We should really stop subsidizing Big Corn the way we do; that will save money on a national scale and help reverse the trend of putting high fructose corn syrup in everything.

Oh no, sugary soft drinks will now fall into the hands of the gangs. Want some Meth? Crack? Fanta?

Ah, "the children." My favorite reason for doing anything, especially abortion.

Dan you have a big problem with government infringing on your liberties (sexual and reproductive freedom) but you have no problem with government intervening in eating choices? That sounds hypocritical to me. I don't drink sodas even I am surrounded by free sodas at my work place (except occasionally). I read your book and in the book you talked about how you are sick of people using kids to advance their agenda ? Seems like the SF mayor is doing the same thing.

@4, it is a form of a sin tax NOT government interference.
So Tax away!!!

"it is a form of a sin tax NOT government interference."
Sin tax IS a form of government interference. So why not tax "juice" drinks that are mostly corn syrups anyway. Why should people who only drink sodas occasionally be taxed?

Soda is a huge contributor to obesity! We need to stop drinking so much damn soda and stop letting our kids get addicted to it too.

And yet, we've had a tax on soda (pop, if you prefer) in this state for years. $1 a gallon on soda pop syrup.

Last I looked, Washington's obesity rate is rising just as fast as everyone else's on the West Coast.

The gang-up on HFCS is getting silly, anyway. There's no proof that it really does anything to you above and beyond what regular old fructose does to you.

The problem isn't HFCS. The problem is that we eat too much and exercise too little.

Maybe the kids wouldn't be getting fat if their parents weren't so inundated with "OMG STRANGERS ARE WAITING TO STEAL YOUR KID EVERYWHERE" stories. Seriously, I never see kids playing outside anymore, and when I was their age, wild horses couldn't drag me inside. Even kids who had Nintendo were still playing outside.

Back in my day, blah blah blah...

I want to know where it stops though. There are bans on smoking, trans-fat, and now soda? At what point will people finally stand up and say STFU to the gov't? People who are non-smokers or already eat healthy may see nothing wrong with what's been going on but it's only the start of things. The more the gov't can see how easily it is to take things away the more they will do so. LA is trying to keep any new fast food places from opening for a year or two. Companies are now telling their employees to quit smoking or be fired. Part of what makes living in this country is the right to choose and they will slowly take those rights away. Smoking was an easy target. Mark my words though they will only go after more and more stuff.

@10 I agree with what you say but disagree with your opinion that "People who are non-smokers or already eat healthy may see nothing wrong with what's been going on"
I am a non-smoker who eats healthy but I do not like government intrusions neither. I don't care people smoke as long as they don't smoke in a closed space where non-smokers are affected (so yes I think heavy cigarettes tax is bad also).

On the other hand, people also kvetch endlessly about consumer rights, and the enormous influence that large industrial food conglomerates have over what we eat and drink. And in cases where there is some direct empirical evidence that certain substances contribute to health problems, we expect the government to step in and discipline or punish corporations that act in ways that aren't in the best interests of consumers.

While I certainly applaud the notion that individuals have a responsibility to act in their own best interests, that same principle should also apply to corporations; however, getting them to live up to those responsibilities is frequently a task that only government has the leverage to exact.

One could easily make an argument that consumers should have primary responsiblity for not exposing themselves to things like, asbestos, or harmful pesticides, or prescription drugs with dangerous side-effects. And while that may be true on an individual basis, we still need the "big stick" of government to act in our collective interest. It takes both kinds of pressure: consumers being knowledgeable and responsible in their individual choices, PLUS government exerting its influence on behalf of citizens, to get corporations to change their practices.

Hooray for the Nanny State! God, I just love it when intrusive government policy robs us of the ability to make poor choices...

We've been meaning to talk to you about your recycling, Hernandez. You're not separating envelopes with the cellophane inserts from the envelopes without the cellophane inserts.

Don't make us send the police over.

I also smoke cigarettes next to building air intakes. It's my own little form of civil disobedience.

"consumers should have primary responsiblity for not exposing themselves to things like, asbestos, or harmful pesticides, or prescription drugs with dangerous side-effects"
In these cases the consumers have no choices (well in the prescription drugs the patients still have the choice to suffer the side-effects or not). Problem with government deciding for consumers what are "bad" or "good" foods is that they are often not accurate (even wrong). Remember how fat was considered "bad" ? Now we know not all fats are bad and the low-fat food crazed was all the rage but did not lower the obesity rate.

@11

That's why I added the word 'may'.

