One More Large Coca Cola Please!
Who knows, one day Coca Cola may be unavailable in any restaurant in New York? Almost everyone knows that consuming a lot of sugary drinks can cause obesity but the Mayor of New York decided that he was going to do something about it.
According to "New York City Large-Soda Ban Blocked by Judge" a ban on the sale of large sugary drinks including soda in places serving food in New York was blocked by a court. The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, said he thought the judge was wrong in his decision. The Mayor claims that over half of the adult population in New York are overweight.
Last month in a conversation class at AUA, an American teacher told me about the plan for a "sugary drink ban" in New York. At that time I thought it was very funny because I could not believe of such a law in the country which invented these drinks. In my opinion, people should make they own decision about what they want to eat or drink and it is not really the business of the government. Even though I do not agree with the ban on sale, I do not promote the consumption of these drinks. Instead of banning a kind of drink perhaps an educational program would have been more appropriate in attempting to solve the problem. However, there should be control on advertising of sugary drinks on TV, in magazines or any places that are popular with young people because advertising seems to have a huge effect to them. I believe the advertising targets teenagers who are less aware of their health and just want a tasty drink. The American Beverage Association, which is leading the fight against the ban, was pleased with the judgement. I do believe that obesity is a bigger problem in America than in Asian countries; however, there are many causes beyound sugary drinks. For example, consumption of fast food such as KFC, McDonald and Pizza and insufficient exercise. It is a typical controversy between people who want to ban a product and those who want to consume it.
References
New York City large-soda ban blocked by judge.(2013,March11). BBC News. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21747568
Thursday, 14 March 2013
17 comments:
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The reasons for the ban on sugary drinks seems exactly the same as (not similar to, but exactly the same as) the reasoning behind laws that, for example, ban the sale and use of yaa baa and heroin. So, if we oppose the ban on large Cokes, must we logically also oppose laws against cocaine? If we oppose bans on fatty pork or ice-cream, mustn't we also oppose bans on heroin?
ReplyDeleteAnd if we agree with Pin when she says that "it is not really the business of the government" to tell people what to use for pleasure or any other personal reason, doesn't that also mean that the government may not justly tell people not to use heroin, marijuana, alcohol, yaa baa or other drugs.
I like the issues that Pin so clearly raises in her thoughtful response. And am looking forward to the critical thinking in the responses.
Thank you Peter for your critical comment. We are talking about a law to limit the size of a sugary drink that a New Yorker can buy. I do not see any relation to illegal drugs which are a completely different problem already covered by federal laws in the United States. I do not agree with this ban it does not mean I oppose laws against bans on heroin or cocaine. As you mentioned above " If we oppose bans on fatty pork or ice-cream, musn't we also oppose bans on heroin?" I think the government should not interfere people consumption's right especially in legal food so they should not ban. It does not mean who oppose ban ice-cream or fatty pork must not also oppose ban in illegal drugs.
DeleteThank you Pin.
DeleteSo, how does a ban on the use of heroin of yaa baa not "not interfere people consumption's right", as you write? It sounds like interference to me.
They do seem the same to me. The ban on some (but not the most harmful) popular drugs of addiction is, I think, usually supported by the reason that Bar explains in his comment @ March 14, 2013 at 11:03 PM, and that does seem to justify banning ice-cream and sugary drinks.
Or do you have some reason other than harm to users or society for banning some things?
What is your reason supporting a ban on, for example, heroin or yaa baa?
Interestingly, the facts are again not in dispute: we all agree that both addictive drugs and sugary foods are unhealthy, causing harm both to the users and to society - and this is what Bar and Bloomberg agree is a good reason for banning both drugs and coca cola. If the reason is not good enough to support a ban on sugary drinks, it can't be good enough to support a ban on anything else, either.
And I am very happy to see you thinking critically and arguing with me. Good academics like their students to argue - it's a healthy part of academic growth.
For those interested in how harmful different drugs actually are, The Economist has a convenient summary of a report from The Lancet, one of the world's leading medical journals, "Scoring drugs: Drugs That Cause Most Harm". Some people are surprised, as The Economist expects them to be, that alcohol is far more harmful than either heroin or yaa baa ("Scoring Drugs", 2010; Nutt, King & Phillips, 2010).
DeleteReferences
Nutt, D. J., King, A. L. & Phillips, L. D. (2010, November 1). Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet 376(9752) 1558 - 1565. Available from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract (The link is to the abstract. The full article is available as a pdf download, but requires registration, which is free.)
Scoring drugs: drugs that cause the most harm. (2010, November 2). The Economist. Retrieved March 15, 2013 from http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm
I have a different idea. For me,It's a good idea to ban sugar drinks. Banning something that is not good for people is a right thing to do. It just like a cause of parents who don't allow his or her kids to have candy which can cause their dental problems. Is his or her doing right? In other words, government know exactly sugar drink lead to the of obesity to their citizens who have never been aware about their heath. I just wonder. What's the problem with that?
