Pop tax for proletariat hypocritical
Certain San Francisco busybodies are attempting to pass a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on soda pop sweetened with sugar, apparently to protect the great, fat, toothless unwashed of S.F. against cavities, obesity and diabetes. That 1 cent per ounce is presumed to be enough to make the SF proletariat eschew Coke, Pepsi, 7-Up, Root Beer or Dr. Pepper in favor of the diet versions of those beverages, or perhaps even in favor of bottled water.
Will the normal people of San Francisco swallow this? If they do, they’re even crazier than many believe them to be.
Are San Franciscans fatter than other people? Do they have more cavities? Do they have more diabetes? Are they stupider? Are they unable to grasp the fact that drinking sugar-laced beverages may not be the healthiest thing they could do? If any of these questions can be answered “yes,” it must be that the San Francisco moms have been derelict in their duty.
When I was a kid, my mom told me from the time I can first remember that Coke, Pepsi and all those other things that tasted good weren’t good for me.
“Coke will give you cavities,” she would say. “Your teeth will fall out.”
She didn’t say this just once. She probably said it about 5,000 times. And it did sink in, a little bit. When I had a chance and a nickel, I might buy a Coke, but only one. I knew better than to over-indulge.
A lot of other things that people believe taste good have plenty of sugar in them, but you don’t see the meddlers trying to tax those. That’s because the poor people don’t consume all that much of those other things, which include: Ben and Jerry’s Ice cream, candy bars, Ghirardelli’s chocolate, Starbucks sweet-flavored lattes, bakery cakes, Girl Scout cookies, Oreos, church-sale pies, M&Ms, Redi Whip, Juicy Fruit Gum and Smith Brothers cough drops.
It also seems a bit hypocritical that the city ranked as fourth most stoned in the nation should be concerning itself with sweets.
Yes, folks, The Daily Beast, which measures these statistics, avows that San Franciscans are as likely to be toking a joint as they are to be guzzling a Dad’s Root Beer. But there’s a slight difference. Toking, unless it’s for medical reasons, is still illegal. Those awful soft drinks, evil as they are, remain legal, even for little kids.
If the pop tax passes, the little kids will be paying a penny an ounce while the stoners continue to get away free.
Does that make sense?