Regulation madness: Philly ‘soda tax’ causes massive job losses, Democrat finger-pointing

[Frederick Foresight]

I'm just saying, where does it stop?

I don't know; hopefully where it "should." But that doesn't mean it shouldn't start. There was a time decades ago when the idea of such taxes on tobacco were unfathomable, what with doctors favoring certain brands and such. But there was a much delayed paradigm shift that eventually took hold and we see things differently now; at least most of us do.

Meanwhile, I really don't think most people have come to terms with the toxicity of sugar. Science is beating the drum, but not enough people are listening. Sugar is much more ingrained in people's lifestyles than tobacco, but that doesn't make it any more innocent.

If you haven't read it yet, I urge you to spend a few minutes on this article I linked earlier in the thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyl...the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar.html

 

[Tsing Tao]

I don't know, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't start. There was a time decades ago when the idea of such taxes on tobacco was unfathomable, what with doctors favoring certain brands and such. But there was a much delayed paradigm shift that eventually took hold and we see things differently now; at least most of us do.

Meanwhile, I really don't think most people have come to terms with the toxicity of sugar. Science is beating the drum, but not enough people are listening. Sugar is much more ingrained in people's lifestyles than tobacco, but that doesn't make it any more innocent.

If you haven't read it yet, I urge you to spend a few minutes on this article I linked earlier in the thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyl...the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar.html

Oh, I'm very much aware of the problem around sugar, HFCS, etc. But people have to have some ownership in their health. You can't manage them via policy.

My wife and I work hard to make sure there is no HFCS in our house, and that our son only gets a little sugar a day. It sure as hell isn't easy. As CPG companies see more and more consumers pushing back, they are working to get healthier ingredients into their products.

Saying "you don't know (where it stops) doesn't mean it shouldn't start" is very dangerous. You should always explore where a decision leads to before making it, no matter how right it seems at the moment.

 

[gwb-trading]

I don't know; hopefully where it "should." But that doesn't mean it shouldn't start. There was a time decades ago when the idea of such taxes on tobacco were unfathomable, what with doctors favoring certain brands and such. But there was a much delayed paradigm shift that eventually took hold and we see things differently now; at least most of us do.

Meanwhile, I really don't think most people have come to terms with the toxicity of sugar. Science is beating the drum, but not enough people are listening. Sugar is much more ingrained in people's lifestyles than tobacco, but that doesn't make it any more innocent.

If you haven't read it yet, I urge you to spend a few minutes on this article I linked earlier in the thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyl...the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar.html

Interesting article on Yudkin.

Now I have one follow-up question. Why is it that the same people who want to legalize pot are the same ones who want highly tax soda? Why do they always compare the sugar industry to tobacco industry when making their arguments for high soda consumption taxes while ignoring the negative public health effects of legalizing pot (which is also smoked)?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Saying "you don't know (where it stops) doesn't mean it shouldn't start" is very dangerous. You should always explore where a decision leads to before making it, no matter how right it seems at the moment.

Focusing on leading causes of disease is a good place to begin. I think most people would agree it had a positive effect on reducing tobacco consumption, and we're all better for it. Apart from diehard smokers, I don't think people were obsessed with any slippery slope as it related to tobacco taxation.

I don't see why it wouldn't work with sugar, at least and especially with the guiltiest of perps such as soft drinks.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Why is it that the same people who want to legalize pot are the same ones who want highly tax soda?

Link?

In any event, your point is something of a non sequitur. No one is looking to outlaw sugar. Rather, policy should be to influence consumption, as was successfully done with tobacco in the aggregate. As for pot, it has genuine medicinal properties. On the recreational side, I suppose you could make brownies with it. Be sure to add ground flax seed for fiber. And don't add too much sugar.

 

[Tom B]

Why do liberals think taxation is the magic elixir for every issue? And, in the case of smoking, where it has contributed to lowering usage, revenues decline. Then liberals say they have to replace the revenue stream with another tax.

 

[java]

P

I don't pretend to know the best way to go about it, but I do think sugary drinks should be heavily taxed, with the higher cost being passed on to the consumer, much as it is presently being done with cigarettes, and for the same reason.

Sugary drinks are the leading cause of obesity. Obesity has all manner of health-related risks attached to it, and then there is the considerable attendant cost of dealing with those outcomes.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/

If it was okay to tax the crap out of cigarettes, then I don't see why it shouldn't apply to soft drinks, especially since the intended market is much larger and therefore the potential health and related financial costs that much more damaging.

Philly is not Canada U.S.S.R. or some other shithole where I have to pay for your obesity so it's none of your business what a private citizen drinks. The government doesn't own the healthcare system (yet.)

 

[Max E.]

I actually found agreement with you here Freddie, I believe sugar is simalr to tobacco, im hooked on Tobacco, but never used to think i was hooked on sugar, heres the thing with the soda ban, they attack soda, but there is just as much sugar in a piece of bread in some instances, so where do they draw the line?

Also it says that they put the same tax on diet sodas, i only drink diet, i think non diet drinks taste too sugary cause i was raised on diet sodas, but Aspartame can apparently be just as bad as sugar when it comes to causing cancer and various other diseases, so where do you set the line? I dont think Soda alone is the problem, there is tons of sugar in all kinds of things, that people dont seem to think there is sugar in, so where do they draw the line?

And why specifically target soda, when there is all kinds of things that have crazy amounts of sugar that are part of our regular diet.

If anything Bread is alot more sneaky than Pop most people dont realise the amount of sugar in bread, but everyone knows there is tons of sugar in soda. Most people are of the mindset that you have to eat something sweet for there to be sugar in it, and they dont even realise that most of our every day diet now consists of insane amounts of sugar.

Reminiscences of tobacco industry denialists?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyl...the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sugar-harvard-conspiracy-1.3759582

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Max, I agree that sugar finds itself everywhere these days, and in more quantity than it did in the past, except for those products that specifically market to people looking to cut down on sugar. But soft drinks are the biggest culprit because all of their calories are derived from added sugar. Consider the photos in this link:

http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm

As for bread, yes, a lot of them do have added sugar -- even the ones that claim to be healthy alternatives. Sugar adds flavor and acts as a preservative. I don't think regular bread has anywhere near the added sugar of soft drinks, and some of it may be naturally occurring. I'm not defending sugar as an additive to bread, but I don't think it can be readily compared to what is found in pop. And although bread's reputation is being sullied these days (carbs!), it at least provided some satiety, which soda pop does comparatively negligibly. I do agree with you that sugar is somewhat stealthier in bread, and a lot of people are not aware of the added sugar they may be consuming in their ill-chosen loaves. But remember that not all breads are considered equal. Consider my bread of choice. Check the ingredients and nutritional profile:

http://www.foodforlife.com/product/breads/genesis-129-sprouted-whole-grain-and-seed-bread

Regarding artificially sweetened soda, I don't like them either, but I think the cancer scares are overblown and not backed by good science:

http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/tag/artificial-sweeteners/

The problem with diet soda is that it keeps you desensitized to sweet stuff. I think a person would be best served by weaning himself off of over-the-top sweet flavors. Appreciate the subtler taste of the underlying food. Just my opinion. It's what I did, and now I find soft drinks, cakes and the like cloyingly sweet.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Taxation is not the answer. The FDA needs to mandate that the food industry use less sugar in food and drink, and do it without artificial sweeteners. Nearly everything in manufactured food and drink has far too much sugar.