Pros And Cons Of The Soda Ban

Choice. It is one of the basic human rights everyone should have. However, sometimes the ability to make your own choice is hindered. When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a law to ban large-sized sugary drinks, the city was splintered. Some people believed it was the right thing to do while others disagreed. 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

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