LetsRun.com is Officially Against the Soda (ang Gatorade and Tea) Tax: Join With Us

Democrats are an Obamanation.

wejo wrote:

Occasionally I can buy a 12 pack of Dr. Pepper for $2.50. At 2 cents an ounce, the tax would nearly double the price adding $2.44 (12 x 12 ounces X .02)

$2.88

wejo wrote:

to the price. At one cent an ounce the price would go up nearly 25%.

57.6%

People can simply purchase their sugar water outside of Berkeley. This proposal reminds my of "dry" communities for alcoholic beverages. I don't see much difference.

Please read research before you talk. Decreasing consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is the single most effective way to reduce obesity. What "better ways" do you (someone who has zero expertise on public health policy) suggest?

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199317

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.short

Oh, by the way, just because you aren't overweight doesn't mean your soda habit isn't unhealthy. Enjoy your insulin resistance.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/9/2121.full

I have smoked a pack of cigarettes everyday for the past 35 years and my doctor tells me I'm healthy as a horse. Crazy government keeps taxing the heck out of the damn things anyhow. How dare they try to sway me from smoking cigarettes by increasing the taxes on them at a crazy rate. I'm with you Wejo. It's time to take back America. Remove all taxes on items that the government say are "Unhealthy" to be consumed on a daily basis.

Argue all you want about the government's right to tax "unhealthy" foods, but the link to soda's health risks are not "remote."

Read the medical literature. Or alternatively, read the list of ingredients on a Dr. Pepper. These products are horrible for you, and the fact that you drink them and yet are not obese is not evidence to the contrary.

Unhealthy lifestyles create a burden on public infrastructure (health care etc.), so it's not economically ridiculous to tax products that are so clearly contributing to the problem. Oversimplified, it's just correcting for a negative externality. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, and the idea that the government should tax certain food products they disapprove of is a little shaky.

But it's not ridiculous.

Wejo, have you ever had someone say something really dumb about running and think that what they were saying made obvious "common sense" but only revealed how little they know about the topic?

That is what you are doing right now. Please stop. You're giving higher education a really bad name. You know nothing about public health. Stick to running. You actually know something about running.

And perhaps take some advice from Mark Twain: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

"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?

Someone gets his marching orders from sarah palin.

aslan wrote:

Unhealthy lifestyles create a burden on public infrastructure (health care etc.), so it's not economically ridiculous to tax products that are so clearly contributing to the problem. Oversimplified, it's just correcting for a negative externality. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, and the idea that the government should tax certain food products they disapprove of is a little shaky.

But it's not ridiculous.

Where does this end though? Should pie be taxed because people can eat a lot of it and get fat? Cake? Cookies?

Here's the thing .....

The government should be the hell out of our lives outside of basic services ... move my water, move my sewage, give me roads, etc.... and make me pay for it, I won't complain.

After that, leave me alone!! If I want to smoke three packs a day, chain smoke away. Eat 5000 calories, wahoo ...

BUT!!! 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.

And this is why ObamaCare is bad ... once that is in place, then they have a reason (possible right?) to tell us how to live .... do I think it's noble to provide health care with someone with a genetic issue? Yes, I'm a good person. But it is a slippery slope my friends ....

Seriously Wejo, that's the type of post your brother is supposed to make. You're the smart one!

Do you even live in Berkeley, Wejo?

wejo wrote:

I believe shows how this really is about a few people deciding what is best for the rest of us.

Did you miss the part where those registered in the relevant communities get to vote on it?

Hasn't the government been "telling you what to eat" all along? Fast food and the sweetened bev industries are profitable thanks in large part to artificially low costs for corn and other grains due to federal subsidies.

Were you trying to write that they are taxing Tang?

jgfsjjdghjdhgj wrote:

Where does this end though? Should pie be taxed because people can eat a lot of it and get fat? Cake? Cookies?

How about with "insert your favorite sweetener"?

It should be 10 cents.

This wouldn't be necessary if the government stopped subsidizing corn production.

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?

The fda regulates the hell out of everything we eat and drink. People are not fat because they drink a soda. They're fat because they drink 4 or 5 sodas and don't exercise. If I want to eat a cinnabon or an oreo, I don't morons like you who probably smoke weed every day to tell me what's healthy.

We tried prohibition once. Didn't work.