# data[].attributes.body
I think We shouldent have A law of Banning those Drinks because people I mean EVERYONE should Know how much they should have And when They should stop. Like When I get soda. i drink like half of it, and Then I go brush my teeth and stuff. And the next day I drink half of the coke left Over. then go on With my daily routine!!! So we shouldent Ban it. Because In the artical Called "So long Slurpsizes?" It said that "each day americans consume Hundreds of Calories then they did few DECADES ago". Well We can just Burn off those calories by doing exercise and Stuff so we dont Consume way to much. Like take a run or a Walk Or anything that Is exercise. So we all should know (again) How much we should drink not like OVER 9000000 Calories each day Like we should drink like half of it or a a quarter of it each day. I mean that you can Buy 3 small Ones witch is like a big one Or 1 meduim + a small One witch makes a big one too. People would Just be able to " Slurp-Out-Of-It". Witch means Easily get big ones. So i think They shouldent ban it because Well people should do there own decions but just saying That might now help you in the future!!! And if your still reading this (Your awesome). A reason is that Kids who drink Like Really big sodas should drink small ones So they dont consume to many Calories. Like If there was a slurpee THAT WAS 100000 Inches tall and 1 person drank from it. That IS WAY TO MCUH SUGAR being consumed. Jeez My arm is sore. And It also Makes your teeth hurt If you drink to Much coke,pepsi, Etc. Onther reason Is that well....... People can get around the law. And its simple to. SO what is the point of banning it But lastly or In all I think we shouldent ban it To be fair people sometimes people have to think before they do It They make there own decions so you cant tell them what to do They have to do it not you. So basically what I am trying to say is that Dont drink To much soda because that is bad it can make your teeth hurt like ALOT!!! So why not just buy like small drinks instead of big drinks there problem solved But people would get around the law How do you stop this Well in my opnion Ban Soda????? But that would Hurt other fast food Places so Were better of With coke And We should ban Candy instead! One more thing From the artical "Sizes?". It says that "all We're trying to do is  to Explaine...that if you drink a little bit less,you wll live longer".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg first proposed a big soda ban in May 2012, and his successor, Mayor Bill de Blasio, has vociferously supported the initiative. The mayors aimed to limit sodas to 16-ounce servings in many locations around the city.

The effort has fallen flat. A court ruled in June that the New York City Board of Health, the administrative body that intended to implement the ban, overstepped the limits of its power, and that such initiatives should be left to the City Council, an elected legislative body.

In an earlier ruling in March of 2013, the ban was overturned on the basis of its "arbitrary and capricious" nature. Indeed, while soda is often blamed for the crisis of obesity and diabetes, other sugary drinks not targeted by the ban are equally harmful. Exceptions from the rule enjoyed by some businesses, such as convenience stores and grocery stores, were also criticized as arbitrary.

The public never much supported the effort to ban big sodas. Public opinion polls regularly showed that only a small minority of New Yorkers supported the soda ban, and a majority opposed it. The rest remained undecided.

Public health advocates, on the other hand, generally supported the initiative and have lamented its failure. They claim that limiting soda sizes would curtail the consumption of cheap, nutritionally vacant calories, and consumers would thereby be protected from obesity and diabetes. Public health advocates blame the lack and erosion of public support on the millions spent by the beverage industry to frame the soda ban as an infringement of individual liberty and unfair to businesses.

This chapter of the soda ban saga has more or less sputtered out; the New York City courts and the public have spoken clearly and conclusively. But it is not the last we'll hear of such efforts. City health officials have vowed to do a better job next time of winning the hearts and minds of the public. Many legal objections to the rule are based on technicalities that may be smoothed over - by extending the rule to all sugary drinks, eliminating exceptions and loopholes, and gaining support from City Council. Additionally, there are other strategies that could be pursued to a similar end; in California, the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco may soon implement taxes (rather than bans) on sugary drinks.

All of these efforts are of noble intent, and I find it challenging to take seriously the notion that limiting sugary drink consumption by whatever means wouldn't improve public health, as various extreme voices suggest. It seems likely that if New York City sodas were sold in smaller sizes, at least some people would drink less soda. That would be a win for public health.

