Food Policy

Study: Seattle's Soda Tax Has Been Great for…Beer Sales?

The substitution effect is real.


A new study is pouring cold beer on Seattle's soda tax. The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, reveals that since the city I call home adopted a soda tax in 2018, residents have swapped out soda and replaced that soda with beer. Pointedly, the study says Seattle's soda tax "induced" consumers to buy more beer.

"The good people of Seattle responded to a tax on sugary drinks by buying more beer," Christopher Snowdon, director of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs and a leading critic of the nanny state, tweeted after the study's release.

The PLoS study, by University of Illinois-Chicago researchers Lisa M. Powell and Julien Lader, compared sales of beer in Seattle both before and since adoption of the soda tax with comparable sales in nearby Portland, Oregon, which has no soda tax.

"At two-years post-tax implementation, [the] volume sold of beer in Seattle relative to Portland increased by 7%," the authors report. Though supporters of soda taxes claim (largely without evidence) that they're a successful tool to combat obesity, the authors of the PLoS study note that the dangers of "excess alcohol consumption [include] higher risk of motor accidents/deaths, liver cirrhosis, sexually transmitted diseases, crime and violence, and workplace accidents." Also: obesity.

While the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption are known, earnest onlookers also knew consumers would switch from soda to booze as a direct result of a tax on the former. The researchers, for example, note in their study that "a potential unintended consequence of such a policy could be that the tax induces substitution to alcoholic beverages."

Several years ago, I contributed an essay to a Cato Institute debate series on soda taxes, in which Snowdon served as the lead commentator.

"Drinking soda is neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause of obesity, and consumers can easily switch to other high-calorie products if the price of one product rises," Snowdon explained in his great essay, riffing on a theoretical Pepsi drinker who switches to beer in the face of high soda taxes.

Even if Snowdon's Pepsi drinker was theoretical, her switch from soda to beer was backed by data. Indeed, in my essay I linked to a study that found high soda taxes "led to increased purchases of beer." 

It's also generally understood that if you tax something enough, and it costs more, people will buy less of it. Indeed, various reports have indicated the soda tax has caused a reduction in soda buying in Seattle. That's caused some to argue the tax is "working really well." (That's particularly true if you own a brewery!)

There's no inherent reason that Seattleites have switched from soda to beer. I suspect city residents likely might have swapped out soda for liquor, too—the PLoS study didn't examine liquor sales—but Washington State's ridiculously high liquor taxes, which make the city's soda tax look trivial, likely helped to make beer Seattle's soda substitute.

Interestingly, soda taxes have largely disappeared as an issue in the United States in recent years, and for reasons that aren't quite clear to me. I've assumed that California's excellent (and startling) 2018 statewide ban on new soda taxes helped dampen the spirits of Cali-covetous activists in the rest of the country. But a switch in consumer palates—particularly among the White Claw crowd—may play a role, too. It's possible, I suspect, that policymakers have seen that, with soda consumption already on the decline for years without targeted taxes, and perhaps accelerating more recently among younger generations, pushing for taxes that didn't make economic sense several years ago is an even less attractive approach today. Whatever the case, any momentum for such taxes appears to have stalled.

That's good news. After all, people who understand the impact of such taxes—from their regressive nature to their utter lack of impact—always found them to be a bad idea.

"It's hard to overstate the abject failure of soda taxes to deliver on their promised benefits," Reason Foundation's Guy Bentley wrote several years ago in a Washington Post op-ed. "Nowhere in the world, let alone the United States, have soda taxes reduced obesity."

Although a consumer switch from soda to beer in Seattle was not unexpected, the new study data is a little surprising. Last year, the Seattle Times reported that liquor and wine consumption had increased in the city during the pandemic, but that even though beer remained Seattle's most popular tipple, "beer and hard cider didn't gain in popularity during the pandemic in the Seattle area."

NEXT: Life Gets Better for Sports Bettors

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. Same thing happened in Philly six or seven years ago, when the Mayor and City Council imposed a massive $.24/pint tax on all soft drinks (including unsweetened drinks), which prompted many people to buy beer (which PA imposes only a $.01/pint tax).

    1. The Philly tax on a case of twenty four 16 ounce cans/bottles of soda and unsweetened drinks is $5.76.

      In sharp contrast, the PA tax on a case of twenty four 16 ounce cans/bottles of beer is just $.24.

      PA's penny per pint beer tax was imposed eight decades ago, when the average price of a beer was just $.05. Due to inflation, the beer tax has declined by 95% as the average price of a beer is now nearly $1.

      1. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
        For more detail ….

    2. Cook County IL implemented a soda tax and rescinded it in less than a year. The move torpedoed the Cook County board president's bid for Chicago mayor. It's how they got stuck with Beetlejuice.
      If the dems are so hot to fight obesity through soda consumption they can remove it and other junk foods from food stamp eligibility.

      1. But that would be racist!

        1. In 2022 many people are now joining online jobs very fast because it has potential. YUi i joined this 3 months ago and in 3 months I totally received $50743 and all I was doing is copy and paste stuff in my part time. Join now and start making money from this website: .............

