Your political view on soda

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by hwpnow

Well, this is a political forum, so I'm asking about the politics of it

"Politics" (and therefore politicians) should have absolutely no involvement in what I choose to eat or drink.

[JellySausage]

Originally Posted by adamlm

Decades ago there was no place that smoking was banned, today it is banned in alot of major cities and the product is taxed beyond rational thought.
If it is socially and politically acceptable to do this to the tobacco industry , then we are hypocrites (big shocker) if we don't do the same to soda for the same reasons.

Smoking is harmful to the health of nearby people, that's why there are rules about where you can smoke it - and is the right thing to do.

The tax however, is a blatant money grab. I don't think you should be allowed to tax consumables and claim its for our own health.

[adamlm]

Originally Posted by JellySausage

The tax however, is a blatant money grab. I don't think you should be allowed to tax consumables and claim its for our own health.

Obviously it is, as is cap and trade as is UHC

[TeeR4v_Gainer]

Originally Posted by JellySausage

Smoking is harmful to the health of nearby people, that's why there are rules about where you can smoke it - and is the right thing to do.

The tax however, is a blatant money grab. I don't think you should be allowed to tax consumables and claim its for our own health.

isn't the foundation of our federal gov't a blatant money grab?

[Enyap]

Originally Posted by yoj

If it was up to me, I would completely ban all sweetened drinks and the use of things like high fructose corn syrup. Thankfully I can make this argument because I live in Canada, a UHC country. Since we are all taxpayers who are ultimately paying for your gastric bypass, we get to have a say in the harmful things you put in your body. Americans, have fun with your high premiums...

The majority of the population thinks bodybuilding and consuming too much protein is unhealthy, you might just be singing a different tune when your beloved nanny state decides to ban protein powder. You can have your UHC, i've prefer not having my life controlled by a dictatorship of dumb@$$es.

[asylumz]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

"Politics" (and therefore politicians) should have absolutely no involvement in what I choose to eat or drink.

This. x2

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by TeeR4v_Gainer

isn't the foundation of our federal gov't a blatant money grab?

The foundation isn't. What it's evolved into is...

[kaisermeeks]

Soda Tax? Haha, we'll have to have a Boston Soda Party and dump it all in the water.

[ElHombre]

Originally Posted by US_Ranger

Wow, strong lack of logic by OP. (nothing new here)


Anyway, how does diet soda cause obesity exactly? I just bought a jug of diet arizona tea yesterday. Am I going to get fat?

diet sodas are 'safe' by pretty sketchy studies. and they're implicated in kidney damage and disease (2 diet sodas/day = a high-sodium diet).

[ElHombre]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

I used to drink up to 8 of these bad boys a day!

Never gave me any problems, apart from the stabbing pains in my heart and the inability to sleep.

jesus christ.

brb getting kidney failure and bladder cancer.

[Will.i_am]

I'm all for sin taxes.

The reason being that things that hurt society, such as soda and cigarettes that increase health care costs, should be taxed before the Utilities/Rent/Tuition is.

[BigTimexXx]

Originally Posted by ElHombre

diet sodas are 'safe' by pretty sketchy studies. and they're implicated in kidney damage and disease (2 diet sodas/day = a high-sodium diet).

What? I've never encountered any soft drink in my life that could qualify a person for a "high-sodium diet" off of two drinks (That is - 12-20 OZ.).

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

I'm all for sin taxes.

The reason being that things that hurt society, such as soda and cigarettes that increase health care costs, should be taxed before the Utilities/Rent/Tuition is.

Then where does it stop? Does absolutely everything that could in any way lead to "increased health care costs" get taxed? How about sports - they lead to increased injuries. How about any form of food that could lead to health impacts (which, based on how much you eat, is any food or drink).

Why are you so willing to hand over control of your life and daily decisions to a bunch of politicians?

(And who says society should paying for everyone's health care costs anyway?)

[Will.i_am]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Then where does it stop? Does absolutely everything that could in any way lead to "increased health care costs" be taxed? How about sports - they lead to increased injuries. How about any form of food that could lead to health impacts (which, based on how much you eat, is any food or drink).

Why are you so willing to hand over control of your life and daily decisions to a bunch of politicians?

(And who says society should paying for everyone's health care costs anyway?)

No I'm not willing to hand control of my daily life to politicians.

However, I am willing to allow government the power to make the markets factor in externalities as that is the vice of the free market. Sports certainly has a net positive effect on society so that's a bad example anyways.

