Soda Taxes

Medical Groups Endorse New Taxes and Marketing Restrictions on Soda

For the children, of course

|

RICHARD B. LEVINE/Richard B. Levine/Newscom

Two leading medical groups, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association (AHA), issued a report this week encouraging legislators and policymakers to hike taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages—the most common of which is soda—and to restrict how companies market soda to kids. This is apparently the first time either group has publicly supported a food tax.

The joint report, Public Policies to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Children and Adolescents, calls for "broad implementation of policy strategies to reduce sugary drink consumption in children and adolescents." It urges cities, states, and the federal government to impose excise taxes on producers and distributors of sweetened beverages. The report comes as some states—including Connecticut—are considering whether to adopt statewide soda taxes.

Beyond favoring excise taxes over sales taxes, the AAP/AHA report doesn't recommend a specific tax or taxes, though it does speak approvingly of taxes in the 10-20 percent range. The authors propose to use some of the money collected by such taxes to educate the public about "the benefits of the tax."

(One day, I predict we'll only pay one huge tax, the sole purpose of which will be to fund the salaries of bureaucrats whose job it will be to inform us about the benefits of paying said tax. Everyone will be healthy and happy and compliant, save for those who have not yet learned about the benefits of paying The Tax.)

If the report's proposed taxes and marketing restrictions weren't enough, it calls for a host of changes to federal nutrition programs, stricter nutrition labeling, and policies that promote consumption of "healthy beverages" such as fat-free cow's milk.

I see numerous problems in the report. For example, the authors acknowledge what everyone, from me to Bernie Sanders, has argued for years: such taxes are regressive, which means they impose an outsized burden on low-income consumers. But the report claims the benefits reaped by those same low-income consumers who pay a soda tax could be so great that the "tax ultimately may be progressive," rather than regressive. That's not how tax policy works, but sure.

The report is at its most absurd, perhaps, when it suggests that some states' efforts to preempt local soda taxes, such as in California, "stifle local innovation" in public health policy, as if taxation somehow fosters innovation, rather than the former serving to "stifle" the latter.

Warts and all, though, the mainstream media appears pleased with the AAP/AHA report.

The New York Times characterized its proposals as "a set of bold policy recommendations."

The Baltimore Sun editorial board endorsed the proposal, calling it "crucial to children's health."

"For those who argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people what to eat, we say that it is indeed their job to protect the public health of the country's citizens," the Sun declares.

(Maybe the Sun's editors will argue next that Maryland should implement a steep tax on newspapers that accept soad advertising.)

But do soda taxes really protect anyone, as the Sun insists they do? The argument in favor of soda taxes typically goes something like this: Americans drink soda. Americans are obese. Taxing soda will reduce the amount of soda people drink. If fewer people drink soda—or everyone drinks less soda—then people will be less obese and/or more able to attain and maintain a healthy weight.

If that sounds overly simplistic, that's because it is. And even proponents of this trope know it.

Earlier this month, for example, an article in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation noted what's been reported elsewhere: Americans "have been drinking fewer sugary drinks" over the past decade. To repeat, Americans are getting fatter while consuming less of the thing we need to tax.

Hence, soda tax advocates have a serious causation problem. They note how soda taxes can help reduce soda consumption, but they fail to detail whether or how reduced soda consumption does or could lead to the outcomes they support. When pressed, some tax proponents will admit they don't know "the impact of SSB taxes on obesity and health." Which makes pleas such as the Baltimore Sun's—that soda taxes are "crucial to children's health"—all the more ridiculous.

As I've noted many times over the years, I rarely drink soda, consuming perhaps the equivalent of one six-pack every year. After I switched to a very low-carb diet last year, I've avoided foods and drinks that contain sugar or are otherwise high in carbs and cook most of my own meals at home. I walk, bike, hike, run, and play soccer regularly. I've lost a good amount of weight over this same stretch. I'm happy with my diet.

Yet I'd never advocate for the supremacy of this diet or encourage others to mimic my dietary choices.

Why? Because what you eat is your choice.