          1. Is that you sqrly?

            1. Too coherent, not enough all-caps and the link is to a less dishonest site.

    3. Now do cigarette taxes, Bill.

    4. the authors of the PLoS study note that the dangers of "excess alcohol consumption [include] higher risk of motor accidents/deaths, liver cirrhosis, sexually transmitted diseases, crime and violence, and workplace accidents." Also: obesity.

      And you might get your own song on The Howard Stern Show;

      Jackie Is A Drunk

      1. I'm a little too young for his heyday, but it's sad how Howard Stern turned from that into a fretful old woman.

        1. The alligators in the sewers of New York City must be heavy on estrogen and it seeps into the water table.

    5. Great, Beer is much better than soda.

  2. This is first week of Econ 101 stuff.

    Why is it necessary for progressives to see an academic study of the impact of their choices after the fact, when the likely consequences were easily predicted with a basic understanding of the simple economic principles involved?

    The answer is probably either because progressives aren't smart enough to understand the basic economic principles involved or because they don't really care about the negative consequences of their policies. We can argue all day about which is dumber.

    Progressives want the things they want for "reasons" that have little or nothing to do with reason the way we understand it. They may have wanted to raise the price of sugary soft drinks because they wanted to believe that bureaucrats making choices for us is smart.

    Trying to rationalize why they do what they do may be getting it all backwards. Our brains are pattern seeking, and we tend to assume other people are like us. The only pattern in progressive stupidity can't be followed rationally--because there isn't any reason behind it--and they aren't pushing their policies for "reasons" the way the rest of us do at all.

    1. Hmm, how about a tax on progressives? Or, to be more equitable, a tax on social engineering?

      1. If we fail to inflict the costs of progressive stupidity on our politicians at the ballot box, every two years or so, I suppose we're the ones who are being stupid.

        1. OK, then, a tax on stupidity. Natural selection did that for 3.5 billion years, but the modern commercial/welfare state made it easier for the stupid to survive.

          But how to assess stupidity?

          1. The state subsidizes stupidity with its schools.

    2. P.S.

      Stupid lab rats are smart enough to learn from the negative consequences of their mistakes.

      Smart people use their knowledge and intelligence to avoid mistakes before they're made.

      Progressives don't really care whether their policy choices have negative consequences--beyond people criticizing progressives--and they will deny that the negative consequences of their choices could have been avoided.

      Yes, I conclude that progressives are dumber than lab rats.

      P.S. Inflation increased to 7.5%. Would the impact of spending $3.5 trillion more on Build Back Better have been inflationary? If you're a progressive, there's no way to know the answer to that question--because progressives are profoundly ignorant and stupid.

    3. They are hoping the academic study will cast doubt on the economic logic, like with the minimum wage. Or like reviewing Supreme Court decisions instead of reading the text of the Constitution.

    4. I humbly suggest their "reasons" are power, control, and punishing those who disagree with them. That's the pattern, it has nothing to do with whether a policy is good, bad, or indifferent.

    5. You should put those evil progressives in camps or something. After all, they have brains that are different from “us”. They are the other and should be despised.

      1. We already know your playbook.

      2. You should stop shitting up the boards with your squawking, bird.

      3. Thats odd. Your side is literally doing that in Australia and wants to do that here.

        1. Get ready for his disingenuous “cite?”

      4. Or, now this may sound crazy, progressives could pull the sticks out of their asses and leave people alone.

    6. Progressives don’t need to think about the economics of their petty taxes/laws because they aren’t the ones consuming the taxed or banned product. They don’t drink soda, smoke, or eat junk food, so by taxing the hell out of these things, they get to feel good with no consequences for them, since they will be re-elected anyway by the voters of their deep blue enclaves.

    7. When facts don’t work out their way, they just make up an emotionally satisfying story and decide to believe that instead.

  3. "There's no inherent reason that Seattleites have switched from soda to beer."

    Duh. Given that Seattle has become a socialist political shithole, if I had to live there I would be drinking more beer.

  4. The greatest part of this article is that it shows consumer supply shifting that occurs in the real world. Yet the great reason economist boehm ignores this effect in global trade studies when he implies all tariffs solely increase costs. In reality in many cases it simply causes a supply shift to another producer. We see this in his articles against retaliatory tariffs against China for their anti free market actions which actually do cost consumers billions a year in excess costs such as security costs for producers to fight off corporate in theft and other actions.

  5. Well, the runaway inflation the far left Krugmanian dickbags said would never happen is here now. What does this mean going forward? It means that the 13+ year era of unlimited quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates is coming to an end for a while, so get ready.

    If any of you out there were seriously looking into buying a new car, new home, or refinancing your current one, I would STRONGLY advise that you do it immediately, as in like right now. Because it’s about to get a whole lot more expensive.

    1. If I recall, Krugman predicted wild inflation by Trump's second year. Looks like Orangeman was so evil and devious he designed an economic plan to embarrass his successor.

      1. If (key word here) government spending and massive deficits are the cause of inflation then Trump is to blame.

        (Biden sucks too. Non-partisan disclaimer.)

        1. It amazes me how you're still clinging to that narrative, despite the fact that everyone here can still remember two years ago.
          (Yes, yes, I know that you're paid to, but still)

          1. President Donald J. Trump Is Providing Economic Relief to American Workers, Families, and Businesses Impacted by the Coronavirus

            Issued on: March 27, 2020

            The legislation developed in the Senate is the first step to restoring confidence and stability to America's economy.

