A Soft Drink Tax According to John Stuart Mill

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.

However, the soda ban is not the best way to regulate people’s health because they can still buy as much soda as they want. According to “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” it states, “After all, people can still buy as much soda as they want” (Conly, 277). The soda ban should not be placed because there is really no point in doing

Recently, people have become worried about the health issues associated with consuming sugary drinks, especially soda. The rate of people being diagnosed with type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease has been going up primarily because of beverages with added sugar (Cited in Crawford, 2016). Several studies have found that soda is linked to over 180,000 deaths per year (Cited in Crawford, 2016). An article by the Huffington Post (2011) said that an average American drinks about 44.7 gallons of carbonated beverages a year, which adds up to over 350 pounds of soda. Comparatively, in 2005 an average American drank only 0.5 gallons, making soft drinks the most consumed beverage in America (n/a, 2011). The way the government is trying to fix

“Soda Taxes: Gaining Steam or Getting Steamrolled?” is an enticing article by Anna Gorman that focuses on the issue of taxing sugary beverages and the effect it will ultimately have on the health of the general population. She mentions that the tax could reduce the rates of obesity and diabetes in the affected areas. She also points out the counter to this claim, that soda taxes may not have any effect on obesity rates at all and may give the government too much power over the consumer choice. Overall, she seems to advocate that soda is an unhealthy beverage and should be cut down among consumers. Soda however, is not the only unhealthy options out there. There is a plethora of products on the shelves of supermarkets and sold at restaurants.

Although this may be true, the soda ban “... produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity” (Gross,1). In brief, the soda ban won’t reduce the ever-growing obesity rate in America. After all their are other contributors that damage America’s health. Without delay, this law gives the thought of the U.S. becoming forcefully controlled by the government. As described by Sidney Anne Stone “ It starts here and it will spread throughout the nation..before you know it, it won’t be the “land of the free and home of the brave”...we are all going to wake up in the land of “Big Brother” with a list of things we can and cannot do, eat, drink, say, and so on, and we’ll be wondering how we got there. Well, this is how”(Stone,288). For this reason the soda ban devices those who may agree with the law. If more bans or laws like this one were to occur, the U.S. would become what it hates.Overall, the ban may bring a horrid future for

Today, research asserts soda is one of the leading causes of poor health outcomes in the United States. People define soda as carbonated beverages, or soft drinks, or fizzy drinks. A significant relationship exists between the consumption of carbonated drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental caries in the United States (Gollust et al., 52). Tax on soda is considered as a government’s intervention to regulate the consumption of these kinds of drinks. In fact, soda should be taxed in the United States because it discourages the consumption of soda, makes people healthier, and raises government funds.

Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor, believes that the way to do that is to have the government step in. He brought up this ban to prevent the “obesity epidemic” from worsening in New York, as he believes it as his obligation to keep the people “from harming themselves” (Tobin, galesgroup.com). He hopes that the ban will spread throughout the rest of the country to diminish the extra weight carried on American ground. But whether or not soda causes people to gain weight, is beside the point in this situation, because what the mayor does not understand is that it is still taking basic rights of the people away. People also claim that drinking this large amount of soda is no better than smoking, something the government can prohibit, so the mayor has a right to the ban because sugary beverages are dangerous to public health, just as are drinking and smoking (Tobin, galegroup.com). However, consuming pop is dangerous to the individual doing it, but only to the individual, whereas smoking around others is harmful to them, too, and driving drunk is dangerous to other drivers and pedestrians, hence “public safety”. Drinking too much sugar is not a concern to public safety because it does not refer to the public being in danger of another person’s actions. But the mayor uses a different definition to make it his excuse. Another argument of the backers for the act, argue the significance of the obesity problem. As of 2012, sixteen percent of America’s most urgent health problems were obesity (Diet, infobaselearning.com). Nevertheless, even though obesity is a growing problem and it is not going to go away on its own, this is not the way to go about lessening the situation. These complications are not going to get simpler without giving attention to the other factors of being

