You Can't Drink That

YOU CAN'T DRINK THAT!

Mayor, or "Nanny," Bloomberg is mocked in the photo above for
 telling adults what they can or can't consume. [9]

 On September 13th, 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the rest of the New York City Health Board imposed a large-scale soda ban on the people living in the city.  Specifically, people in New York City will no longer be able to purchase sweetened drinks in cups that hold over 16 ounces. This includes soda, energy drinks, and iced tea. [1] The ultimate goal of the ban is to promote healthier lifestyles and limit obesity among all people in New York City. Restaurants that fail to cooperate with these restrictions will be given hefty fines by the city government. However, is this whole ban really fair to citizens of a free country? The United States prides itself on making it a right that people's personal liberties aren't infringed upon. This is why the soda ban should be removed immediately. 

Just because unhealthy sodas aren't allowed doesn't 
mean people won't substitute it with more ice cream. [10]

The soda ban pushes the limitations of constitutionality in our country. It raises so much controversy due to the fact that citizens feel that they are losing some of their basic rights. Beverage industries are already bursting with rage toward the mayor’s new ban. For example, a newly formed group known as "New Yorkers for Beverage Choices" has already raised over 1 million dollars on a public relations campaign against the ban. [1] Also, economic research has been done to show that soda consumers will now be spending up to 20% more a year on soda. [2] This leads to an even tougher economic struggle for lower class families who are already having a tough time. 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg may counter the argument by saying that he is doing the most good for the most people. In other words, he may speak from the perspective of John Mill. Mill is a political theorist who promotes Utilitarianism, or doing the most good for the largest number of people. [3] According to a recent study, over 50% of adults living in New York City are suffering from obesity.[2] Bloomberg could support his decision by saying that most people are obese in NYC, therefore he would help the most people by enforcing the ban. He could argue that the ban would cause the majority of the population to be more healthy. People on this argument may justify their stance by saying that these personal liberties must be altered in order for the most good to be done. 

George Will Attacks Mayor Bloomberg's remarks on the soda ban [4]

While that may seem plausible at first, it is necessary that we take a step back for a minute. This country prides itself on 3 main values: Life, LIBERTY, and property. The value of "liberty" is essential to our country's morale. Mayor Bloomberg was quoted in the video to the left stating, "We are not taking away anyone's right to do things, we're simply forcing you to understand." [4] To me this quote is preposterous and makes absolutely no sense. He is forcing the people to do something by removing their personal rights. Why is it acceptable for the government to tell me that I can't consume a sugary beverage if I want too? Grown people in this country should be left with the responsibility to make their own choices when it comes down to health. 

You can smoke pot, but you can't drink that soda.
Seems ethical right? [12]

There have been very few instances in the past where citizens' personal liberties have been infringed upon. However, when it does occur, they have all been for much more serious matters than the...soda ban. For example, after the 9/11 attacks the PATRIOT Act was   established. This act interefered with personal liberties because it allowed the government to have easier access to tapping phone calls or accessing financial records. [5] However, the PATRIOT Act was in response to devastating terrorist attacks. [5] Mayor Bloomberg is shortening freedoms so that people can't drink soda. Does this seem logical? 

Another aspect up for much debate with the soda ban is how Mayor Bloomberg is utilizing his power.  Mayor Bloomberg, creating an unfair advantage without representation of those that are affected most, personally selects the members of the NYC Health Board. [7] This aspect of the ban causes much controversy amongst the people because they feel it is unjust and that Mayor Bloomberg is abusing his power. Mayor Bloomberg may argue that it was the citizens of New York City that elected him at first. Therefore, he could argue that he is a form of indirect representation for the middle and lower class.

Nanny Bloomberg [13]

However, what the Mayor is doing now with his power is completely unjust! My plan of action would be to innovate some way that the people of New York City could acquire fair representation. One possibility would be to have an elected group of lower/middle class citizens present at Health Board meetings to voice their opinions. If the people were to gain some kind of representation, it would make power less of a factor in establishing unjust bans like this one. John Rawls would argue that the action taken should be the one that provides the most benefit to the least advantaged persons. This goal is unrealistic and impossible if the least advantaged persons don't even have a voice that can be heard. [8] For Rawls's goal to be accomplished some kind of representation would have to be rewarded for citizens with no political power. 

The soda ban has brought about many injustices such as: no representation for lower/middle class citizens, abusing political power by Mayor Bloomberg, and infringement upon people's personal liberties. In order to quickly rid NYC of these flaws, there needs to be a plan of action. My plan of action would consist of a new way to ensure the people fair representation. By gaining fair representation, the claims of "is justice just power" would be greatly reduced. As the Athenians showed in the "Melian Dialogue," power can get you what you want. The Athenians used their brute force as a threat to take over the Melos Empire. [11] In the case of the soda ban, the Mayor and the Health Board are using their power to overtake a personal liberty of the people. If the idea of fair representation is put into action, both sides could be looked at as equal. This would lead to the idea of "justice is just power" becoming no longer with the soda ban. Another course of action that should be taken is that the Mayor should not have full power to select every member of the Health Board. By the government allowing the people to elect a few of the members, it would give a better sense of equality and political efficacy. Last, as for people's personal liberties being limited, we are talking about soda here NOT terrorism. There should be no debate on whether it is constitutional for the government to do this. People should have full liberty in deciding what kind of beverage they want to consume!

YES I CAN!

For more information you can check out some new articles on a soda ban being put into action in Texas public schools here.

Also to see the legendary John Stewart in a comedic clip on the soda ban you can click here.

Citations:
[1] Grynbaum, Michael. "In Soda Fight, Industry Focuses on the Long Run." New York Times. September 13, 2012. (accessed December 1, 2012).
[2] Cohan, Peter. "Bloomberg's Nannyville: Do Big Soda Ban's Benefits Exceed Its Costs?." Forbes Magazine. May 31, 2012. (accessed December 2, 2012).
[3] John, Mill. "Utilitarianism." Last modified 1971. Accessed November 28, 2012.
[4] Will, George. "New York Soda Ban." Posted June 3, 2012. ABC News. Web, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2OuQJy6ME.
[5] U.S Department of the Treasury, "USA PATRIOT Act." Accessed December 2, 2012. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot/.
[6] History1900s, "Prohibition." Accessed December 3, 2012. http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/p/prohibition.htm.
[7] Hartmann, Margarett. Daily Intel, "Bloomberg Plans to Ban Large Sodas." Accessed December 12, 2012. <http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/bloomberg-plans-to-ban-large-sodas.html?mid=rss>.

[8] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice: Justice as Fairness.1971. Print.
[9] H. Payne, Nanny Bloomberg, 2012. <http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/nyc-nanny-bloomberg-soda-ban-political-cartoon.jpg>
[10] Bearman, Bloomberg Soda Ban, 2012. <http://beartoons.com/2012/06/14/editorial-cartoon-bloomberg-soda-ban/>.
[11] The Melian Dialogue. Thucydides (n.d.): 1-5. Accessed December 1, 2012. <http://lygdamus.com/resources/New PDFS/Melian.pdf>.
[12] Varvel, Gary, New York Soda Ban, 2012. <http://www.englishblog.com/2012/06/cartoon-new-york-soda-ban.html#.UMkRLKX98wE>.
[13] Martel, Frances, The Nanny, 2012. <http://www.mediaite.com/print/consumer-group-places-full-page-ad-in-the-ny-times-depicting-bloomberg-as-a-nanny/attachment/picture-1-1530/>