"People who opt for diet drinks do not consume fewer calories overall":
I am favour of the potato tax. Potatoes have done more to increase obesity than soda.
"People who opt for diet drinks do not consume fewer calories overall":
I am favour of the potato tax. Potatoes have done more to increase obesity than soda.
How about we don't take any food and have people take personal responsibility for their actions?
The precedent has already been set with alcohol, cigarettes, and other sin taxes. There's no question that sugar is a major contributor to obesity, hence diabetes and other ailments. That's the logic of the tax. Libertarians would say don't interfere with freedom of choice, don't make me click my seatbelt, don't punish me for smoking by charging more for health insurance, and don't penalize my sugar consumption. The reality is we're all roadkill on the superhighway to the nanny state. Better get used to it.
Here's an idea wrote:
How about we don't tax any food and have people take personal responsibility for their actions?
fixed^
"taxing sugar water"
It's not sugar, it's high fructose corn syrup.
Ok if they tax HFCS, but leave the tax off sugar water.
[quote]wejo wrote:
Stop worrying about who will win the Senate tomorrow, there is a cause we can unite against.
Sad that your dads conservative politics trumps health and fitness even at a running web site.
The beverage industry has spent a ton trying to defeat this. Is this a freebie hit job or are you getting paid for it?
thank you for drinking wrote:
I enjoy lots of the non-running threads on the message boards, but I find this one -- the site taking an "official" stand on a contentious issue that has nothing to do with running -- highly distasteful. I really hope you don't make a habit of promoting your own political views on the site.
They (and Malmo) do. Either by posting or deleting.
[quote]drivel wrote:
"People who opt for diet drinks do not consume fewer calories overall":
quote]
It's not about consuming fewer calories. It's about getting to eat MORE food. I would rather have an extra turkey sandwich with my diet pop.
I'm not necessarily against the concept, but 1 cent per ounce is absurdly high. .1 cent would be more reasonable
~1/5 of all 6-11 year olds are obese.
You may be content watching them lose their youth so you can have your occasional six pack of Dr. Pepper for less than 15 minutes of work at the minimum wage, but many people are not.
Personal responsibility my a___. How much disposable income did you have when you were 6-11 years old?
The tax is worth a try.
http://www.letsrun.com/whyvotebush.phpthank you for drinking wrote:
I enjoy lots of the non-running threads on the message boards, but I find this one -- the site taking an "official" stand on a contentious issue that has nothing to do with running -- highly distasteful. I really hope you don't make a habit of promoting your own political views on the site.
4runner wrote:
Personal responsibility my a___. How much disposable income did you have when you were 6-11 years old?
The tax is worth a try.
They can drink water instead of soda.
WTF LETSRUN? Your country is fat as f*ck. You need this ruling
I learned from an early age that dumbdumbs need analogies to understand things better. Here is one for you: speed limit on a given road is 60mph. It is the same for everyone, that is how laws work son. Now you are coming and saying you should be able to drive at 70mph because you are a good driver. Despite that being true, it doesn't change the facts: for the masses 60mph is safer and better.
And get your facts straight: sodas make a huge difference in one's health. Your use of the word 'remote' is a shame and it goes to show how stupid you are.
SomeBloke wrote:
WTF LETSRUN? Your country is fat as f*ck. You need this ruling
I learned from an early age that dumbdumbs need analogies to understand things better. Here is one for you: speed limit on a given road is 60mph. It is the same for everyone, that is how laws work son. Now you are coming and saying you should be able to drive at 70mph because you are a good driver. Despite that being true, it doesn't change the facts: for the masses 60mph is safer and better.
Driving too fast can hurt other people. Drinking soda only hurts yourself. They're not comparable.
SomeCoach wrote:
...If we want national health care (which I don't) then we have to police the behaviors which drive the cost of this service up. This is the issue. If the government deems it necessary to keep us alive as long as necessary, then they need to keep us from doing things which make us unhealthy.
Wejo's take on this is childish, "...this really is about a few people deciding what is best for the rest of us." Nearly anyone that has run a business or sat on the board of a non-profit knows why cities are looking at expanding sin taxes. I'm going to guess that LR doesn't offer a health plan for employees.
The idea above is closest to the truth. The poster places the blame on Obamacare but it could just as well be Medicare. Healthcare costs are the largest component of the national deficit. The 1.6% that most of us chip in from our paychecks (not inflation adjusted!) unsurprisingly does not get the job done and it covers less and less each year. The available policy solutions to bridge the shortfall are higher revenues or reduced costs. Similar to public policy on tobacco, this idea addresses both solutions. Similar to public policy on tobacco, increases in cost will lead to marginal changes in behavior and a decrease in long-term public deficits. Critics are welcome to name an alternative course of action with knowable and predictable outcomes. Demanding the public to be 'accountable' and 'responsible' but not asking the same of policy makers is childish.
Another analogy then...
Think of a different world where 74% of your friends are allergic to peanuts. But they are dumb, they keep eating it. They get sick every now and then. Some even die. But they are so dumb that they can't link it to eating peanuts.
You, on the other hand, you love peanuts and they don't make you sick at all. Now your birthday is coming. Your mom asks what cake do you want. Without much thinking, you say 'I want peanut cake!'. Your mom reminds you that some of your friends will get sick at your party. You, being the spoiled brat that you are, decide to go with peanuts anyway.
And that is the story of how you killed a few of your friends because you had to get YOUR favourite cake while everyone else shouldn't be eating it. But that's fine, you were just being a brat. A spoiled brat.
BTW, if you don't get what 74% stands for, that's the percentage of overweight americans.
You are the exception son. Go with the flow and let this one pass. It is a good thing for your country.
Hayduke wrote:
"this really is about a few people deciding what is best for the rest of us."
Isn't that what happens when a bunch of people vote for one candidate? Anywho.... How about better regulations on what goes into food and drinks?
Yes. This is where we take a stand. Start wars all over the Muslim world at the behest of the Lobby? No problem. Gut the bill of rights? Say nothing. Spy on all of our citizens? Who cares. But tax our soda? Now they've gone too far
Wejo, why do you care so much about paying more for your Dr Pepper, but you don't care about having to pay much, much more in health insurance premiums to cover the medical care of all the unhealthy people in this country?
Here's an idea wrote:
Here's an idea wrote:How about we don't tax any food and have people take personal responsibility for their actions?
fixed^
??? If they took said responsibility, we would not need such polices to deter poor decisions.
People DO NOT take responsibility! You and me end up "taking responsibility" via jacked up insurance rates because these dumbf$+@ guzzle concentrated sugar by the gallon instead of eating responsibly.
What if poor drivers weren't ticketed or otherwise punished? And we ALL paid higher rates instead of just the bad drivers?