The Pepsi Amendment

For those of you who haven't heard Mayor Bloomberg of New York City is working hard to pass a law that would forbid the sale of soda products over 16 oz within the limits of the city. The law would apply to restaurants, bodegas, movie theaters, even food carts on the street, and stadium concessions. Now I understand what mayor Bloomberg is trying to do with this law, but I find that I cannot agree with it. I loathe throwing around words like "unconstitutional," "nanny-state," and "Big Brother," but sometimes when certain phrases apply you have to use them even if they are cliche, hackneyed, over-used... forget it. I'm not using them.

I was going to write this blog as a witty proposition to create a new amendment to the Bill of Rights that gave Americans the right to drink as much soda as they would like, but I realized that there is already an amendment that does just that. I am talking about the Second Amendment. (But, hey, isn't that about owning guns?) Stay with me on this one... Yes, the Second Amendment is about the American right to own guns, (and quite frankly I am waiting for amendment 2a that guarantees me the right to own a sword,) but in actuality it is about more than just allowing Charlton Heston to arm himself against the impending Ape Revolution of 2086.

The amendment states, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that the amendment itself is really more about the guarantee to the security of a free state with the right to bear arms as a by-product of that. The point being that in a free state, where gun ownership is not only allowed but protected how can the ownership of 32 oz. of soda be any less protected. Its an absurd dichtomy.

Now I am not in anyway diminishing the obvious health care risks of soda. In fact, scientists are now saying that drinking a single 330 ml can of soda each day translates to more than 1lb of weight gain every month, and that studies prove that Americans with type 2 diabetes has tripled from 6.6 million in 1980 to 20.8 million today, with soda as the leading culprit. Even dentists agree that drinking soda eats away at the tooth enamel faster than candy or any other sugary substance. There is no denying that the stuff is not good for you, but that does not mean we should be denied the right to drink it.

Our forefathers put down the Bill of Rights as a charter that not only gave Americans certain "inalienable rights," (I have the right to not be abducted and probed,) but also as a blueprint of American society. Washington and his fellow patriots saw America as a country where we had the choice to do as we like and to take responsibility for those actions not through the enforcement of laws, but through the lessons of freedom. For example the right to gun ownership is not so much about owning guns as it is about the right to choose our actions. If we choose to own a gun we need to choose to be responsible in that ownership. It is the same way that if we choose to purchase fatty foods. We need to have the rights to be responsible, not have responsility forced upon us. Now I am not going to sit here and make an argument for gun ownership, because obviously the comparison between buying a hand gun and purchasing a Big Gulp is not really a one to one comparison.

We restrict gun ownership because we can't have people walking around the streets of New York with AK47's in the same way we restrict cigarette smoking. Both have the potential to harm other people beside the ones who own and operate the items in question, thus to restrict them is to guarantee the rights, life, and freedoms of those who did not make the decision to purchase the weapon or dangerous substance. However, soda has no dangerous by-product. There is no way for others to get second-hand carbonation, or get caught in the middle of a drive-by-sodaing, and I believe that is part of the litmus test for just and unjust laws. After all, a ban on large sodas would only be for the sole purpose of restricting the harm we do to our own bodies, where as limits on cigarettes and guns are meant to protect the rights of those around us. Even Bloomberg's own trans-fat ban used in restaurants protected the life and rights of those who ate at those restaurants. He did not ban the food, just the way they were prepared as there were viable alternatives available to restaurant owners. The difference is between personal restrictions and public protections.

There is also more to this ban that just the mere outrage of the transparent big-government social agenda behind it. They are not banning soda all together, just certain sizes, nor are they restricting the amount of other sugary or unhealthy drinks such as apple juice, milkshakes, or even beer. They are not even banning how many sodas you can buy. Instead, this seems to be an attempt to use the law more as a political statement than as a responsible tool of protection and enforcement. Ironically, I am not even saying that the principals behind the ban are wrong, but anything that restricts freedom on flimsy and misguided abuses of power are wrong. We need to drink less soda, in the same way that we need to eat more fruits and vegetable, so why not make it mandatory for us to do so, or ban cookies or chocolate cake? Why not have all New Yorkers submit to biannual physicals and be required by law to work out for thirty minutes a day? The simple answer is that this is America, and as sad as it sometimes is, we have the right to be fat and lazy if we so choose. Remember that if you make obesity illegal, only the criminals will be obese... I guess, then, they would at least be easier to catch.