Bloomberg Defends Soda Ban: Large Sodas Are Not A Constitutional Right

When the founding father’s laid out the governing principles of the United States, they didn’t anticipate a fight over large sodas. But that doesn’t exactly justify New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban. 

Bloomberg, who wants to get rid of sugary drinks more than 16 ounces, said that the founding father’s didn’t fight for your right to drink copious amounts of soda.

Bloomberg said:

“We’re not banning you from getting the stuff. It’s just if you want 32 ounces, the restaurant has to serve it in two glasses. That is not exactly taking away your freedoms. It is not something the Founding Fathers fought for.”

Bloomberg also said that his soda ban is very similar to smoking bans. The mayor addressed criticism directed at his new plan, saying:

“Where did I hear this before? Wasn’t it [the] smoking [ban] wasn’t going to work? Today it’s one of the best things we’ve ever done. Deaths from smoking dramatically coming down across the country, virtually every major city has adopted smoking ordinances.”

The Inquisitr reported earlier that several people have spoken out about Bloomberg’s “Paternal Policies.” Glen Whitman is an economist at California State University-Northridge, said Bloomberg shouldn’t be making health decisions for the American people.

Whitman said:

“The idea of the state stepping in and treating adults essentially as children and trying to protect them for their own good, as opposed to the good of others, that’s been with us for as long as we’ve been around, as long as we’ve had governments.”

Bloomberg was making a joke when he said that drinking a large soda is not a constitutional right, but it does speak to a larger issue concerning the soda ban. Should the government be allowed to make health decisions for citizens? Should Mayor Bloomberg be able to put restrictions on a legal substance in order to save the people from themselves? Or is that a decision that every person should make on their own?