Soda Taxes

There's Nothing SWEET About the National Soda Tax

Rep. Rosa DeLauro's SWEET Act would implement an excise tax on soda and other sweetened drinks. Supporters of the measure are difficult to find.


Renee Comet / Wikimedia Commons

Last month, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) proposed the SWEET Act, an excise tax on sweetened beverages. The tax, which has been billed as a national soda tax, would lay a one-cent duty on every teaspoon of sugar in soft drinks and other beverages. The proposal is intended "to curb obesity, diabetes, and the resulting health care costs."

It would add about 50 or 60 cents to the average cost of a six-pack of soda.

Why is this a good idea?

"When a two-liter cola is 99 cents and blueberries are over three dollars, something has gone very wrong," DeLauro told attendees.

For the record, a pint of blueberries contains more than 40g of sugar. That's about as much sugar as you'll find in a pint of soda.

Rep. DeLauro's bill, H.R. 5279, would exclude calorically sweet drinks I can only suspect that DeLauro and her Connecticut constituents enjoy, including soy, rice, or dairy-based milk products, pure fruit and vegetable juices, and alcohol beverages.

The bill is a lousy idea for several reasons, many of which I've discussed previously. First, research has shown that soda taxes are an ineffective tool for combating obesity. Some untaxed drinks will contain more sugar than those that are taxed. Soda taxes—like lotteries—serve primarily to tax those in lower income brackets. Soda consumption has fallen over the last decade even as obesity has risen. What's more, people should be able to drink a damn soda—or a rice-based milk substitute, for that matter—without the taxman judging them for their choices.

Most Americans agree. Charitably, DeLauro's bill has gained little traction. A Rasmussen poll this month found just 1 in 5 Americans surveyed support DeLauro's proposed tax. Only a handful of soda summit attendees were quick to throw their support behind the measure. Congressional co-sponsors were tougher to find. Reports at the time of the bill's introduction claimed DeLauro was "in conversations with a potential SWEET Act co-sponsor." Ultimately, just three of the DeLauro's 434 House colleagues joined her in supporting the measure, which appears to have stalled in committee.

But the handful of soda tax supporters may be insulated from these facts, given the echo chamber in which they reside. For example, Rep. DeLauro publicly announced her intentions to introduce the tax during a videotaped appearance at the Center for Science in the Public Interest's insiders-only "soda summit" in June, shortly before a New York State court sounded the death knell for New York City's reviled soda ban. (The fact one New York City health department official who spoke at the "soda summit" described the city's appeal as "critical for future efforts by the department to take action" can only be described as good news for those who think the city's future efforts shouldn't include such buffoonery.)

The CSPI summit was co-sponsored by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's philanthropic arm. DeLauro's proposed tax is similar to a one-peso-per-liter tax that took effect this year in Mexico. That tax became law thanks to a $10 million donation from the same Bloomberg charity that co-sponsored the CSPI soda summit.

If these names seem to pop up again and again—Bloomberg, DeLauro, CSPI—that's no coincidence. When few favor soda taxes, those few rule the pulpit.

But successful movements often result from many diverse voices rising above the din. Conversations about soda taxes and bans, however, are the result of a select few in positions of power who make a lot of noise. If it seems like you hear the same names—DeLauro, CSPI, Bloomberg, Marion Nestle, Mark Bittman—over and over again on this issue, that's largely because they constitute the tiny faction of Americans who support such policies. As a result, when it comes to soda taxes, it's safe—even advisable—to ignore their noise.

NEXT: Calif. Lawmaker Votes for More Regs for Ride-Sharing, Then Gets Busted for DUI

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Didn’t some old white guys go to war over a tax on sugar over 200 years ago?

    1. In remembrance, sugar was from then on bleached white. True Story.

    2. Estimates put the total tax collected by the British somewhere around 2% when you added all the consumption taxes and tariffs and whatnot. That started a goddamned Revolution.