            President Donald J. Trump


            $2.2 trillion in handouts - by the SENATE REPUBLICANS and Donald Trump.

            Yes, this is on the GOP.

            Supported by Democrats of course.

            Bush proved that Democrats bend over when Big Gov conservatives aks for money.

            1. You should turn yourself in for your crimes against children.

              1. That essay has nothing to do with the CARES Act and nothing to do with a veto that didn't happen, you moron.

                It is about the third of Trump's big wasteful boondoggles when there was a President Elect Biden. Late in 2020.

                You really are clueless.

                The MAGA cult is strong.

                1. The Soros cult is strong with Explain to me how Trump created all those bills and not Pelosi.

                  1. The dummy doesn’t understand the constitution.

                    1. And you Trump cultists are morons.

                      The Constitution clearly says that spending bills must be approved by the Senate and signed by the President.

                      You idiots keep saying that the House can approve spending by itself.

                      IT'S ALL NANCY'S FAULT!

                    2. Lol. Shrike doesn't know congress can override a veto. Fucking hilarious.

                    3. Look at you try and lawyer your way around the fact that the House created the spending bill and Trump couldn't legally veto it.

                      Who do you actually think you're tricking here?

            2. Oh shit, it was unvetoable, he couldn't not sign it:
              "The House passed the bill on March 27 by a near-unanimous, unrecorded voice vote."

              1. Shrike doesn't know basic civics.

                1. He isn’t paid to be right.

                2. And you Trump cultists are morons.

                  The Constitution clearly says that spending bills must be approved by the Senate and signed by the President.

                  You idiots keep saying that the House can approve spending by itself.

                  IT'S ALL NANCY'S FAULT!

                  1. Stop hurting children!

                  2. Instead of trying to educate shrike, just rub his nose in the 6trillion that Biden spent last year alone. Thank god he didn’t get his way with that retarded as fuck 3.5trillion BBB bill.

                    Hey shrike: every time Pelosi gets control of the purse strings, spending goes up. Fuck that cunt, cut spending. Oh wait, you whined and bitched about the Republicans forcing sequestration on Obama and the Democrats back in 2012, so I guess your fiscal sanity is just more bullshit.

                  3. IT'S ALL NANCY'S FAULT!

                    Yes, that's what we've been saying, shill.
                    And until you can demonstrate how Trump could've vetoed a two-thirds majority vote we'll continue to.

          2. THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you all very much. This is a very important day. I’ll sign the single-biggest economic relief package in American history and, I must say, or any other package, by the way. It’s twice as large as any relief ever signed. It’s $2.2 billion, but it actually goes up to 6.2 — potentially — billion dollars — trillion dollars. So you’re talking about 6.2 trillion-dollar bill. Nothing like that. And this will deliver urgently needed relief to our nation’s families, workers, and businesses. And that’s what this is all about.


            You really are stupid, ML. See Trump bragging about how much he could waste in a direct quote.

            1. You really are stupid, Plug. And deliberately dishonest.

              Nancy Pelosi proposed all this as House leader. Trump created none of it, and some of the bills were unvetoable. You need to stop lying.

              American Rescue Plan
              $1.9 trillion price tag, and includes everything from direct payments to business to aid for local governments.

              Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act
              $8.3 billion in emergency funding for public health agencies and coronavirus vaccine research. That bill appropriated $7.8 billion in discretionary funding to federal, state, and local health agencies and authorized $500 million in mandatory spending through a change in Medicare.

              Families First Coronavirus Response Act
              $192 billion for enhancing unemployment insurance benefits

              The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
              A relief package of around $2 trillion.
              Financial Assistance to Large Companies and Governments ($500 billion).
              $450 billion will support loans to businesses, states, and municipalities through a new Federal Reserve lending facility.
              Economic support for small businesses ($380 billion).
              $349 billion in funding through the CARES Act to offer as loans to small businesses to help them avoid laying off their workers.

              Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act
              $483 billion, additional $383 billion in economic support for business.

              Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
              $868 billion of federal support to help mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

              1. Just titles - you have nothing, idiot.

                Here is Trump, McConnell and Kevin McCarthy bragging about wasting taxpayer money (White House link again): ---------------

                "But, Mitch, I’d like — I’d love to say a few words because you — this man worked 24 hours a day for a long time. This is the result. It’s the biggest ever — ever approved in Congress: 6.2 bill- — $6.2 trillion. So, you know, we used to get used to the billion. It used to be million, then it was billion, now it’s trillion. And it’s going to go a long way. It’s going to make a lot of people very happy.

                Mitch McConnell, please.

                LEADER MCCONNELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just say this is a proud moment for our country, for the President. The Republicans and the Democrats all pulled together and passed the biggest bill in history in record time.

                I also want to thank Kevin McCarthy and our leaders on the Republican side in the House who helped speed this through to passage. The American people needed this rescue package, they needed it quickly, and we delivered. It’s a proud moment for all of us. Mr. President, thanks for the opportunity to be here."


                1. How can a pedophile be sickened by anything?

                2. "SICKENING"

                  You know what's sickening? Your dishonesty.

