Overstepping Boundaries In The United States

740 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Government interfering with privacy

Overstepping Boundaries Should it be the government's job to try to keep people healthy? Katie Rosenhouse once said, “what is life without a little sugar and salt and the good stuff.” So therefore, is it really anyone's business about what people choose to consume? The government should follow the First amendment. Which states the people have the right to freedom. If they take away the people's right to eat junk food, salt, and sugar then the government is basically taking away their freedom to drink and eat what they please. Without the sugar, the salt, and other sweet components some foods would become rather bland and boring. If the government chooses to begin the ban on salt and sugar then, crimes would most likely start going …show more content…

Adults have the right to drink how ever much they want to even though it may not be good for them its their body. Wanna be able to go get a big soda with a burger, or a lunch. Adults should be able to go out and get what they want. When the constitutions say we have the right to have freedom of press. They are kinda taking that away, in a way. Businesses will not be able to advertise, for large soda’s. It can also mess with the pursuit of happiness, because a lot of people love to drink soda and they like to have sweets. The government should not be able to force us to do things. They can take away our rights from the amendments. We live in America and we should not be forced to do anything we don't want unless it is taking away life from another human being, harming other human beings. If they can get away with this they are gonna try and try to push further out and they are gonna try to overcome other rights. We have the 27 amendments for a reason so we can have our rights. If we start letting them take away our freedoms and rights then they will be able to turn this country into a controlling health world. Think about it for a minute! Do you really wanna be bossed around and told what you should do? When you go to McDonalds do you ever want to be able to go in and order a Big Mac with a large soda? I know I do! I don’t think it is the government's place to tell us what we can and can not eat. That is the consumer's

Show More
Related

  • What You Eat Is Your Business

    1353 Words  | 3 Pages

    Should people be held accountable for what they eat? Many believe that it is a matter of public health, but some think that it is the matter of personal responsibility. In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that the government spending more money on anti-obesity measures is the wrong way to fix the obesity epidemic. He claims that people should be more responsible for their personal health. I am of two minds about this author’s claim that eating and lifestyle are matters of personal choice. On the one hand, I agree with his claim because of the unfair insurance policies, people should be more responsible for their own health, and people should take the time to be responsible for their kid’s health instead of blaming someone or something irrelevant. On the other hand, the government should do their best to dispose of “food deserts,” provide more opportunities to live a healthy life style, and give tax breaks to people selling healthy foods.

    Read More

  • Radley Balko What You Eat Is Your Business Summary

    939 Words  | 2 Pages

    Radley Balko, The author of the essay “What You Eat is Your Business”, would agree that in order to stop obesity, we must turn this public problem around and make it everyone’s individual responsibility. Instead of inflicting the importance of personal ownership, government officials, politicians and congress make obesity a public problem by prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, and restrictive food marketing to children. Overall I agree that this manipulation of food options is not the proper way to fight obesity, however, I think that government should inform people about the food they are eating because then they have no excuses for not taking responsibility of the actions.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Toxic Truth About Sugar And Banning The Big Gulp

    211 Words  | 1 Pages

    After reading "The Toxic Truth About Sugar" and "Banning the Big Gulp", I am not entirely convinced that government intervention is necessary. Lustig, Schmidt and Brindis' article practically clarifies the the dangers of sugar itself, while Bittman's article passionately discusses the temporary cessation of the decision to ban/restrict the sale of over-proportioned drinks. Although, as Lustig and his colleagues pointed out, sugar has potential for addiction and other long term detriment to health and economy, the authors failed to acknowledge the fact that people can still watch what they eat. For example, a 1.9lb (862g) bag of Sour Patch Kids contains approximately 550 grams of sugar; 26g per single serving of 16 pieces (40g). Lustig and his

    Read More

  • Eat Healthy Research Paper

    1443 Words  | 3 Pages

    Americans should be able to eat what they want regardless of what the government says about it. The government would like to place bans on certain size drinks. What that means is you will not be able to purchase, let’s say any sugary drink that’s above 16 ounces. Yet it still would not stop you from purchasing as many as you desire. The entire rule they want to enforce is the size limit of our sugary beverage. Still see many more flaws with the government being able to do this and they should have no right to choose this for others. It’s your life and well you only get one so my recommendation is eat what you want. Americans should have the freedom to choose what food they eat and the lifestyles they choose regardless of the impact on

    Read More

  • Obesity and Freedom of Choice: A Stand Against Food Regulation

    892 Words  | 2 Pages

    Also the government is trying to regulate how much we can drink at gas stations or even anywhere in general, they are also banning things over 16OZ’s in the places we eat. This idea might be appealing to some, my dispute against this is that we should be allowed to get a drink that can last us all day. America is the land of the free, now they try to regulate what size drinks Americans and other citizens’ can drink? American citizens should be allowed to stand for this! Americans work for the drinks that we are paying for, is this hurting the government obviously it’s not; it’s effecting our obesity. The government should not be allowed to go and regulate something that Americans work for because it’s what we are doing, it is not fair that they can go and do this. We are not hurting the government by just buying a 32oz, then just having regular

    Read More

  • Healthy San Francisco Plan

    881 Words  | 2 Pages

    The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...

