SOUND OFF: Should Sugary Drinks Be Banned?

New York City recently passed a ban on soda and sugary drinks over 16 ounces. Where do you stand on soda size?

The New York City Board of Health made it official: No large sodas.

The unanimous decision extends to sodas larger than 16 ounces from fast-food restaurants, movie theaters and street vendors. It is the first of its kind in the nation and does not cover convenience stores or supermarkets. It will go into effect in March 2013.

"This is the single biggest step any city, I think, has ever taken to curb obesity," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told the New York Times following the vote. "It’s certainly not the last step that lots of cities are going to take, and we believe that it will help save lives."

The decision has been applauded by some including Celebrity Chef Jamie Oliver who said that over half of the adults in New York are obese or overweight.

There has been opposition to the decision in polls of residents and by private interest groups. Some of those groups have said they will fight the decision.

The ruling could spark similar moves in other communities across the country.

Patch wants to know: Would you like to see a soda ban in Rhode Island in the interest of public health or do you want your super soda? Sound off in the comments.

Robert Bailey September 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Bloomberg means well. And this is a thorny issue. This is one of those areas that deserves libertarian paternalism... nudge people to do the right thing, but make it a personal choice. For example, kids might presented this offer: 'Abstain from sugary drinks for a week, and the school will give you one free drink chit.' This stops the automatic grab, defers the sugary drink, and odds-are, the students find an healthier alternative they like, maybe, as well or better. Moreover, the choice has become their responsibility. Sure, juice or flavored water may lack the cool factor, but they earned it. themselves! It's worth trying.
Chuck September 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Another intrusion in personal freedom.
Chandler Hovey September 18, 2012 at 07:48 PM
Chuck, It may be an intrusion into personal freedoms but better small intrusions that promote better universal health. Otherwise skyrocketing health care costs are bound to bring on more taxes. Which intrusion would you prefer?
Nellie Sabin September 18, 2012 at 09:25 PM
This is the only way to keep Honey Boo Boo's mother from buying her a quart of Mountain Dew for lunch. It's sad that the government has to play Mommy to protect people from themselves, but if you let people do what they want without any curbs on their behavior we'll end up with a nation of extremely expensive sick people. It's really the same as speed limits, drivers' licenses, and auto inspections - if the government didn't regulate these things, somewhere a 12 year old would be driving 80 mph in a car with bald tires, and they would run into YOU.
Best Little State in the Union September 19, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Would live to see the same in RI and every other state! Way to take a stand Mr. Bloomberg! Protect those who cannot protect themselves (or choose not to).


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something