The New York Soft Drink Size Ban

"Two Sided"My opponent claims I am two sided because at one point I said obesity was a serious problem and at one point claimed it was not a problem. But I was clearly illustrating a point:"My opponent did rightfully point out that he believes obesity is a problem. I actually disagree. I believe obesity in the US is a symptom of a greater problem. That problem is the disgusting and base approach to food that our industry has taken."-MeObviously I think obesity is a problem. I was simply making the point that the obesity problem is merely a symptom of an irresponsible food production industry. That is the real problem, the root cause of our obesity. Very easy to understand and my opponent took it totally out of context. This in no way proves my case to be inconsistent. My opponent is grasping at straws My opponent offers rebuttal to the following topics:1."The cheapness of soda and the benefit of companies to sell it in unhealthy amounts," My opponent claims an unhealthy amount will be different for everyone. However, over time 8 extra ounces of soda can add up and become unhealthy for anyone. I explained earlier that if someone bought a 16oz soda for $2.50 they would have to refill it about 16 times to actually drink $2.50 worth of soda. That would be 780 grams of sugar. That is enough to put anyone in diabetic shock. Soda as a whole should not be banned, but because of its dirt cheap yet immensely profitable nature, they have a tendency to be consumed in unhealthily large amounts and capping those amounts in restaurants is reasonable legislation.2. "His idea the people might buy more soda is flawed logic," He admits it is not a highly possible scenario which is good enough for me. No reason to waste words3. "The soda industry is paying people to publicly oppose the legislation." My opponent claims this is a conspiracy theory. It is far from a theory. Many have reported being called repeatedly to help protest against the ban. Soda representatives offer people on the streets $30 an hour to get people to sign petitions. Well. obviously most people sign a petition that some shoves in their face so then the soda industry goes around touting the petitions and people like my opponent think their is mass political unrest resulting from the oppressive ban. Big soda has littered the city with ads against the legislation. These companies are trying to sway public opinion against health efforts. This is a perversion of social progress and immoral. I equate the actions of the beverage industry in response to this ban to the propaganda put out by Exxon and BP after their oil spills to document the very "small" effect the spills had on the area. Companies do this to control public opinion so their trade will not be questioned.Here are some articles about the soda industry in and outside of NYhttp://www.foodpolitics.com... In Richmond, VA beverage companies are suing to keep hidden documents which prove funding of campaigns and phony grassroots opposition movements to a beverage tax law.http://www.foodpolitics.com...http://www.foodpolitics.com...If tobacco or firearm companies were to disseminate public opinion in this manner they would be sued silly. Which leads me to my final point...4."This restriction is similar to long standing restrictions on tobacco," My opponent claims that tobacco, alcohol, drugs are not analogous to soda and therefore are not relevant. I disagree. I think soda is not somehow unique from all the other harmful stuff our government regulates. Why should regulation of the sale of other harmful substances and products be so tightly watched and the flow of dangerously unhealthy genetically modified foods be allowed to continue unfettered. I think that some some harmful products should be regarded as different than others in the eyes of the government is wrong. I believe the reason obesity is a huge problem in this country is symptomatic of widespread concurrence with my opponents belief: that unhealthy foods are somehow below the level of being worthy of regulation like alcohol and tobacco. Unhealthy lifestyle leads to more death than both lung cancer and alcohol related death in this country. For us to reign in the run-away unhealthiness of our nation's citizens we must view dangerously unhealthy foods akin to strictly regulated substances our government deems worthy of taxes, age limits, and buying limits. Therefore, although my opponent bases his case on the fact that this ban is an encroachment on the personal rights of both citizens and businesses, I believe this not an unprecedented assault on personal choice but rather one that is consistent with our attitudes towards similar substances which are sometimes less dangerous than soda and other needlessly detrimental food products.