More Active Posts
Front Page
Are you my nanny?
 |
 20 Comments |
San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom must not think the residents of his city are capable of making healthy decisions: He is proposing a tax on soda to help fight obesity.
“The bottom line is that there is a direct nexus between high-fructose corn syrup drinks like colas and Big Gulps and obesity among schoolkids,” Newsom said Friday.
Unsurprisingly, many think this is a ridiculous idea and some are asking, “Where do you draw the line?”
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: soda tax |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Less is more
I love a good Coke especially with Mexican food. But I never drink the stuff. I used to have a TMJ problem, someone handed me an article on soda and bruxism (teeth grinding) so I quit. The results have been amazing. But if my mayor told me I couldn’t drink Coke I’d be buying it by the case!
Just the first of many Nanny-State deliverances to come from liberal Democrats and a taste of when Hillarycare gets to be the the law of the land. Say, can they do anything about her thunder thighs?
Fiscal conservatives should rejoice. Government will save millions in health care expenses. (Unless, of course, they choose to just let the ill die, as seems to be their wont.)
Ivan, very cheap shot on Hillary’s thighs. She DOES NOT have thunder thighs. She has a nice figure for someone her age.
Say, adios, where do I get that article about coke and bruxism?
Hi Michelle,
Not sure. Someone gave me a hard copy years ago. I probably haven’t had soda (Coke is not the only culprit) in years and no longer wear a mouth guard. You might try googling soda and bruxism. Just hope I spelled bruxism right;)
If you want to end the nonstop deluge of HFCS in our soft drinks and food, then end the ridiculous tax breaks and other protections our federal government gives corn farmers.
It’s funny that most conservatives will lambast any attempt to enact a Pigouvian tax like this one, but will completely ignore the root of the problem: the federal government’s tax breaks and other protections for corn producers, which cause the problem in the first place.
Food producers wouldn’t turn to HFCS if it weren’t so artifically cheap.
Lester is right.
We’re seeing a growing backlash against HFCS in everything.
We have HFCS in everything because of cane sugar tariffs and subsidized corn production.
Anyone been to the mall lately? We’re turning into a nation of porkers. Something has to be done, especially about the epidemic of childhood obesity. The local Big City paper raises money every year to buy Christmas gifts for the “underprivileged”. They often feature stories about a particular kid and why he or she needs or wants a particular gift. The other day they had a story about 13 year old “Mustafa”, whose grandfather is asking people to buy him clothes, in particular a winter coat, as he can’t afford to buy these things for his grandson, whom he’s raising because Dad’s gone and Mom’s in prison. And, gramps continued, it’s hard for an old man to find the right size clothes for a 13 year old boy who weighs 350 pounds.
Good lord! Thirteen years old and 350 pounds?! That’s child abuse. If gramps needs money for clothes for the kid, maybe he should look in the food budget for it.
And there’s also a theory that HFCS increases our appetite, rather than satisfying it. Thus, people want more & eat more, thus spending more.
Well, this conservative agrees with Lester on the diabolical corn subsidies, and always has.
And it isn’t just HFCS as a product; there’s also ethanol - one of the worst “solutions” to ecological/foreign-oil dependance problems ever to be proposed. That is, if the criticisms about it taking more energy to produce the stuff than we get by powering engines with it, are valid.
For a breathtakenly sad and funny (at the same time!) look at agricultural subsidies in America, read P. J. O’Rourke’s chapter on the subject in Parliament of Whores. He was writing about ag subsidies as they were in the 80s, but the general shape of things hasn’t changed much since.
Well, this calls into questions the whole practice of “sin” taxes. We already add special taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco, purportedly to discourage their use (and to raise money). So why not add one on to a product that we know is doing damage to kids?
Or we could get rid of the whole idea of “sin” taxes and let people make up their own mind on what they will ingest into their body.
I could go either way on that.
I could go either way, too, but research has been showing that HFCS is a substance that people should not be ingesting. Not only is it in soft drinks, but “corn syrup solids” are used as a fat substitue in many “low fat” and “diet” foods, thereby encouraging its intake by people who already have a weight problem. So this would not be a “sin” tax but a “public health” tax.
Corn syrups are metabolized by the body in a unique way. They do not trigger the brain’s ability to signal you that you are full the way sugar and other foods do. (Studies have shown this, but I don’t have time right now to look for them.) And, as Karen O. points out, some scientists now are theorizing that they actually make you crave sweets and excess carbohydrates.
Unsurprisingly, many think this is a ridiculous idea and some are asking, “Where do you draw the line?”
Too late for that. The horse got out of that barn a long time ago. Who spoke up when Newsom and the other busybodies on the San Fran City Council banned Night Train?
Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have banned the sale of Night Train in downtown and skid row areas.
http://snipurl.com/1vjsv
Can you imagine living in a city where Night Train is banned?
Neither can I.
One again, evangelical Christians discover a problem pointed out by lots of others and act as if they had discovered it.
“Government will save millions in health care expenses.”
I know how “government” can save more than that—quit funding healthcare entirely and butt the hell out of our lives.
I’m surprised Gavin would show all his cards at once with such a move. Usually, Dems try to be more sneaky—but then since they think they’ve won everything this isn’t all that surprising.
With this law, there is no doubt that he thinks he and his people have all the answers to every aspect of how this society should function—all the way down to the details of how every person should order their daily life and choose a sweetener. With his power—what he’s really all about—Gavin and his people intend to make the rest of us conform to what they think is best for us all as well as pick up some additional revenue to expand government further. Note: If they have money, they must spend it or lose it next year when the budget is determined and it becomes possible some other agency will greedily snatch it away to spend on its’ projects.
And wasn’t it just recently that all the chemical sweeteners were shown to be bad for us?
RN — If that is the best sneep you’ve got for evangelicals, you’re past due for the sabatical.
It’s time to end the sugar cane tariffs and the corn subsidies. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is to blame for bad health resulting from HFCS.
Gee, Anlir #12 likes “sin” taxes.
OK, so then, how about we tax homosexuality? Imagine the tax revenue that would generate in San Francisco!
#17
Think of it as a late Christmas present. I presume you are an adult and have enough self-control not to open your present early.