But is a ban or tax is the most effective means of curtailing our sugary drink habit? The underlying message and assumption seems to be that without such measures, consumers will continue to buy absurdly large sodas, which will naturally sustain market demand for absurdly large sodas.

The Board of Health aims to do a better job of convincing the public that a big soda ban is good for them, hoping to reframe their efforts as "giving consumers the option" to drink more reasonably sized beverages. But why not spend that money and energy - and political and cultural capital - on convincing people not to consume too much soda? To buy less soda?

A ban on big sodas would eliminate big sodas from the market, but so, too, would a sudden collapse of market demand.

In fact, convincing the public to drink less soda has already proven effective. Consumption of soda has declined precipitously over the last nine years. It's no wonder the beverage industry fought the New York City soda ban so vigorously. Consumers are realizing that excessive soda consumption may lead to obesity and diabetes, and they are cutting back in response.

Unfortunately for our collective health, the decline in soda consumption has been counteracted by increased consumption of equally sugary sports drinks and sweetened fruit juices. A soda ban would do little to combat this trend.

What would probably help more is to extend the public health message to say that overconsumption of sugary drinks - all sugary drinks - may lead to diabetes, obesity, and related medical conditions.

It is clear from the attempts of New York City Board of health and numerous other administrative bodies across the nation that banning or taxing a product like soda is difficult, expensive, and often fruitless. Such efforts also seem to presume that consumers will not modify their behavior - that no productive cultural shift will occur.

Why not, instead, faith in the common sense and self-preservation instincts of the general public? That is not to say, as many have, that the government should not get involved in food choices. Existing education and advocacy programs empower consumers by providing them the knowledge they need to make healthy choices. Michelle Obama is doing it with her Let's Move campaign. Tools like the Nutrition Facts label, which the FDA is redesigning for the first time in 20 years to reflect advances in our understanding of nutrition, increase transparency of food information.

These successes (such as the existence of a Nutrition Facts label) and failures (such as the misperception that some sugary drinks are healthier than soda) can guide our next steps. With what may be naïve optimism, I predict that sugary drink sales will flag as consumers sour on the products that are so damaging to our public health. If such a cultural shift does not occur, a ban, tax, or some such form of market intervention will be needed to reduce consumption of sugary drinks. I'm not yet convinced the situation is so hopeless.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg first proposed a big soda ban in May 2012, and his successor, Mayor Bill de Blasio, has vociferously supported the initiative. The mayors aimed to limit sodas to 16-ounce servings in many locations around the city. The effort has fallen flat.

# data[].attributes.body
I think This should be a law because fast food places are serving way to big sodas! Really come on, Look at that!

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article about what the ban would prevent happening. :-)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dorling Kindersley / Getty Images

On Thursday the New York City Health Department became the first in the nation to ban the sale of sugared beverages larger than 16 oz. at restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters.

It's a bold experiment in the anti-obesity campaign, and while it's widely supported by health professionals, it's not popular with food retailers or most city residents.

The ban would prevent retailers who sell prepared food from also dispensing sugared beverages, including sodas and sweetened tea, in cups or containers larger than 16 oz. That's smaller than your standard single-serve soda (typically 20 oz.), which you'll no longer find at fast-food restaurants or cafeterias. Grocery stores and convenience stores, including 7-Eleven, which sells the jumbo-sized Big Gulp, would be exempt from the law, however. And the ban would not apply to fruit juices, alcoholic beverages, diet sodas or dairy-based drinks like milkshakes.

The ban on large drinks was championed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has a reputation for taking aggressive steps to improve city residents' health. Often criticized for creating a nanny state, Bloomberg has been at the forefront of finding innovative, if controversial ways of nudging people to make healthier choices. Since he took office more than a decade ago, New York has become the first city to require chain restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus (the move prompted a federal law that compelled all fast food retailers in the nation to do the same) and to ban trans fats from restaurant foods. Bloomberg also banned public smoking from most corners of the city and more recently pushed hospitals to keep baby formula locked up in order to encourage breast-feeding in new moms.