Supporters of soda taxes want to take away that choice. Don't let them.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Romance of Oppression

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let me be the first to say.

    What a stupid fucking idea.

    1. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

      CLICK HERE?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  2. “Medical groups” have far too much influence in government. Our nation should not be an iatrocracy, a nation governed by doctors. The concept existed in ancient Greece, it was generally not approved of.

  3. Just add this to list for the ‘ new green deal’. Theses people want to run everyone’s life . And of course , they will live ,eat and travel as they choose.

    1. Biologists are the theocrats of left-wing progressives. Several American Protestant churches formed around 1900 to oppose the bad things being done in the name of biology back then. Sure, you can protest the medical cartel … but it might mean accidents happening the next time you go to the doctor’s office.

  4. As a libertarian, I cannot support government attempts to restrict soda consumption. But such efforts are nowhere as alarming as attempts to limit access to abortion care.

    1. Congratulations on your pregnancy.
      Who is the lucky man?

    2. What I find alarming is not Conservative Christian attempts to limit abortion: they are a logical consequence of deeply held belief. What I find alarming is the Pro-Choice side’s adamant refusal to back off of counterproductive tactics. Pushing for late term abortion, and just-post-birth infanticide is incredibly short sighted. There is simoly no possibility that it will not backfire. Opposing parental notification is political poison. Yes, there may be circumstances under which not notifying parents might be justified. I cannot, however, believe that such circumstances would not support a far more effective move, such as making the young woman a ward of the court. And beyond such rare cases, parental notification accomplishes nothing beyond alienating the vast majority of voting parents.

      And then there’s the Kermit Gossnel case. Closing down Gossnel’s abbatoir was something the Pro-abortion forces in PA should have initiated. Instead they protected the ghoul, and now they have the nerve to be surprised that this is proving politically costly.

      Abortion is not going to be outlawed or broadly restricted because of Pro-Life activism. It is going to be outlawed or restricted because of Pro-Choice bungling and arrogance.

      1. “Yes, there may be circumstances under which not notifying parents might be justified.”

        Girls from abusive households are more likely to act out sexually and less likely to know how to use birth control properly. And they’re rarely able to discuss the abuse with adults until after they’ve moved out of the house. Girls with supportive parents are able to discuss these decisions with their parents without the government requiring them to do so. Parental Notification is like trusting bureaucrats to decide who should be allowed to own a gun, take painkillers, or smoke weed.

        1. An abortion doctor is certified by the government to handle female reproductive systems in a professional, non-erotic manner. A gym teach at a government run facility is certified by the government to teach health classes about sex in a professional non-erotic manner. A doctor for a gymnastics facility that trains Olympic athletes is certified by the government to handle female bodies in a non-erotic manner.

          A government certification might not mean better quality. The vast majority of parents do a better job deciding whom can be trusted with their children than government licencing boards do.

          Our options for minors asking adults in the neighborhood to help them with their reproductive systems are limited. It’s either trusting the minors to decide, requiring parental notification, requiring government certifications, or some combination. We already require the certification and the minor’s consent for the abortion.

          Parental notification means the government gives parents some veto power. I have mixed feelings about this. Perhaps you are right, mswen. Consider this, an abortion is riskier than using a dildo. Should a minor be able to independently buy a dildo from a merchant instead of asking a parent to buy it on his or her behalf?

          1. My objection to opposing parental notification laws is not that I doubt the government’s judgement in such cases (although I do) but that it is bad politics. Such laws are popular, because the vast majority of people believe that family is better than bureaucracy. In a representative government it is not enough to be right, one must also be persuasive, and the persuasion hasn’t made headway.

            My objection to late term abortion is that it revolts too many people. Actual post-birth termination is compounding the error. It, too, is catastrophically bad tactics.

            And the government and the Pro-Choice movement are neither one in any position to claim that “An abortion doctor is certified by the government to handle female reproductive systems in a professional, non-erotic manner” after the Gosnell disaster. The bureaucrats and Pro-Choice organizations knew about Gosnell. Maybe not everything, but they had decided against closing his abattoir when at a minimum they knew goddamned well that his operation was unsanitary and therefore dangerous. I seriously doubt that I am the only person who wonders how many similar operations are being protected by Pro-Choice people stupidly hoping the problem will magically go away.

