Clearly, a ban on these drinks would intrude on personal freedom. The issue is not whether it intrudes on personal freedom but whether it does so excessively.
Essentially every government law infringes on personal freedom in some way. The speed limit intrudes on our freedom to drive whatever speed we want. The ban on cocaine and heroin infringes on our freedom to do whatever we think will make us feel good. The ban on sugary drinks would infringe on our right to eat and drink what we want. However, while laws always infringe on our freedoms, we accept them because we think they do not intrude too much in comparison to the bad things that they prevent.
It is in this context that we have to think about the proposed NYC ban. Does it do enough good to overcome the way in which it infringes on our freedom? A ban would presumably help at least somewhat to reduce the problems associated with obesity in the city. This would make people healthier and reduce the government’s need to spend on health care. The question you have to answer for yourself, then, is whether that is enough of a benefit to justify telling people what they can and cannot drink. One thing to think about as you consider this question: where do we draw the line? Could the government ban us from eating large steaks (or all meat) because it thinks fat is unhealthy? This is a matter of personal opinion. What do you think?
As for what companies should do about this, I would say they should do two things. First, they should advertise, telling people to fight for their right to eat and drink what they want. Second, they should work to develop new drinks that would have less sugar. If they could do that, they would be covered in the event that such a ban does eventually end up happening.
https://www.huffpost.com/life/topic/soda
Monday, February 17, 2014
When he was mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on any "sweet drinks" more than 16 ounces. Although it was ruled illegal by the courts, other cities (notably Mexico City) have started to introduce this kind of legislation. The new mayor of New York, Bill Di Blasio, is thinking about reintroducing this proposal. Is this an intrusion into personal freedoms? How should suppliers of these products react?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why is the fact that the Americans are helping the Russians important?
In the late author Tom Clancy’s first novel, The Hunt for Red October, the assistance rendered to the Russians by the United States is impor...
-
There are a plethora of rules that Jonas and the other citizens must follow. Again, page numbers will vary given the edition of the book tha...
-
The only example of simile in "The Lottery"—and a particularly weak one at that—is when Mrs. Hutchinson taps Mrs. Delacroix on the...
-
A good thesis statement presents a claim (an interpretive stance on a story that can be defended using textual evidence) and is a position w...
-
The given two points of the exponential function are (2,24) and (3,144). To determine the exponential function y=ab^x plug-in the given x an...
-
What does the hot air balloon symbolize? To the Assad son who buys the hot air balloon, it symbolizes a kind of whimsy that he can afford. B...
-
The play Duchess of Malfi is named after the character and real life historical tragic figure of Duchess of Malfi who was the regent of the ...
-
Allie’s baseball mitt is extremely important to Holden in The Catcher in the Rye. It is a symbol of Allie since it was important to his brot...
No comments:
Post a Comment