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Bar is being rational and morally consistent. The argument is that if something, say heroin or alcohol is known to be dangerous both to users and to society, then it should be banned.
DeleteThis is certainly the reason some people give for, for example, banning yaa baa and it was the reason given for banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the US during the years 1920 - 1933.
And since the facts are that sugary drinks, along with ice-cream, chocolate cake and fatty pork, are unhealthy for users and bad for society, the same argument, if accepted as correct, does seem to say that all of these things must be banned, too. That's what New York's Mayor Bloomberg thinks, and what Bar agrees with in the call to make coca cola and, presumably, ice-cream illegal. But how many years in prison should the ice-cream makers get? And the dealers who are destroying the youth of Thailand with these deadly products? Should they be executed, or is a stiff prison sentence enough?
If you would like to explore these issues a little more rigorously, question 11. on the list of essay topics might interest you. It is, however, probably also one of the more difficult questions.
DeleteI somewhat agree with Pin that everyone has his or her right to judge whether he or she will drink soda or not. But, the overweight problem is far beyond the individual problem, it is the nation's problem because there are lots of children who are overweight. As a result, the government should take part in to address this problem. Also, i think a strict measurement like banning is one of the good idea. If there is no sugary drink available, the consumers will not have to choose whether to damage their health. If the government enforce a mild measurement, it might not be efficient in this case. To give a relevant example of this is that there is a warning label on liquor bottle or ads, but the number of drinkers is not decreased. Those people are still choosing to drink, even though, they know the result of alcohol intake.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Pin and you. As Pin says that everyone has their rights to choose weather is it good or not but in my opinion, the most important things is about their education. If they have more education to realize that sugary water for instance Coca Cola is not good for their health, they will definitely drink it less. It would be better if the government concern more about the actual cause that is from their opinion than final cause that from their acting.
DeleteI'm not sure that education is quite that strong a force. Everyone, surely, knows that cigarettes are unhealthy, and yet a lot of people continue to smoke. Everyone knows that being overweight is likely to bring health and other problems, and yet increasing numbers of people are overweight. We all know that exercise is good for us, but how many of use do it?
DeleteI know that governments like to say that education is a cure for almost every social problem, but I think the evidence is strongly against that nice idea. Or am I wrong? Have I missed some important evidence?
And I might be prepared to agree with a narrower, more precise statement about the value of education.
I think this measure is a good idea. Generally, the nature of human is wanting to get something easily, so if the government makes it more difficult to reach the product, the consumption will reduce. However, the government should encourage their citizens to concern more about their food intake and show the violent result of consuming sugary drink or junk food.
ReplyDeleteThere are countless researches which have proved that sugary drink consumption can have negative effects on one's health. Meanwhile, sugary drinks served as refreshments would help people to feel fresh and relax.
ReplyDeleteThere are, however, a number of measures which parents and government can turn to in order to cope with the children/teenagers who misbehave instead of sale banning. If the child/teenager is old enough to discuss and learn about the topic, that will have more significant and meaningful consequences. Not allowing cola or fast food, for example, is sort of depriving individuals' delights. Therefore, the government should be more a little bit thinking forward about this issue.
I think it's too hard to control about this issue. Nowadays, the biggest brands such as est and Coca-Cola are lots of advert which the aim is to target children.
ReplyDeleteIn the reality, it's too difficult to ban them, so I think the best way is parents should pay more attention and give an suggestion to their children.
I agree with you, the issue is really hard to control because its about people's free will, the government and the industry or maybe a sugar refinery. Those things are closely linked and inseparable.
DeleteIt is hard to ban all of them in reality and I think government should put more ads in public that sugar drinks it cause health problems, just like smoking. And let the people to decide itself.
What a wonderfully stimulating post Pin wrote for us.
ReplyDeleteLast year, Thai ministry of education has banned selling soft drinks in high schools. I have to admit that before the ban, I had been drinking Coca Cola everyday after playing sport at school. But after the ban, I may cannot buy the drink at school, so I drink more at home, and so do my friends. The ban has not helped reducing soft drinks consumption yet when they can still drink it at home. For me, drinking it is not that bad, it does not cause me become overweight since I am regularly exercise. The government should focus on promoting exercise instead of banning selling soft drinks in schools.
ReplyDeleteMing makes a good point, one which I think betrays a common misunderstanding.
DeleteDoes making something such as soft drink sales illegal reduce the use of that criminalised something?
Conversely, does making something legal, yaa baa for example, increase its use?
The answers to these sort of questions do seem to me relevant to making government policy, and I think that many people believe the wrong answers for no good reasons.
What are the answers? Ming has already suggested that the answers might be "No". Is she right?