2016-12-08

【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.

Bibliography:

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.

【紅霞譯文】

        生活的焦點是否在於既要過得有個性又要活得有方向？大家為選擇而生活，個人選擇決定了人生道路，哪怕再小的選擇都是選擇。但是，並非每個人都把蘇打飲料當成選擇來看，更不相信它會跟命運扯到一起。事實上，針對紐約州長剛剛對大瓶蘇打飲料頒布禁令，蘇打飲料可能成為男女老少爭論的首要話題，選擇權就這樣被剝奪，別看它微不足道，但禍患常積於忽微，政府不能規定老百姓該買多少吃的喝的，限制自由未必有助於緩解肥胖危機。

        我們國家建立在選擇基本理念之上，追求選擇與渴望自製推動了歷史變革。自從聯邦共和立憲制度成立以來，美國一直主張自由，直到現代社會才出現許多違反民生權利問題。紐約蘇打飲料禁令拿大瓶包裝開刀，限制市民購買數量，政府部門公然違反開國元勛所倡導的思想，令人啼笑皆非。市民應該有權選擇炸薯條蘸番茄醬或者爆米花拌奶油，畢竟“我們是一個建立在自由之上的國家”（克萊因），如今這些禁令破壞了國家基本原則，“千里之堤潰於蟻穴”，一旦這類法律禁令繼續泛濫，民眾還有什麼辦法阻止官方專制呢？喜不喜歡蘇打飲料另當別論，但禁令本身讓我們有失去自由的危險，不僅有悖於傳統理念，而且影響未來進步。

        截止到2010年，廿歲以上肥胖比率已達35%並創歷史新高(1)，這比20世紀60年代增加了幾近20％，如果按照該種趨勢繼續發展，那麼肥胖危機將是每個人的問題。彭博市長計劃禁止餐館出售大瓶蘇打飲料，理論上有助於緩解肥胖危機，實際上卻因實施條例中有不少規則自相矛盾，所以這項禁令根本行不通。假如餐館不允許出售2升瓶裝蘇打飲料，那麼消費者是不是可以購買若幹個16盎司聽裝產品？因為買主仍舊消費禁令前消費的同等數量，所以絲毫沒有改變肥胖現狀。此外，消費者為何不能去7-11便利店打點所需呢？禁令只適用於餐館，而對州政府眼皮底下的便利店卻沒有任何限制。根據2016年福布斯排行榜(2)，彭博市長名列全美第六富豪，蘇打飲料禁令似乎為了迎合生意，真是“項公舞劍意在沛公”。餐館不能推銷大瓶飲料，為什麼便利店卻可以呢？莫非政府允許在規定的範圍內搞特殊化？在政府的影響下，唯有便利店才能合法出售大瓶蘇打飲料，難道是巧合嗎？如果政府真想普渡眾生，也許應該從改變自身做起。

        縱觀歷史, 執政當局無論是專指政權、君主制還是議會體制在蕭條時期經常出面干預市場，但他們本着為民服務的原則。有人認為蘇打飲料禁令則是政府純粹為了打造公眾形象，幸虧這不是中世紀年代，今天我們生活在一個民主社會，政府治理之道在於賦予人民權力，國家不是靠個人制定法規來運作的，事實上，這樣也許會導致獨裁統治。彭博市長影響力極強，幾乎可以左右整個紐約市府，由他欽命的衛生委員會批准該項禁令生效，衛生委員會本應主持公道，可是一旦遇到像彭博市長這樣重要級人物當權，他肯定說一不二。儘管平常覺察不出，但彭博市長逐漸掌管各部門機構，通過濫用職權而限制民主自由，同時又從中獲益。

        人的一生始終離不開選擇，選擇讓人與眾不同。如果全世界都接納這個禁令，那麼也就等於允許限制民生自由與個人權利，但甭管利益多少，彭博市長不能單方面決定市民該有什麼或不要什麼。人類面對多種選擇往往優柔寡斷，“籮里選瓜越揀越差”，因此對於那些能做出選擇的應盡力把握，勿讓任何人阻擋我們。

參考書目：

1. 《超重與肥胖統計》：美國國立衛生研究院、美國衛生與福利部，網絡：二〇一六年十二月八日。

2. 《美國富豪》：福布斯美國400富豪榜，出版地點不詳，日期不詳，網絡：二〇一六年十二月九日