( MORE: The New York City Soda Ban, and a Brief History of Bloomberg's Nudges)

With at least two-thirds of American adults now considered overweight or obese - including more than half of New York City adults and nearly 40% of the city's public elementary and middle school students - fighting obesity is one of the mayor's signature causes, and sugary drinks a longtime target. In 2010, he proposed barring recipients of food stamps from using their benefits to purchase sugary beverages, a policy the federal government opposed. Last spring, he went after Big Soda again, with the proposal to ban super-sized drinks, and this time the measure was approved by the city's health board by a vote of eight to zero.

One member of the board, Dr. Sixto Caro, abstained, noting, "I am still skeptical. This is not comprehensive enough," the Associated Press reported.

That's why some health officials, as well as the restaurant and beverage industry, are critical of the ban. Why single out sugared sodas, they ask; obesity has many causes and contributors, not just what people drink. And if sugared beverages are being targeted, why not take stronger measures against other sources of sugar, such as candy and other sweets? Pointing out that the average New Yorker goes to the movies just four times a year and buys concessions only twice, Sun Dee Larson, a spokeswoman for the AMC Theaters chain told the AP, "We firmly believe the choices made during the other 363 days have a much greater impact on public health."

But the city's health board members remain convinced that banning mega-sized drinks would be an important step toward helping consumers not only to drink fewer calories, but also hopefully to make healthier changes to their diet more broadly.

They also noted that evidence clearly shows that sugary drinks contribute to the obesity epidemic: the board reviewed data showing that sugared drinks make up 43% of the added sugar in the average American diet. Further, a 20-oz. serving of Coke contains 240 calories, compared with 200 calories in a 16-oz. size; for people who drink a soda a day, that adds up to an extra 14,600 calories a year, or about 70 Hershey chocolate bars, the AP reported. That could account for an added 4 lbs. of weight gain a year.

( MORE: From the NYC Soda Ban Hearing: The Best Arguments For and Against)

The board members said they had listen carefully to the three months of feedback from the public, when people were invited to comment on the proposed ruling. The health department says it received 32,000 comments in support of the ban and 6,000 against it. A recent poll by the New York Times, however, found that the majority of New Yorkers in every borough were against it.

Among those critical of the measure is New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a coalition of individuals, companies and other groups that says it has collected more than 250,000 signatures from New Yorkers who feel that the new policy unfairly impinges on their right to choose what they drink. Restaurateurs and retailers, including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and McDonald's, are also upset over what they see as a discriminatory policy that could hurt certain businesses while rewarding others. In a statement posted on its website, the group said it would continue to challenge the ruling, including taking their concerns to court. "The fix was in from the beginning, and the Mayor's handpicked board followed their orders by passing this discriminatory ban; but it has not passed with the support of New Yorkers," Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman, said in the statement. "We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink."

Mayor Bloomberg has noted that the ban doesn't prevent people from purchasing multiple 16-oz. sodas if they wish, but health officials hope that the inconvenience of doing so will eventually curb consumption of sugared drinks.

If legally challenged, the ban, which is expected to go into effect next March, could be delayed. Once it takes effect, the city will allow a grace period of several months during which it will let retailers know when they're not in compliance. After that, the city will fine businesses $200 for violations.
Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Thursday the New York City Health Department became the first in the nation to ban the sale of sugared beverages larger than 16 oz. at restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters. It's a bold experiment in the anti-obesity campaign, and while it's widely supported by health professionals, it's not popular with food retailers or most city residents.

# data[].attributes.body
I think they should not make the ban because According to So Long, Supersizes? it says that it will take away individual freedom.And According to me and Goodbye, Big Drinks Supermarkets and convenience stores at are not part of the ban.And stuff like fruit juices, milkshakes, and diet sodas are not part of the ban.

# data[].attributes.body
This is my comparison, even if they did pass the ban it would not effect this drink.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think they should lower the size of soft drinks. I don't think they should lower the size because there are ways to get around the law. For example you can just buy two sixteen ounce drinks and then you would get a 32 ounce drinks and that completely destroys the point of the law. So there's no point in limiting the size. According to
Goodbye, Big Drinks, and So Long, Supersizes?, you can still buy several small drinks at a time. According to Goodbye, Big Drinks, thousands of small businesses in New York City would have been harmed by the ban, and the State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling doesn't think it's a good idea. Being the justice of the Supreme Court is a very high rank. According to Goodbye, Big Drinks, Liz Berman, the chairperson of the New Yorkers for Beverage Choices coalition said,"We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink."

