A Rhetorical Analysis of Sarah Conly’s
“Three Cheers for the Nanny State”
Mayor Bloomberg and his administration have been behind the large sugary-drink ban. Sit-down and fast food restaurants, delis, movie theaters, stadiums and arenas, mobile food carts and trucks that are permitted by and received a letter grade from the city Department of Health all have to comply with the ban. Supermarkets and convenience stores are not part of the ban because they are regulated by the state. Any size above 16 oz. wouldn’t be available to buy for a high-sugar drink. The sugary drinks that would be banned are all non-diet sodas, energy drinks, fruit drinks or sweetened teas that are less than 50% milk or milk substitutes and have more than 25 calories for every 8 oz. excluded from the ban is alcoholic beverages or low-calorie drinks including diet sodas, water, unsweetened coffees and teas or vegetable and fruit juices without added sugar. The ban was approved by the Board of Health in New York City and was planned to take effect on March 12, 2013. There was going to be a grace period where the establishments affected by the ban could change everything that needed to be changed like menus and cups that are going to be stocked. In her article “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” from New York Times, Sarah Conly questions the ban on large sugary drinks in New York City. There has been much controversy over the proposed ban and if it is imposing on American’s freedom. “It’s because such a ban suggest that sometimes we need to be stopped form doing foolish stuff, and this has become in contemporary American politics, highly controversy, no matter how trivial the particular issue,” is Conly’s take on why there is so much controversy (1). People feel strongly that they know what is best for them, but that isn’t always true. “It’s this common desire to be left alone that prompted the Mississippi Legislature earlier this month to pass a ban on bans – a law that forbids...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document