There is no “pro” argument for this ban. IT’S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FLIPPIN BUSINESS!
Bingo!
Why not just raise taxes on all food and reduce the consumption to make people skinny? We could go back to food rationing like WWII. It works in Europe..food is so expensive that people are skinny,,plus they must walk more because the poor don’t have cars. Then increase the cost of energy so that people are colder in winter and burn more calories..like Europe.
If all that doesn’t work..eliminate food stamps because the poor are the ones who tend to be fatter anyway. Eliminate free school lunch..because the kids who get them are fat. I could go on.
The pro is that people really would be healthier if they didn't drink sugary drinks or didn't drink them to excess - assuming they don't just substitute something else unhealthy for their Big Gulp. The Nanny State activists do have that one point in their favor. The con is that IT’S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FLIPPIN BUSINESS! The con argument wins overwhelmingly.