        2. All that is true, but get a girl an abortion without telling her parents is a band-aid on a gushing wound. If her home situation is that bad, she could be made a ward of the court. If her home situation is not bad enough to justify such an extreme measure, then it isn’t bad enough to justify alienating most parents from the Pro-Choice cause.

          Will some tragedies happen? Of course. But the government lacks both the power and the fine judgement to prevent all tragedies, and is all too likely to cause more.

          Governments are good at brute force and bean-counting, and bad at anything requiring nuance, tact, or taste.

      2. I concur, and it’s been mystifying to me ever since I’ve become aware of this apparent third trimester push. Is it some sort of “buffer zone” concept, whereby they think they have to stake out as extreme a position as possible in order to “keep the fight in enemy territory”? Is it a sort of “mission creep” that makes them feel like they have to keep fighting for something once they’ve secured the level of abortion freedom most people are comfortable with? Is it a symbolic backlash against states that have passed indirect anti-abortion legislation? (“You may have passed a mandatory fetal sonogram law in your state, in which we have little political clout to oppose it, but we can still push for “abortion-on-demand” in out state, just to symbolically give you the finger”)

        I suspect it has something to do with the internal dynamics of keeping an activist group energized, rather than any attempt to persuade anyone. I’ve been similarly puzzled by things like Black Lives Matter who insist on keeping the issue of police brutality racially charged, rather than taking the bridge-building (and more libertarian) approach — using high-profile incidents and statistics to persuade the white middle class that, “Hey, police militarization and lack of accountability can bite you in the ass too!”

      3. I concur, and it’s been mystifying to me ever since I’ve become aware of this apparent third trimester push. Is it some sort of “buffer zone” concept, whereby they think they have to stake out as extreme a position as possible in order to “keep the fight in enemy territory”? Is it a sort of “mission creep” that makes them feel like they have to keep fighting for something once they’ve secured the level of abortion freedom most people are comfortable with? Is it a symbolic backlash against states that have passed indirect anti-abortion legislation? (“You may have passed a mandatory fetal sonogram law in your state, in which we have little political clout to oppose it, but we can still push for “abortion-on-demand” in out state, just to symbolically give you the finger”)

        I suspect it has something to do with the internal dynamics of keeping an activist group energized, rather than any attempt to persuade anyone. I’ve been similarly puzzled by things like Black Lives Matter who insist on keeping the issue of police brutality racially charged, rather than taking the bridge-building (and more libertarian) approach — using high-profile incidents and statistics to persuade the white middle class that, “Hey, police militarization and lack of accountability can bite you in the ass too!”

  5. Someone on this blog once observed that, in general, it is poor people who are obese and richer people who are thin.
    Then it stands to reason that redistributing wealth from rich to poor will only cause the poor to buy even more food that makes them fat. Within 50 years, the “experts” will be advocating annual BMI tests with the failures being put to hard labor, mandatory gym classes and food rationing. “Brave New World” as a how-to manual, not a warning.

    1. No mandatory BMI. We have fat sensitivity groups now. They are the next transgenders. We already give into the imagination that men can be women and women can be men because feelings. Next up is you can be healthy at 400. Ableism and diets for anorexic people next.

      1. Ooooh, another potential intersectional collision! Who will win? The progressives pushing sensitivity for fatties or the progressives pushing their nanny health plans?

        1. They don’t care who wins, they only want the issue to beat up on whitey who is the source of all evil to progs.

    2. what do you mean “advocating”? the tests will be required when we’re all on “VA care for all”

    3. In the Reagan years, our gym teachers told us we had to be fit in case the country needed us to fight communists some day. Been there, done that.

      1. And in spite of all those push ups, the commies still took over.

        1. If everyone just killed even one commie for their mommy, the world would be ckeamsed of communism.

  6. Goody. Now, in addition to cops busting kid’s lemonade stands for not having a business license, they can also charge them with not collecting and remitting the “sugary drink” excise tax. Then they can use asset forfeiture to seize any income to buy the body armor they’ll need while conducting such high risk takedowns.

