Free Market Groups See Soda-Tax Conspiracy

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I have a caloric intake of about five thousand a day just to maintain body weight. I enjoy running and would be very dissatisfied if it cost me that much more just to have the energy to exercise every day. All so some overweight slacker without a job can get his arteries vacuumed.

Stephen of PA 12:05PM November 19, 2009

@Stuart of AR
You have to be joking. Who are you or any others to say what an individual can consume or not consume? Freedom should be something valued. If Bob wants to sit in his living room and drink soda or heck eat straight lard that is his choice and a freedom to do so.
You site come phoney line that "We all will pay tenfold more with the financial timebombs of ballooning healthcare costs from the effects of diabetes and obesity epidemics." The simple answer is don't. Whatever happened to a world of personally responsibilty? Just as it's his choice to drink the soda he must also bear the responsibility of his actions and "personally" pay the costs of his choices.
This concept of "I have to tell you what to do because you're to supid to make proper choices and I have to take care of you." Sounds more like control and tyranny rather than freedom and liberty.

Terra Branford of WV 5:11PM November 18, 2009

Why just a tax on soda's? Why not also tax cakes, cookies, pies, ice cream and candy?
Better yet tax sugar and corn based sweeteners. Then all those products that are "bad" for us can be removed from the marketplace.
Once that is done we can go after fried food, red meat and other "evil" foods. Better yet, just get straight to the desired answer and make everyone a vegan.
Or we could let folks be responsible for their own bodies. I do not driks sodas with sugar, but I do enjoy a small sweet almost every day. I weigh the same as I did 40 years ago. I do eat less and exercise more to maintain my weight. Why should the government restrict what I choose to eat and drink based on issues that others might have?
One more attempt by the government to eliminate freedom of choice.

Bob of TX 11:08AM November 18, 2009

Wasn't there a tax on something like this once before in US History? Maybe it was removed from the history books the folks in Congress studied in school. Let me refresh the memory. Boston; the late 1770's; and a band of mery men made a teapo out of a tempest called Boston Harbor over an excessive tax on Tea - the favorite beverage of that day.
The result could be similar. In 1776 the local residents of tis continent sent the rulers packing. Something similar could happen again - watch what happens next November Election Day.

Gerald Eberwein of AZ 10:24PM November 17, 2009

Diabetes and obesity are epidemics in the US. We all will pay tenfold more with the financial timebombs of ballooning healthcare costs from the effects of diabetes and obesity epidemics. If a High Sugar Tax is a tool to fight diabetes and obesity, then let's go for it.
A High Sugar Tax is not preordained, but it would no different than taxing booze or tobacco to discourage people from overdosing on sugar. Maybe delaying a tax with another study will get manufacturers to shape up first, but that's very doubtful as industry policing itself is proven to be another lobbyist gimmick. Just like the ads suggesting grassroots behind anti-soda tax movement are anything other than another astroturf lobbying effort to improve industry bottomline - public health be damned. The only conspiracy is the dishonest effort to make a quick buck off sickening the people.
A High Sugar Tax is doing the honest thing confronting the costs up front and if it deters consumers from making unhealthy choices all the better, regardless if it cuts in on the profits of peddling sugar. If the government can raise money off this while slowing the increasing rate of diabetes and obesity in this country, then put proceeds towards a down payment on the costs of this public health epidemic.
These so-called 'pro-free-market groups' mock us with their freeloading marketing tactics - these clowns are just paid lobbyists, professional marketers pushing sugar like a drug. If you don't like sales taxes on products, tax the manufacturers directly if they want to peddle sugar. Better yet let's tax any company that resorts using to lobbyists. Paying for these sleazeball lobbyists adds more to the price of sugar drinks than any High Sugar Tax does, but at least with a tax people know what they are paying for.

Stuart of AR 8:14PM November 17, 2009