San Fran Mayor wants to tax pop!

[club33az]

I think my, and most especially your, posts speak for themselves. Again, just......wow.

[refurbmike]

Like I said, the brain is very powerful. Those making drugs know how to create a product that push the exact right buttons to create addiction.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about Big Brother helping out- because you wouldn't have to worry about people with less-than-honest intentions. But we do.

And you think taxes from Big Brother are going to stop your powerful brain from making stupid decisions, more than your friends and family who are personally involved and invested in your life. Gotcha.

[Tiggerlives]

And you think taxes from Big Brother are going to stop your powerful brain from making stupid decisions, more than your friends and family who are personally involved and invested in your life. Gotcha.

No, like I said- it's Big Brother's responsibility (as elected representives of the public) to level the playing field for the individuals of this nation. To have the public's best interests in mind when looking at what goes into food production in the USA. To ensure that corporations aren't simply creating addictive foods to increase profit margins at the expense of the health of the nation.

[refurbmike]

No, like I said- it's Big Brother's responsible (as elected representives of the public) to level the playing field for the individuals of this nation. To have the public's best interests in mind when looking at what goes into food production in the USA.

Level the playing field = taxing those foods it finds least redeeming?

[Tiggerlives]

Level the playing field = taxing those foods it finds least redeeming?

If it = science. Unemotional, scientific proof.

And as before, taxing is one of the last things I'd like to see. More needs to be done, and should be done. But you have to settle for what you can get when you can get it.

Taxing also isn't just about reducing consumption, it's also about supporting educational programs (as the article posted 100 pages ago suggests). Where, in this economic climate, are the funds for the education many want to see going to come from if not taxation?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the six functions of government, as set forth in the Constitution, to promote general welfare? Do you think allowing corporations to profit-feed on the general public's brain chemistry and health is promoting general welfare?

[refurbmike]

Where, in this economic climate, are the funds for the education many want to see going to come from if not taxation?

Yes, because clearly lack of funds has been the problem with out State's education system - but again, that's another debate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the six functions of government, as set forth in the Constitution, to promote general welfare?

And the next item is "secure the blessings of liberty". This means free choice. And, by extension, a free economy.

[Tiggerlives]

And the next item is "secure the blessings of liberty". This means free choice. And, by extension, a free economy.

And who wins when a free economy directly competes against the best interests of the general welfare?

Do you really think that the Founding Fathers meant for an unabated path to corporate greed? That corporations would be allowed to ingest food with addictive chemicals....again, taking away (or limiting) free choice?

And using your Orwellian abstracts...where does it stop? If drugs are OK, can we put cocaine back in coke? Would you be fine if, say, a company invented a food product that created something worse than the physical addiction needed now? What if a certain food product was found to acutally alter DNA and thus force generational needs onto the children of users (certain drugs and/chemicals are already being discovered to do just that).

It's all OK because of the right to freedom? Those actions, and the actions of many corporations, work against freedom.

If sugar wasn't addictive, you'd have solid grounds for the argument of freedom. But being addictive sorta works against that, doesn't it?

And, yes, I know many people don't realize how addictive sugar is, or how the brain chemisty is affected. Mark my words- this will be a big health revelation of the next decade.

[cinder]

But what if the next thing they go after is Coors Light?

Let them go after Coors Light, wouldn't bother me any. Let them go after all beer. Those who abuse it will still buy it, regardless of the price. Go to Canada....the price of beer is triple what it is here, and can only be purchased in liquor stores...not 7-11s, not grocery stores. They should do that here.

[club33az]

I really wish they would go after liquor much more aggressively. I mean, if they're going to go after cigs and (possibly) soda, somehow liquor is left out of the equasion. I guess the liquor companies have better lobbyists than the others.

Actually, I REALLY wish they wouldn't go after anything. Government has no business taxing something THEY find unredeeming and "evil."

[refurbmike]

Do you really think that the Founding Fathers meant for an unabated path to corporate greed? That corporations would be allowed to ingest food with addictive chemicals....again, taking away (or limiting) free choice?

Yea, I forget... what was our Founding Fathers attitude towards taxing certain drinks, hmm?? How about the Father of Economics? What did he think about government involvement in the economy?

And to answer your question more directly, they knew that greed fuels an economy. Where would we be now if people weren't greedy? You think cars were invented to prosper humanity? Or that somebody was trying to make money off an idea?