Support NeoGAF

[IchigoSharingan]

After smoking for 5 years, the ever increasing price of cigarettes certainly was a big factor in me (successfully) quitting.

can you break down the factors that caused you to quit and the %'s of each? if it's too personal for you, it's fine and i apologize.

 

[PhantomHound]

What's wrong with Coffee?

Nothing. But the vast majority of Americans consume special coffee drinks from places like Starbucks and dunkin donuts which have more sugar than soda.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I thought that was to do with all of the lung cancer. I had no idea that a moderate raise in price helps someone combat their own addictions.

Moderate raise? The price of cigarettes has increased dramatically (more than double) in many areas over the last decade or so just in my own experience. I've heard plenty of people lament the prices and use that as one justification to try giving them up.

I have no data, but I don't see how high costs can't not be a deterrent to buying something.

 

[Cagey]

What's wrong with Coffee?

Starbucks lists a large iced coffee with "a little sweetener" as having 130 calories. A "little" sugar added. No cream, no milk, let alone the syrups and whipped creams and salted caramel drizzles. All junk. And that's a tame drink for them.

 

[diamount]

Fuck sin taxes.
It should not be the job of the government to regulate what I put in my body.
Edit: If they really want to help, ending corn subsidies is the way to go.

They aren't regulating it, they are taxing it.

 

[Sesuadra]

Leslie Knope bitches!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ish8NBunrQU

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Fuck sin taxes.
It should not be the job of the government to regulate what I put in my body.
Edit: If they really want to help, ending corn subsidies is the way to go.

Ending corn subsidies would definitely help, but cane sugar is still cheap enough to keep sweet garbage massively accessible.

Sugar is killing people in this country, making them massively obese and sick, and assuredly raising health care costs for everyone. I don't think some taxation is out of order.

 

[Corgi]

wish coke in the US actually had sugar instead of corn syrup crap.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

Ending corn subsidies would definitely help, but cane sugar is still cheap enough to keep sweet garbage massively accessible.

Sugar is killing people in this country, making them massively obese and sick, and assuredly raising health care costs for everyone. I don't think some taxation is out of order.

*cue chart of sugar consumption now and 100 years ago*

 

[shinobi602]

At least I know not to move to Berkeley now.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

*cue chart of sugar consumption now and 100 years ago*

Here's a fun blog post about just that.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/by-2606-us-diet-will-be-100-percent.html

wish coke in the US actually had sugar instead of corn syrup crap.

Yeah, that'd make things so much better!

 

[Sub_Level]

If the people voted on it, I have no problem with it. Not something I personally would support though.

 

[xbhaskarx]

"1-cent-an-ounce tax on sugary sodas and energy drinks"

Not nearly high enough.

 

[jmdajr]

Fine by me.

 

[Einbroch]

People are saying this is too low?

It's like a 75% price increase.

 

[Aiustis]

Yeah, that'd make things so much better!

It would taste better.

 

[perfectchaos007]

liberal hippies. I bet they would give tax breaks on marijuana purchases. I'm guzzling a 44oz Pepsi right now. Middle fingers to the sky!

 

[Guevara]

"1-cent-an-ounce tax on sugary sodas and energy drinks"

Not nearly high enough.

I agree. But there's a lot of value in simply getting the tax on the books. Berkeley can work on raising the amount down the road.

 

[Daft Bird]

That is one city I will never go to now. Soda shouldn't be taxed!

 

[Pathos]

Good, hopefully this causes people to drink less soda

 

[Alienous]

Who is this supposed to benefit?

Taxing something wholesale because some people can't consume it in moderation is a ridiculous concept. How about heavily subsidizing healthier drinks instead?

 

[eosos]

They aren't regulating it, they are taxing it.

Which is essentially regulation.

 

[Seth C]

Proven with cigarettes? There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that increases in cigarette taxes have a statistically significant effect on consumption.

And even if not, has provided funds to help cessation and other various related causes.

But I'm not sure I can agree with this. If they are going to do it, it should simply be anything that has added sugars over a certain level. Gummy bears, Snickers bars, etc. should all be included otherwise it just seems like you're singling out one industry for no real reason.

 

[Bizazedo]

Should also be taxing coffee purchases, if we're going to take a more comprehensive view of impacting incentives via tax policy to remedy health problems due to drinking excess calories without a bias towards race/class/age.

Who is this supposed to benefit?

Taxing something wholesale because some people can't consume it in moderation is a ridiculous concept.

