size. Obesity is a growing problem in America for children and adults; therefore, steps need to be taken to promote healthy foods to stop future health problems. In hopes of decreasing obesity rates, some political leaders like New York Governor David Paterson, have proposed a tax on caloric sweetened beverages (soda tax). This will reduce the consumption of sweetened beverages, thereby reducing the weight of the individual. The money collected from this tax could be returned to communities to support programs promoting wellness. It could be used to help support the cost of the country’s health care relating to obesity and be used to subsidize staple foods. Ultimately, the

The article “The Real Problem With Lunch” written by Bettina Elias Siegel is about the everlasting struggle of replacing unhealthy American public school lunches with better alternatives. She’s reaching out to parents, students, school representatives, and other influential people to change how American society views junk food, in hope that it will affect choices children make about lunches at school. How convincing is Siegel’s argument overall? Although she doesn’t fully address the strides made already by public schools to better their lunches, she strategically balances her use of argumentative tools: pathos, ethos, and logos. She uses statistics, facts, and empathy to urge her point of bettering lunches for children.

¨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.

So Mrs. Alexander please do not support the ban on chewing gum. kids will have fresh breadth if they chew gum and they will have friends and they will not be bullied. We will focus in class and we will be happy. It will help us not to be hungry and we will focus in class. Our grades will go up and we will have an upper hand over other schools, if we are allowed gum in schools.

The highly debatable and argued over ‘soda ban’ has been taking over the world and grabbed the media’s attention. But why? Well, many think the ban is about soda, but really, it isn’t all about soda. Truthfully, it is about the world thinking about the decisions they make. But, the ban does restrict all drinks ran by city that are above 16oz or have 50% or more of milk and fruit juice. However the soda ban may have some positive effects, ultimately the ban is a bad idea. Due to the contradiction it brings, the fact there is only one person making the decisions, and the other ways people can spend money.

These opponents believe that the law is worth it because of the health benefits for the citizens. However, this argument has utterly no grounds because the ends should never justify the means. Forcing the citizens, who bear in mind, most of whom are adults, to do something for their own good is completely wrong. While it may be the right choice, the people should at least be able to make their own decision. The government shouldn’t have to baby their people, they can think for themselves. Removing the ability for them to have a choice strips people of their freedom, and America is built on the ideal of freedom. Adding on, the soda ban might not even have any health benefits. Referring back to Gross’ article, a nutritionist is quoted as saying, “It is not reasonable to blame or cite one product… [the proposal] produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity.” Even health experts disagree with the ban. This mandate supposedly improves people’s well-being, but it fails at accomplishing that goal. If all the law does is strip people’s rights, and doesn’t even fulfill its main purpose, then it shouldn’t be enacted. The supposed benefits aren’t worth the trouble, which is why the law is a bad

“New York City’s Board of Health today passed a rule banning super-sized drinks at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries.” (Doc A). Individuals in the United States are overweight because they do not know how to limit themselves. If the government were to control one of the main reasons people are obese, then several people would not be overweight because the government would take care of the problem. Banning sugary drinks over 16-ounces would help people lower their sugar intake, which would help people stay in excellent health. Although numerous amounts of people believe they should be able to make their own decisions, the government should be able to control what Americans are consuming because of children, health, and the future.

Because in certain way affects in many families, and soda is coming directly from factory and it has another process to get and transported to store or schools that is more expensive than water. For instance, water should be more used than soda in schools since drinking 5 glasses of water daily decreases the risk or certain problems of

Most kids today drink sugary drinks when they get home or when go out to eat. Grocery stores sell soda and sugary drinks throughout the business (Leaf Group Ltd). Someone could be getting their groceries, and they would be able to get them with all of the other food or where they check out. “Researchers tracking 6,900 fifth-graders from public schools in 40 states through the eighth grade found that 85% of eighth graders reported drinking a sugared beverage at least once a week (about 30% said they drank them every day), regardless of whether their schools banned them or not.”(Alice Park). Most kids drink pop daily so it should not stop them from drinking it at school. “Students have many ways of accessing sugared drinks outside of the school lunch program, including vending machines, school stores and cafeteria a la carte offerings that students pay for themselves rather than with lunch vouchers.” (Alice Park).

beer label protecting children from vulgar and profane advertising, and by doing so, is New York State Authority (NYSLA) denying Bad Frog Brewery protection by the First Amendment under Commercial Speech. Under the Commercial Speech a court must determine these criteria’s: Whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial, whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Here, New York State has two substantial interests “promoting temperance and respect for the law” and “protecting minors from profane advertising.” Nevertheless, New York State failed to show that Bad Frog beer label directly advances the States interest of “promotes temperance and respect for the law” by other marketing gimmicks in the same way as “Budweiser Frogs,” and “Bud-Ice Penguins (Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority).” However, the Court can accept the New York State’s contention that the label rejection would advance the governmental interest in protection children from vulgar and profane advertising. The banned on Bad Frogs beer label is more extensive that is necessary to serve the interest in protection children, by restriction that already in place, such as sale location and limitation it would limit exposure to the children to the labels. The State of New York did not fulfill the criteria’s that was required under the Commercial

It has been brought to my attention by your organization, that you wish to have the classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, banned from our school systems. Now, I can understand your views and claims against this book, but in order to stay with a clean conscience, I must not let you and your organization bring forth this motion. As the head of both the city council and the local school board, I hold some sway with the other councillors and board members as well. I shall do everything in my power to convince them to vote against this outrageous demand. That is if, I cannot convince you, or the majority of your organization to not move forward with this motion.

Mayor Bloomberg is seeking to reduce obesity rates by introducing a soda ban proposing that drinks will not exceed 16 oz. to the New York City Board of Health. According to a study done by the New York City Health Department, acknowledged in 2008, 58% of adults living in New York City were overweight or obese. However, the ban only pertains to self-serve restaurants while vending machines, supermarkets, and convenience stores are exempt. ("Bloomberg Soda Ban." The Huffington Post. New York Times, 26 Aug. 2014. Web. 05 December 2016). Despite any positive outcomes that the soda ban may bring, I believe banning soda from New Yorkers is not an effective way to reduce these numbers. Healthy living needs to be taught for it to be probably practiced across all the states.

The press is known to explode with news everyday, informing the people on different topics that are happening worldwide. The newest revelation is on the soda ban in New York. Websites and pages are plastered with information and headlines announcing how “Mayor Bloomberg is overreaching with N.Y.C. large soda ban” or “Banning the Big Gulp Ban”. Reporters are scrambling to join the bandwagon of criticizing or praising this mayor’s audacious decision. There are many factors that influence opinions on the matter, but one of the most popular reasons is because of the high numbers of people that are obese and overweight.

Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which include soft drinks, fruit drinks, ice tea, energy and vitamin water drinks across the globe. Regular consumption of sugary sweetened beverages have been associated with weight gain, obesity and diabetes. The role of sugary sweetened beverages in the development of related chronic metabole diseases such as metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, has not been quantitatively reviewed .