The District of Columbia is considering a tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks. There is opposition:
“They taxed the cola drinkers,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t drink cola.
Then they taxed the Diet Coke drinkers,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t drink Diet Coke.
Then they taxed the Hawaiian Punch drinkers,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t drink Hawaiian Punch.
Then they taxed the Perrier drinkers
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
– after Martin Niemöller (1892–1984).
Image by Mike Licht. Symbols are registered to the respectice trademark holders (Coca Cola Inc., Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc., Nestlé Waters North America) and are used here under the parody provisions of the Fair Use Doctrine.
Comments are welcome if they are on-topic, substantive, concise, and not boring or obscene. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
Tags: diet, District of Columbia, obesity, soda, soda tax, soft drink tax, soft drinks, sugar, Washington DC
May 14, 2010 at 11:36 am
Why not. People are drinking a soda per day. see this article ["Soda drinkers consume more calories," Nanci Hellmich, USA Today.]
May 14, 2010 at 12:37 pm
jjreorge wrote: People are drinking a soda per day.
Actually, the article summarizes studies showing that drinkers of sugary soft drinks do not reduce calories elsewhere in their diets, so they put on weight.
October 26, 2011 at 2:06 am
sugar in soft drinks is fructose, which denotes artificial (obviously chemicals). it’s not really ‘sugar’.
you mean in the USA, people drink soda per day? after many studies which have shown how bad they are? no further comment.
October 26, 2011 at 8:04 am
Sucrose or fructose, from cane, from corn, or from beets, refined sugar is empty calories and bad for human health.