Legal activity in New York has been at an all time high recently, ranging from gun control policies to sugary drink policies. In essence, both of these legal debates concern the safety of New York citizens, in the physical sense and the health sense respectively. Both involve a ban of something, as well as a heated debate over it. Both debates have also landed themselves on the front covers of major newspapers. And the reasons and reactions to both are similar, even though the item in question is so different.

Just a few months ago, New York passed the toughest gun control laws in the nation, banning assault weapons and placing limits upon the types of weapons that can be bought. Magazine capacities were limited, increased intensive background checks were instituted, and even the idea of confiscation was discussed.

On the surface, the intended reason for an assault weapons ban is to protect people from violence, much like the recent violence committed with assault weapons. The intent was to take harmful weapons away from those causing the crimes to prevent more violence, but it inadvertently may take away protection from those who own guns for personal protection and self-defense.

Ultimately, the ban was intended to stop people from causing harm to others. New York is now debating a new ban that would attempt to stop people from causing harm to themselves.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has noted the increasing problem of obesity in the country, and therefore took it upon himself to take steps to increase better health standards within his city. Mayor Bloomberg sought to place a ban upon the size of drinks containing a certain amount of sugar.

Just as the ban upon assault weapons created an uproar, the city’s restaurants and corporations have been in panic about their drink products and sales. Some have had to decrease cup sizes; others have had to provide sugar packets, rather than including sugar in the drinks initially. Some corporations, like Starbucks, have refused to participate all together.

The good news for Starbucks and others struggling with the sugary drink ban is that it was ruled invalid by a state judge the day before it was planned to go into affect. Telling people what they can or cannot drink violates the rights of the people, many arguing that it violates their freedom of choice. Even if the freedom of drink choice seems trivial.

From assault weapons to sugary drinks, the state of New York has made steps that the rest of the country has watched in awe. Many people believe that our rights have been violated, challenging our right to bear arms and our human right to the freedom of choice. Safety and health are important, but at what point or to what extent do we give those rights to government officials?

I believe these are individual rights that should not be completely controlled by others. Not to say that guidelines cannot exist to help make these rights better, but at this point the line seems to have been crossed and the right to make informed decisions seems to be in question. There is a limit to the extent that government should regulate safety.

Hannah Waid is a junior majoring in English. Her column runs biweekly on Wednesdays.