    1. lattes exempt as usual, because liberals

      1. +10000

  7. OT:
    “Prop. 63: Federal judge declares California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines unconstitutional”
    […]
    “A federal judge on Friday declared unconstitutional a key provision of California’s Proposition 63 that banned possession of high-capacity gun magazines often used in mass shootings, ensuring that the voter-approved prohibition will remain tied up in court for some time to come.
    San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in his 86-page decision, upholding a lawsuit against the proposed ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, that such a statute “hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe.”
    “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he wrote….”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay…..ate-result

    CA proggies hardest hit

    1. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he wrote….”

      This “judge” is obviously unhinged and will be recalled very soon.

    2. Why havent they banned anti depressants which are in like 90% of mass shooters.

      1. because the medical profession runs the government?

      2. Well said, JesseAZ.

      3. Agreed with JesseAz. There should be a big deal made about this so individuals can re-think medicating their kids so much, and it to counter the liberal narrative.

    3. Why havent they banned anti depressants which are in like 90% of mass shooters.

    4. The 9th will overturn it but I would like to buy that judge a drink with or without soda.

  8. I’ve avoided foods and drinks that contain sugar or are otherwise high in carbs and cook most of my own meals at home. I walk, bike, hike, run, and play soccer regularly.

    Check your privilege! Not everyone has the wherewithal to do elitist things like cooking or walking. Many unfortunates are simply *addicted to sugar* and cannot get out of the carb-ingestion cycle!

    1. Who has time to cook when 95% of people are working 2 or 3 full time jobs to get by? AOC

      1. more like 30% of people are working to support the rest

  9. With the soda tax, everyone remains free to choose to drink soda, but predictable external costs others would have to pay is partly accounted for. So as a non-soda drinker, it doesn’t seem so bad. Almost everyone eating a standard american diet have arteries in various stages of being wrecked. When the heart attacks follow there’s no cash register at the hospital cath lab.

    1. “So as a non-soda drinker, it doesn’t seem so bad.”
      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. Who is going to be there to object wen they come for his vice?

    2. no cash register at the hospital cath lab.

      Hmm. Obviously the solution is to tax heart attacks.

      1. Tax death. That way the government always gets paid.

    3. you can’t drink soda — it’s powdery and tastes horrible. you can drink pop.

    4. lets stick it to people who smoke too, they can afford 2 packs a day

    5. Let me get this straight – the ‘external’ costs others have *voluntarily* agreed to pay for? That’s what you’re using as an excuse to force others to do what you want?

      What? You didn’t voluntarily agree to absorb those costs? Then you’ve been wronged – so what makes you think wronging others will make that right rather than ending the policies that require you to pay for other people’s mistakes?

    6. Oh please, the major cause of heart attacks in my town is parking disputes with drug dealers. You have to watch who handles your drink at the restaurants in New Jersey!

    7. Except for the meat eaters who consume in moderation and have arteries health appropriate for their age.

      Your Lefties and your desire to live a hive lifestyle until you die from the one of the natural causes that kills most of us.

      Enjoy life every pnce in a while.

  10. Liberals will infiltrate any and every group they can use to amass power. These groups dont do science anymore. They are political advocacy groups. Pushing the same authoritarian, heavy taxation dogma as climate alarmists and others.

  11. Related:
    “The Weird World of Vegan YouTube Stars Is Imploding”
    […]
    “Last Sunday, a five-second video clip of vegan YouTuber Yovana Mendoza single-handedly brought down the luminous 28-year-old’s entire career.
    […]Internet sleuths watching the 10-minute vlog later would quickly deduce what Mendoza was trying to hide: a piece of fish.
    Mendoza rushed to upload a video claiming she had only been eating fish for two months, as a remedy to the health complications she developed after six years as a vegan.”
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/v…..ange-diets

    Translation: Her diet was killing her and she decided she’d rather live.

    1. Vegan YouTube Stars

      Nice band name; but perhaps too similar to North Mississippi Allstars.

