San Fran Mayor wants to tax pop!

[Tiggerlives]

These things have NOTHING to do with how people eat and moreso with how our culture is shaped

I can't find the study that I just read showing the percentage estimate increase in health care premiums caused by unhealthy lifestyle choices. It's a major factor (medical malpractice suits as well as carefree use- or misuse- of one's insurance were the others)

[refurbmike]

It's all about what the individual can control. You can choose not to eat a Twinkie. You can't choose your race. For the most part being obese is a choice one makes (yes, there are genetic outliers which cause natural obesity)

So now it doesn't matter about the cost burden to the greater good. I should have to pay the same rates as others who use more resources than I do, but it's okay because they don't have a choice?

[Tiggerlives]

So now it doesn't matter about the cost burden to the greater good. I should have to pay the same rates as others who use more resources than I do, but it's okay because they don't have a choice?

Makes sense. You can't punish people for that which they have no control over.

Take a mall. A kid is crying because he didn't get a toy. Is it his fault? Yes. Unless you know the kid is autistic and doesn't function in the same way as normal children and is crying because he can't communicate in another way.

It's all about choice. Isn't that how punishment in America works? We ticket those who speed, who drive drunk, who text while driving...all because statistics show that such actions are dangerous to other drivers.

[club33az]

Apparently, people are interested in 'how' you do it. And, yes, the people at Hostess know they're killing Americans.

Hostess is not killing people. Eating a twinkie doesn't kill people. Eating 12 a day kills people. Drinking 12 sodas a day kills people. Taking too many vitamins can kill people. Eating only vegetables can kill people. Eating or drinking one every once in awhile is perfectly fine. Just like drinking too much water can kill people. But taken in moderation is beneficial. But this tax effects every single person who drinks every single soda, no matter if it's in moderation or not. The product is out there. It's up to the individual to take it in moderation. And to live a healthy lifestyle. And a tax can't control that.

Vitamin-taking would be rather hard to prove, no?

Why? Remove the sales tax from vitamins. BUT even that can be detrimental to your health if you take too much. Again, this isn't controlling anything. It's lining the pockets of the government.

[refurbmike]

Makes sense. You can't punish people for that which they have no control over.

This is about punishing people? I thought it was about having people pay fairly? That is, making people pay more if they cost the system more.

[Tiggerlives]

This is about punishing people? I thought it was about having people pay fairly? That is, making people pay more if they cost the system more

Wait...isn't making them pay their equal share a punishment? Or, are you saying that it would simply be a fair payment to general society. I can agree with that, but MOST people view paying something extra- if if it is deserved- as a punishment.

Semantics aside, isn't that what this arguement boils down to 'you can't punish the obese?' Even though, logically, that's what the unhealthy do daily to the healthy?

[Tiggerlives]

Again, this isn't controlling anything. It's lining the pockets of the government.

But why do you fail to acknowledge studies that show direct correlations between the price increases of cigarettes and smoking cessation?

Again, even if (to the politicians) it isn't about controlling soda consumption...it can/will help the problem based on the cigarette tax research done.

Hostess is not killing people. Eating a twinkie doesn't kill people. Eating 12 a day kills people.

As far as I know, there is no known positive nutrional value in a Twinkie. And, using that logic, would it be OK to sell cocaine? Because, you know, cocaine doesn't kill people- an overdose kills people. Both are extremely addictive. And, much like the cigarette industry, exists solely to provide a product that does far more harm than good.

[refurbmike]

Wait...isn't making them pay their equal share a punishment? Or, are you saying that it would simply be a fair payment to general society. I can agree with that, but MOST people view paying something extra- if if it is deserved- as a punishment.

I'm not saying any of this. I'm trying to figure your argument out.

At first, you were saying "people should pay their fair share." In which, I agree. If you cause a car accident, you should pay more insurance. If you have to go to the doctor's all the time, you should pay more. Those aren't punishments any more than you have to pay twice as much to buy twice the services as I do.

However, punishing people up front for their choices is different. Now you are taking sweeping blows en masse at the chance those people *might* have complications deriving from soda. Many of those people may die from accidents completely unrelated (car crash, roller coaster accident, etc.), yet they must pay for medical expenses they'll never see.

I would agree with price increases that are resulting from complications. So if a person who compulsively drinks soda is constantly visiting the hospital, they should be charged more for those hospital visits. Not for the soda.

[club33az]

As far as I know, there is no known positive nutrional value in a Twinkie.

So because you don't know any positive nutritional value of a Twinkie, that means Hostess is killing people?

And again, you're comparisons are WAY out of proportion. Soda drinking compared to head on auto collision. Now it's Twinkies compared to cocaine. If you can't see the differences in these comparisons and make a rational argument, I can't help you.

[Goin2Disneyland]

I think the real point we should be discussing here is why ANYONE still lives in San Francisco. One of the dirtiest, most expensive cities on the face of the planet - and it's cold all the time!