                  First you said it was Trump's fault and now you're saying it was McConnell.

                  Time to tell the truth, Shriek.

                  Did McConnell create those bills or did Pelosi?

                  Did the House pass the bills or did Trump executive order them into existence?

                  Who creates spending bills? Can a president create a spending bill?

                  Was the House leader at the time McConnell or Pelosi?

                  Did the Republicans have control of the House when all those bills I referenced were passed, or did the Democrats?

                  Who is House majority leader under Biden?

                  Time to stop lying, pedo.

                  1. The pedo lies. It’s what he does.

              2. "...You need to stop lying...."
                turd will never stop lying. turd is a trafficker in kiddie porn, a TDSS-addled asshole and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lie he told even minutes ago.

            2. The person who preys on children is concerned about justice.

            3. Gee, I wonder why he thought the government should be helping people out. Was it just because he’s a big spending Democrat or because Democrats around the country were trying to murder the economy?

      2. At least Trump just flushed his evil plans down the toilet, not the whole economy.

    2. This is a terrible time to buy a depreciate asset due to year over year inflation. 17% increase in car costs last year does not get offset by a half point raise in lending rates.

    3. Is it still transitory six months later?

    4. WCR is corret. Now is the time to borrow. I am looking for the right asset.

    5. Somebody's been reading my 'Stack!

      Or you're just a real libertarian 😉

  6. What should be the bigger story this morning, Putin pulling Russian diplomats out of harm's way in Ukraine, or Justin Trudeau using the police to forcibly remove truckers?

    I think the free world expected more of Trudeau. What Putin is looking to do is undeniably worse, but Putin isn't disappointing anybody who had high expectations of Canada's commitment to the principles of liberalism.

    An armed robbery by a known felon isn't as big of a story as finding out that someone who poses as a babyface liberal is crushing civil dissent with an iron fist.

    1. Per our recent discussions about differences between the way Canadians see things and Americans see things, I bet what plenty of Canadians see coming from Justin Trudeau is what Canadians are talking about when they talk about "arrogance". This is all because Trudeau wouldn't listen to the truckers and consider that he might be wrong about his policies. He's insisting he's the one that's right--like an "arrogant" American--and he won't listen to anyone else. This is offending the sensibilities of plenty of Canadians, eh? You betcha.

      1. Very much this.

    2. Perhaps we could exchange liberals in Canada for the people in Ukraine.

    3. The USA's "intelligence" services continuing to serve up propaganda to a willing press should be the lead story. Even Ukraine doesn't believe them anymore.

      1. Somebody had to change the story and our national security experts stepped up. It's called democracy or something.

      2. I genuinely do hope Putin backs down.

        1. I hope he at least knows what he’s doing.

    4. "I think the free world expected more of Trudeau"

      I don't know why. Even his biggest fans didn't admire him for his wisdom and intellect.

      His biggest demographic, lonely, wine-drinking, middle aged women voted for a surrogate boyfriend. Meanwhile the bureaucrats and the Davos crew loved his malleability and shallow thought.

      The man was destined to be a useful puppet no matter where he went in life.

      1. Well he's got that legacy thing going on. Pierre or Fidel. Either way it was destiny.

        1. Yes, but he has his mom's brains. Fidel, Pierre and the Rolling Stones didn't fuck her for her intellect.

  7. If we have to tax something, I nominate phone calls.

    My phone has gone off a dozen times each day for the past couple of weeks with various junk and spam, despite listing my number on the placebo Do Not Call List. Perhaps a $10 per call tax might change the economics of the telemarketing industry.

    Maybe a more libertarian approach would allow each phone owner to charge incoming callers. Hmm, this could be fun.

    1. NC Governor Roy Cooper had, when he was NC Attorney General years ago, a "Do-Not-Call" List that NC Citizens could sign up for if they didn't want calls from telemarketers.

      Alas, the list does not stop politicians from doing robo-calls or ambulance-chaser attorneys from calling you after you have a no-injury bump-up in the parking lot and after they send their paralegals to fetch the police reports at the courthouse.

      Telemarketers are like dust and hotel bedbugs, something you have to fight yourself.

      Remember: if you aren't under contract to pick up a phone such as through telework, you are under no legal or moral obligation to pick up a phone. Just let it go to voicemail if you can't identify it on caller ID.

      Also, no (libertarian "air-quotes") "legitimate" law enforcement agency threatens or services suspects over the phone either, so ignore anything that sounds like that on the voicemail.

      The Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness you save may be your own!

  8. The substitution effect is real.

    Another argument for Chained-CPI then.

    It is odd that used cars are the #1 item in core CPI since the labor and parts have already been costed out/paid for.

    Used cars UP and gold DOWN. Really odd "inflation".

    1. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled asshole, a trafficker in kiddie porn and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

      1. ^This.

        Although Sevo might be being a little too mild and judicious here.

    2. Goddamn, that is just beautiful.

      Joe Friday, Molly, all of them need to read your posts you are the gold standard of retarded demfag apologist.


    1. Local story.

      1. Paris is even worse. They gassed citizens eating with their kids in cafes and blocked their own roads to stop the French convoy from blocking them.