Pretty much, but if people can't outright ban something, they look for any and all ways to limit the use. Hence, taxes. Not to mention the politics involved.

We should probably tax video games, too, seeing as how it encourages people not to exercise / sit down and consume junk food. And all the addictions / time wasting to go along with it.

I need a sign, China does it right!

 

[DopeToast]

My diet coke is safe.

 

[Loki]

Didn't Bloomberg pass this in NYC a few years ago, or was that never instituted or repealed?

 

[Bizazedo]

Didn't Bloomberg pass this in NYC a few years ago, or was that never instituted or repealed?

I don't think it ever went through because people decided they didn't like to be punished for doing something they like to do.

It probably hasn't gone away, though, and a New Yorker can probably talk to it more.

 

[MBison]

Gotta love the nanny state. Please tell me what other things I should and shouldn't do in the privacy of my own home.

The worst thing about this is that it likely affects the poor the most as soda is a fairly expensive flavored drink and now you've just price gauged them. Good work, why to help out that lower class!

 

[entremet]

Didn't Bloomberg pass this in NYC a few years ago, or was that never instituted or repealed?

No. It was size limits, which was overturned by a judge.

 

[ezrarh]

Gotta love the nanny state. Please tell me what other things I should and shouldn't do in the privacy of my own home.

The worst thing about this is that it likely affects the poor the most as soda is a fairly expensive flavored drink and now you've just price gauged them. Good work, why to help out that lower class!

As far as we know, you can still drink soda in your own home.

 

[TheWarrior]

Would be awesome if people cared enough about themselves to figure out for yourself what was good or bad for you. If only we had the power to posess all of human knowledge in our hands. Sadly all we have are these cat meme devices.

 

[Bizazedo]

As far as we know, you can still drink soda in your own home.

So why not tax all luxury goods then? Your reply ignores that the intended goal, or stated at least beyond revenue generation, is to encourage people not to drink it.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Ridiculous. Taxation is not a solution, that's been proven with cigarettes. People will just spend more money they don't have.

People are addicted to cigarettes, though. A person can give up Coke if they're broke.

 

[xsarien]

Correct. The law including syrup-infused drinks is a good start, but it should go much further in scope.

But that would impact, among other things, demographics which include the people pushing for the soda-targeting law to begin with. Can't have that. It's, like, totally different to get a jolt of caffeine from a 130 calorie venti iced coffee than it is to get it from a 12oz can of Coke.

A plain, black iced coffee (presumably at Starbucks) barely has *13* calories. It's as simple as telling them to not put the syrup in, which is what I do whenever I wind up going there for an iced coffee.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

You must be some sort of ultra cig addict on the level of an alcoholic. When I smoked, and worked at convenience stores, cig tax being hiked up at least a dollar at a time was usually the straw that broke the "wanting to quit" smokers back.

Or your convenience store customers bought black market cigarettes and just weren't returning to your store.

That's the problem with anecdotal data.

IN DECEMBER 2011, a pair of data collectors came to Boston for a short, messy job. They made 29 different stops, moving through South Boston, Hyde Park, Dorchester, Roslindale, and parts of Brookline, systematically walking the neighborhood streets and picking up discarded cigarette packs.

They collected 253 packs in all, which they sent to a research team in North Carolina. The researchers checked a small label affixed to the cellophane wrapper—the state excise tax stamp—and recorded what they found. Last month they published the startling results in the journal Tobacco Control: Of the cigarettes smoked in Boston, they estimate, nearly 40 percent arrive here through the black market.

A “litter study,” as this method is called, isn’t a definitive measurement of trafficking rates. But the new report offers a fresh and alarming data point on a problem that state officials are deeply concerned about: Over the last two decades, smuggling has come to represent a surprisingly large part of the local cigarette market.

It’s not just in Boston. The research team, led by Kevin Davis, an economist with the independent research institute RTI International, found estimated trafficking rates to be similarly high in several other northeastern cities, including New York (about 48 percent), Providence (30 to 55 percent), and Washington, D.C. (30 to 60 percent). The origins of the out-of-state packs suggest the overwhelming majority of them are brought in by organized traffickers, rather than daytripping smokers.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...tte-problem/mJpfuuFZXXYxrBiEgTcyJM/story.html

As a former smoker (now smoke free for over a year thanks to eCigs) who often travels to NYC, even as just a frequent visitor, I knew where to get cheap cigarettes. Personally, I didn't do it, because I didn't like ultimately knowing I was buying from gangsters, so I just brought my cigarettes with me from Texas. But I knew many people who did, as well as people who went to those "roll your own" clubs.

