The New York Soft Drink Size Ban

Yea, first off, I misread your statement about obesity. I thought you said it ISN'T a problem, but you said it IS, so I withdraw that. Good thing I didn't base ANY of my argument on that and only mentioned once. So onto my opponents rebuttal.Yes, I do not deny that New York is being sued. I simply contend that the lawsuits are unfounded. just because someone is suing someone because they see a problem doesn't mean it's actually a problem. That's for the courts to decide, and they have unanimously decided against the lawsuits. As I mentioned, these business aren't going to lose any money and if anything they are going to gain money from people feeling the need to buy two drinks. I would also like to point out that restaurants are not suing NY directly. Why would a restaurant, a business trying to make profit, waste thousands on lawyers and court proceedings to contest something that probably won't affect their profit at all. I don't want people to imagine good old mom and pop restaurant owners taking NY to court for this, they don't actually have money hanging in the balance. NY is being sued by special interest groups that claim to represent restaurants, movie theaters, etc. These are the same organizations that sued in response to the legislation that fast food restaurants must display nutritional facts in their establishment, which I think is good legislation. The food industry in this country is out of control and they feed off the fact that people have no understanding of what goes into their food. Obviously they will sue to keep it that way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com..."I think the government should make their own choices" -MeI, personally, believe in the legalization and sale of many drugs and I believe the idea of illegalizing alcohol, tobacco, and firearms is silly. Why do I think that dangerous things are better off being legal. Because they can be REGULATED. Any marijuana activist will tell you that marijuana prohibition doesn't work because its not being legal makes it impossible to regulate. Age limits, buying limits, sales taxes, and inspections are all great tools to check the power of these substances to do harm. Any legalization-supporter who touts personal liberty will tell you this. I believe this ban is no different. it is not a crime against personal liberty, it is not a socialist perversion of the free market it is regulation of harmful substance, which is the main benefit of keeping harmful substances legal. In Amsterdam, the legal marijuana capital of Europe and personal freedom capital of the world, you can't go into a coffee shop and buy more than an eighth. That's their limit and it's a sensible one. And you don't have the option of buying two eighths if you want either. No one's going to accuse Amsterdam of being TOO restrictive of marijuana sales obviously, and their restriction on coffee shops selling too much pot is even more stringent than the NY restriction on restaurants selling too much soda. And guess which one's worse for you.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, and this most harmless and mundane of restrictions on them is certaintly no great crime. Right now heart disease, often caused by poor diet, is the number one killer in the USA. Cancer is number two. Yet, tobacco companies are restricted heavily because their product causes cancer. Up to now I can't think of a single restriction on soda. My opponent says, "an 8oz difference is not extremely harmful." This is very true, but a teenager smoking a cigarette isn't harmful either. it's when they do it to excess and make it a habit that it is harmful, much like drinking excessive amounts of soda habitually. That's why tobacco companies are forbidden from targeting teenagers in ads. That's no assault on liberty, it's a sensible restriction on a harmful product. I know it's hard to see why a few restrictions and regulations seem like a move towards socialism, but a world in which harmful substances are seen as no different from healthy alternatives in my opinion is a dangerous world.http://www.cdc.gov...I reject all previous and any further statements that this ban is telling "people" what to do. People can cash their check every week, buy nothing but soda from a grocery store, and hook it up to their veins through an IV if they want. My opponent has dropped the following points:- The cheapness of soda and the benefit of companies to sell it in unhealthy amounts- This restriction is similar to long standing restrictions on tobacco (and, although I didn't mention it before, alcohol)- His idea that people might buy MORE soda is flawed logic- The soda industry is paying people to publicly oppose the legislation