Society always pays for the health care of the poor. There's not much anyone can do about it. It's simply not American to let someone who gets injured die because they don't have insurance. Right now it's in the form the poor using emergency rooms as general practitioners without paying a dime. If we're lucky and Congress gets some sense in them, we can get the poor to use general practitioners as general practitioners and even have them pay money for it.

[Stizzel]

If the OP actually cared about health he'd be wanting the really toxic crap that is approved by the FDA to be banned. But he's not a real person.

He's a robot under the control of MSNBC.

Go ahead, reply to it, all you will get is more nonsense talking points from the pro-Obama media.

[Mtguy8787]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

No I'm not willing to hand control of my daily life to politicians.

However, I am willing to allow government the power to make the markets factor in externalities as that is the vice of the free market. Sports certainly has a net positive effect on society so that's a bad example anyways.

Society always pays for the health care of the poor. There's not much anyone can do about it. It's simply not American to let someone who gets injured die because they don't have insurance. Right now it's in the form the poor using emergency rooms as general practitioners without paying a dime. If we're lucky and Congress gets some sense in them, we can get the poor to use general practitioners as general practitioners and even have them pay money for it.

So your reasoning is to justify one piece of BS using another piece of BS. Good job, dave man.

And getting injured doesnt really have anything to do with soda pop.

[Will.i_am]

Originally Posted by Mtguy8787

So your reasoning is to justify one piece of BS using another piece of BS. Good job, dave man.

And getting injured doesnt really have anything to do with soda pop.

Yes it does. Both commonly end in trips to the hospital. I could have changed the phrase "car accident" with "fat soda drinker" and the meaning of the sentence wouldn't change at all. For our purposes, it is identicle

Ok then, what's your solution for people who can't afford their emergency room trips? Roll over and die? How would we enforce something like that? That's only way society will avoid assuming the health costs of the poor. The best we can do in reality (read not in a theoretical world of social Darwinism) is to pay for the poor in a more effective manner.

[CerealKiller]

I'm against this kind of over-regulation because it's immoral.

If you don't want to drink soda for health reasons, don't drink soda. But the government shouldn't be about profiting off of people's addictions when they see a cash cow. And that's what these sin taxes are about.

There's lots of money to be made selling fast food and then treating the diseases that fast food causes. One of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry.

There's more money in amputating the limbs of diabetics than in counseling them on diet and exercise.

[ElHombre]

Originally Posted by BigTimexXx

What? I've never encountered any soft drink in my life that could qualify a person for a "high-sodium diet" off of two drinks (That is - 12-20 OZ.).

no, two diet soft drinks a day is equivalent to having a very high sodium diet in terms of kidney stress.

[CurDawg]

Originally Posted by adamlm

Decades ago there was no place that smoking was banned, today it is banned in alot of major cities and the product is taxed beyond rational thought.
If it is socially and politically acceptable to do this to the tobacco industry , then we are hypocrites (big shocker) if we don't do the same to soda for the same reasons.

Apples and oranges dude.

Exhibit A.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is drinking soda. Does it bother me?

Exhibit B.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is smoking. It smells like ****, makes me cough, and my eyes water. I go home and my clothes stink up my room until I wash the ****ing things.

[Will.i_am]

Originally Posted by CurDawg

Apples and oranges dude.

Exhibit A.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is drinking soda. Does it bother me?

Exhibit B.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is smoking. It smells like ****, makes me cough, and my eyes water. I go home and my clothes stink up my room until I wash the ****ing things.

More like:
Exhibit A.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is drinking soda. I rage because it's taking money out my pocket in health care premiums.


Exhibit B.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is smoking. I rage because it smells and I get cancer.

Both suck.

[An hero]

Originally Posted by CurDawg

Apples and oranges dude.

Exhibit A.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is drinking soda. Does it bother me?

Exhibit B.
I go into a restaurant. Everyone is smoking. It smells like ****, makes me cough, and my eyes water. I go home and my clothes stink up my room until I wash the ****ing things, I get cancer.

fixed

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

I'm all for sin taxes.

The reason being that things that hurt society, such as soda and cigarettes that increase health care costs, should be taxed before the Utilities/Rent/Tuition is.

So in other words, you want people's lives to be run by a violent centralized power, and therefore the stuff they do that increase the costs of the programs needed to do so should be taxed.

Secondly, you believe that there are not just things that you can objectively measure as "hurting" (whatever you think is bad) "society" (enough of the people to be considered society), but also that soda and cigarettes are some of these things.

[Will.i_am]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

So in other words, you want people's lives to be run by a violent centralized power, and therefore the stuff they do that increase the costs of the programs needed to do so should be taxed.

Secondly, you believe that there are not just things that you can objectively measure as "hurting" (whatever you think is bad) "society" (enough of the people to be considered society), but also that soda and cigarettes are some of these things.