    3. The sugar act was a tax on molasses. The technology didn’t exist at that time to mass produce refined sugar.

    4. It was over TEA, hence THE BOSTON TEA PARTY.

  2. Roll that beautiful bean footage.

    1. Ah… classic bot is back.

  3. a pint of blueberries contains more than 40g of sugar.

    Yeah but the blueberries contain all-natural *fructose* while the soda is full of . . . wait.

    1. The difference between blueberries and soda is that the blueberries contain lots of fiber. That means the sugar gets released slowly, and you can only eat so much of them before you feel full.

      1. Yeah, I was going to say something like that. No one eats a pint of blueberries (which is a dry pint, as opposed to a liquid one, but that’s a minor thing) in one sitting except maybe my father-in-law.

        However, the raw comparison is pretty useful in that it puts perspective on the proportions.

        1. If I’m out in the woods picking them I easily eat a pint if I have the time. Wild ones taste much better than cultivated varieties, but they are a lot smaller, so not so easily, actually.

    2. And blueberries are among the most expensive fruits you can buy. A pint of apples or grapes or citrus costs a whole lot less.

  4. When a two-liter cola is 99 cents and blueberries are over three dollars, something has gone very wrong

    Yeah, wtf Blueberries, why can’t you be made by mixing water with flavor, huh?! Sunshine. Fertilizer. TIME! LABOR!11one It’s just take take take with you.

  5. get rid of all these special taxes. is the only answer. Minus the prebate, apply it to stock purchases, and tax businesses.

    1. The “fair tax” is nothing but a stalking horse for a VAT.

      1. Fine. Both are consumption taxes and both are superior to income(production) taxes. Fair Tax requires repeal of the 16th amendment so there are additional protections.

    2. I’ve a better idea; put a tax on holding public office. If our would-be political leaders are going to be persistent pains in the ass (and they are) the very least they can do is pay for the priviledge.

    3. So Fair Tax but without much of what makes it the Fair Tax? Yeah, that makes sense. Stock purchases are investments and not consumption, so you DON’T tax those. Fair Tax simplifies the tax code by recognizing that consumers are the ones that pay taxes anyway, so you don’t tax businesses. And the prebate provides some protection for those truly at the poverty line, so politically it’s a requirement. Not to mention that by having the prebate you make it a progressive consumption tax which encourages production and discourages consumption(destruction).

      So aside from missing most of what makes the Fair Tax the optimum choice, you’re right.

  6. Income tax, excise tax, property tax, sales tax………….we need to start a citizens’ campaign to stop taxation. Our slogan could be “The Cupboard is Bare! There is nothing left to tax!”

    1. What about… thingy?

      1. It would certainly make chartered accountancy a lot more interesting.

    2. How about “Taxed Enough Already”?

      Oh . . .

    3. Taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years for 98% of americans.You took a taxcut during wartime for the first time in recorded human history and you still dont want to pay for the wars.Its all on the chinese credit card.Then you wonder why all the debt?

      Your slogan should be ‘dont know history or reality and dont care”

      1. [Nominal federal income] Taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years for 98% of americans


        Most people live in jurisdictions that charge sales taxes and property taxes, not to mention state income taxes which aren’t always as “progressive” as the federal income tax. Few if any of these taxes have gone down in rate, and many have gone up.

        But the reality is that the federal income tax in the lower brackets is obsolete. It is a vestigial organ kept around to appease certain voters and keep accountants employed. For the “98% of Americans” whose taxes are “at their lowest level in 50 years”, the real tax is on the value of their money.

        Inflation is the new income tax. This is an insidious and largely ignored shift in policy. It hurts those with the most liquid assets (the working poor) the hardest, and it shifts the economy from production and service (dependent on liquidity) to banking and finance (thus scoring a double hit on the working poor).

        Blaming this on “the war” is not accurate. It has been over 50 years (coincidence?) since the federal budget was balanced (the public debt has always gone up in that time, even in the mythical late 1990s).

