Essay On Soda Tax

The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city

Although this may be true, the soda ban “... produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity” (Gross,1). In brief, the soda ban won’t reduce the ever-growing obesity rate in America. After all their are other contributors that damage America’s health. Without delay, this law gives the thought of the U.S. becoming forcefully controlled by the government. As described by Sidney Anne Stone “ It starts here and it will spread throughout the nation..before you know it, it won’t be the “land of the free and home of the brave”...we are all going to wake up in the land of “Big Brother” with a list of things we can and cannot do, eat, drink, say, and so on, and we’ll be wondering how we got there. Well, this is how”(Stone,288). For this reason the soda ban devices those who may agree with the law. If more bans or laws like this one were to occur, the U.S. would become what it hates.Overall, the ban may bring a horrid future for

This memo is an application of some of the policy ideas Cass Sunstein has described in his book “Simpler,” to a proposed “soda tax” in Oakland California. The introduction of the tax, contained in “Measure HH” (as it appears on the ballot) has been met with stiff opposition by some members of the Oakland area while others have embraced the idea. Three ideas from “Simpler” will be tested in this California case.

Yes, because if you really think about it, if soda is not taxed then everyone would have diabetes if they drink soda.But the funny thing is that if you do tax soda it will not be effective,the tax soda will hurt people, and soda is unhealthy.

To begin with, the article, “Philadelphia’s Soda Tax Bust” is based on Philadelphia's soda tax made earlier this year, the purpose of the tax was to finance universal pre-K education as well as prevent child obesity within the city. Although

In “In Chicago, Nobody Knew the Soda Tax Could Be so Complicated” by Patrick Clinton, he points out that retailers in Cook County (Illinois) argue that the Sweetened Beverage Tax is illegal. The tax that was passed last fall and was planned to be effective by July 1, 2017, consisted of setting a tax rate per ounce on the retail sale of the drink brought so many controversies if they should keep the tax or not. Clinton explains that in the Illinois’s constitution any law has to be taxed uniformly, but the tax does not meet all the requirements. The Sweetened Beverage Tax includes any drinks with artificial sweeteners like drinks in a bottle or a mixed drink, even fountain drinks, but it excludes juices, drinks that are made by baristas, legitimate

Cupertino needs a soda tax to decrease the consumption of soda. Having a soda tax is like a food chain. By putting an additional tax sugary drinks with high calories and low nutrition we can lower the amount of purchased soda. Cutting back on the consumption soda can result in a healthier lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle can increase one's lifespan by 10 years. If we can get people to drink less soda the risk of obesity will decrease. If obesity decreases, the risk of high cholesterol and heart attack decreases. The chances of diabetes will also decrease. Once these health issues commence to fade, the government will spend less money on healthcare and more money on schools. More money for schools will allow students to have a better education.

Soda can kill people. Warning labels can help stop health issues from soda. Soda isn’t an issue for America for the community there are other problems need to take care of. Soda taxes will increase the the amount of people who drink soda and are very addictive. Sugary drink much as soda can cause serious diseases.

Yikes! Did you just see a really fat boy over there drinking soda! Why’s he so fat? Because of soda. There is also a sign over there saying that there are taxes. Do you think soda taxes are fair? It is fair and there are lots of reasons why.

If the idea was to get people to not drink the these beverages as much as we are used to then a tax would be going at it all wrong. It would be a better idea to have more marketing or information about the benefits of limiting their sugary drink intake. I don’t even think I have ever seen an ad or service announcement about not drinking soda. Everything shown to us is to encourage us to go to the store and pick up the pack of soda or a huge bottle of gatorade. But there are ads against smoking and drinking shown all the time. Ads are about awareness and are an easier approach to the public because it’s a win-win (Clemmit). These companies don’t lose customers to high taxes and the public learn some of the health issues that come with most of the products. If we were going to put the same taxes on sugary drinks they would have to be treated the same. “If you want to tax the hell out of soda, then you need to make people think that’s a drug, not a beverage - that downing a Coke is just like puffing on a cigarette (Engber 641).

In Marion Nestle’s blog post, she discusses the positive effect of the soda tax in Berkeley on soda consumption. She compared Berkeley’s soda intake data to the soda drinking of neighboring cities that do not have a soda tax. She noticed that the soda consumption decreased significantly in Berkeley and increased slightly in Oakland and San Francisco where there was no soda tax

While nobody denies we have a problem with taxation in this country for food, beverages, and everything that we buy in general, I believe that we should have a fat tax to detour people from buying soda and other fattening foods. We should also ban sodas and other fattening foods from vending machines in schools, and replace them with more healthy selections.

The first question in Kass’s formulaic approach to the ethics of public health is “What are the public health goals of this program?” (Kass, 1777) By nature, the public health goal of any program is to essentially promote the overall health of a population through an organized and communal effort. In the case of the soda tax, the ultimate public health goal is simply to reduce the amount of morbidity & mortality and improve the well being of society. This begins by tackling the obesity problem, which is directly linked to morbidity & mortality. According to Brownell, “for each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%” (Brownell et al., 1599). It can be inferred that drinking soda is linked to obesity rates, but why should obesity rates matter? According to Sturm, “a higher BMI…is associated with increased mortality and increased risk for coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and certain types of cancer. Even modest weight reductions can have substantial lifetime health benefits” (Sturm, 245). Obviously if someone is morbidly obese, he or she is at extreme risk for a myriad of

Sugary drinks can affect our health in many negative ways such as obesity and diabetes, thus we should try to lower the consumption of soft drinks and artificial flavor juice. I agree that the majority of Americans consume way more soda comparing to other nations, however, I don't think increase the tax on sugary drink will help people change their unhealthy diet/habit. Increasing on taxes alone, without educate the people will not be an effective way to lower the level of soda consumption. In fact, increasing the tax will anger most people because it's unconstitutional for the government to prevent people from choosing their own diet. One more thing about the increasing taxes on soda is not fair if Seattle for example only increase taxes on

“Sin” taxes have been proven as a way to curtail known unhealthy behaviors. Soda taxes are most accepted if taxes collected are earmarked for health specific programs (Chaufin et al., 2010). The cons are the consumers are the voters and taxing may equate to loss of votes, taxing may not be equitable to individuals that do not have the disease, and finally, an undue burden may be placed on lower socio-economic demographics as these groups often have limited access to food vendors that primarily sale what would be considered taxed foods. Though these sin taxes are proven to work well with tobacco and alcohol consumption, altering a persons’ diet needs to be more individualized and realistically approached. Lower socio-economic individuals should not feel added burden as a tax; which would be a negative impact (Kuchar et al., 2005). Legality issues are regarded as low, but would require state government support to enact. This would likely not be popularly accepted and have a minimal impact for any increase in tax rate.