Posted on 01/06/2018 3:36:14 AM PST by FreedomPoster
People are feeling sticker shock over Seattle’s sugary drink tax.
You might’ve seen a picture circulating on social media that shows a more than $10 tax on a $15.99 case of Gatorade at Costco. On Friday, shoppers were taking their own pictures, stunned by the new prices.
Advocates of the tax held a press conference on Friday, to explain how the city plans to use the $15 million expected to be raised from the tax in 2018.
One Costco shopper loaded a case of Coca-Cola into her cart, not noticing the new price until KIRO7 pointed it out.
“That much!” said Vilma Villagran, who was buying the case for her family.
The regular case of Coke is now $7.35 more expensive than the Diet Coke or Coke Zero.
“I knew it was going to be high, but not that crazy high,” Villagran said.
Other shoppers closely read the sign, which explains that as of Jan. 1, Seattle shoppers are paying 1.75 cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages – something shoppers are really noticing when buying in bulk.
The tax has many people opting for the diet soda.
(Excerpt) Read more at amp.kiro7.com ...
Scientific Truth about drinking diet coke
THE CLAIM: Drinking Diet Coke creates an "addictive high" and releases excitotoxins into the brain.
WHAT SCIENCE SAYS: Drinking Diet Coke is not "potentially deadly" or even known to be harmful.
THE EVIDENCE: Dr. Michael Taffe, an addiction researcher at the Scripps Research Institute, told BuzzFeed that the amount of caffeine in a Coke "is not going to have very large functional effects in most people and particularly not those who consume caffeinated beverages somewhat frequently."
As for the research Naik cites about "excitotoxins": It's not about drinks containing aspartame. Instead, the study is about food that contains the neurotransmitter glutamate or substances similar to it. A comprehensive safety evaluation of aspartame reviewed studies about the substance's effects on the nervous system, and it didn't find evidence aspartame caused any ill effects.
No the road to hell is paved with socialism.
That’s The Road to Serfdom (by Hayek; should be required reading for FReepers).
It pretty quickly/frequently devolves to Hell on Earth, as we are currently seeing in Venezuela, and have seen any number of places.
we visit Oregone several times a yr to see our dtr....it kills us that we have to wait for someone to come pump the dang gas....its silly and ridiculous....
then they'll come up with another reason to tax it instead of it being sugary, it's got too many artificial ingredients...
water bottles too due to the globull warming....
Just wait until they come after the calorie rich craft beer bombers.
Sodium too
Let the dumb voters stew in their own juices...
I have no issue agreeing with them when they are right. No one can argue with any credibility that excessive sugar is good for someone. Just because I might agree with the nanny statists on some objective, it does not follow that I can't vehemently disagree with them on how to accomplish the objective.
I'm not ceding any ground to the nanny statists by agreeing with the indisputable. Excessive sugar is not good for you. To argue otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. In addition, it would be counter-productive, as I would be written off as a uninformed kook and no one would listen to my objections to the nanny statist's proposals.
$10 tax on a $16 case? And the morons keep voting for this insanity.
Again, how much sugar is excessive? Michael Phelps consumed 12,000+ calories a day, mostly from carbohydrates (carbs are sugar), when he was in training. Given your posts, you cannot argue that this much sugar, in your opinion, is not excessive. Simple reasoning tells us that you believe Michael Phelps is unhealthy for doing so. I think the word you used was "indisputable." This conclusion is no different than telling a guy who eats 10 pancakes with syrup for breakfast, before bailing hay all day, that his diet is bad because he consumes an excessive amount of sugar.
It is intellectually dishonest to debate good food/bad food rather than good diet vs. bad diet. Food is just food and there is no good or bad. Only know-nothings and uninformed kooks believe that the nanny statists are correct on this argument, such as it is, or that a diet high in "sugar" is necessarily bad.
Chicago did this recently and people went elsewhere to buy it. How long did it take for them to go back since it killed so much business?
And exactly what forms of it are you going to ban?
It is going to depend on a number of factors but what is not disputable is that there is an amount for everyone beyond which sugar consumption is excessive. That was why I was careful to use the word "excessive" when describing sugar consumption.