        Also, saying it’s all on “the Chinese credit card” is not accurate. The largest holder of treasury bonds is the US government itself, and the European countries hold far more of our bonds collectively than the Chinese.

      2. More to the point, no tax cut was taken. The tax burden was shifted, not reduced. You are only looking at the fiscal side of things, but economics is bigger than just an accountant’s shell game.

  7. And the tax money raised is ‘for the children.’

  8. Another day, another Democrat trying to a regressive tax. Dietary paternalism is just how they get lay progressives to swallow it.

    1. ^to *impose* a regressive tax

  9. Petty, puritanical authoritarianism is the price we pay for civilization.

    1. I’ve lived in civilized countries; I don’t want to repeat the experince. Could we please keep the US “uncivilized” (by European standards)?

    2. The prices of junk foods don’t reflect the costs of repairing our health and the environment.Over time, having too much glucose in the blood can cause many health problems. ? because of this Diabetes is not only common and serious; it is also a very costly disease.Who do you think pays those costs?Jesus?

      Maybe you dont have health insurance and thats why you dont know about the continuous and rising costs.That would explain your dismissive attitude toward a leading cause of rising costs for all the rest of US.And those who get sick and dont have health insurance have taxpayers pick up the tab.But you dont mind that?Oh right you dont think about the real costs or consequenses of anything Just worn out jingoistic cliche’s.

      1. You’ve got a double fallacy going on there.

        First, junk food is cheap to make. This is just a fact. That it is unhealthy for you is irrelevant to the cost of producing it. Such is the reality of an industrial/post-industrial society. The cost to your health of eating nothing but junk food is an externality you created yourself, not one the junk food producers imposed upon you. The one who is responsible for the externality should pay the cost of it.

        Second, the “rising cost of health care/insurance” is an aggregate indicator of other factors. Most medical procedures are not new. They can’t possibly cost more to perform than they did when they were first developed. So the only explanatory factor (absent externalities) for why the aggregate cost of the same procedures has increased is that more of them are being performed. No one should be responsible for paying the aggregate cost.

        So what we really have, as is often the case, is a problem of externally imposed rules creating perverse incentives. If you make a man responsible for paying in proportion to the aggregate cost, rather than paying for his own part of it, then unsurprisingly he will be unconcerned with his contribution to the whole, since his actions will always be insignificant against the trend of all. Multiply this behavior across the entire economy, and without fail the aggregate cost will steadily rise.

      2. Again, more to the point, you want to control people so you can gain the benefit of paying less than the true cost of your own health care, while at the same time you want to deprive others of that same benefit lest their exercise of it increase the expense to you. You are entitled to your hypocrisy, but you are not entitled to using the state to impose it upon me.

      3. Wouldn’t the answer to the ill effects of having too much glucose be to decrease consumption of glucose? Forcefully taking money from my bank account won’t accomplish this. All the money that folks like you have already taken from my bank account hasn’t fixed anything that you have claimed was where the money would be spent.

        My health insurance costs went up because we had to pick a new ACA-company plan. The new plan is lesser to what I previously had. And my wife’s plan went up $4500/yr and she too now has a lesser plan. Guess you don’t mind that.

  10. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)

    That’s a man, baby!

    1. “Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) proposed..”

      Is there any reason to continue reading after that? You know whatever comes next is going to be asinine.

      1. True. The democrats do elect a lot of stupid bitches.

  11. For once, the nannies are in a distinct minority. How does it feel, nannies?

    1. I think they’ve always been a minority, but it takes only 10 or 20% of activists to burden the rest of us.

  12. Leslie: Well, Paunch Burger just recently came out with a new 128-ounce option. Most people call it a gallon, but they call it the regular. Then, there is a horrifying 512-ounce version that they call child size. How is this a child-sized soda?
    Kathryn Pinewood: Well, it’s roughly the size of a two-year old child, if the child were liquefied. It’s a real bargain at $1.59.

