Community Chat

[Marp]

---

shoekitty wrote:

It is just my opinion, but diet soda is almost as bad, because of the artificial sugar.  I think it is fine in moderation, but like anything...in excess is not good.  Jmho

---

If the language of the new law is "sweetened" as indicated in an earlier post then those sweetened with artificial sweeteners should not be exempt from the tax.

Sweetened is sweetened regardless of the sweetening resulting from sugar, agave, honey or aspartame.

[Snoopp]

There's got to be a legal challenge on this by a few parties, I would think.

[GSPgirl]

My brother just moved  to Norway and they just enacted an 83% hike on all sugary foods.  Sweden is really excited because Norwegians will come there to buy soda and sweets. Norway is trying to force people to be more healthy.  Just like when I lived in England.  Every vice had a huge tax on it.  My sister lives in Seattle and v*ted for these people that raised the tax on her special Scotch.  When we are together at our cabin in another state she goes out to buy her load of scotch to take back to Seattle.  I don't say a thing. 

[tansy]

I’m not for these *sin* taxes.

[garl]

Funny how govvernment masks bad stuff by calling it "progressive," which used to be a good thing and a positive word.

[CLEM]

We have had this soda tax for a few years already in Philadelphia.

[suzyQ3]

People hate overreach and intrusion by the government -- but they so very selectively. Everyone has some issues in which they want government intrusion.

I'm in favor of a tax that will help even just a little to curb the massive doses of sugar that can cause many diseases and that help prop up our obesity rate.

[Goldengate8361]

I am sooooooooo glad I don’t live in one of these so-called progressive cities that thinks it their business to tax my diet soda! I think of about 10,000 things that are more dangerous than my Coke Cherry Zero!! I’m more than a little appalled at people’s willingness to relinquish personal freedoms to the government. 

[Moonchilde]

---

@cherry wrote:

I wonder if they are taxing diet soda as well? 

---

If the true reason they (or any other state) passed the law was to get people to stop drinking sugary drinks, then IMO diet soda should never be taxed.

If diet drinks were taxed, for one thing it would penalize any diabetic who drinks diet soda of necessity. Diabetics drink diet soda to lower their sugar intake. 

IMO, if a govt wants to mandate peoples’ health regardless of their individual choices, then that govt should just open giant food provision centers and feed everyone “healthy” food and drink. Like elementary school cafeteria food. Sooooo delicious. Oh and - no one can get food anywhere else. That’s what taking choices away does.

Of course @cherry I know I’m preaching to the choir with you ;-)

As was touched on in a recent thread, fat-shaming, which this is, it doesn’t matter that they claim it’s “for your health,” it’s just governmental fat shaming - does not work 95% of the time.

Here’s a thought - they could have BMI charts attached to scales in every store that sells soda. Before you’re allowed to purchase any you have to be weighed. If the BMI chart says you’re overweight or obese, you won’t be able to buy.  Or maybe just have a bouncer who won’t let anyone over 150 lbs in the door. The possibilities are endless.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@esmeraldagooch wrote:

---

@SahmIam wrote:

No problem with it. Sugar is proving just as deadly to us as cigarettes. Increase the price to the point that people will have to make different choices in their "snacks". I've yet to hear a doctor or any health provider say "MORE SUGAR. YOU NEED MORE SUGAR IN YOUR DIET."

More fruit, more vegis, more protein....yes. Not more processed junk snack cwap food.

---

I guess that is fine until they tax something YOU enjoy or like to eat.....  The city govenment has NO right to nudge anyone into not eating or drinking anything.  

---

They absolutely don't. This legislating diet is one great big mistake. 

Back in the day, when they started regulating smoking in public areas (not that I'm against it, as I don't smoke and smoke really bothers my allergies), it was warned that it would be just the beginning and would lead to the government legislating what you would be allowed to eat and drink in the future. 

The future is here. THey are trying to change habits/lifestyles by taxing, and when that doesn't work, they will simply legislate it out of (legal) existence.

This isn't the role of government at any level.

---

Remember Prohibition? That worked out really well. Yup.