Does Bloomberg's soda ban violate personal freedom?

  • Nanny State Government

    If you wanted to go to BBQ's or Chuck-E-Cheese with your family, you're gonna order a couple burgers and a pitcher of Coke. Well too bad, you're not getting a pitcher of Coke because it's bigger than 16oz and Bloomberg doesn't allow it. Now you have to buy individual cokes for everyone in your family, which is going to cost you more money. When are we going to be old enough to make decisions for ourselves? According to Bloomberg, NEVER.

  • By definition It does

    The ban takes away the personal freedom to buy large sodas. It violates personal freedom by definition. People need to discover themselves and decide what is right by themselves and that's not going to happen if people have "health! health! health!" shoved down their throats with as much vigor and self-righteous anger as some people push "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!"

    It's just a body in the end. It is experienced by the experiencer who uses it to navigate the world. That experiencer should be free to decide if in their experience their health is more or less important as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's right to their own experience.

    If a town really wants to ban sodas even all sodas then I don't think the federal or state governments should stop them but I would not support such a move at the local level.

  • Liberty is not just in the Pledge of Allegiance

    While this may seem mundane at first, to start with sugar, where to next. Candy bars? Sugar at the grocery store? People who want to eat, will eat. Obesity is an epidemic because we do not make home cooked meals and spend enough time outside and/or exercising. We don't need the governemnt to regulate our food intake to "make" us healthy, we need will power and ownership of our personal behavior!

  • The soda ban infringes on our rights to freedom of choice. Part of that freedom is to choose an unhealthy lifestyle.

    The slippery slope argument has been denied over and over but if we look at legislation regarding health care and especially surveillance over the past 50 years we will see that the government has become increasingly invasive. This ban is over the top because it takes away our choice in as private a matter as our diet. What will the government take control of next?

  • We should not ban sugar

    If he is able to ban soda he will ban other things. Did you know that people who play football are four times the amount as likely to get Lou Gehrigs disease? Should he also ban football? It will be like the 1700s when we were taxed. Bloomberg will just ban everything.

  • Where did Personal responsiblity went?

    As another person below to point out, I dislike sodas and do not drink them myself. In fact the ban push by Bloomberg might of even saved a few people from dying from heart attack or diabete. Here is the problem though. Those types of laws and bans destroy and uterly dangerous to freedoms of US sitizens on many levels. Okay you are thinking "oh sodas are bad. Banned sodas = healthier people and better lives", but you are totally forgetting this is the definition of infringing on your personal rights of freedom, opinion, and persuit of happines. If this law or ban passed then there millions upon millions of other things would of and could of been banned. From mere sodas, to certain types of foods "that are bad for you", to certain styles of music and political parties or gatherings, to debates, to playing video games, participating in sports (because God forbid! Sports are one of the major injury aquirers for people!) to playing music instruments, to.... Do i have to write a book of how many things you do in life are "bad for you"?

    Look at how many items I have listed up there. This is the prime example where the goverment takes away your personal choice and responsiblity out of your hands and into theirs. So what if lets say me or anyone start drinking soda and gets diabetes later on in life. That is my personal or someone elses's choice. That what I or someone have chosen for themselves and have to live with consequences. I am nor anyone in US is a friggin robot who should be dicated of what to eat and drink, or what to listen to, or should I or someone else play or not videogames, or participate in skydiving (oh wait why should that be banned? Simply because you are putting yourself in deathly danger by jumping out of the plane.)

    If this ban passed, then Bloomberg should be fired and impeached for good for becoming tyrant with one law at the time. He should be anyway with such proposals.

  • COME ON! Soda bad, freedom good.

    I just want to say that sodas are unhealthy and unnatural drinks. I believe that sodas are terrible and personally I don't drink them. They make people fat and can be linked to diabetes. In saying that I also think that any legislation that limits a persons right to make a decision for themselves without hurting anyone else is not only unconstitutional but it limits that persons freedoms. So the answer to the question obviously remains , yes it takes away personal freedom and the government should not be able to limit your right to drink as much soda as you see fit. If obesity, diabetes, or any of the other risks that come with consuming a ton of sugar doesn't scare you.. I say GO FOR IT!

  • It's A Government's Job To Regulate

    The government has the right to regulate foods it deems to be dangerous. Sugar-filled drinks are not healthy, and quite often they are targeted at kids. Bloomberg meant well by the ban, but it was poorly executed and it back fired on him. He should have taken a wholly different approach.

    Posted by: rpr
  • Not one bit!

    If Bloomberg had banned all sodas and prevented people from being able to buy a carbonated beverage of any size then I might be persuaded to think it was a violation of personal freedom. That's not what he did. The ban was on sodas of a certain size and larger, and it's for good public health reasons.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.