  13. OT: B?r?arbunga Activity Causes 20 Centimeter Divergence

    The land below Vatnaj?kull glacier has drifted apart by 20 centimeters (8 inches) since the seismic activity and magma flow began in B?r?arbunga volcano, which lies underneath the northwestern part of the glacier, one week ago.

    If the subglacial volcano blows, there’s an excellent chance of another air traffic disruption as we had in 2010 when Eyjafjallajokull erupted.

    1. Depending upon the size of the eruption, maybe not. First of all, the 2010 eruption (I’m not even going to try and spell the name of the volcano) allowed scientist to develop better models on how the volcanic ash disperse and the fact we had very little information on how the volcanic ash dispersed caused the airlines to cancel flights as a precaution rather than known danger.

      Secondly, we have studied the affects of volcanic ash on aircraft and aircraft engines and have a better handle on how they are affected. The combination of the two would lead to less air traffic disruption than 2010 as long as the next eruption is similar.

      1. There’s also a decent chance that the ash plume won’t be nearly as bad. It depends on the viscosity of the lava (low viscosity=low ash, high viscosity = lots of ash, similar to the one in 2010, and Icelandic volcanoes can have either), and exactly what effects the glacier has on the eruption. Right now there are two theories on what will happen in the event of an explosion similar to the one in 2010: either the flash steam explosions will pulverize the debris and create more, finer ash – which would be bad – or the water vapor would cause the ash to clump and not travel as far, which would be good.

        So, lots of variables.

  14. Soda taxes?like lotteries?serve primarily to tax those in lower income brackets.

    Lotteries — voluntary games of chance entered into by consenting adults — aren’t theft. Taxes are theft, because they take money under the credible threat of imprisoning anyone who resists.

    1. Plus the merchant is forced into the involuntary servitude of collecting the tax, which is a violation of the thirteenth amendment.

    2. Taxes are not theft.Taxes are the cost of civilization.Name one country or civilization that didnt have any taxes.Good luck.

      1. First, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can be forced to pay something that is used to your own benefit. It was still theft in the first place, regardless of how the loot was spent.

        Second, if you have to force somebody to pay for something, then did they really want it to begin with? What you really mean is that taxes are the price other people pay for your idea of civilization.

        Third, the lack of existence of states without taxation only goes to show the necessity of taxation for the existence of the state. It says nothing about “civilization”, whatever that even means.

        Finally, even if I accept the legitimacy of some taxation, the legitimacy of all taxation is not automatic. You can steal $10 from me and give $5 to the fire department and pocket the other $5, but you didn’t create any “civilization” with your theft that I couldn’t have created by giving $5 to the FD directly.

      2. What if choose not to pay the taxes? Especially since I am not buying into the product known as civilization (your version of it). Would the money still be collected? Wouldn’t it make more sense for a la carte where one only pays for the stuff they want/value/use?

        I hate the fact that my tax money is used to purchase weaponized drones that Obama uses to murder innocent moms and kids.

  15. “First, research has shown that soda taxes are an ineffective tool for combating obesity”

    First should be that taxes aren’t supposed to be a means of social/economic engineering, punishing friends, rewarding enemies or purchasing votes/contributions, they’re supposed to be a means of funding the required and constitutional duties of government. That remains the same even if they actually were an effective tool for combating obesity.

    1. they’re supposed to be a means of funding the required and constitutional duties of government

      I’ll take “things that no one in the government actually understands” for $500, Alex!

    2. The total estimated National cost of diagnosed diabetes in 2012 is $245 billion.

      Maintaining the National health isnt a function of government?

      Disregarding the true costs to society and passing them off to taxpayers is your idea of “freedom”?

      1. Maintaining the National health isnt a function of government?

        There is no “national health”. There is your health, and there is my health. The job of the government is to keep me from harming you, not making me pay for the maintenance of your health. You can do that all by yourself.

        The government has one legitimate function: to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. It has no business doing anything else, because in order to do its job, it must harm some to the benefit of others. The only time a man should face the harm of government action is when he has committed aggression against another.

