Supes
vs
soda

December 10, 2014 -- Tonight we celebrated our near-victory in San Francisco over Big Soda. (I have blogged about the battle here, here, here, here and here.)

Spending $3 for each yes vote, we actually got a majority -- 56% -- versus the $100 that Big Soda spent for each no vote. Alas, because it was to have been a targeted tax (a quirk in our City's electoral system) 66% was required.

I do believe that it is an appropriate role for government to protect citizens from threats both external (national security) and internal (e.g. high-risk behaviors). Libertarians would likely agree with the former but not the latter... until it regards something they need, e.g. clean air and water, safe products, etc. Sweetened drinks are not a safe product.

So how does government do this?

  • Laws (e.g. seat belts -- thoroughly proven to save lives)
  • Education (e.g. sex ed in schools -- thoroughly proven to reduce risky behaviors)
  • Taxation (e.g. tobacco taxes reduce smoking thus saves lives)

I do have some intelligent friends who nonetheless opposed Prop. E calling it an overreach of the nanny state. I disagree. Taxing sweetened drinks would function as do tobacco taxes and tobacco education in schools.

It is the right thing to do!

Present at our celebration and spearheading the effort to pass this innovative legislation were (L to R in my photo) Supervisors Malia Cohen, Eric Mar, and Scott Wiener. How often can we say we are truly proud of our leadership?

Table of Contents