      1. #vegancat

    2. She also fasts and goes on “water diets.” And sometimes fasts for 25 days. Both my wife and I keep vegan, and have been for years. Being vegan requires a bit more creativity and effort in the kitchen to make for an interesting and healthy diet. True. But it’s easily done.

      Mendoza is a nut-case. Her health woes have nothing to so with shunning animal-based protein.

      1. “…Her health woes have nothing to so with shunning animal-based protein.”

        Bull
        .
        .
        .
        shit.

        1. With all due respects, she is NUTCASE. Case of a non-nut case vegan? Carl Lewis. Or, the dozens of Buddhist monks I worked with (no, I am not Buddhist.) I do not make special claims for the vegan diet being extra-healthy for all people, the science isn’t there. But neither is the science telling us it isn’t.

      2. A “water diet” sounds like some Gitmo-level misery.

      3. “Her health woes have nothing to so with shunning animal-based protein.”
        It is however, possible that she is having subclinical symptoms of B12 etc, deficiency.

        1. Possibly. People on very restrictive diets, like that “banana diet gal” are much more likely to suffer from any number of ailments from deficiencies. The bacteria which produce vitamin B12 is very easy include in one’s diet to help ensure one gets plenty of it — either by making sure one consumes decent quantities of cultured foodstuffs, by checking labels, or through supplements.

          “Natural sources of B12 include dried and fermented plant foods, such as tempeh, nori[27] and laver, a seaweed.[27][28][29] Many other types of algae are rich in vitamin B12, with some species, such as Porphyra yezoensis,[27] containing as much cobalamin as liver.[30] ” (wiki)

          1. Don’t forget those brazil nuts. Pretty good little nuggets of B12 boost which are also good for building muscle mass on top of a high protein diet.

            1. My wife makes vegan cheeses, cultured from macadamias, cashews, etc., along with fermented edibles. A recent challenge I had, following major surgery, was getting enough fat — not enough protein. (I mean, I love avocados. but how many can one eat? LOL)
              Her “cheeses” solved that. Vegan cheeses have, IMO, been the major weakness in vegan diets, not the lack of good “flesh” substitutes. But there is headway being made in that area, involving everything from nuts to beans to pumpkin 🙂

              1. I support your vegan right to eat whatever you want but vegan diets sound shitty.

                I would rather eat a handful of macadamians than have a cheese made from them.

                1. And, I support your right to eat whatever you like 🙂

          2. Agar is derived from seaweed. Is that why my classmate kept eating the electrophoresis gels?

            1. Just might be 🙂

    3. I’m guessing she’s not the one who shot someone in the Youtube/Google offices?

    4. Sevo , thank you for sharing that, I didn’t realize that house of cards had tumbled so quickly on he vegans. I know they viciously verbally attacked Lierre Keith for going vegan to carnivore, or at least omnivore.

      My wife and I have gone low carb, *high* fat, pretty much a carnivore diet, especially her (I work away from home for long periods and take what I can get at times.). But the carnivore thing has worked so far. We’ve been tracking the vegans and banana girl, at least casually. But again, I didn’t realize their cover was blown so badly.

      It’s a bit nummy to see this, I hate to admit, but these vegans pontificated so damn hard about so many things. I will just say low carb, high fat has worked for me, and if you all don’t want to eat that way, that’s cool too.

    5. She was unwilling to be a martyr for the faith of her viewers, which makes her an apostate.

  12. This article made me want a soda. I’d have to go out and buy one but I’m busy. Maybe Amazon will deliver one to my house. Probably not out here in the sticks.

    1. Make a simple syrup (half sugar,/half water) and add some lemon and lime and ice.

      1. You’re my new favorite bartender.

  13. More stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

  14. Doctors should stick to medicine. It’s their job to tell us why obesity is bad , what dietary changes people can do to get healthier. They should steer clear of tax policy as they have no clue about economics, unintended consequences , deadweight losses etc.

    1. True that

      Medicine has its own version of the NAP it is called autonomy. The second principle is First Do No Harm.