        1. If you want to know what’s going on outside (or inside) the country you have to look at foreign news services.
          I never wanted live in a dystopian Heinlein novel.

          1. Too late.

            1. Fuck.

              1. Don'cha know? We're living in "The Crazy Years." The only hope is to outlive them like Lazarus Long.

      1. Basement warriors at their finest.

  9. Hey, if they're drinking beer instead of pop, the tax is working as intended, to reduce sugar consumption. Somehow they forgot to tax lattes though.

    1. Please. The soda taxes were never about putting down demand for “sugary drinks“ or “fighting obesity.” Just like the taxes being larded on top of legal cannabis are not about “social Justice.” They are about tax and spend liberals finding new and creative ways to shake money out of people to redistribute to their political friends and allies.

  10. 80% of NFTs are fake. Who could have known?

    Sales of NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, soared to around $25 billion in 2021, leaving many baffled as to why so much money is being spent on items that do not physically exist and which anyone can view online for free.

    Hejazi highlighted three main problems: people selling unauthorised copies of other NFTs, people making NFTs of content which does not belong to them, and people selling sets of NFTs which resemble a security. He said these issues were "rampant", with users "minting and minting and minting counterfeit digital assets".

  11. ConocoPhillips Is Concerned U.S. Oil Output Is Growing Too Fast

    (Bloomberg) -- ConocoPhillips is concerned about overall levels of U.S. oil production growth getting too big, especially after recent announcements of Permian Basin increases from Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp.

    The U.S. will add as much as 900,000 barrels of oil a day over the course of this year, Chief Executive Officer Ryan Lance said on a conference call, upgrading his prior forecast by about 100,000 barrels.

    U.S. growth is “right at the front of our mind,” he said. “If you’re not worried about it you should be.”

    You can't make this shit up. says Biden won't let us drill anymore. US oil companies are pumping up oil production to record highs. So much they are worried that production might be TOO HIGH.


    1. This is companies getting back to work when they're already behind on two years of drilling. Restarting from an effective shutdown's not the drilling boom you're pretending.

      It's like you think we somehow can't remember past the current news cycle.

      "ConocoPhillips is concerned about overall levels of U.S. oil production growth getting too big"

      Left out: because pipeline transport has been effectively stopped. always leaves out the important part of the story.

      1. because pipeline transport has been effectively stopped.

        You can't stop lying, can you?

        anything for the MAGA cult.

        1. turd lies; turd never does anything else. turd is a TDS-addled asshole, a trafficker in kiddie porn and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
          turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

          1. Never forget: The slimy pedo lies.

  12. Who's advising Joe Biden, Hunter?
    This is the administrations brain on drugs.

  13. This study seems iffy to me. It seems an odd choice to switch soda for beer. The study seems too limited, saw a decrease in Soda sales and an increase in beer sales and concludes people swapped one for the other. While I do believe Soda sales dropped, I believe sales in probably a lot of other drinks increased while soda declined simply because it was taxed.

    I didn't catch the time span of the study but if it included the pandemic then a lot of behaviors changed-- including fewer people going to restaurants etc.

    1. This study seems iffy to me.

      No no. You can't question this study. Because this study makes progressives look bad, therefore, it must not be questioned. In fact, by merely questioning it, you are defending progressives. Why are you defending progressives? Did you vote for Bernie Sanders?

      1. You can’t question it because it’s The Science.

      2. Progressives don't need a study to look bad.

        Anyway, are you attacking this study, Jeff?

      3. The study doesn't make progressives look bad. The law makes progressives look bad.

        1. Actually, both.

      4. Haha Jeffy’s as broken as sarc now.

        1. His last week he gave up the disguise and came out as a full throated elitist authoritarian. Strange for someone to do as stupid as him and as obese as him.

          1. He really did go full lefty the last week or so.

      5. Did you watch the Rogan podcasts you said you would after you claimed they didn't exist?

        Funny that you complain here seeing as you've dismissed multiple studies solely based on who stated them refusing to actually read them or understand them.

        1. Of course he didn't.

        2. Had a good one with Dave Smith a couple days ago.*

          * How could I possibly listen to Dave Smith?! He hates Trump!

          1. Steven Koonin was good too.

      6. Literally no one has or will say that.

    2. I switched from soda to beer when I turned 18. Never looked back.

    3. yup, more people at home during the day, drinking more beer. Sales of hard seltzer went up too, then dropped when people started going back to bars, because real men don't harder hard seltzer at bars. Someone else might see them.

      1. don't "order" hard seltzer. No edit button?

      2. Yeah, I'd like to see a study on work-from-home habits on how many people who'd never have an alcoholic drink during the day are now tippling a glass during their lunch.

        1. And by 'never had an alcoholic drink during the day' I mean during their normal work hours.

  14. Do they also tax the syrups for home soda machines or carbonator bottles? I got a bottle as a gift one year along with 5 CO2 cartridges but didn't have anything but maple syrup for flavoring; it turns out that maple seltzer isn't half bad. It's also fairly trivial to make your own flavored syrups/water, store them in the fridge, and just carbonate them as desired. It was fun but cleaning the bottle is a bit tedious.

    1. Surprisingly good: carbonated Gatorade.

    1. Farm raised weed? In cages? What will the People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetation say?
      Free range pot or nothing!

