The New York Soft Drink Size Ban

First, some math.The estimated cost for fountain soda, that is soda syrup stored seperately from seltzer water and mixed upon being dispensed, is about 12 cents for the equivalent of a can of soda. Conveniently, a can of soda is 12 ounces so that's about 1 cent an ounce. So in a 16 ounce soda, the real price of the soda is 16 cents. Let's say an average fountain soda in New York is sold at $2.50. Which for New York prices is reasonable, Amiright? 2.50 divided by .16 is 15.625. So that's about 16 times you would have to refill your soda for the soda company to lose money. My point is that it is advantageous for soda companies to sell their soda in large amounts, the price the consumer pays for the extra soda will greatly outweigh the price of the extra soda. If the serving is 24 ounces instead, that is an extra 8 ounces, that's an extra eight cents for the seller, whereas they can tack on an extra $1.50 if they want to. Despite my clients claims that obesity is not a problem, it certaintly is. And it is a problem because companies are allowed to exploit the consumer, this ban protects the consumer, not hurts themAlready causing issues. What issues?What real issues could this cause. What justifiable outrage could someone have with not being able to buy their optimal amount of soda at the movie theater. As for the protests and lawsuits, the Soda industry plays a part. "Big Soda" is almost three quarters the size of "Big Tobacco" in revenues, it's product is worthless in comparison, yet they make a ransom off it, it's far less restricted than tobacco, and unlike tobacco, a huge share of their consumer base are children. It is a dirty industry. Big Soda special interests have engineered a nonsense citizen's movement against the ban through social media sites and even hiring protesters directly to march at petition rallies. Many of the lawsuits you allude to are from beverage companies which is to be expected. Many lawsuits are admittedly from small privately-owned restaurants, but in the end they can't stand to actually lose any money from this ban whatsoever. Someone who desires an outrageously large soda is not going to be so disgusted that they cannot be provided a large enough soda that they buy no soda on principle, and many people will choose to buy two sodas to make up for the size loss. These guys are looking at some profit and they've decided to make a childish fuss over it.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Against its own cause? NoFlawed logic. If I had designed the ban, sure, I would not include the option to buy a second soda, but this is just a design flaw, that doesn't prove that the whole thing is a negative. For that to be a legitimate concern to the point of reversing the ban, it would have to have the potentially to actually do more harm than good. It has to be realistic that in all people might actually drink more soda. That would never happen because the amount of people who will settle for the slightly smaller drink will far outweigh the people who feel the need to indulge their hedonistic lifestyle in a second drink. The idea that the MAJORITY of people might buy another is ludicrous.Punishing as a whole. Punishing who? Who is this punishing really? These kids can go to the grocery store and buy as many two liters as they want. The fact that when they go to the movies, they have to settle for a sensible serving is not punishment. I ask that my opponent elaborate on his strange definition of punishment. The punishment is on Big Soda to stop them from being able unload it's disgusting, dirt cheap diabetes-juice on wide-eyed little schoolchildren (I contend that this sentence is not sexually suggestive in anyway.) As I previously explained, Big Soda makes its profit off the fact that its genetically-modified chemically-engineered product is so cheap they can sell such outrageous amounts at a time. This ban is justifiable because it is a cap on that power and not a real regulation on the consumer itself.Freedom! Not at stake.Again this ban is not a restriction on your ability to buy, it is a restriction on the providers ability to sell too much. I get the concept of governments not being wise on telling people what is good for them. I think the government should let people make their own choices. However this ban is not akin to the governments policy on these things. This ban is more akin to the legislation against tobacco being advertised near schools and targeting the teenage demographic. These things are not infringement on constitutional right of choice but checks on the power of industries to do harm. In the case of the tobacco industry such legislation stops them from taking advantage of the teenage social paradigm that smoking is associated with coolness, and the ban stops soda companies from taking advantage of their frighteningly cheap and expendable product. Personal Freedom doesn't enter into it.