      While the AHA and AAP should certainly issue guidelines and advice it should end there.

      There is a limited role for medicine to be involved with government in public health, say TB control or outbreak of Ebola. Pepsi is hardly that kind of threat.

  15. if you need a best online jobs At home.visit this site…www.home.jobs89.com

  16. if you need a best online jobs At home.visit this site… http://www.home.jobs89.com

  17. As a physician, I am appalled. Medical groups have no business dictating or advocating for public policy. This reminds why I do not belong to the AMA.

    1. +1

  18. So are all the anti-soda tax people also in support of abolishing the tobacco tax?
    Please explain why or why not.

    1. All? I don’t know.

      Are you trying to imply something?

    2. So are all the soda and tobacco tax people, who believe these taxes will diminish soda and tobacco usage, willing to abolish the income tax?
      Please explain why or why not.

      1. Good point. The nannies like tobacco and soda taxes since they reduce tobacco and soda.

        So extrapolating from their logic, income taxes reduce income.

        Did I get that right?

        1. Well, anything you pay reduces your income. 😉

          Seriously, taxing income tends to discourage production for that income. And plenty of folks are upfront about that.

    3. Yes, because libertarians don’t believe in sin taxes. Consuming tobacco does not hurt other people. Medicare hurts other people by forcing non-smokers to pay for tobacco smokers’ ECT 20 years from now when addiction to tobacco is in the DSM and tobacco smokers have to choose between rehab and jail time.

      1. Actually, smokers dies faster and cost less in health care.

        It’s all those “healthy” people who cling to life for years on end (with the help of very expensive Medicare provided drugs) that cost so much, and drain the budget.

      2. Sin taxes are supposed to discourage people from smoking but what would happen if everyone quit? The government would panic at the sudden loss of all that tobacco tax revenue. Other taxes would have to be raised to make up for the shortfall.

    4. Yes.

  19. “Innovation in public health policy…”? How can anyone be so warped by hubris that they can think they’re an ‘innovator’ n taking other people’s money? That’s some work, parasite thinking right there…. just like a piece o’ shit lawyer…..

  20. If there has been any success in public health recently, it must be the reduction of smoking in the population. Tobacco is probably even more habit forming than sweet fizzy drinks. Are there any lessons to be learned from our experience with tobacco that are relevant to these drinks?

    1. Quite frankly, the reduction of smoking in this country has come to pass much more through education than through taxes. Note that the vast majority, perhaps as high as 97% of the taxes, in at least some markets, on tobacco products, go to fund programs which have nothing to do with smoking. So, one could claim that if the various governments who tax tobacco were being honest, they could reduce taxes by over 90% and have the same result. Even from a libertarian standpoint, I have little problem with the government using tax dollars to keep the public informed about health hazards.

      1. “Quite frankly, the reduction of smoking in this country has come to pass much more through education than through taxes”

        My feeling too, except that taxes pay for education. But yes, a sustained propaganda campaign probably played a large part in the reduction of smoking.

        ” So, one could claim that if the various governments who tax tobacco were being honest, they could reduce taxes by over 90% and have the same result.”

        I wouldn’t say it’s a matter of dishonesty. The taxes gathered from liquor sales typically don’t go to combat alcoholism.

        1. “I wouldn’t say it’s a matter of dishonesty. The taxes gathered from liquor sales typically don’t go to combat alcoholism.”

          Good point. Maybe, instead of inferring “dishonesty,” I should describe it as the government, fairly regularly, hoodwinking the populous into thinking something meaningful is being done with their tax dollars rather than much of it being used for,, often very different, “causes.”

    2. How much does a loosy cost in your town, mtrueman?

      1. $2 for an Indian brand, $5 for American.

    3. 100% of the reduction in smoking has come through public health *education* efforts and not a single bit of it from taxes nor smoking bans.

      1. As I pointed out this public health education campaign was almost certainly funded through taxes.

  21. Yah know, if’n ya got rid of gubmint subsidies in agriculture and food production, pretty soon the market would be dictated by what people wanna eat.