John Stuart Mill believes that the Greatest Utility Principle is something we ought to follow. Mill believes that the Greatest Utility Principle does not require too much. Mill responds to the idea that the Greatest Utility Principle requires too much at multiple

There must be a balance between “effectiveness and political acceptability” when it comes to making a positive impact that may affect the social norms of our society (Wiley, 2014). There have been policies made in the recent past by the government that are similar to the soda ban presented by Michael Bloomberg. A great example would be how the government has recently begun mandating the food served to students in schools. The government had to step in due to the obesity of more than a third of Americans as well as the growing prevalence of Type 2 diabetes (Leonard, 2015). These symptoms are diagnosed from poor eating habits and lack of exercise, which are actually causing the cost of treatment to rise. This rise caused the government to intervene and mandate what younger children are eating so it may put a stop to the increasing health issues in the United

It should be noted, however that some have suggested that Mill have overstates the threat and tyranny of the majority and understated the threat posed by the government. An important distinction that Mill does not address; the different ways the freedoms are destroyed by the government versus tyranny of the majority. Government’s who maintain a monopoly of legitimized force within a certain area coarse individuals with force and any individual that dictates other government faces imprisonment or even death, however, the tyranny of the majority must use criticism and ostracism to impose their way of living on others, as much is easier for someone to ignore the tyranny of the majority then it is for them to ignore the tyranny of a government. However, had Mill lived to see the atrocities committed by utilitarian government in the 20th century; his opinion on the relative threats of the government versus tyranny of the majority may have been different. Mill did not think individual should be completely free to do exactly what they want without any restraint.

Soda banning is one of the uttermost debatable and controversial topics in the country. One of the questions that people are asking is should soda be banned? The soda ban is the best way to go to eradicate obesity in the country. It will lower the risks for diabetes, cancer, and death. If we banned it, we will save people from the ramifications of their health. More importantly, the economy could increase and create numerous jobs for out of work people. However, if the ban does happen diet soda won’t be a part of the ban even though it consists of a dangerous chemical, aspartame. Furthermore, if we banned it, we might be taking away a citizen's right to drink whatever they crave whenever they please. That being the case, the biggest

Focus/Thesis: Over the years soda has become a staple in our lives, and is unfortunately extremely toxic to our bodies. Which is why we need to make the effort to limit the amount we drink and make ourselves aware of the risks we expose to our health when choosing to drink soda.

The first question in Kass’s formulaic approach to the ethics of public health is “What are the public health goals of this program?” (Kass, 1777) By nature, the public health goal of any program is to essentially promote the overall health of a population through an organized and communal effort. In the case of the soda tax, the ultimate public health goal is simply to reduce the amount of morbidity & mortality and improve the well being of society. This begins by tackling the obesity problem, which is directly linked to morbidity & mortality. According to Brownell, “for each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%” (Brownell et al., 1599). It can be inferred that drinking soda is linked to obesity rates, but why should obesity rates matter? According to Sturm, “a higher BMI…is associated with increased mortality and increased risk for coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and certain types of cancer. Even modest weight reductions can have substantial lifetime health benefits” (Sturm, 245). Obviously if someone is morbidly obese, he or she is at extreme risk for a myriad of

I do not support the idea that soda and other high-sugar drinks are bad for people’s healt, so their sale should be banned. Becuase this ban will not correct for human rights. Of course there are many opinions about it. However, i am going to briefly explain my idea on this topic.

Considering that soft drinks are one of the most popular drinks to a lot of people all around the world, unfortunately, a lot of them love to drink it almost every day and may not live without it. Soda becomes addictive, preventing one from drinking what the body needs the most which is water. In the market, there is a infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, ranges from classic soda to diet soda. However, consumers do not recognize clearly the negative effect of soft drinks that have a high chance of eroding their health away. Some of these examples include dental erosion, energy intake, obesity and other health issues. Nowadays, people live a healthy life to avoid health problems, so taxes on soft