In 2012, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg pushed for a law limiting soft-drink sizes as part of his focus on public health. The law won the approval of the city’s Board of Health, but industry groups claimed it was illegal because it interfered with consumers’ choices. A judge ruled against the law because it excluded certain businessman and did not apply to all beverages. When Mayor Bloomberg implemented laws banning smoking in bars, parks, and restaurants, that made sense. Whether or not I agreed, I understood the rationale because other people’s health would inadvertently be impacted by the smoke. When he insisted on calorie counts being posted, I think many of us cringed but, again, it made sense. If you want to know how many calories something is before you indulge, it is now spelled out for you. On days when you feel like being especially naughty, you just don’t look and order it anyway! That’s what life is all about, isn’t it? Choices. Informed choices. I respect being given information that enables me to make an informed decision. What I do not respect is having my civil liberties stripped away.
When you take away the option to order a soda over a certain size, you have now removed my options. I no longer have a choice. That is not what this country is all about. I agree wholeheartedly that obesity is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is one that needs to be addressed with education, compassion, and support, not government mandates. If, despite all those efforts, someone chooses to have a sugary drink anyway, that is their choice and their right. If they know all the facts and they do it anyway, that is a personal choice. It is not the place of our elected officials to intervene.
We cannot allow our government to make these kinds of decisions for us. I have said it before and I will say it again, once you allow the government to make choices on your behalf, it becomes a very slippery slope. I, personally, feel that it goes against everything this country stands for-we are a country build on freedom. That includes basic freedoms like what you are going to drink while watching a movie and eating what will soon be un-buttered and un-salted popcorn, according to Mayor Bloomberg. Remember the days when New York was a really cool and fun place to live? Me too. Now a simple thing like going to the movies has even lost its “flavor.”
The people of New York need to show our mayor that money can’t buy him everything. He says he’s going to “fight back” to get this pushed through. Well, it is our responsibility to fight back too. People might think it is not important because it is just soda but it is so much more than that- it is about freedom and freedom to make your own decisions about what you do and what you put into your bodies. It started with soda and he has already moved on to salt. What is going to be next? If you are reading this and you are not a New Yorker, don’t think you are not going to be affected. You will! It starts here and it will spread throughout the nation. I hope you will start to speak up about this issue or, before you know it, it won’t be the “land of the free and home of the brave” anymore. One day in the not too distant future 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.

Soda’s a Problem but Bloomberg Doesn’t Have the Solution
By Karin Klein
The intentions of New York May Michael R. Bloomberg may be laudable, but it’s wrong for one man, even as elected official and even a well-meaning one at that, to dictate to people how big a cup of sugary soda they’re allowed.
Not that I have tremendous regard for soda. It’s bad for you, especially in large quantities. The evidence against it mounts on a semi-regular basis. But the mayor’s initiative goes further than something like a soda tax, which might aim to discourage people from purchasing something by making it cost a bit more but leaves the decision in their hands. Bloomberg is playing nanny in the worst way by interfering in a basic, private transaction involving a perfectly legal substance. In restaurants and other establishments overseen by the city’s health inspectors, it would have been illegal to sell a serving of most sugary drinks (except fruit juice; I always wonder about that exemption, considering the sugar calories in apple juice) that’s more than 16 ounces.

Explain how both authors feel about the ban of soda. Use details from both text in your response. Be sure to note one fact that appears in one piece, but not in the other.