Given your posts, you cannot argue that this much sugar, in your opinion, is not excessive.
I can't? How about this? Given his active training regime, Michael Phelps could safely consume a lot more sugar than the typical individual could.
Simple Faulty reasoning tells us that you believe Michael Phelps is unhealthy for doing so.
Fixed your sentence for you. Talk about putting words in my mouth. Obviously, Michael Phelps was supremely healthy. However, I'm sure that Phelps did not achieve that by a diet high in refined sugar which is what is being talked about here. I doubt he was training on candy bars and soda pop. His carbohydrate intake, I'm sure included lots of pasta and breads which have positive nutritional value.
This conclusion is no different than telling a guy who eats 10 pancakes with syrup for breakfast, before bailing hay all day, that his diet is bad because he consumes an excessive amount of sugar.
Same as with Phelps, someone who has an active lifestyle can afford to consume more sugar than the typical person. Of course, the nutritional value of the meal doesn't come from the syrup but if he wants to add it to his pancakes, have at it.
Only know-nothings and uninformed kooks believe that the nanny statists are correct on this argument, such as it is, or that a diet high in "sugar" is necessarily bad.
So the entire medical profession is "know-nothings" and "uninformed kooks"? Refined sugar provides little or no nutritional benefits but lots of problems if taken in excess. A person doesn't have to be a nanny-statist to believe that nor to believe that our citizens would be healthy if most consumed less sugar. But it doesn't follow from that there should be a ban on sugar.
In the last paragraph of the previous post, healthy should have been healthier.
Just because I agree there is a problem, doesn't mean that I'm obligated to agree with their solution for the problem which almost always involves heavy-handed compulsion. Their totalitarian solutions are generally far worse than the problem they are trying to fix and tend to create a whole host of new problems. Sometimes the best solution for a minor problem (like too many people over-consuming refined sugar) is to do nothing.
I don’t disagree with your comments on big ag and the bad foods, but I just went on a successful diet without changing what I ate, just focusing on _how much_ I ate (aka counting calories).
If we eat less calories than we burn we lose weight...very simple.
Over-eating is just a bad habit—it can be broken like any bad habit.
I am a lifetime member of Weight Watchers, lost 60 lbs to reach ideal weight. It took almost three years and I am now 4 years at goal.
I have read extensively the research and science on weight. You can dismiss at least 90 % of what people think they know or are told about this subject. The majority really are in a permanent state of cognitive dissonance when it comes to food. Even the “ nutritional scientists” are full of it many times.
Losing weight is not the same as maintaining a permanent and healthy weight. Weight Watchers, which focuses extensively on the bad habits you mention, is one of the few productive programs. Yet less than 20% ever reach their ideal weight. And of those only 20% maintain that weight for five years of more, so overall less than 5% truly succeed..
Your body will always adjust your to dietary changes and therein lies the problem.
The short answer to a permanent and healthy weight.
1. Portion control
2. Strict limits and counting of points and or calories.
3. Gradual but massive change from processed foods to natural, whole, and varied foods.
4 strict limits on eating out ( anywhere). Massive increase in cooking from scratch.
5 Each is body is different and the body will change how it stores food,but many need to reduce carbs. Refined sugars and simple carbs (i.e. white flour) must be reduced dramatically
6 learn to live near ketosis with a natural if not organic diet.
7 make all recipes Weight Watcher friendly.
8 just be more active, exercise fitness regimes are good for you but will not lead to a permanent weight loss
9 If possible grow most of your own vegetables and fruit organically. Learn to can and preserve. Make your own yogurt, kombucha, kefir and increase use of fermented foods.
Now, the obese and addicted America is going to rebel against this. As with all addicts their thinking is muddled if not dangerously wrong. You see this here with the defense of refined sugar which is a poison. You see it with those who say they did something to lose weight but don't come back five years later to say they are at their healthy weight. You will hear every excuse in the world by the thoughtless obese defenders.
Big Ag and food processors own them body and soul and they are the new fatties for the ages. The crime is they are committing child abuse by taking their increasingly obese children down the road to a lifetime of ill health and disease that the world has never seen before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.