Jun 22, 2012 11:55
Am I alone in thinking this oft suggested "tax" on "sugar-sweetened beverages" as a deterrent is kinda silly? Has any study or statistic proven that additional taxes on alcohol or tobacco has had any significant impact on stopping either behavior? I pretty much always assumed it was just another way to increase the coffers. I mean, the public is /addicted/ to all of these items, sugar beverages included. Is a small percent tax /really/ going to stop someone from buying a Coke? No, they'll still buy it and a government, like the State of New York, has a new revenue source.
I don't drink pop (soda/coke, what have you) anymore. I MISS IT, but I don't drink it. For me, it was a lifestyle change. And it's one of those things that I might be able to get away with a rare and occasional "sugar-sweetened beverage", but if I have two, two quickly becomes 8 over the course of a week or two. That said, no amount of a "tax" was ever going to keep me from drinking a pop if that's what I wanted. This notion that a tax is being initiated "for the publics' own good" is laughable to me. It's income. Plain and simple. They should take that money and put it back into health education or, here's a concept, making eating healthier food more affordable so that lower income families can get off Hamburger Helper and white bread.
And yet I don't see that happening...
As an aside, the upswing of cutting out pop for me was that after being off it cold turkey for about 6 months or more, when I did try the drink again, it didn't taste good anymore. Diet anything is disgusting, Coke is awful to me now and I used to love it. Ditto with any cola drink. It took longer, but Dr. Pepper is only tolerable now (so therefore, there's no draw to buy it). Root beer however is still an elixir of the gods. I splurged last week (during my period, of course) and allowed myself one A&W. My hand wanted to grab two bottles, but I just picked up one. When I drank it, it was the most satisfying drink I'd had in a long time....I wish I were exaggerating. And when I finished it, I knew that if I had bought that other bottle, I wouldn't have hesitated to grab it and drink it immediately after. I wanted it /badly/ and was glad I didn't have it there.
I get by on the occasional carbonated fruit juices when I really want the fizzy. Izze-esque is perfect for this because it's only 50 cals for the whole bottle; it's basically watered down fruit juice with no added sugar, but it's very carbonated for that good fizz--something that I can't bring myself to completely give up. That fizz. And, best of all, Izze-esque isn't a gait-way drug the way pop is for me. And many, many others.
*shakes head* Tax for "public health". Call it what it is: We know you're going to drink this stuff, so we're at least going to make some money off you in the meantime. *shrug*
The funny thing is, if they DID present it that way--like, full commitment, dead serious, "we're just going to make money off you"--it probably /would/ be a deterrent because the public, being contrary by nature, would be all "Fuck that! I'm not going to just line your pockets for you, who do you think I am!?" and would stop buying pop out of indignation. Tell them you're doing it for their health and you'll get "Fuck that! I'm doing what I want and if I want to drink this sugar ladened, caffeinated drink, I'm gunna!"
=P
life the universe and everything