I don't see how a government making products reflect externalities is a bad thing. We would be in a very nasty place if there wasn't a force that imposed this on markets. Hell, average life expectancy would probably be around 30-40 by now if it weren't for that important check on markets.

Furthermore, I don't see how taxing things with significant negative externalities qualifies as a making the government a violent, centralized power.

I'm not saying they should ban soda. I'm saying that, if someone wants to buy soda, then he should pay a larger portion of the taxes because he's making my health care premiums more expensive. Same goes for smokers.

There's a difference between banning and making people pay the actual cost of their actions rather than selfishly spreading it to society as a whole.

[US.Patriot]

The new ideology that plaques this country - "If we don't agree with it, we must ban/tax it!"

How about some logic, eh? Get this...

If you don't like Soda, don't drink it!

Yes folks, it's THAT simple!!!

[Mr Beer]

[QUOTE=hwpnow;405233771If obesity kills more Americans than marijuana, shouldn't soda be illegal and marijuana be legal?[/QUOTE]

I know, why not have both legal?

[War Machine]

What I eat and drink is no ones business....especially some politician.

My choices are my own, the consequences as well.

The same with restaurants or any other business for that matter...proprietors rights ftw!

FWIW I drink water or green tea.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

I go into a restaurant. Everyone is drinking soda. I rage because it's taking money out my pocket in health care premiums.

Really? Now you are "paying everyone's health care premiums"? So far, all you're doing is proving why Socialized Medicine is wrong. It forces everyone to equally pay for the dumb choices of others - while giving the Government a perfect excuse to step in and run your life. That's where your rage should be directed.

Do you really want to start listing and punishing every single choice that could possibly lead to "higher health care costs"? The food you eat. The way you drive. The sports and hobbies you participate in. Every choice you make throughout the day has some level of impact on your health or risk of ending up in need of medical care. Yet you only focus on cans of soda...

[gjohnson5]

THe fact of the matter is that high fructose corn sweetener is a political issue. So should all chemical preservatives which have questionable effects in the body. This is what we have a FDA and an NIH for. They police more then just prohormones....
High fructose corn sweetener may possibly increase uric acid and hence A1C which would lead to obesity and diabetes. Increases in uric acid reduce the muscles ability to uptake sugar (insulin sensitivity) and hence blood sugar in general may rise. I would say the same for chemical "zero calorie" sweeteners. I agree with the post that most of the studies are sketchy at best.

Academically and for safety purpose these chemicals should be tested in long term and high dose dependancies to measure the effects on the body. Since these chemicals appear in multple foods (and probably without the users knowledge) then higher quantities should be looked at

In general I believe calories in calories out is still the best policiy. However consumption of high "empty calorie" foods may affect energy balance as phosphate bond was saying, but as long as those calories are expended , then one should not havea problem with obesity. A "whole food" strategy is still better IMHO due to much higher macronutrients and figer content for overall health

[Will.i_am]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Really? Now you are "paying everyone's health care premiums"? So far, all you're doing is proving why Socialized Medicine is wrong. It forces everyone to equally pay for the dumb choices of others - while giving the Government a perfect excuse to step in and run your life. That's where your rage should be directed.

Do you really want to start listing and punishing every single choice that could possibly lead to "higher health care costs"? The food you eat. The way you drive. The sports and hobbies you participate in. Every choice you make throughout the day has some level of impact on your health or risk of ending up in need of medical care. Yet you only focus on cans of soda...

Let me refer you to my question for you:

Ok then, what's your solution for people who can't afford their emergency room trips? Roll over and die?

There is absolutely no way for those who can afford health insurance to not pay for those who can't afford it. It is impossible without during into a barbaric society. We can minimize the costs by making it more practical for the poor to visit general practitioners instead of emergency rooms but that's about it.

The only solution of the wealthy not paying for the health care of the poor is to refuse care to some poor person who got a heart attack, some poor person who has to have a baby, some poor person who got into a car accident, or some poor person who got his hand mashed.

Is that your idea of an improved America? Because that's the only way the rich won't pay for the poor. What your suggesting simply isn't pragmatic for any civilized society.

Edit: And no I don't only focus on cans of soda. My first post was purposely vague saying that I'm for sin taxes. If what you're doing has negative externalities, something needs to step into the market to make the market factor in said externalities in the price of the product. It's not about punishing, it's about fairness. Anything that has clear and undeniable negative impacts on others needs to have the price reflect that. As one of the faults of the free market is that it doesn't factor in externalities, something else needs to do it. That's usually government taxes.