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

NonHusseinVoter wrote:

Democrats are an Obamanation.

This is who agrees with you.

Here's an idea wrote:

Driving too fast can hurt other people. Drinking soda only hurts yourself. They're not comparable.

When health care costs go through the roof and we can't get care, and Medicare and Medicaid collapse because the system is swamped with obese, diabetic people -- well, then this behavior will hurt A LOT of other people.

Well I am apparently in the minority here, but I agree with you. No one needs to smoke or drink alcohol, so they are luxuries and are taxed as they are unhealthy luxuries.

Drinks containing sugar are very useful to endurance athletes.

I would be interested to know if fruit juices will also be taxed. They are the same or worse than soda.

You ask where will it stop... it will stop when everything that is said to be unhealthy is heavily taxed (meat, dairy, fat, sugar, flour, etc). Forget the fact that grains were said to be healthy and fats bad, and now that view is changing, they will just tax as they feel at the time!

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^

How do you propose that people take personal responsibility for their actions?

If the left unchecked, the soda companies will make false and misleading ads, squash any claims as to the unhealthiness of their product and pay "scientists" to produce very dubious studies to show that soda is "good for you". They also market to children from a very early age, far before we would expect a kid to be capable of taking personal responsibility for themselves.

So, should there be legit scientific studies funded and a follow up public awarenss campaign? That would cost tax payer money.

Should we do nothing and let the burden of people's unwise decisions increase the health care costs of everyone? That would rise everyone's insurance premiums?

Or, should we put a tax on soda? That would increase revenue to help fund the problems that soda drinking causes and the burden of the cost would be squarely on those that actually drink it. It might also get some people to stop drinking it in the first place and save a lot of future health care costs.

The trouble with libertarians is that they imagine the without government intervention, we would all live in some sort of utopia. In really, everyone would look out for themselves to the detriment of society as a whole. And big corporations would completely dominate all aspects of our lives for the profit of a very few.

Spineless worm. Woke up find a number of posts deleted.

Whats the matter? Asking about the boat load of money the beverage industy has spent trying to defeat this and how much they paid you hit too close to home?

Or was it pointing out the fact that moderator Malmo deletes anything that offends his far right sensibilities?

In this case, apparently both huh?

wejo wrote:

Considering the founders of this site are not obese and drink a lot of Dr. Pepper (myself) and Coke & Dr. Pepper (Robert) we are really opposed to this tax.

Soft drinks are a leading cause of type 2 diabetes, which every taxpayer subsidizes the treatment of. Make soft drinks expensive and people will drink water and juice and require fewer hospital visits. I have no problem with a soda tax probably because I don't view it as an invasion of my freedom as you do. Oh, by the way, just because you are slim doesn't mean you won't get type 2 diabetes.

Quote: People who consume sugary drinks regularly—1 to 2 cans a day or more—have a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than people who rarely have such drinks.

I don't drink soda and I don't like looking at fat people or paying their medical bills. Tax away.

what's in that soda? wrote:

"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.

And he reason they use HFCS is due to massive corn subsidies by the DOA, which has also wrecked most economies in the Caribbean.

I don't agree with a lot of the reasons that you object to this.

"Considering the founders of this site are not obese and drink a lot of Dr. Pepper (myself) and Coke & Dr. Pepper (Robert) we are really opposed to this tax."

I'm OK so it should be OK for everyone is not a good reason.

Many people have smoked without getting cancer.

Driven drunk without hurting anyone.

Driven without seatbelts without getting hurt, etc.

Mass consumption of sweatened drinks really has been an issue that hurts the population as a whole.

But I may agree overall with your opposition to this.

It would be more a revenue source than a function that would alter behavior.

And it would hurt the pockets of the poor.

I really don't care if you two may have to pay more for soda.

I just don't think this will solve obesity.

Just like their Happy Meal ban was more of a moral victory than one that changed children's eating habits.

Maybe the US shouldn't do so much to help subsidize and protect the sugar industry first.

And maybe we can come up with better soft drinks and get better drink options in restaurants.