  22. I can’t believe they don’t have a thread here about the Caps/Tampa game! Oh well.

    They’re both mostly playing for pride at this point, and I think it means more to the Caps right about now–so I’d take the Caps +160.

    I’m just sayin’.

  23. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h ? $72h?how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance? on something new? after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
    Heres what I’ve been doing? ,,,
    CLICK HERE?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  24. “If the report’s proposed taxes and marketing restrictions weren’t enough, it calls for a host of changes to federal nutrition programs, stricter nutrition labeling, and policies that promote consumption of “healthy beverages” such as fat-free cow’s milk.”

    Fantastic! /sarc ….I eat a low carb, high fat diet, including raw, full fat milk. Guess, what, it’s been a good diet, shaved some pounds and feel great. But the bureaucrats keep meddling. Because they know better.

  25. This all began when they started to really attack smoking about 30 years ago. By then lots of people had already quit and the smoking rate in the US had dropped by nearly half since the 1960s but that just wasn’t good enough for the nannies, they had to ban it everywhere starting with airlines and now you can’t even light up or vape in many public parks. They have also pushed for huge taxes to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and fund ore pseudoscience research. Maybe they’ve realized they have done all they can with smoking and need to expand into other areas like soda to justify their careers. Look for them to go after meat next.

  26. . . . fat-free cow’s milk.”

    Wouldn’t that just be ‘water’.

  27. Best Ice Scrapers You Can Find Below
    Thank me Later
    best ice scrapers

  28. The 80’s called, they want their dietary policy back.

    Will fruit drinks and juices be taxed? Will the revenue generated from the new tax be used to fund healthcare in the same way that gasoline taxes fund road and bridge work?

  29. It is amazing to see how much behavior and attitudes about smoking have changed. Before second-hand smoke/indoor smoking was banned, I can remember sitting at a conference room table with a dozen people and at least half them would be smoking. They’d crush out one smoke and light up another and by the time the meeting ended you could barely see across the room. Watch old episodes of Johnny Carson – he used to smoke on-camera. Carson died from emphysema, BTW…

    1. And non smokers die of cancer.

      Ever notice how some smokers life to 75+ and smoke most of their lives but are ignored when the horror stories come out about smoking? Socialism killed over 100 million people last Cemtury and you dont see Lefties trying to ban or tax Socialism.

  30. “Might as well go for a soda
    It is better than slander
    it is better than lies”

  31. “Why? Because what you eat is your choice.”

    Not to nannies it is.

    Doctors are the epitome of ‘the path of good intentions are a road to hell’. I’m not sure they understand the concept of ‘unintended consequences’ in public policy. But what do they care, right? They won’t be affected financially and they make sure the poor don’t act against their own health interests and they get to feel good about their God complex manipulated this way. It’s wins all around.

    Except for the people it’s supposed to help.

    Is ‘Fuck off, Slavers’ appropriate here? I think it is.

    Fuck off, Slavers.

  32. As per the usual, government fucks everything up, and HERE, when they fuck it up they want the ability to CHARGE US FOR IT!!! It is NOT the government’s business regulating what drinks my kids want or what drinks I buy for them. The whole nonsense of “doing it for the kids” is hogwash. Governments want more money, and the rat bastards will get it anyway they can. Cut government by AT LEAST 50% across the board and watch freedom, joy, and savings, especially for poorer folks, BLOOM!!

  33. Sin taxes dont work to prohibit the targeted product or service.

    People who want to just do it anyway.

    Stop letting politicians justify these sin taxes to protect people fro the targeted product or service. Its a revenue collecting scheme.

  34. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  35. Yikes, better not show that around Philly. If an association of medical experts wants to tax unhealthy foods so you’ll consume less of them, the soda tax narrative will explode!

  36. I can sit quietly while you argue that a payroll tax is better than a stupid decision tax. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion there. But you earn scorn when you express support for a government hundreds of miles away, composed not of your neighbors but bureaucrats, should be able to tell me and my neighbors where we can find the revenue to run basic government functions. That makes you unAmerican.

  37. If taxes are punitive and meant to limit consumption, does that work the same way for payroll taxes?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.