  15. Just published a Ken Schultz special.

    After all, when things are going well, who has time to sit around talking about the dangers of growing government? Why should we spend time thinking about monetary policy? We’ve got real shit to worry about. Just trust that the government is looking out for you.

    But sooner or later the reality of the situation is too powerful to look past. The behemoth federal government is sticking its nose in so many places you can no longer ignore them. Suddenly what the idiot politicians say can ruin your life. When this happens, the political battle shifts as well. Suddenly regular people see the need to protect free speech and start speaking out about the dangers of government directing private companies to do their bidding. (There’s a word for that!) In this way, the underlying battle lines crystalize.

    And as the ‘leaders’ become more authoritarian, cracking down on all decent, the proper response is for the people to become more libertarian.

  16. Been watching Freedom Convoy videos all morning. Really a striking contrast to the BLM riots that Reason defended last summer. There has been zero violence on the part of the demonstrators. No fires. No looting. Protesters are hauling out their garbage, feeding everyone, setting up bouncy tents for the kids, organizing raves and clearing the way for emergency vehicles. This has grown far beyond a truckers convoy. The majority of vehicles are four wheelers. It's being reported that police in Ottowa are taking sick days because they don't don't want to participate in violence against these people. Even Trudeau has (slightly) modified his rhetoric telling protesters "we have heard you" when 3 days ago he called them white supremacists. Freedom convoys are organizing all over the planet. Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from the tyranny they have embraced for the last two years. Hearts and minds are being won and the elites are being forced to regroup. Looks like a libertarian moment to me but Reason has barely noticed. Go figure.

    1. Surprisingly, they haven’t brought out the fire hoses yet.

      1. I could be wrong but I suspect the demonstrators will clear a lane and let traffic through and the cops will stand down. If they get violent Trudeau is finished.

        1. I suspect Trudeau is finished anyway. This was a bad look for him.

          1. Nah. He'll persist because he's propped up by Schwab and the media.
            The blackface was swept under the rug, the rape charges were suppressed, the India debacle was studiously ignored, etc.

      2. Paris is using tear gas on non violent actors.

        1. Another story not brought to you by reason.

    2. Lol, libertarian moment? Where are the hookers? Did ANY of these people publicly snort an abortion pill? I don't see any tents for safe injection supplies. Were there any drag queens giving public readings of Lawn Boy to toddlers?

      HOW can you call this a libertarian moment?

      1. Pretty much. Reason staff seems to be fairly distant from the blue collar, or green collar, for that matter, folks. And very comfortable reporting on nothing but a lot of silly bullshit that really makes no difference to anyone outside of a very tiny minority of wealthy urban sorts.

  17. Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The soda tax is a godsend!

    Lisa: But isn't that a bit shortsighted? What happens when alcoholism becomes endemic?

    Skinner: No problem; we'll just raise the taxes on alcohol. That'll discourage people from drinking too much.

    Lisa: But won't people just turn to recreational drugs?

    Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've got an entire police force entirely funded by drug raids.


    Skinner: No that's the beautiful part. When the anti-police riots take the streets we'll simply defund them until they quit.

  18. At least in moderation, beer is better for you than pop (yes pop, I live in Michigan) anyway, so I’d say this was a win.

    1. I grew up in Michigan. Moved to California and asked a guy where I could find a party store and buy some pop. Dude backed up five feet, looked me in the eye and said "you're not from around here are you boy?"

      1. Civilized people call it Coke.

        1. Old folks down South called it "Dope" and the trucks that hauled bottles of it to textile workers "Dope Wagons," most likely because the original Coke had cocaine in it.

          1890s soft drink bottles also had a little ball in a gllass compartment at the neck of the bottle that closed the bottle when tipped upside down and not in use.

          1. I wonder about that though.
            Back then you could claim anything was in your product.

            1. And back then, that claim was probably right.

              Recall the Old West travelling medicine shows. A lot of those just sold flavored whiskey billed as the cure for what ails ya!

      1. Calling it "Pop" doesn't mean it's Gay, just means it's Yankee. 😉

        1. True yankees call it tonic.

    2. Beer and wine are good for you. Pop and juice aren't.

      1. You wanna live forever?

  19. Remember when I joked that NPR would bring in an expert to explain to their listeners what a "Truck Driver" was?


    Which skin color emoji should you use? The answer can be more complex than you think




    Heath Racela identifies as three-quarters white and one-quarter Filipino. When texting, he chooses a yellow emoji instead of a skin tone option, because he feels it doesn't represent any specific ethnicity or color.

    He doesn't want people to view his texts in a particular way. He wants to go with what he sees as the neutral option and focus on the message.

    "I present as very pale, very light skinned. And if I use the white emoji, I feel like I'm betraying the part of myself that's Filipino," Racela, of Littleton, Mass., said. "But if I use a darker color emoji, which maybe more closely matches what I see when I look at my whole family, it's not what the world sees, and people tend to judge that.

    This article required not one, not two, but three authors to complete.

    1. To be fair, Reason authors DO know what a truck driver is, they just can't figure out why we still need them when everything could be easily delivered by drone.

