California should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.

Hello. First of all, thank you to Geekspeech for posting this debate. I have a tournament on this topic so this is great practice. Additionally, thank you to the voters and the comments that will be given. It really helps me prepare for future debates. Now, as a road map, I would like to go on to bringing some background up on this topic, bringing up a counter plan, refuting my opponents points, and bringing up my own arguments. So what exactly is New York's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks? According to the report (http://www.nyc.gov...) by the New York City government officials, "Sugary drinks shall not be offered or sold in cups or manufacturer-sealed containers (e.g. bottles, cans) that contain more than 16 fluid ounces. [This excludes super markets and convenience stores.]a. Sugary drinks are defined as beverages that have added sugar, contain volume and have more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces.b. Does not apply to alcoholic beverages, low-calorie drinks served in non-self-service cups that contain less than or equal to 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces, including diet sodas/colas, unsweetened coffees and teas, water, or fruit or vegetable juice without added sugar."So now, onto refuting my opponent's points. First, I would like to mention that all of the proposition's sources are just newspaper publishers, such as Yahoo or Huffington Post, not specific articles or links. -The Proposition's first point is that Americans are becoming obese. However, banning different sizes of soda is not the correct solvency. These people can just go back for seconds, or even thirds, eliminating the entire use of the plan. The solvency instead, is to place a tax on the sugary drinks. With this money earned, the government can benifit the more important things in life, such as the educational system. Additionally, the government can use the money to teach children in school good healthy methods of eating. -My opponent's second point was that sugary drinks lead to health probelms. However, this argumen is non-unique as it can happen anywhere, with anything, to anyone. Eating too much rice leads to a negativly affected back.Too much weightlifting could injure your arms. Too much reading can hurt your eyes. Obviously, this also applies to sugary drinks, and also everything else in the world. Tying into the proposition's third point, they mentioned such "health choices" such as Iced Coffee, but Iced Coffee is not a healthy choice as the result of caffeine. -My opponent's third point was that healthy alternatives are available. Unfortunatly, it does not make an impact whether there are healthy choices or not. There are already lots of healthy alternatives, with or without sugary drinks, and either way, they won't work if they aren't enforced. Thus, this argument that the Proposition side makes has no ground. Again, as an example, Iced Coffee was included. Iced Coffee is unhealthy because of all the caffeine affecting your brain and so is not a healthy choice at all. -My opponent's fourth point was that "It's an expense that people don't need to spend". First of all, it should be an individual's choice of what to do. Additionally, the money is keeping our economy circulating. At this time, we cannot have a worse economy. Ok. Now onto the my side's flow. First, I would like to bring up a counter plan. The counter plan would be that instead of banning sugary drinks, the govenrment would pass a law that would add 1cent of tax per 1 ounce. Thus, a 8 ounce can of sugary drinks would cost the original price and original tax, plus and 8 cent extra tax. This way, the government would not only make money, but it would also help decrease the amount of obesity in today's America. 1. Banning Sugary Drinks Violates The People's Freedom. Why should the govenrment and other people be able to limit individual's freedom? All over the world, people look up at America as the free country, where even the simplist ideas are free to practice. In the declaration of independence, it is stated that " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (http://www.ushistory.org...) One of these puruit of happiness is freedom, from being able to own your own house to being able to drink whatever amound of soda you want to purchase. On top of this, the first amendment of the constitution, clearly says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.(http://www.archives.gov...)" We can, we are allowed to practice the right to drink whatever we want, whatever the quality. 2. Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy/The Opposition's Plan (mentioned above) Helps The Economy. Many businesses across the country rely on soda drinks (sugary drinks) to help keep them up and running. ""Proposals like the soda ban discourage new business and hurt our reputation as the dining capital of the world," Andrew Moesel, spokesperson for the New York State Restaurant Association, said in a statement. "Reducing obesity is an important goal, but we want to partner with government to come up with effective ways to confront the problem. What we don't need is more burdensome regulation making it harder for businesses to function.(http://www.cbsnews.com...)"The average US person drinks 403 cokes per year. And one coke is about a dollar each. That would be 403 dollars per person in the United States. There are about 2.5 million people in the United States. That would amount to about $1,007,500,000 per year! The economy of the United States really needs this money to pay for jobs and to help our education. So if people want to drink sugary drinks, let them drink them. (http://articles.businessinsider.com...)" If instead of following New York's lead, California adopts a tax as mentioned at the beginning of this speech, then the government would make money off people while helping the general public fight the evils of obesity. California currently has debt of 427,787,580,582 (and rising!) (http://www.usdebtclock.org...). What the state of California needs is not a ban in which the economy sinks and the debt rises, but a tax in which the economy gets better and better.Thank you, and I will add more points in the later speeches. For all these reasons, I strongly urge a opposition ballot. Thank you.