  16. “The CSPI summit was co-sponsored by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic arm.”

    Is that a polite way of saying his tool?

    1. Please don’t talk about Bloomberg’s “tool” in the morning. Some of us are trying to keep down our breakfast.

      1. Well, any discussion of the buttinskis at CSPI makes ME queasy, so I figured discussing Bloomie’s revolting anatomy was merely continuing a trend…

    2. When he is a tool, his philanthropic arm must be his left one.

  17. It just happens that even with the protectionism in the USA making for less efficient prod’n, root sugars (sucrose from cane, beet) are a lot cheaper than the fruit sugars (fructose). Picking fruits such as berries is a lot more work than uprooting plants for their root sugars. Maple sugar is a root sugar (sucrose), but it costs more to get it from a tapped tree than it is to uproot cane or beets & use those. Maintaining bushes or trees perennially, 1st waiting until they’re mature enough to produce either fruit or sap, is harder than planting something & pulling it up as soon as it stores sugar in its roots. So there’s no mystery as to why blueberries cost a lot more than Coke for an equal amount of sweetness.

    1. Coke is sweetened with corn, which is heavily subsidized.

      1. And besides , if sugar is the demon they say it is . Why not first end all subsidies to sugar producers

        1. Because it would never, ever occur to ne of these parasites to address a problem by REPEALING government meddling.

          1. The subsidies are in the form of price supports. Take those away and the costs come down.

            1. In different words, we already have a sugar tax. Why add another one?

          2. Farmers are some of the biggest parasites and they vote thats why.And they come from red states.Go figure.

            1. A reason to end the Farm Bill and everything in it.

  18. It seems to me that it would be pretty difficult to do any sort of tax or ban like this without a degree or arbitrariness that couldn’t pass constitutional muster.

    1. Since when does the Constitution matter when it comes to taxes?

    2. Almost nothing the federal government passes constitutional muster.

      To the federal government the Constitution is an impediment. So, they just ignore it for the most part.

  19. Here is exactly what is going to happen:

    Middle Class people will make their own soda at home. The poor will pay the tax, everyone is going to be just as fat and diabetic.

    1. From the politician’s point-of-view, that’s perfect. It doesn’t piss off the middle class too much, and it increases tax revenue.

    2. Ginger Ale is super easy, and better than the store bought.

  20. So, you’re going to tax the shit out of us for sugar and corn (HFCS) subsidies, then tax the shit out of us again for one of the primary products using the fruits of the earlier tax? And all to lower government funded healthcare costs and make yourself feel good for “doing something”? Fuck you. Not with my dick… but fuck you.

    1. Yup. It’s called “rent seeking” and “regulatory capture”. It’s the primary function of government: the more government you get the more you get of those. That’s why it’s good to keep government to a bare minimum, where the costs and benefits of government balance out.

  21. The proposal is intended “to curb obesity, diabetes, and the resulting health care costs.”

    Wanna bet?

    “When a two-liter cola is 99 cents and blueberries are over three dollars, something has gone very wrong

    “Markets”. What are they?

    For the record, a pint of blueberries contains more than 40g of sugar. That’s about as much sugar as you’ll find in a pint of soda.

    But it’s FRUIT! It’s automatically HEALTHY!

    What’s more, people should be able to drink a damn soda?or a rice-based milk substitute, for that matter?without the taxman judging them for their choices.

    See, that’s where your wrong. The government will tell you whats good for you, and you’re gona like it.

    When few favor soda taxes, those few rule the pulpit.


  22. But it’s FRUIT! It’s automatically HEALTHY!

    Whole fruit is a whole lot healthier than sodas and doesn’t make you fat to nearly the same degree, because of the fiber and the effort that goes into eating it. Fruit juice, fruit purees, etc., are just as bad as sodas.

    (Just to be clear: I think the soda tax is a bad idea. But you should choose fruit over soda.)

    1. But you should choose fruit over soda.

      Duh. I was doing a ‘thing’. Don’t hate.