      1. Trying to get a handle on this trucker kerfuffle, Reason staff invite a real truck driver to a cocktail party.
        ENB: You know this truckers against trafficking is oppressing sex workers.
        Trucker: Sex workers?
        ENB: Yes. Professional sex workers.
        Trucker: Oh you mean lot lizards. I got nothing against the working girls. Just wish they wouldn't bang on the sleeper when I'm trying to get some rest.
        Bohem: It's reported that truckers overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2020.
        Trucker: Well he rolled back regulations so things were a little less stressful.
        Bohem: But Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are defending democracy.
        Sullum: Yeah. Are truckers mostly insurrectionists?
        Trucker: Dunno about that. Life was easier when Trump was around.
        Sullum: It's rumoured that a bunch of truckers are coming to DC to shut down the government like January 6th all over again.
        Trucker: From what I've heard nobody has showed up to work in DC for two years and you guys only come into town for the cocktail parties. Don't know what we could shut down exactly.
        Soave: Hey dude. Check out these Russian vodka martinis. The shits like 200 bucks a bottle.
        Trucker: Got any Shiner Bock?
        Soave: I'll ask the wait staff. By the way. You guys are pretty good at changing tires right? I got one going low on me.
        Trucker: Nah. We just call road service.

        1. Well done.

      2. Why are you laying the truck driver thing at Reason’s feet. Have any of them even taken an anti-libertarian or anti-truck driver position?

        Maybe I missed it, so please cite their anti-truck driver statement if there was one. If not, why reflexive, unfounded criticism of Reason?

        1. Poor little shill.

        2. I'm not, I'm actually defending Reason, that say whatever one will about Reason writers, they're not the insular, provincial out-of-touch gaggle that works at NPR. I merely threw in a joke about the libertarian fascination with drones delivery.

          Jeez, it's not like I made a joke about Gypsies and the holocaust, or said "I'm proud to be a woman" at a gender neutral awards show.

          1. They are a step up from NPR, maybe two or three. And they certainly understand that the packaged food they buy didn't magic itself to the store. That the packages they receive don't arrive via teleportation. But they are pretty far from working class, as an observation. And that's okay, but it influences their worldview, and not for the better.

    2. Colors of emogicons are a way for social media data slurpers to get another point of entropy. Now they know what "race" you see yourself as, and can add that to your profile.

      These sorts of hand wringers are probably pretty good marks for targeted ads, though. They seem gullible and easily persuaded by trendy emotional appeals.

      Not that I'm one to talk when it comes to being dumb. I'm too stupid to be able to decipher what people mean when they post a string of little pictures so I tend to use words.

      1. My skin tone depends on how much sun I've been getting lately. I've only seen one white person in my whole life. He was an albino.

        1. Even gingers can turn blonde in the sun.

          1. Like Biden?

    3. Skin color is the most important thing.

      1. Skin color, and identifying as other than male...

    4. This emoji should come in different colors too. Should be used to rate the NPR article

    5. "But if I use a darker color emoji, which maybe more closely matches what I see when I look at my whole family, it's not what the world sees, and people tend to judge that."

      Probably, you should get new friends if they are judging your emoji color choice.

      1. Yeah, no fucking shit. If your friends are judging the emoticon color you use on a pantone representational gradient, either you or your friends suck ass.

        1. either you or your friends suck ass.

          ¿Por que no los dos?

          Actually, I know why not. Because anyone who encourages you to worry about an icon color is not your friend. This chick needs to understand, a real friend is someone who lets you know when your zipper is down, or quietly mentions that your too tight pants are giving you a muffin top, or that your obsession with the woke racialist nonsense has made you the laughing stock of everyone outside of your tiny, narcissistic, pseudointellectual social bubble and that taking a really good, honest look at yourself once in a while is a good thing to do.

      2. Or, maybe he could realize that living life with other people's opinions as a yardstick for self-worth is a really poor way to go about it. This is one of the biggest issues with progressivism, and modern education. They produce the adult equivalent of toddlers.

  20. Each of those authors brought their lived experience into their critical analysis of the sometimes baffling subject of emoji selection. I for one am grateful for their insights.

  21. The problem with sugary drinks is that most people are clueless about the harm. A tax without informing consumer seems dumb. A better solution would be to require warning labels like we put on alcohol informing people about carb addiction, obesity, diabetes, etc. and let people have the freedom to do stupid things without controlling them. Also, our government encourages a high amount of carbs in our diet (remember the food pyramid). The people that write the diet guidelines receive a lot of lobbyist money. The government still recommends 2 servings of sugar per day which is ridiculous.

  22. The left's entire ideology is fraudulent. It's all about control and power. Fuck them all.

    If this were about being 'healthier', they would have taxed their beloved coffee. Most of that crap they order from starbucks has way more sugar and calories than a soda.

    But because they fucking like it, it wasn't part of the 'soda' tax. Those 'other' people drink soda, and they drink coffee, so they tax coffee.

    Fuck them all. They are all pieces of trash. Stealing from those they don't like to give to what they do like.

