Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2013, 06:10 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 05:06 PM)I and I Wrote:  So according to you guys, corporations pushing products on people through a billion dollar a year advertising campaigns and playing on human behavior to get people to desire their product......is NOT? Invasive.....but a government coming in to try to curb corporate power IS invasive?
Not what I said, either. The corporation is giving you a choice: drink it or don't. The gov't would hypothetically be making that choice for you.

I would agree that there are health problems out there and that I hope things will change, that people will somehow get healthier. I just don't think banning soda is the way to do it.

As for the corporations, if there is a demand for something, somebody is going to supply it. Humans tend to like sweets (I'm more of a savory person myself, but whatever), so that's why they sell so well. The problem arises when people stop using them as an occasional treat and drink a 12 pack every day. However, I think taxing it won't stop most people from doing so and isn't the answer.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to a minor taxation of soft drinks, if that money went to something useful. I'm opposed to banning them or having outrageous taxes on them, though.

One of the reasons people drink a lot of soda and eat a lot of unhealthy processed crap is because it's a lot cheaper to do that than to eat fresh meat and produce. I'd rather wave a magic wand and fix that problem than ban soda.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 06:19 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
I'm gonna cut to the chase here...Pepsi pays my mortgage. My husband and son both work for them. Not high ranking corporate jobs but working schlubs that run the machinery and bottle the products.

I do buy Pepsi products as well as Frito-Lay products (same parent company). Do I buy a lot or indulge too much? No.

For a woman my age, my weight is fine. My son doesn't have weight issues. Hubby has plumped up do to sitting around recovering from a back injury and enjoying a little too much ice cream. Working in the plant in the summer heat will burn that off quickly.

I don't consume a can of any soft drink a day, on average. It's moderation. I don't want to get fat so I don't consume a lot of snacks or Pepsis. My grandmother had a Pepsi for breakfast every morning for well over 85 years. She was never overweight, 'cause that was her one Pepsi a day and she walked to and from work into her 70s.

People should take responsibility for their own choices as well as teaching their children to make sensible ones.

Government has it's place...breathing down my neck and telling me that I can't have a soft drink now and then is not the best way for government to be utilized.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 06:21 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 06:10 PM)amyb Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 05:06 PM)I and I Wrote:  So according to you guys, corporations pushing products on people through a billion dollar a year advertising campaigns and playing on human behavior to get people to desire their product......is NOT? Invasive.....but a government coming in to try to curb corporate power IS invasive?
Not what I said, either. The corporation is giving you a choice: drink it or don't. The gov't would hypothetically be making that choice for you.

I would agree that there are health problems out there and that I hope things will change, that people will somehow get healthier. I just don't think banning soda is the way to do it.

As for the corporations, if there is a demand for something, somebody is going to supply it. Humans tend to like sweets (I'm more of a savory person myself, but whatever), so that's why they sell so well. The problem arises when people stop using them as an occasional treat and drink a 12 pack every day. However, I think taxing it won't stop most people from doing so and isn't the answer.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to a minor taxation of soft drinks, if that money went to something useful. I'm opposed to banning them or having outrageous taxes on them, though.

One of the reasons people drink a lot of soda and eat a lot of unhealthy processed crap is because it's a lot cheaper to do that than to eat fresh meat and produce. I'd rather wave a magic wand and fix that problem than ban soda.

Well the reason why that stuff is cheap is because of government subsidies. The government pays farmers to grow corn. Corn is used as a filler (in various ways) in almost all the food we eat. I'm more inclined to removing the subsidies for that and replacing them with subsidising healthy food. Of course then you are fighting basically the entire food industry not just Coke and Pepsi co.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 06:27 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 06:19 PM)Anjele Wrote:  I don't consume a can of any soft drink a day, on average. It's moderation.


People should take responsibility for their own choices as well as teaching their children to make sensible ones.

Government has it's place...breathing down my neck and telling me that I can't have a soft drink now and then is not the best way for government to be utilized.
This is what I was trying to say, it's not the soda company's fault if people overindulge, and I don't see a problem with soda and chips in moderation. I think it's the people's fault, and no one wants to blame themselves. No, they want to sue Mcdonald's for making them fat, or ban soda because they made the choice to drink too much. And I don't think people who are able to partake in moderation should be punished for other people not controlling themselves or making bad decisions.

It still doesn't solve the problems of insurance costs, but I don't think soda is the only thing out there causing health problems, so it's a problem to say "ban soda because it makes people fat, " because soda is not the only thing that makes people fat. Even if you did ban it, people who overeat would still overeat.
Quote:I'm more inclined to removing the subsidies for [corn] and replacing them with subsidising healthy food
same.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 06:41 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 06:27 PM)amyb Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 06:19 PM)Anjele Wrote:  I don't consume a can of any soft drink a day, on average. It's moderation.


People should take responsibility for their own choices as well as teaching their children to make sensible ones.

Government has it's place...breathing down my neck and telling me that I can't have a soft drink now and then is not the best way for government to be utilized.
This is what I was trying to say, it's not the soda company's fault if people overindulge, and I don't see a problem with soda and chips in moderation. I think it's the people's fault, and no one wants to blame themselves. No, they want to sue Mcdonald's for making them fat, or ban soda because they made the choice to drink too much. And I don't think people who are able to partake in moderation should be punished for other people not controlling themselves or making bad decisions.

It still doesn't solve the problems of insurance costs, but I don't think soda is the only thing out there causing health problems, so it's a problem to say "ban soda because it makes people fat, " because soda is not the only thing that makes people fat. Even if you did ban it, people who overeat would still overeat.
Quote:I'm more inclined to removing the subsidies for [corn] and replacing them with subsidising healthy food
same.

