Essay On Soda Tax

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.

Sugar addiction is a problem that has been in our society for many years. In today's world this type of addiction is being composed into drinks. Sugary drinks are found everywhere from local stores, to in home refrigerators. Sodas, juices, and energy drinks, all fall under unhealthy remedies to thirst. Sugar addiction can only restrain us from accomplishing healthy goals in life. Sugary drinks can lead to harming one's body. Over the past few years, many cities and states have considered taxing sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugary drinks must be tax due to its unhealthy components and addiction.

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

Altogether, there are no positive impacts by setting the soda ban in place. The soda ban hurts businesses, the soda ban goes completely against the constitution, and the soda ban does not have any evidence that it will improve health. First of all, due to the soda ban business profit will plomate. Karin Klein clearly stated on page 288 of paragraph 3, ¨Convenience

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

I agree completely with this blog post. Usually, I would not view an inaccessibility to food to be a positive thing. In this case, the more obstacles individuals had to go through for soda, the less it was bought. I experienced something similar to a soda tax myself. Like all college students, I am on a budget, so I try to be generally mindful of how much I spend and

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

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.

The idea of beginning a tax on sugary drinks is nowhere near a new one. Many people immediately jump to soda whenever they hear this idea, and that’s where most people see the problem surrounding the sugary drink debate. I see the problem not with the products themselves but how they are abused to the point where they can become a problem to the consumer. Like most things, it’s all good in moderation but once you start to have three to four cans or bottles a day it can start to be an issue. Thats where this proposed tax is supposed to come in and save the day. Or so that’s what most of us have been told, and some of us believe. But maybe this new tax doesn’t need to have a place in our society.

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 soda industry has been influential since its breakthrough such as companies like Coca-Cola “giving money to and maintaining a cozy relationship with the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit that promoted exercise over diet to combat obesity, the financial relationship between soda companies and public health groups have been scrutinized” (Blackmore). The city of San Francisco is bringing back the soda tax proposition which will add 2 cents on soda per ounce. Last time around it wasn’t as successful only getting half of the votes when they needed, at least, seventy-five percent. This time around they will only need the half of votes they got the last time. San Franciscan's should pass the soda tax because it would discourage people

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.

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

“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.