Analysis Of Cass Sunstein 's `` Simpler `` And A Proposed `` Soda Tax ``

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.

The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city

There have been many health related bans put in place throughout history, but none have been as controversial as NYC Mayor, Michael Bloombergs soda ban. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to put into ordinance a regulation that will limit the size of drink cups in restaurants, sporting arenas, movie theaters, and food carts. This ban is controversial because New Yorkers feel like the mayor is trying to control them and take away their choices. They feel that he shouldn’t get a say in how much of a sugary drink they consume, even though they can still buy the same amount as before if they buy two cups instead of one. However, this regulation is going to affect public health in a positive way, because it’s going to make people stop and think before they

By imposing a sugar beverage tax, consumers will demand less of the good and drive demand downward. Similarly, the sugary beverage market is elastic to price changes ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). If the prices of sugar beverages increase, the demand will decrease ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). However, a counterclaim does arise which argues that even if consumers of these beverages decide to stop purchasing a taxed good, they will purchase substitute goods that have the same satisfactory effect at a price that isn't affected by the tax. This idea was presented by Jason Fletcher from the University of Wisconsin. In his published research, Fletcher found that BMI remained constant or increased even when consumers are confronted with a beverage tax (Fletcher, Frisvold & Tefft 2009).

On October 11th, 2016 Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago passed a one cent per ounce soda tax. Due to a lawsuit by the Illinois Merchant Association the new law did not even come into effect until August 2nd 2017. Now, due to a repeal, the law will cease to be in effect by December 1st, giving this law an effective life of about four months. The tax seems a no brainer with about 25% of United States boys and girls suffering from obesity. However the law had two major shortcomings. First, it had a bad start due to a poor implementation of the tax, since the tax was originally levied on producers instead of at the point of sale. This caused what is known as a double tax situation, soda companies were being charged two taxes in

Consumers think that it is awful that they have to pay for someone else’s health care while that person may just as well be drinking twelve cans of soda daily and continually destroying their health. (“Should there be a”, n.d.) These consumers are hoping the soda tax will encourage people to stop abusing soda and at the same time lowering the obesity rate in our country, which now about 66% of our population. Some commenters also said that the government is doing the right thing to try and stop this

“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.

The debate on weather sugary drinks, especially soda, should be taxed or not has been a topic for years. Some people believe that they should be taxed for the improvement of health while on the other hand some people think that taxing the drinks won't do much and actually hurt people. Taxing sugary drinks is helpful to those who have a hard time with temptation for the drinks. In the article "Do Soda Taxes Really Work?" Sifferlin states that when researchers looked at Berkeley residents, they found that when taxing soda started "sales of sugary-sweetened drinks fell by close 10% and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%" (4) Just by the percent difference rasing prices on soda made people decide against buying the sweet drinks,

The main conflict in "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables“ concerns the change of average Americans poor diet through economic encouragement. Mark Bittman's idea to put a high tax on unhealthy foods such as cookies, potato chips, french fries and soft drinks in order to subsidize healthy foods like vegetables is a great idea. As he points out, "A 20 percent increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20 percent decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion." This is why I’m fully on board with the program Bittman outlines because such a program can save people's health and the well-being of

1Why has there been so much fuss about New York City’s attempt to impose a soda ban,1 or more precisely, a ban on large-size “sugary drinks”? After all, people can still get as much soda as they want. This isn’t Prohibition. It’s just that getting it would take slightly more effort. So, why is this such a big deal?

While the new law bans these large sized containers, one can “still buy as much soda as [one] wants, just in a smaller container” (MSNBC). To counter the opposers of the law, the mayor clearly establishes that he is not controlling anyone’s soda intake. This way, Bloomberg is not violating any basic human rights because anyone can still drink as much soda as they feel fits them. While the law prevents buying twenty oz drink containers, sixteen oz and smaller sizes are still available to the public. Bloomberg continues to use logic when explaining the government’s duty to its population. He uses various data evidences to establish that “sugary drinks are affecting the health of the country’s population” (MSNBC), which helps his case because public health is one of the main concern of the government .. Since these sugary drinks which causes obesity is one of the main causes of a deteriorating public health, the government should intervene, just like if a disease or an epidemic spread across the country and was damaging public health. The main duty of the government is to protect its citizens Bloomberg spins the perception of the law from the government taking rights away from the citizens, to the government saving the citizens from themselves. Overall, Bloomberg logically explains his side of the argument, where the law is simply there to protect the health of the New York society, while not taking any rights away from the citizens but in parallel effectively enough to justify the law being passed and put into action in New

Congress hereby finds and declares that the United States of America has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of obese people and the number of deaths caused by the symptoms of obesity. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable deaths and accounts for 18% of all deaths in America (Fox 2013); thus, a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages will decrease consumer rates and lower the obesity level. The rise in sweetened beverage consumption is parallel to the increase in obesity rates. Soda and other sugary substances are the largest contributors to sugar and calorie intake; soft drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks are considered the top most consumed beverages in America (Kickthecan 2014). The annual medical costs due to obesity and overweight Americans is also staggering. The proposed solution will not hinder the necessary diet and nutritional value of one 's meal, but rather improve it by reducing the amount of sugar American 's consume, especially since sugary beverages are a large factor of obesity that can be costly and life threatening.

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

I already stated in questions one above the New York City limitation on the size of sodas has the same constitutional issues with the Philadelphia “Soda Tax”, both are unconstitutional even the major justified that it will be to promote better health of the population of New York, no law can really dictate what people has to put in their body. The tax is discriminatory as it only targeted on big sodas. The only difference between the two is that the New York City limitation on the size of sodas is not to raise any revenue and there was no tax per size or ounce while the Philadelphia “ soda Tax “ is mainly to boost the state revenue.

One of the biggest health concerns facing children in the United States to is childhood obesity. Childhood obesity has grown to become a major epidemic all across the nation effecting millions of children both physically and emotionally. One of the biggest contributors to this public health issue is sugar sweetened beverages. Sugar-sweetened beverages are an unregulated and out control beverages that is being consumed by millions of children each and every day. Progress is being made on the local level to treat and control this concern, but in order to truly make a difference a federal policy needs to be implemented. This federal policy needs to tax sugar-sweetened beverages to encourage consumer to make healthier and cheaper choices. A federal