    2. Whole fruit isn’t a beverage. Most people won’t consider whole fruit as an alternative to soda.

      1. Yeah, I dumped a pint of blueberries in my vodka and it didn’t really work out.

  23. The proposal is intended “to curb obesity, diabetes, and the resulting health care costs.”

    You see we are a benevolent society and when we see someone is sick we must act together, through the goodness of our own hearts, to provide healthcare for that person. Furthermore, we realize that if that poor, disease ridden person had only seen a doctor sooner, then his illness could have been caught in the early stages or possibly been prevented completely. Therefore, being the compassionate, caring, and loving people that we are, we as a society must provide everyone with medical insurance so that they have access to adequate health care.

    Now we must remember that … hold on a second. Hey fatty what to you think you are doing? Yea you. Put down that soda. I do not plan on paying for your hospital bill when you get diabetes you fat fuck. Fat people are a significant burden on the government with their obscene medical expenses. Since we are paying for your health care, what you put in your body is a matter for the state. Food is not a private matter! You have the duty to be healthy!

  24. Except this do nothing from CT, together with all the other, do nothing Democrats keep getting elected in this state which ranks at the bottom of business friendly rankings and 49% of the population wants to leave. I don’t understand how the electorate can be so blind.

    1. Except this do nothing from CT, together with all the other, do nothing Democrats keep getting elected in this state which ranks at the bottom of business friendly rankings and 49% of the population wants to leave. I don’t understand how the electorate can be so blind.

      The 49% who want to leave (including your very own goneGalt) are consistently out-voted by the 51% who don’t.

      DeLauro’s district includes New Haven. An alliance of the FSA and Ivy League liberals keeps her house seat safe for life.

  25. A better way to encourage healthy eating is to allow insurers to essentially raise premiums for unhealthy ways, not a tax here and there. But Obamacare doesn’t allow that.

  26. For the record, a pint of blueberries contains more than 40g of sugar.

    I eat 6 oz. of blueberries every morning, and I’m here to tell you that a dry pint contains about 30g of sugar, not “more than” 40g. *WARNING* Blueberry metric geekiness follows:

    Linnekin’s source’s quantity is “1 pint as purchased.” I don’t know what “as purchased” means in context, but the source lists calories for that 1 pint and also for various other quantities. For the “1 point as purchased,” 229 calories; for 1 oz., 16 calories; for 100g, 57 calories. The latter two both imply that “1 pint as purchased” weighs about 400g or 14oz. I know from experience that 1 dry pint as purchased by me won’t supply two of my 6oz. breakfast portions. (Yep, if I don’t have a 6oz. container I weigh my portion.) I happen to have a dry pint on hand; its net weight is 303g, not 400g.

    Two other sources, and the iOS app CalorieKing also indicate that blueberries contain about 10g sugars per 100g.

    1. Oh, and that Linnekin reports “more than 40g” when his source indicates 40.04g does not inspire trust. “More than,” “up to,” “less than” etc. are often indications of salesmanship rather than science.

      Obligatory disclaimer: I don’t support taxes on sodas.

      1. In what world is 40.04 not more than 40?

        1. In what world is 40.04 not more than 40?

          I didn’t read brec as suggesting that. But rather that using the phrase “more than” was an attempt to mislead by Linnekin.

          Yes, yes, a critical thinker will ask the question, “Exactly HOW much more than 40g.” But DeLauro’s voter base is not limited to only critical thinkers.

          1. That phrase to me means 40 point something or at worst something between 40-45. Given the context, if it had been much more than 40, he’d have written the large number. Thar is, he didn’t write “more than 3g” which is accurate (40.033) but not useful to his argument.

    2. I bet I could squish more than 16 ozs of blueberries into a pint package.

      1. THen it wouldn’t be a dry pint anymore.

  27. The government has to find another source of revenue after their successful punishment of smokers and another way the Nanny State can “incentivize” people to do what it wants you to do. The current mantra is “for your health” and “for your and your children’s safety”. It’s been one of the best ways the totalitarians have used to increase their control over us.