    Read More

  • Essay On Menu Labeling

    686 Words  | 2 Pages

    New York City being the first to follow this ridiculous law banned the sale of sugary beverages larger than sixteen ounces. Yet they still allow the purchase of multiple sodas, what is the point! What I do not understand and most likely every other American is the fact the only sugary drinks are being executed as a health issue other than all the other factors causing obesity as well. "and if sugared beverages are being targeted why not take stronger measures against other sources of sugar such as candy and other sweets?" (Park). by saying this author of the article is saying the government isn't taking commodious stands against obesity. If they want to be involved in our diets, the government needs to ban all unhealthy food items and if not then to just stay out of it. People have the ability to make their own decisions based on their diets not have someone else determine

    Read More

  • Government Should Have A Say In Our Diets

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...ues. Because nutrition, obesity, and overweight have already turned into a matter of national concern, the government should definitely have a say in our diets, to give us access to healthier foods and to restrict availability of foods, which damage our health.

    Read More

  • Regulate What We Eat Analysis

    607 Words  | 2 Pages

    I know it would be horrible and a break of our freedom to give up all junk food, but to regulate it is definitely something we should do, so many problems come with this illness, harder to get a job, hard to stay healthy, hard to lose that weight, etc.The passage says, “According to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more than half of adults are overweight or obese and nearly one in five kindergarten students are obese”. So many people have this

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Should Candy And Sod Others?

    718 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many may complain that the government is trying to control us and have no right in choosing what we can and can’t eat.This statement is true, but to a certain limit. The government is only trying to keep kids from being overweight to the point where it causes obesity. In the article,”Should Candy and

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Banning Soda

    1513 Words  | 4 Pages

    Twice is not a lot, meaning that banning soda can hardly be the whole problem. But forcing people to give up that small treat is not going to make them eager to do so, and they will find sugar elsewhere. Helping the people and representing the people is the job of the government, and banning this soda movement directly refutes that mission statement. Freedoms should not be taken away, because that would mean moving backward in the timeline. The majority of New Yorkers are against the ban (Park, time.com). The people not being listened to, they are not being represented as they were promised. It’s not in the government’s job description to act as parents for Americans and choose what they can and cannot eat. And not only is this affecting individuals alone, but it is also impacting business. 7-11 and other grocery stores can still sell large sodas, while every other business cannot (Kessler, cnn.com). This exception makes it clear that the limitations being pushed upon the country are not just prohibiting the customers from buying this product, but it preventing where they can purchase it by stopping certain venders from selling it. Smaller businesses will be directly impacted by losing the ability to sell this as a product because larger institutions would have an unfair advantage, unbalancing business competition. This decision is not only

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Government Control Over Our Diets

    666 Words  | 2 Pages

    Over the past years the government has released more and more control over what we can do and about what is good for us. The government is always deciding on whether or not to expand or start a different problem. Governments only job is to protect the nation from invasions from other countries and to provide essential services the citizens need in order to function. The problem that the government sees is the population being to obese and overweight and many people are still happy with the lifestyle. I believe Government should not have control over our diets because we are not all made the same because people should choose to eat healthy , government would issue food bans on food labeled unhealthy by them, and Takes away our freedom of choice.

    Read More

  • Coercive Paternalism Analysis

    1312 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the New York soda ban the city produced a regulation banning restaurants and similar venues from serving soda and other sugary drinks over 16 ounces. Conly explains that this is a justifiable action “because there is an obvious obesity epidemic, and there is considerable evidence linking this back to increased portion sizes in restaurants” (Conly 243). I believe that the government does not have a role to protect people from themselves. “Justified hard paternalism” equates the government with being every citizens father, which defeats the purpose of being a free country. From a freedom prospective, there is not a clear distinction as to where you draw the line when telling citizens that it is a good or bad decision for there happiness and well-being. Conly might argue that we protect each other from hurting one another so there is no difference in stopping one another from hurting our own self. Hurting another person is a far stretch from hurting yourself when it comes to drinking too much soda because you are making the decision for yourself and the value of your future. For example, going to church is universally good for every single person in the world, and as a father I will make my children go to church, but if we are a lawmaker in

    Read More

  • Should The Government Tell You What To Eat Essay

    868 Words  | 2 Pages

    As a United States citizen, many people in the young adult age group have restriction of what they can and cannot do. Recently, the Government is trying to pass a law that gives them the control to regulate and control our own personal diets. If this were to pass globally, there it would give more power, to the already powerful government. The government should regulate the American diet because it would restrict from making our own decisions, having our own unique diets or having binges on food, and make special occasions in the public school system less special by not being able to bring sweet treats.

    Read More

  • should advertisement of junk food be banned

    754 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... and “superficially conveys the impression that the government is doing something”, given that eating habits is one’s own responsibility (Christopher 2012). The Federal Government agreed “further regulation were unnecessary” as junk food advertising is a legal way to publicise the company’s product as long as it follows the FCC guidelines (The Australian 2011).

    Read More

More about Overstepping Boundaries In The United States

Open Document