Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg attempted to have a ban go into effect at midnight on March 12, banning sugary drinks being sold above a 16 oz. size. This ban was supposed to place some constraint on America’s growing obesity concern, but a state judge shot the appeal down just before the appeal was supposed to launch into action.

A quote from the court tells of the appeal, saying “the court finds that the regulation . . . is laden with exceptions based on economic and political concerns.” (money.cnn.com).  The court also found that such a restriction falls under state control, which is able to be ordered by the governor but certainly not a mayor. The ban was an attempt to begin digging NYC out of their unhealthy rut, but also conflicted with the fact that a mayor cannot tell citizens what size drink they can buy, especially in a “free” country.

The sugary drinks ban is only one of the series of health-related changes and restrictions Bloomberg has thrust upon NYC since he was elected as mayor. He also banned trans fat and established a requirement for calorie counts to be posted. Critics analyzing Bloomberg’s time, success, and changes in office observe that NYC is growing into “nanny-state,” intruding upon citizens’ personal freedoms.

Statistics tell that 60% of adults and 40% of schoolchildren in NYC are obese, and there is a rising health issue throughout the entire nation – not just one city. The ban was indeed an attempt at a healthier town to govern, but were the intentions really so good? Many critics observe hunger in Bloomberg’s eyes that feast only on power. The mayor completely overstepped his boundaries in his attempt to regulate the sugar intake of every single person in NYC. While better health is a topic to be concerned about, the city has other issues to solve, like the violent crime rate of 44.11% – but the mayor is not throwing his full effort into providing a safer community. He is instead investing his time in restricting the consumption of sugar in the city. The ban would have hurt many small, local, family-owned businesses, and places like 7/11 that make a good portion of their profit off of their “Big Gulp” soda. Minorities would have been left economically devastated by the ban.

“If something like this happened at Padua, I mean, it’d be different,” freshman Mariah Ruiz commented. “The school can control what they sell, but say if they were trying to control what all of Wilmington sold, that’d be a different story. We might be unhealthy but it will always be our decision what size drinks we drink.” The ban definitely would have angered many people, economically damaged the town, and directly invaded the personal freedoms and choices of the city’s people. Bloomberg, however, does not appear to be discouraged and states, “Being the first to do something is never easy,” he said. “When we began this process we knew we would face lawsuits.”