设万维读者为首页 广告服务 技术服务 联系我们 关于万维
简体 繁体 手机版
万维读者网 > 五 味 斋 > 帖子
Argumentative: For the Flavor(议论文─利益)
送交者: 天边的红霞 2020年06月06日08:26:49 于 [五 味 斋] 发送悄悄话


【Aiden in English】

        The point of living is to live a unique life, and to choose the direction it goes? We live for choices, and the choices define the person and the path he or she takes.  However little of a choice, it is a choice nevertheless. Yet still, not everyone thinks of soda as a choice, and even less believe it has much to do with destiny. Truthfully, soda is a start to an argument that may go on for ages, as the governor of New York has just issued a ban on large-size soda drinks. It is a choice that is being taken away, and how small it may seem, the dam can break from just the smallest cracks. The government therefore should not be able to regulate the amount of food and drink their citizens can purchase because of how much freedom is limited and little this helps the obesity crisis.

        Our country was founded on the basic idea of choice. The revolution was fueled by the dreams of choice and the longing for self-control. Since the start, America has always stood for free, but the modern era brings many issues violating these simple rights. The New York soda ban targets large-sized sodas, preventing citizens to purchase certain drinks quantities. This goes strictly against the ideals put forth by the founding fathers, and it ironically is being enforced by the government. People should have the ability to choose whether they want ketchup on their fries, or butter on their popcorn. “We are a country built on freedom” (Klein), and right now, these bans are breaking the foundations of the country. Besides, small cracks join with other cracks to form a larger breach in the dam. If these laws and bans are continuously passed, what is stopping the government from, say, total control? The ban on soda, even if it may not seems like it is risking the freedom of us now, violating the ideals of the past, and setting a dangerous path forward.

        As of 2010, the obesity percentage of those older than twenty had reached an all-time high of 35.7 percent(1). That's a near twenty percent increase from the 1960s, and if this trend continues, the obesity crisis will be everyone’s problem. Mayor Bloomberg plans to ban large-sized sodas in restaurants, which theoretically may help the obesity crisis. Truthfully, this ban will simply not work due to the contradictory holes within the implemented rules. If restaurants can’t sell two-liter bottles, what is stopping the consumers to buy multiple 16-ounce quantities of soda? It doesn’t change anything with obesity, because the buyer is still consuming the same amount of the drink as before the ban. Furthermore, why can’t the consumer simply buy from a, say, 7-Eleven? The ban of large drinks accounts for restaurants, but not for those convenience stores under the eyes of the state. Mayor Bloomberg, according to the Forbes 2016 list(2), was ranked as the sixth richest person in America. Ironically, it feels as if the entire idea of the soda ban is for business. Even when restaurants can’t sell large sizes, how come convenient stores can? Why does the government allow exceptions within this rule? Also, is it coincidental that the only stores which can legally sell large-sized sodas are under the influence of the government? If the government really wants to help the population, maybe it should begin by changing themselves.

        Throughout history, the ruling government, whether it was a dictatorship, monarchy, or a Parliament, always intervened in times of depression. Their decisions are made to help the people, and some believe this soda ban is just a way of the government showing their care for the public. Fortunately, this isn’t the medieval ages, and the society we live in today is a democratic society. The focus within this style of governing gives the people power and having a single person demanding a ban is not how this country is run. In fact, it may as well be a straight-up dictatorship. Mayor Bloomberg, having built a strong influence around him, nearly owns the entire government of New York City. He has appointed the Board of Health, which approves of the law. This board is meant to judge the decisions fairly, but when a man like Mayor Bloomberg’s power, he has the ability to control most of the power in the government. Even if everyday life doesn’t show it, Mayor Bloomberg has slowly taken over the system of governing. By abusing this power, he is limiting the people’s freedoms, and at the same time, gaining money himself.

        Choices have always presented themselves in life. They are there to make everybody unique. If the world accepts the ban, it is also accepting the idea of limiting freedom and rights. No matter how beneficial it may seem, Mayor Bloomberg cannot singlehandedly decide what the people have or are unable to obtain. There are many choices humans have no power over, but for those we do, we should make the most of them, without anyone holding us back.


1. "Overweight and Obesity Statistics." National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

2. "The Richest People in America." Forbes 400. n.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2016.





        纵观历史, 执政当局无论是专指政权、君主制还是议会体制在萧条时期经常出面干预市场,但他们本着为民服务的原则。有人认为苏打饮料禁令则是政府纯粹为了打造公众形象,幸亏这不是中世纪年代,今天我们生活在一个民主社会,政府治理之道在于赋予人民权力,国家不是靠个人制定法规来运作的,事实上,这样也许会导致独裁统治。彭博市长影响力极强,几乎可以左右整个纽约市府,由他钦命的卫生委员会批准该项禁令生效,卫生委员会本应主持公道,可是一旦遇到像彭博市长这样重要级人物当权,他肯定说一不二。尽管平常觉察不出,但彭博市长逐渐掌管各部门机构,通过滥用职权而限制民主自由,同时又从中获益。



1. 《超重与肥胖统计》:美国国立卫生研究院、美国卫生与福利部,网络:二〇一六年十二月八日。

2. 《美国富豪》:福布斯美国400富豪榜,出版地点不详,日期不详,网络:二〇一六年十二月九日

2020-05-12_Canola Field-30001.JPG

标 题 (必选项):
内 容 (选填项):

一周点击热帖 更多>>
2019: 老凯的最新发现
2019: 这是不是我在这里说过N年的东西?
2018: 刚刚:川总签署特赦令,赦免正在服无期
2018: 朱利安尼说金胖在给川普的私人信件里跪
2017: 左笔不懂的是碳循环是地球自我调节的一
2017: 民主党左棍高喊环保,除了虚伪就是忽悠
2016: 我觉得美国30年代的大萧条是美联储故意
2016: 万维海皇们的精神生活太贫乏了吧,竟然
2015: 巫婆子不知道的太多了
2015: 巫婆子满口说它信基督,基督里不以繁衍后