“If you want to order two cups at the same time, that’s fine, it 's your choice. We are not taking away anybody 's right to do things, we are simply forcing you to understand.” If these words about the New York Soda Ban, from Mayor Bloomberg himself, are true, then what exactly was the point of making it? You see, although the intentions of the act are well-placed and well-founded, I have to disagree with the idea of the soda ban in its entirety. I’m not saying nothing should be done for the problem of obesity, as it is a proven and significant problem for the people of not just New York, but people all around the world. It just occurs that the solution proposed by Mayor Bloomberg is not at all the best way to go about solving the problem.
…show more content…
The way to turn this punishment-central system around is to instead take the money wasted on trying to fight and lobby for the ban to be placed, and instead put some of that money into education and information to show people why this is a problem. Everyone knows as a kid, the worst thing to hear from your parents is to “do or don’t do this because I said so,” such anti-logic can be extremely infuriating and only serve to make the problem worse. That much sounds simple enough, but also take into account that this isn’t just a parent arguing with a child, but a government subjecting its people. Parents have a bit more free will in how to discipline their children however they feel, as children in a household aren’t given rights and privileges bound by written law. Because of these things, there is a great amount of disagreement and opposition to the soda ban, from both companies that may be harmed and people that disagree. There may be room for argument that in legislating such a ban “for the peoples ' health” that you could justify it falls under promoting the general welfare. However, it has been decided by not only the people of New York, but the courts of New York as well that this is not a manner that is to be decided by the mayor. In a New York Times Public Opinion Poll, it was found that 60 percent of people surveyed thought that the soda ban was a bad idea. The New York City 's Court of Appeals also found that the ban could not be implemented the way Bloomberg wanted to because such a policy was to be decided by the legislature, and not the
The way to turn this punishment-central system around is to instead take the money wasted on trying to fight and lobby for the ban to be placed, and instead put some of that money into education and information to show people why this is a problem. Everyone knows as a kid, the worst thing to hear from your parents is to “do or don’t do this because I said so,” such anti-logic can be extremely infuriating and only serve to make the problem worse. That much sounds simple enough, but also take into account that this isn’t just a parent arguing with a child, but a government subjecting its people. Parents have a bit more free will in how to discipline their children however they feel, as children in a household aren’t given rights and privileges bound by written law. Because of these things, there is a great amount of disagreement and opposition to the soda ban, from both companies that may be harmed and people that disagree. There may be room for argument that in legislating such a ban “for the peoples ' health” that you could justify it falls under promoting the general welfare. However, it has been decided by not only the people of New York, but the courts of New York as well that this is not a manner that is to be decided by the mayor. In a New York Times Public Opinion Poll, it was found that 60 percent of people surveyed thought that the soda ban was a bad idea. The New York City 's Court of Appeals also found that the ban could not be implemented the way Bloomberg wanted to because such a policy was to be decided by the legislature, and not the