  23. Durham revealed in a Friday court filing that he has evidence that Sussmann’s other client (dubbed “Technology Executive-1” but known to be former Neustar Senior Vice President Rodney Joffe) “exploited” domain name system internet traffic at “a particular health care provider” (which was likely Spectrum Health), Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

    1. If true, that is a very serious accusation.

      1. Hit submit to early. Meant to add “That guy better hope he’s in the good graces of the DNC.”

  24. Thông tin liên hệ:
    Address: 68 Trần Cao Vân, Phường 6, Quận 3, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam
    Phone: 0772 706 407

    1. Poor Doi Thuong. He's 68 and looking for love in the Reason comments section.
      Kind of like Sqrlsy.

      1. Does he love long time? Any-ting you want?


    A woman who was upset because people came to Canberra to protest let off an abusive tirade against a protestor, then proceeded to attempt to knock over her car, instead almost tipping her own over.

    These people are insane.

    1. What is it with the parvenus always ramming their vehicles into the proletariat?
      In Canada an antifa pedo (why are they all pedos?) rammed his car into a crowd of protesters a few days ago, and then yesterday another one did and hit a little girl.

      1. Something about pedos ramming little girls, probably.

  26. Study: Seattle's Soda Tax Has Been Great for…Beer Sales Smash-and-Grabs?


  27. Tax soda
    people buy their soda in the suburbs instead
    soda sales in the city drop
    merchants sell less soda so they devote less cooler space to soda
    more room in the cooler for beer
    better beer selection leads to more beer sales

  28. Here's how to reduce obesity the USA: REMOVE all crop subsidies, especially corn, sugar, and wheat AND REMOVE all welfare programs, especially SNAP/WIC/EBT that are used to buy junk food.

    The crop subsidies are corporate welfare and help the processed food makers make junk food at super-low prices such that healthy food options are more expensive. In other countries, desserts and sweets are considered luxuries compared with healthy foods like vegetables. Here, sweets are the norm and healthy foods are the luxury.

    1. Geez, don't get me started about SNAP/WIC/EBT. I've had EBTers in my line with a whole cart of junk food that could last me for years! The mere sight of that much sugar and carbs could make you go blind with retinopathy and make both your legs fall off, just from the visual sugar buzz high!

      One such asshole with a cartfull of bread and sweets actually had the nerve to bum $5 from me so he could afford his Diabetic test strips!

      And it isn't just the temporarily down-and-out! I frequently encounter EBT cards that are so faded and worn from use, the user has to hand-key it from a slip of paper taped over the card with the number on it. One had teeth marks from a dog on it!

      Damnit, if you can afford a dog with it's feeding, watering, housing, groomings, vet bills, flea dips, and ugly Christmas sweaters, you can afford to eat without EBT! And if you use the dog for fighting, bear-baiting, or hog-dogging, you don't deserve EBT but instead to be gored and eaten by your own chattel!

      Then you have, not just the poor, but people with good-paying secure government and crony jobs like teaching, civil servants, Postal Workers, law enforcers, union workers, jobs so secure the only way you could get fired is to get caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy...all getting EBT/SNAP/WIC!!!!

      Cut them all off! They'll all live off the fat stored in their bellies and maybe the blood flow to their brains will open up too!!

  29. "Drinking soda is neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause of obesity,"

    "Soda" is a broad category, and legislatively defined so you're never sure where the limits are.

    But it's pretty that sugary drinks--things like apple juice, pepsi, lemonade, koolaid &etc. windup being processed significantly differently in the liver, and over years contribute significantly to thinkgs like NAFLD and obesity. This gets even worse when you increase the ratio of fructose to glucose in the fluids.

    So while there are other routes to rotund, sugary sodas are *sufficient*, absent compensatory behavior.

    And yes, you can point to the same studies that the soda companies use as shelter, but those are generally short term (8 to 16 week) studies, and over those timelines you're not going to see a big gain in fat. But just a pound a year from 18 to 50 will take the average person from a reaonsably safe amount of body fat into the range where adverse health outcomes are more likely.

    This isn't a call for regulation, this isn't to suggest the state do *anything*. Not the least off which is because the state usually does the wrong thing.

  30. It's utopianism. One of the old American liberal vs. conservative comparisons was how things ought to be vs. how things are. You have to be a bit of a crackpot to mostly believe in reality-defying theories and treatises that spit in the face of the founding fathers' values.

    Before they're confronted with data, liberals seriously thought we were joking when we said people would substitute other drinks for soda. They were convinced that people drink soda because they are addicted to it and that soda drinkers were not sensitive to changes in price. I could understand and disagree with those who made an economically sound argument. Maybe the European and Mexican soda taxes led you to believe it was price inelastic. Definitely a misread, but understandable. The problem is nobody really said that. They were totally convinced that their behavioral assumptions were correct despite having no empirical basis for them.

    There really is a fundamental disrespect for economics in this country. Everyone has to deal with money, yet nobody pushes for financial literacy in public schools. We complain about taxation and govt overreach, but when given the choice, nobody takes econ classes outside of people who already value it. It's unfortunate.

    I actually worked for City govt when Philly instituted its soda tax. Our dept was supposed to get some of the funding from it. I was right out of college and even I knew back then it wasn't going to work. The doublethink in the messaging was awful too. They packaged the tax as a health initiative, even though soda is relatively better for you than alcohol. They also claimed it would raise tons of money for programs, which doesn't make sense if it's also supposed to be a health initiative that reduces consumption.

    The whole process was silly. Was really just an exercise in power.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.