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion I think that cities should not be limited on the size of the drinks that they buy. One of my reasons is if people are concerned about weight problems then they should take out bigger issues like candy. Another reason is people should be able to make their own decisions. Also the ban would not include store like seven eleven and if they did set a ban it does not limit how many drinks people can buy.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I think that we shouldn't limit the sizes that we drink because people should be able to choose how much they drink. People shouldn't get told how much they are supposed to drink! According to "Goodbye, Big Drinks" it says that "We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what we eat and drink!" So that means that people should't tell us what to eat and not eat or how much we eat or drink. Another reason is that when you band one thing they forget about the other things that have more sugar like candy or deserts so why can't they band the things that have more sugar then the soda and drinks. Also if the law is actually turning into a law people can just buy a 4 small cups or 2 medium cups to equal the big cup.

# data[].attributes.body
i think that should not be a law because people should know how much they should drink. also the pic show the amount of sugar but does it not depend on the type of drink

# data[].attributes.body
Soda is bad because it will make you sick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a blistering dissent of the opinion, Judge Susan P. Read wrote that the ruling ignored decades of precedent in which the board was given broad purview to address public health matters, such as regulating the city's water supply and banning the use of lead paint in homes.

The opinion, Judge Read wrote, "misapprehends, mischaracterizes and thereby curtails the powers of the New York City Board of Health to address the public health threats of the early 21st century."

But in the majority opinion, Judge Pigott drew a sharp distinction between the soda proposal and past initiatives of the board, such as banning trans fats in restaurants. He wrote that those earlier policies had a more direct link to the health of the public and represented "minimal interference with the personal autonomy" of New Yorkers.

That did not quell the concerns of some legal experts.

"It casts a cloud over the ability of administrative agencies to engage in innovative forms of regulation," said Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia who filed a brief supporting the city.

Robert Bookman, a lawyer who frequently sues the city, praised the ruling. "Under Mayor Bloomberg, the Board of Health seemed to feel that its power was unlimited," Mr. Bookman said. "Now they know they are no different than any other administrative agency."

Mayor Bill de Blasio, a frequent critic of Mr. Bloomberg but a supporter of the soda proposal, said he was "extremely disappointed" by the ruling. The mayor said he would review other options for the city to combat obesity, but his team did not immediately specify what steps might be taken.

Aides to the mayor said Mr. de Blasio would consider introducing legislation in the Council, the route recommended by the judges. But that approach is not likely to go far: The Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, opposes the proposal, and she said on Thursday that she was pleased with the court's decision.

Mr. Bloomberg's proposal, which polls showed was opposed by a majority of New Yorkers, set off a global debate over soda consumption. It also prompted panic among powerful beverage companies, who feared that their products could be widely branded as a threat to public health.

Questions about the workability of the plan were raised from the start. Because of jurisdictional quirks, not all businesses involved with selling food and beverages would have been affected. The rules would have covered places like fast-food franchises, delis and movie theaters, but convenience stores and grocery markets would have been exempt. And while the limits would have applied to a broad menu of popular drinks, there were many exceptions, including milkshakes, fruit juices and alcoholic beverages.

The soft-drink industry, through lobbying and public-relations campaigns, has helped defeat soda taxes and other regulatory measures in states and municipalities around the country. After Mr. Bloomberg announced his plan in May 2012, the industry poured millions of dollars into an ad campaign that framed the proposal as infringing on consumer freedom. The industry later retained the law firm of Latham & Watkins to challenge the limits in court.

The American Beverage Association, the industry's trade group, said in a statement that it was "pleased" with the Court of Appeals ruling, saying the proposal "would have created an uneven playing field for thousands of small businesses in the city and limited New Yorkers' freedom of choice."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New York's Ban on Big Sodas Is Rejected by Final Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a blistering dissent of the opinion, Judge Susan P. Read wrote that the ruling ignored decades of precedent in which the board was given broad purview to address public health matters, such as regulating the city's water supply and banning the use of lead paint in homes.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I think that they should band it because, sugary drinks are unhealthy, fat, you can die from to much sugar, and it makes your teeth rotten.

# data[].attributes.body
we should because soda limimts could make your teeth hurt and people the friday i left early I went to the doctor and it was horible