New York's Restriction on Sugary Drinks

1) Legal Basis for the Law Like a parent looking after a child that doesn't know any better these laws are not completely unheard of. Laws serve several purposes, one of which is to prevent one from harming one's self. Consider some of the following legislation: Motorcycle Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, Seat belt laws. The law serves to protect the larger population of New York from harming one's self. Sugary drinks over 16 ounces contain an excessive amount of sugar and calories "Healthy-eating recommendations call for people to limit sugary beverages to about 64 calories per day. That's a little less than half of a 12-ounce can of regular Coca-Cola, which is 140 calories." [1] A 16 Ounce bottle of coca cola contains 200 Calories which is over 3 times the recommended amount [2]. "On any given day, half the people in the U.S. consume sugary drinks; 1 in 4 get at least 200 calories from such drinks; and 5% get at least 567 calories"equivalent to four cans of soda. (17) Sugary drinks (soda, energy, sports drinks) are the top calorie source in teens" diets (226 calories per day), beating out pizza (213 calories per day). (18)" [2] Given the amount of consumption of sugary drinks and it's contribution to diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and gout[3]; It's clear that sugary drinks pose a threat to the well being of the population. Reducing the amount of sugary drinks that people consume can help people control their weight [3]. This law aims to do exactly that. 2) Protecting the larger population Sugary drinks are directly linked to diseases like Obesity, which can not only affect the obese person, but can have an indirect impact on the larger population and even the small businesses that many opponents of the legislation say the law will affect. Health care costs for an individual can sky rocket due to Obesity. The National Health Expenditure Accounts dataset "calculated that obesity may have been responsible for as much as $147 billion of health care spending in 2006." [4] "In middle-age men, treatment of five common obesity-related conditions (stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol) resulted in roughly $9,000 to $17,000 higher costs compared to normal-weight adults." [4] If we do nothing to curb the rise in obesity, it is "estimated that by 2030, if obesity trends continue unchecked, obesity-related medical costs alone could rise by $48 to $66 billion a year in the U.S." [4] This leaves the individual and the country with less money to invest in small businesses, and raise health care costs overall. Along with the direct financial loss, there is an inderect cost of obesity that can affect the larger population. "Days missed from work are a cost to both employees (in lost wages) and employers (in work not completed). Obese employees miss more days from work due to short-term absences, long-term disability, and premature death than nonobese employees. They may also work at less than full capacity" Lower productivity means that companies are making less money than they could be. This could affect the national economy costing investors money. [1] http://boston.cbslocal.com... [2] http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.cspinet.org... REBUTTAL (guessing I go first since you went first with your statement?) 1) This ban will affect small businesses Sugary drinks directly contribute to diseases linked to Obesity. Obesity can lead to higher health care costs. This will leave less money to the individual to spend at small businesses and will actually push consumers to bigger businesses that can afford to charge less for the same sized soda's as well as food that may be comporable to the food being offered at said small delis and restaurants. Most restaurants ban outside drinks from coming into the establishments. If somone wants to drink a sugary drink, they will still be forced to buy the smaller available size thus limiting the loss of profit. 2) This act is a direct violation of freedom of choice We do live in America and America is a nation of Laws. There is no explicit amendment in the constitution that garauntees the freedom of choice. Furthermore there are plenty of laws that restrict your freedom to choose, such as drug laws, helmet laws, laws even banning gay marriage. Your right to choose is limited by the laws and rules of society that you have agreed to in the social contract. 2b) Mayor bloomber was lawfully elected in New York. The majority of New yorkers entrusted him to appoint a commissioner of the Metropolitan Board of Health, a duty that is extended to all New York Mayors. Thus you can even say that the majority of New Yorkers inderectly elected commisioner of the board of health. If you want to change the board, they will have to abide by their ruling and wait until the next election to vote him and the board out of office. 3) Warning labels are a much better alternative The effectiveness of labels can be debated. Changing peoples minds about the consumption of harmful products can not be simply left to warning labels alone. A change in culture and greater education in society, as well as a personal belief that one is at risk must be present in order for someone to change their minds in using harmful products. "Some investigators reported they could not differentiate the effect of health warning labels from co-existing community educational programs. Other researchers concluded warning labels were a misallocation of educational efforts." [5]Creating these labels, and educating the public will cost much more money then simply passing a law which simply serves to do the same in a much more economic and swift way. [5] http://www.indiana.edu...