Corporations spend billions of dollars in advertisements and pay psychologists to help them structure ads to get the most responses. If according to you guys we consume because we "choose" to or not to, why do you guys think this money is spent on things like ads?

This may be too scientific for you guys but biologically humans are evolved to desire sugar and fat because in most of our history these were rare, so when we did come across them we would indulge. However ads and foods designed to trigger these desires is hardly a matter of simply "choosing" to consume or not to consume.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 06:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  Corporations spend billions of dollars in advertisements and pay psychologists to help them structure ads to get the most responses. If according to you guys we consume because we "choose" to or not to, why do you guys think this money is spent on things like ads?

(19-05-2013 06:41 PM)I and I Wrote:  This may be too scientific for you guys but biologically humans are evolved to desire sugar and fat because in most of our history these were rare, so when we did come across them we would indulge. However ads and foods designed to trigger these desires is hardly a matter of simply "choosing" to consume or not to consume.

I mentioned that in one of my previous posts. I said the reason people like sweets is because we evolved to like sweets, so there is a demand for sweets. If there is a demand for sweets, some company is going to fulfill that demand. People are going to ingest sweets whether there are advertisements or not. They pay psychologists to help them is to get people to buy their product instead of a competitors. I don't know about you, but I'm able to watch all sorts of advertisements and not buy any of the products.

But you're talking about soda in this thread, not all sweets and all fats. Even if you consume sweets, you still can choose which ones you consume, when, and how much.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2013, 10:26 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 05:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 05:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I was arguing effectiveness not invasiveness. If anything corporate entities are far more invasive. However as a means to an end taxation is not effective.

So what entity do you suggest for curbing corporate invasiveness?

Education. And no, running ads is not as invasive as pointing guns at people. In fact, running a billion dollars worth of ads is less invasive than pointing one derringer at one human being.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
20-05-2013, 10:18 AM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(19-05-2013 10:26 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(19-05-2013 05:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  So what entity do you suggest for curbing corporate invasiveness?

Education. And no, running ads is not as invasive as pointing guns at people. In fact, running a billion dollars worth of ads is less invasive than pointing one derringer at one human being.

Not true at all, old school dictatorships fail because they rely on physical force. When you can convince people to choose to go against their physical health or convince people to choose people in office that take away freedoms THAT IS MOTHER FUCKING POWER, THAT IS A TRUE DICTATORSHIP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(20-05-2013 10:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  Not true at all, old school dictatorships fail because they rely on physical force. When you can convince people to choose to go against their physical health or convince people to choose people in office that take away freedoms THAT IS MOTHER FUCKING POWER, THAT IS A TRUE DICTATORSHIP.

The problem I see with this is that you are assuming soft drinks are a gov't conspiracy. I think most people see them as a drink that the public demands, so the companies supply it. Some make good choices about it, some don't. When Coca Cola started out, people didn't drink it five times a day; it was a treat, like ice cream. It is now more available (in more places, more brands are out there) due to consumer demand for it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
20-05-2013, 10:48 AM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2013 10:53 AM by bbeljefe.)
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(20-05-2013 10:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  Not true at all, old school dictatorships fail because they rely on physical force. When you can convince people to choose to go against their physical health or convince people to choose people in office that take away freedoms THAT IS MOTHER FUCKING POWER, THAT IS A TRUE DICTATORSHIP.

All forms of government rely on force, IandI. All of them. The difference between them is how quickly they resort to force. In China, for instance an attempt at collective bargaining (forming a labor union) will get you twelve years in prison. If you resist arrest, you might get twenty or they might simply shoot you.

Here in the US things seem a lot less violent, unless you understand that all laws are, fundamentally, threats of murder. To wit: Don't pay your property taxes, ignore the letters they send, don't go to court and then, resist arrest when the men in blue costumes come to kidnap you... and they will shoot you. The only difference in the above examples is how quickly the shooting occurs.

This is true in communist states, democracies, fascist states, monarchies, dictatorships, etc.

Advertising, however, is non violent and non coercive. It certainly is suggestive and advertisers do leverage psychological methods in order to convince you to buy their products but that isn't violence. Is it unethical? I think so. But then, it's no more unethical than brainwashing children at home and in state run schools to that they worship power and perceived authority. In fact, I would argue that the latter is far more egregious an ethical violation than is running an ad to sell soda.

The reason I argue this is that these ads wouldn't work if that indoctrination hadn't taken place. Parents force their children to obey arbitrary power without consideration for the validity or virtue of that power. Then the state run school capitalizes on this early indoctrination, molding young minds into state worshiping workers.

The result is a class of people who worship accidents of birth without concern for virtue. We're taught to love the parents no matter what... we're taught "my country is best", "my sports team is best" because it just happens to be in my town. All of this is complete and utter bullshit.

Parents are only virtuous if they act in a virtuous manner. Likewise with countries, or more specifically, the people in government. Your school's sports team may indeed be the best but what does that really mean? Is there any virtue in throwing or catching a ball? In running fast?

In the end, society is churning out drones who worship power and who see virtue where there can be none.

Advertisers don't do any of this to children. They don't raise our children, they don't educate them and they have zero ability to force them to do anything (save leveraging the guns of the state). They simply take advantage of the damage done by parents, the religion and the state.

Oh and, yelling your point at me won't foster any interest in agreement. If you're incorrect in lower case, you're incorrect in all caps too. Wink

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: