New York's Restriction on Sugary Drinks

Thank you for posting so punctually and lucidly. I will begin with my rebuttals, and then my counter rebuttals.Refutations1. Legal Basis for the LawMy opponent mentions Motorcycle Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, Seat Belt laws. First of all, as to motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws, there is a much stronger clink between no motorcycle helmets or no seatbelts and death. Drinking soda leads to nothing, unless you drink too much of it. Then, sometimes, it leads to obesity, sometimes that leads to diabetes, and sometimes that leads to death. With motor cycles, if you don't wear a helmet you will die in an accident[1]. Also, it is much easier to wear a seatbelt, and there are no side effects of the seatbelt restriction. Wearing seatbelts doesn't affect small businesses... As to drug laws, drugs harm people other than the user. People go insane and kill people on drugs, people have underground illegal businesses with drugs. There is no such thing as "soda driving" (aka driving) or "soda induced killing spree". To quote the philosopher John Stuart Mill, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...." I am personally against seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws because the safety of a human is up to the human, not the opinion of someone higher than them. That is not what we are debating, though. We are debating sugary drinks.2. Protecting the larger population (health care costs).a. I have two refutations for this point. First off, if we tax sugary drinks we can pay for health care. Considering the hundreds of billions of soda cans sold each year, we could tax each one a little bit for health care costs. Also, my opponent is apparently assuming that all $147 billion of health care is caused by soda. I would like to see some figures on how much of that obesity is caused by soda.b. There is no evidence that this bill will stop people from drinking soda. This ban wasn't even passed, so my opponent can't cite any evidence. It was struck down by New York certified Judge Milton Tingling a couple of weeks ago, being called "arbitrary" and "capricious" becuase of how it will harm small businesses. People who really want sodas can still buy two ten oz. sodas, get a refill, or just go to a 7-11 or grocery store. That's right, this ban allows you to get sodas over 16 oz. at 7-11s still, even though 7-11s are famous for selling big gulps! This ban only affects "Food Service Establishments (FSE)", so it will clearly affect small businesses badly.Counter Refutations1. Small BusinessesMy opponent refutes my opponent by talking about health care costs, however I have a plan that will tax sugary drinks to pay for obesity.2. Freedom of ChoiceI have already refuted this in my points. Remember the John Stuart Mill quote. The only way soda drinking harms other people is by health care costs and I have already refuted this with my plan, and if it doesn't harm other people then you should be allowed to do it!2b. Mayor BloombergIf you read the notice that Judge Milton Tingling, he says one of the reasons he struck it down was because the way it was passed was unconstitutional. The judge says that passing a law like this over the Board of Health is completely unconstitutional.3. Warning Labels.My opponent refutes this point only by discussing how other education methods are better than warning labels, but this is exactly my point. We need to educate, not just by warning labels, but by increasing educational awareness. This will stop obesity, not an arbitrary ban like this one.Vote con.Sources[1] http://www.foxnews.com...