;)

@ 16:

True, so far as it goes. But in most instances, federal agencies that track these sorts of things generally change their policies as new information is forthcoming, which is what they should do (although with the current administration, such rational changes in policy are, admittedly, difficult to undertake).

Part of the reason why the "low fat food craze" didn't significantly affect obesity rates was simply because food manufacturers substituted equally caloric-rich ingredients to compensate for the reduction in fat, bringing us right back to HFCS, which was frequently added to "low-fat foods" in order to enhance flavor. The result was that a lot of so-called low-fat products actually showed no net reduction in calories, since in many cases the fat was simply swapped for more carbs.

if we (via the government) pay for health care then we can have certain expectations (sin taxes) for how people behave in regard to their health.

First they start taxing our soda, but when will it end? I can't bear to think of a world in which the government taxes our property, our income, our retail purchases....

This is why I didn't like the anti-smoking craze. I knew it would not stop there. If you don't smoke, or eat fast food, or drink soda, good for you. But remember, everyone has a guilty little pleasure that they enjoy, but is also harmful. The government will not stop with it's nanny laws until every last thing that made life worth living is either illegal or heavily taxed.

It's the cornerstone of nanny laws, treat citizens like children. Just like mom, government knows best. Are you a child? do you like surrendering all your everyday decisions to the state?

The only problem being is that EVERYTHING is bad for your health depending on what report you read. If it's not bad for your health then it's certainly bad for the environment.

Everything will kill you eventually. I'm gonna die if it's the last thing that I do.

Most people don't think it's a big deal that government set certain health guidelines (some are good). However it's getting more and more intrusive and it's not just the government. I have a friend who lost his job and was denied health insurance coverage because his cholesterol was tested too "high" (he doesn't eat meat and is very fit). Maybe he ate too much eggs the day he was tested. Now it's norm insurance companies charge more for smokers but who is to say they are not gonna deny you if you drink or eat certain food someday?

#22: Nah, not really. Mostly just poisons like HFCS, trans fat, and tobacco. Beef too.

People who use these things become a drain on the government. It's only fair that they pay their share of taxes (which is a lot more than the piddly taxes that exist right now).

What about Jones Soda? They've moved to cane sugar.

It's pretty easy to make an argument, particularly in SFO, that because obesity is such a tremendous public health issue, the government had a duty to intervene in a manner that reduces the large scale damage that obesity will cause to our economy and society. Why particularly in SFO? Because they guarantee health care.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure this obesity thing will just be one generation, since with the economy going in the shitter and peak oil approaching, personal autos will be a thing of the past. Then we'll all get a bit more exercise.

Nanny State? You wish!

A tax is an incentive/decentive device. It certainly doesn't prevent people from engaging in a particular vice (look at smoking, still there, still taxed heavily). It won't stop it, but it may decrease it, like a higher gas tax won't stop SUVs, but may decrease them.

Not that Dan needs anyone sticking up for him, he is succinct enough as it is, but Dan isn't opposing taxing gay marriage or taxing sodomy, hes against making constitutional amendments that would make equal marriage unlawful.

To make the fight for equality and a sin tax equitable is a smack in the face to alot of people.

because aspartame is so much better.

Saccharin anyone?

Where's the dear science guy? I want to hear what Johnathan Golob has to say.

"To make the fight for equality and a sin tax equitable is a smack in the face to alot of people."

To equate certain foods are "bad" and certain food are "good" is like the bigots who equate gay sex are bad and straight sex are good. It makes no sense at all. Certain foods are only "bad" for certain people. The problem is people overindulging. Even if people are discouraged to drink sodas they still can get sugars from cakes, donuts and other stuff. Are they gonna tax those next ? Good grief if this is not nanny state what is ?

I don't have a problem with an extra tax on soda, assuming that it's being used to fund health care. It's the same logic as increasing gas taxes: if you want to poison the planet, you better pay up for the privilege. If you want to poison yourself, you better pay up so we can afford your insulin injections later.

"If you want to poison yourself..."

So you are saying sugar or sodas is poison now ? Over consumption of salt supposedly lead to high blood pressure. Let's tax bacons, salted fish, or salted french fries etc etc..

The tax he's proposing isn't really about the morality of a bad diet, but an easy target to address a huge city budget deficit we're facing in 2008.

Drink hard cider, it's made from organic apples and pears. We all need a bit more fruit and vegatables in our diets.

For vegetables, I recommend Bloody Marys.

"To make the fight for equality and a sin tax equitable is a smack in the face to alot of people."

I totally read that as "a snack in the face." I think this tax targets people like me.