Just tax the fat people directly, A Fat Tax. Then they won't have the discretionary income to buy soda. And no food stamps for fatties either...

Chumba Wumba wrote:

I don't drink soda and I don't like looking at fat people or paying their medical bills. Tax away.

wejo wrote:

Considering the founders of this site are not obese and drink a lot of Dr. Pepper (myself) and Coke & Dr. Pepper (Robert) we are really opposed to this tax.

Considering that I believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, and there has been no negative consequence to me for having this belief, I hereby declare that LetsRun Officially believes that the sun revolves around the Earth!

Wejo is a Republican shill whose daddy worked for Bush 1, and who urged Letsrun viewers to vote for Bush 2 in 2004. Every time he speaks about politics he reminds us what a moron he is.

Why do Wejo and Rojo care about the laws in Berkeley, CA? Republicans are supposed to be all about states' rights, so they should be all about cities' rights too.

Even if this were a case of elected officials cramming something unwanted down its citizens' throats, at the local level it is easy to boot someone from office, vote in someone with the opposite idea, then repeal an unpopular law. But no, this is a direct vote by the citizens of Berkeley!

It is a good thing when smaller municipalities and states experiment with new laws. It allows the rest of us to study the intended and unintended consequences.

But seriously, why do you even care? If the people want it, they'll vote for it. If they don't, they won't. Let them decide for themselves.

Wejo, your ignorance (or stupidity) about the nutritional value of soda and other sweetened drinks is appalling. It's like pouring poison into your system. It happens to be in liquid form, though, so the body takes in all the terribleness of it and then urinates out the remaining liquid and traces of whatever else went through the kidneys and urethra. The calories from it get burned in the body because all calories can be burned; not because the calories had any nutritional value. Artificially sweetened low calorie drinks are just as bad if not worse, as the chemicals in them do not digest (they have no caloric burn value), so they either get trapped in the body that doesn't know how to handle them or else manage to pass straight through. Excessive sugar can lead to diabetes. High fructose is too high of a concentration for normal digestion. Sweeteners can cause insulin resistance. Caramel coloring is a carcinogen. Other colorings can kill sperm, contribute to cancer, or harm childhood development (bad for everyone, but easier to observe in smaller humans). Diet sodas are basically acid put directly into the body and a whole other kind of bad, too. You should really learn about the contents of what you put in your body.

X-Runner wrote:

Maybe the US shouldn't do so much to help subsidize and protect the sugar industry first.

And maybe we can come up with better soft drinks and get better drink options in restaurants.

This is essentially the problem. Nixon administration declared a war on poverty. The goal was to provide cheaper foods in abundance. This was great in theory and it worked. The result, unfortunately, is a grocery store full of processed foods. The cheapest things to buy are what we can mass produce in manufacturing, which means foods devoid of nutrition like we would get from something fresh from a farm. Carbohydrates store well and can be most easily produced so we have stores full of affordable pasta, salt-laden soups to help them preserve and appeal to taste, and artificially sweetened food/drink because sugar is cost-inefficient for the sweetness level it gives per unit.

Processed foods are cost-efficient manufacturing and therefore affordable to the consumer. A major change would be required in policy across the US for natural foods to stand any chance of competing.

0/10

You forgot to start with "serious question guys"

Sugar is one of the worst drugs in America. Will a tax make the masses unaddicted? No, of course not. This is a step in the right direction. Tax it and send that money towards the health care costs that all the diabetic medication costs the healthy individual.

Tax all processed, sugar-laden, forever-shelf-life foods. Then give tax relief to foods that are fresh and healthy to bring those costs down for the consumer.

If people want to destroy their bodies with crap, at least I can sleep a little better knowing that they are contributing to some of their own health care costs.

can I just say, as reasonable adult, that the insults against the brojos are out of line?

the insulters are like kids who think insulting their parents and teachers makes them appear tough to their friends.

it's one of the weirdest things that goes on here - those insults.

I'll bet these guys are shareholders of DPS.