LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+56 56 0
Published 2 years ago with 17 Comments
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • Yamadori
    +4

    You should have heard how desperate the opposition's radio ads were getting towards the end of the fight. Even from the get-go, they never used the word 'soda' once, it was always 'grocery' or 'everyday necessity', I guess being misleading was worth using words that polled better. Yes, I know this is a universal tactic, but it really stood out to me in this fight because of how obvious it was.

    • NinjaKlaus
      +3

      By using grocery the hope is that you'll realize that if they come for your coke today due to it's sugary substance content then tomorrow it's not far fetched they will come for your twinkies, white bread and cereals. It's a slippery slope, IMO.

  • NinjaKlaus
    +3

    That's more than their beer taxes, which is .08¢ for 160 ounces.

  • joethebob
    +3

    I don't understand this in the slightest. It's a another regressive food tax in a state with no food exception for state tax. The budgetary allocations for the funds are always drivel and will ultimately be pulled into the general fund like everything else. It taxes both sugar based drink and artificial sweeteners so there is no obesity control angle. I'm still trying to find what is supposed to qualify as a 'healthy' drink, besides say bottled water.

    • jerinoos
      +3

      I consider any kind of 100% fruit juice as a healthy drink.

      • joethebob
        +6

        Not to overgeneralize but even with the fairly rare consumptive models that actually offer 100% natural juice without adding additional sweeteners, most fruit juices have a comparable amount of sugar to your average soda by volume.

        • Bastou
          +4

          Sure, but it's naturally occurring sugar. It's not a whole lot better, just slightly. The real (health) ideal here, is to drink mostly water and eat your fruits fresh.

  • OL44893
    +3

    I'm confused on how this is actually going to help solve the problem. A similar tax has been suggested where I live and I don't get it. I'm not a nutritionist but it seems that sodas can't possibly be the only factor in control obesity. What's next? A tax on my local fish and chips?

    • Bastou (edited 2 years ago)
      +4

      In my opinion, this alone will not solve all of the problem, but is a small step in the right direction. Let me explain that :

      Part of the problem (which is more complex than most people care to admit) is that people consume too much sugar, refined in particular (notice that I said "too much", we do need sugar (carbohydrates to be precise) to live, it's the basis of the energy our muscles and other cells use). And too much transformed food with all kinds of added crap used to either sweeten the taste, change its color, make it last longer (and by "last" I mean look nice, not "be edible", but that's a whole other debate) or reduce the general cost of the complete product. And too little fresh fruits and vegetables and home made dishes of all kinds (made with fresh, quality ingredients and nothing else).

      A part of the problem is that artificially sweetened beverages cost less than water, so poorer people and those that don't know better will pick the unhealthy choice without thinking. Taxing the unhealthy choice makes it more expensive, so the healthy one is more attractive, at least economically speaking.

      A more complete ideal plan (again, in my opinion), would be to tax unhealthy additives directly, on a wider scale (federally, even globally), and use that money to subsidize small farmers who sell locally, so you have 2 way leverage plan : make the unhealthy food more expensive and the fresh, locally produced food cheaper with the same action, and as an added bonus, you encourage smaller scale, closer-to-its-consumers farming, which is very tough economically compared to bigger industries that don't care much about the quality of the food they produce (or much else besides their bottom line, really) : 3 birds, one stone!

      Edit : Oh! and by the way, artificial sweeteners that are used in diet beverages is actually worse than sugar : it makes the drink sweet without the carbohydrate that it usually means, so your brain prepares to receive an energy boost because of the taste, but it never comes, so it digests your muscle tissue instead, and if you do that often enough, your body gets used to it (not receiving the energy that it needs, despite the taste), so it stocks any form of energy it can find elsewhere, in the form of fat. So diet beverages actually make you fatter than the regular (still crap for your health) sweet beverages. And that is without considering a good chunk of these artificial sweeteners are also carcinogenic (they give you cancer).

      • joethebob
        +3

        Edit : Oh! and by the way, artificial sweeteners that are used in diet beverages is actually worse than sugar : it makes the drink sweet without the carbohydrate that it usually means, so your brain prepares to receive an energy boost because of the taste, but it never comes, so it digests your muscle tissue instead, and if you do that often enough, your body gets used to it (not receiving the energy that it needs, despite the taste), so it stocks any form of energy it can find elsewhere, in the form of fat. So diet beverages actually make you fatter than the regular (still crap for your health) sweet beverages. And that is without considering a good chunk of these artificial sweeteners are also carcinogenic (they give you cancer).

        I'd love to see some credible sources for any of this. It's may be generally accepted by noueveau hippy types, but there is little and no science behind almost all of it. For starters all the cancer studies that seem to be constantly recycled like a social virus, is complete bunk. The only ones I'm aware of tested with dosages so far out of proportion to the size of the test subject that many so called 'healthy' compounds would have been lethal.

        • Bastou (edited 2 years ago)
          +3

          some credible sources for any of this

          - Harvard
          - US National Library of Medicine

          But the evidence about cancer seems to be week indeed, I'll give you that.

          • AdelleChattre (edited 2 years ago)
            +3

            From the first source given:

            There is conflicting research surrounding the health benefits of artificially sweetened drinks. Long-term studies show that regular consumption of artificially sweetened beverages reduces the intake of calories and promotes weight loss or maintenance, but other research shows no effect, and some studies even show weight gain.

            From the second:

            Presently, there is no strong clinical evidence for causality regarding artificial sweetener use and metabolic health effects, but it is important to examine possible contributions of these common food additives to the global rise in pediatric obesity and diabetes.

            Around cancer, from the third:

            Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) of these sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other FDA-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans.

            Intuitively, it seems like formaldehyde and formic acid being metabolites of aspartame would hint at there being something to find with a good look. Still, though, crazily enough, there's no "there" there.

            • Bastou
              +2

              Still, I wouldn't touch that shit until it's unequivocally proven as harmless.

            • AdelleChattre
              +2
              @Bastou -

              It's unequivocal. I was weirdly disappointed too. There's more to worry about in the plastic bottles and environs than the artificial sweeteners.

            • Gozzin
              +3
              @AdelleChattre -

              Yep..And plastic is destroying wildlife on land and in water world wide..And it's screwing us up too.

            • Bastou
              +4
              @AdelleChattre -

              It's funny to compare Europe and America's approaches to banning products for agricultural and human consumption. In Europe, if something is suspected to cause harm, it is first banned, and people who want to use/sell it have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's harmless. In the USA, before something gets banned, people have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it causes harm, and then again, if a lobby representing anyone making money out of that product is strong enough, it may not get banned even if there is substantial proof that it's harmful!

    • NinjaKlaus
      +3

      Some places do have a salt tax! Other places wanted a sugar tax kind of like the coke tax but I don't know if they passed them.

      They claim it's for the obesity problem, in truth it's probably like excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, people are going to want it no matter what, so a small tax to the city or other government entity is a win to them. I claim I love the people, I'm just looking out for the kids but I'm actually using you to get monies!!!

Here are some other snaps you may like...