Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.Get custom essay
71 writers online
Creating a healthier living environment may be able reduce obesity and other things that may occur from drinking sugary drinks. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City decided in 2012 that he wanted to restrict the amount of purchases on sugary drinks. His idea was to limit the product to being no more than 16 ounces sold at places other than grocery or convenient stores. This ban was scheduled to go in effect in 2013. Could it really make a difference? Many people feel the government should not be allowed take away the people’s freewill to choose how much sugar drinks one should drink, but rather people should have the right to choose, because sugar drinks many not be the cause of obesity. Many people are in debate about this ban to stop the purchase in restaurants and little quick stands of selling nothing over 16 ounces. In the article, “Junk Food: should the government regulate our intake, it was stated, “Michael Bloomberg, however, is overreaching with his new plan to ban the sale of sugary drinks larger than sixteen ounces, He argues that prohibiting big drinks at restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums, and other food sellers can help combat obesity. But as he admits, customers can get around the ban by purchasing two drinks (page 582). Meaning if one decides he or she wants more of a sugary drink, a person can always purchase another cup or bottle of 16 ounces at any given time to get around the ban.
With ways to get around this ban the control of sugary drinks is not helpful and will not stop obesity. Another author (Mr. Gary Taustine) states, “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s effort to promote healthier life-styles is commendable, but the government has no right whatsoever to go beyond promotion to enforcement. You can’t reduce obesity with smaller cups any more than you can reduce gun violence with smaller bullets”. (Page 582) Next, by trying to ban the sale of 16 ounce sugar drinks in places other than stores takes away from the choice of free will. Mr. Daniel Lieberman states, “People have certain rights, this argument goes, including the rights to drinks lots of soda, to eat junk food, to gain weight, and to avoid exercise”(page585). People should have the right to freewill. Freewill is the ability or discretion to choose; free choice. As human society a person should be allowed to choose how much he or she wants to drink without any limits. This is because it is going his or her body not the government’s. Another factor that people need to look into is genetics. According to the www.cdc.gov/features/obesity/, some obesity comes from the people’s genetic makeup. The doctors like to call this the family history. Families with a history of diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and etc, are proven to have more obesity in their family. Therefore, the cause is genetic. Some start the trend by the rich calorie intake they consume.
Some people may do everything to try to cut back on obesity. Some are successful and others follow their genetic makeup. However, the fact that limiting the sale of 16 ounce sugar drinks will not cut down on obesity. It is proven that some people just have obesity in their genes. It is understood why the government would like to cut back on obesity. Mark Bittman feels the government needs to educate the people. He feels if people cut the cost on healthy foods and raise prices on junk foods or sugary drinks, that this will save money in the long run. By cutting cost on healthier foods and making them more economic, people will buy more and less of junk foods and sugary drinks. He argues that if the cost is better for foods that are healthy it will cut back on obesity and save in health care cost in the long run. Right now, it appears that the unhealthy foods are more economic and easier to choose. This is why so many people are obese. He feels that people will be able to make better choices if the prices were lowered. Finally, he feels that it is the government responsibility for public health. By cutting back on sugary drinks being sold in restaurants and other places, such as movies and concession stands, it will not stop obesity or cut down on the risk. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is all for a healthier living life style.
The people of New York is note not doubting this at all, but to think that he can cut down on obesity by limiting the amount of ounces sold is not the way to go. As there are many ways to get around this ban. Especially, if the restaurants has free refills, this may be difficult to monitor. It may also be a bit of an inconvenience as well to the people. This is because they will have to spend more for a product that they are custom to by having to buy more amounts of the product, instead of one bigger cup or bottle. People have the right to choose how much they want to intake. The government should not be allowed to limit the consumption of sugary drinks, because it is the people’s right to freewill. Serving smaller cups does not cut down on obesity because sometimes obesity is genetic. Therefore, having a healthier lifestyle may help with obesity, but enforcing a drink ban on sixteen ounce sugary drinks will not be effective.
Work Cited Sylvan, Barnet & Bedau, Hugo editor Adam Whitehurts, Harold Chester and Karen S. Henry Current Issues and Enduring Questions 10 edition
Bedford/St. Martin’s , 2014, 2011, 2008, 2005
Junk Food: Should the Government Regulate our Intake?
Anonymous Editorial, New York Times June 1, 2012 (page 582)
Mark Bitterman, New York Times Essay reprint form July 24, 2011 (page 587) Daniel Liberman, New York Times June 6, 2012 (page 585)
Gary Taustine, New York Times, June 1, 2012 (page 583)
http://www.cdc.gov/features/obesity/, Article written January 19, 2010 , March 22, 2014