  28. Guess this twit is praying for another Boston Tea party eah folks.

  29. “For the record, a pint of blueberries contains more than 40g of sugar. That’s about as much sugar as you’ll find in a pint of soda.”

    Irrelevant, since the goal here is control. Hell, if the tax DOESN’T work, all the better, since we can use that as a reason to raise it even higher.

    1. Agreed. We shouldn’t play into that f’d up reasoning. It’s about control and culture, not sugar. “The wrong kinds of people drink soda. They must be punished!”

    2. Len Bias was Maryland’s best player ever.

  30. Most Americans agree. Charitably, DeLauro’s bill has gained little traction.

  31. Sugar is as addictive as cocaine,eight times more addictive than cocaine.Sugar causes as many if not more health issues as smoking and alcohol.Many experts claim sugar is the greatest threat to human health we have.Until you take in the true costs to society you cant appreciate the magnitude of the problem.Ignoring the problem or pretending its not as bad as it is is irresponisble and foolish.We all wind up paying higher medical costs and premiums when easily identifiable health risks are ignored.We need to stop companies from privatizing the profits and socializing the costs.A tax is a good start in rasing awareness of the dangers and real costs to us all.

    1. So, you’re saying people should switch to cocaine? Isn’t that expensive?

      1. Well, it WOULD lead to weight loss. Cocaine for everyone!

        1. It’s a human right!

    2. Sugar is as addictive as cocaine,eight times more addictive than cocaine.

      I was waiting for someone to pull this kind of nonsense out of his ass.


      1. A 3d grade insult ?Thats your retort?

        Research Shows Cocaine And Heroin Are Less Addictive ……/research-sh…..are-less-a?

        Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and …
        National Center for Biotechnology Information

        1. Of course food is “addictive”, you die if you don’t eat it. We call it “starvation”.

          File this into the category of “it takes an Ivy League education to forget the basic facts of life”.

    3. Poe’s law?

  32. Hey,how’d Bloomberg find this place? Fuck off, slaver….

    1. Who do you think gets left paying the bills for all the illness associated with sugar consumption?

      Oh right you probably dont pay taxes or have health insurance.

      Diabetes Costs The US $245 Billion A Year Says New Report
      Medical News Today

      1. I’ve already addressed this aggregate cost nonsense upthread. Diabetes doesn’t “cost the US” anything because “the US” is not responsible for paying for the treatment.

        If you take out an insurance policy that covers diabetes, then you should not act surprised that you are paying for diabetes treatments.

        The real problem is that one cannot legally obtain an insurance policy that does not cover diabates treatments. I discussed incentives upthread as well.

        This need to control people’s choices was of course an inevitable consequence of socializing everyone’s health care costs.

        At some point, the good intentions paving crew needs to take a long, hard look at the destination ahead.

      2. Those of us productive workers are the ones that are now paying the lion’s share of healthcare costs associated with diabetes.

        Diabetes costs the US nothing. The US doesn’t have diabetes and doesn’t pay for healthcare. It costs productive workers like me the money.

        Instead of raising soda taxes, we should end the healthcare tax. This will allow folks who choose the behavior that leads to diabetes to actually have to pay the costs.

  33. Anyone else noticed the high correlation between ugliness and power-lust?


  34. WTF are folks saying implement a fair tax? Taxation is theft. It is extortion plain and simple. It is imposed against an individuals will, and is enforced through violence. All of which go completely against the NAP, and liberty.

    Folks should stop lying to themselves and trying to force others into their slavery by telling us what needs to be implemented by some douchebags in fancy suits.

    If you want to be slaves to others, do so on your own. Have them tax you, dominate you, take your land, and kick your ass if you can’t pay the extortion rate of the day. Enjoy your chaos while others choose to be free from any master.

  35. my best friend’s step-mother makes $82 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for nine months but last month her pay was $13237 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website …

    ============ http://WWW.JOBSPUG.COM

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.