Comments on: Beverage Advocacy Group Decries Sugary Drink Fee As “taxes that raise the cost of living”

By: MaureenABA

MaureenABA — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:58:00 +0000

Agreed that this tax would most
certainly not help anything. That’s why similar ballot measures
in El Monte and Richmond have been soundly defeated. First and foremost,
complex health conditions, such as obesity, stem from a number of factors and
are not uniquely caused by beverage consumption. Among the risk factors we can
control to achieve a healthy weight, balancing total calories consumed from all
sources and countering this intake with physical activity is key. Education can
help people adopt this holistic approach, whereas regulation will have no such
effect on fundamentally changing behaviors in a meaningful and substantive way.

– Maureen Beach, American Beverage Association

By: Sooneridver

Sooneridver — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:48:00 +0000

Another would be to tax alcohol; beer, wine, liquor, etc! This extra money could be used to investigate the reasons behind the high number of homeless in San Francisco! It could be used to better support the building of high rise condo’s all around the city so people relocating can have a choice on where to live. (Ha Ha!)

By: Sherman Lee

Sherman Lee — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 02:29:00 +0000

More Happy Meal politics from the Board of Stupidvisors….
Shame on you Scott, we expected so much more

By: Kristo Valle

Kristo Valle — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:00:00 +0000

I agree that this does not help anything.

By: disqus_HuQAbAdytT

disqus_HuQAbAdytT — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:00:00 +0000

Is there anything that the Supervisors don’t want to regulate? This is just another progressive attempt to move decision making from the individual to the government, because the proposers believe that individuals should have no freedom of choice, with the possible exception of having abortions that kill fetuses. At 2 cents per ounce, that would equal 24 cents for a 12 ounce can of soda.

What about regulating the fat content in beef used for hamburgers? How about outlawing all foods that are not organic?

Since this proposal appears to be aimed at the serious problem of childhood obesity, why not evaluate each student in terms of their (Federal) body mass index at the start of every school year. The names of the parents of students with BMIs indicating obesity could be passed along to the DA to pursue criminal child endangerment statutes. Prosecute the parents and incarcerate those found guilty!. Also, consider confiscating their cars (like DUI laws) if the cars were used in the commission of the crime of buying sugary drinks that contribute to child obesity.

This is just another tax that will allow the supervisors to spend $30 MM per year on more government programs. How many of the supervisors would agree to this tax if it was required to be used to pay down San Francisco’s debt or actually repair some of the City’s crumbling roads?

San Francisco has arrived at Orwell’s 1984.