Not saying you're going to suddenly have black market soda fountains popping up in Berkley. The two products are completely different. But the fact that the two products are completely different combined with the evidence that illegal smuggling from organized criminals has partly filled the gap in cigarette sales should caution people from using cigarette trends as any kind of statistical justification for this tax. it just isn't a sound argument to use those statistics.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I'm rooting for the big-soda lobbyists to get rulings like this overturned.

 

[guymockingdale]

"1-cent-an-ounce tax on sugary sodas and energy drinks"

Not nearly high enough.

I understand you want to crack down but even doubling to 2 cents ... that would add 2.88 tax to a 12-pack of soda ... might as well just ban it.

...and you don't even really know till you see the total at the grocery store.

...For my own curiosity, wonder if koolaid sales will soar? shit, kool aid is tasty.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It would taste better.

I sincerely doubt the majority of people would notice at all. My evidence is that they didn't when the switch to HFCS happened. The talk about "real sugar" only came up the hate campaign against HFCS started and people started stocking Mexican coke.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

As long as we're taxing things because they're bad for us can we start actually taxing monolithic multinational corporations as well?

 

[Rest]

How has no other state passed these laws?

Obviously tax that shit.


mwhaha no more free refills for USA /jealous brit

Hmm...it's just a city, interesting.

I can imagine that the loophole there would be that they charge you for the cup and you can fill it with whatever you want. Or you could order water or unsweetened tea and just fill your cup with whatever you wanted. Or they'd just put the tax on the bag of soda syrup and restaurants wouldn't charge you again for one or two refills.

Also I knew that on the continent they didn't give free refills, but in Britain? I thought you guys were above that caveman mentality /smug American

 

[GSG Flash]

Is that based on anything or did soccer moms get up in arms over it on a flimsy pretext

Pretty much this.

The amount of bs I hear at work about aspartame is astounding, I have no idea who's asshole my coworkers pull these "facts" from. I can respect your opinion if you dislike aspartame because of the taste, I do too in everything but Coke Zero, but if you're gonna tell me that "it's a proven fact that aspartame causes cancer", first you're gonna have to provide me with a source and, second, provide me with an explanation why the FDA or Health Canada would allow the consumption of something that is a sure fire cancer causer without any warnings.

 

[xsarien]

I sincerely doubt the majority of people would notice at all. My evidence is that they didn't when the switch to HFCS happened. The talk about "real sugar" only came up the hate campaign against HFCS started and people started stocking Mexican coke.

Side-by-side, I've never known anyone to ever say "Man. The soda made with HFCS tastes better!"

It's much sweeter than real sugar, and once you taste soda made with the real stuff it's incredibly hard to go back.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Side-by-side, I've never known anyone to ever say "Man. The soda made with HFCS tastes better!"

It's much sweeter than real sugar, and once you taste soda made with the real stuff it's incredibly hard to go back.

Seeing as how consumption went up, I'd say most people like that increased sweetness just fine.

 

[waypoetic]

What the hell, i was expecting the first posts to be a bunch of super pissed americans - "you can't tax our soda, you can't tax FREEDOM!".

 

[Degen]

diet sodas are exempt? ...proceed

 

[negreenfield]

Side-by-side, I've never known anyone to ever say "Man. The soda made with HFCS tastes better!"

It's much sweeter than real sugar, and once you taste soda made with the real stuff it's incredibly hard to go back.

My coworker. He's freaking crazy though and is the only person I've heard say they like HFCS better. But to your point he claims he's done side by side but I've never seen it.

As for the law I think it's stupid. Why not all sugar drinks? Juice, coffee drinks,sports drinks etc.

 

[nateeasy]

So it appears if a retailer picks the soda up outside of city limits it will avoid the tax.

Seems like it will just fuck over restaurants. Especially smaller ones.

 

[xsarien]

Seeing as how consumption went up, I'd say most people like that increased sweetness just fine.

You're excluding increased advertising, endorsements, variety, larger distribution, and at least one generation (and probably half of another) that never tasted it with real sugar in the first place.

Those are larger contributors than "Oh, they must like the sweeter taste!"

My coworker. He's freaking crazy though and is the only person I've heard say they like HFCS better. But to your point he claims he's done side by side but I've never seen it.

As for the law I think it's stupid. Why not all sugar drinks? Juice, coffee drinks,sports drinks etc.

I generally agree that it should be a bigger net, I can only assume - assume! - that it may be an issue of there being versions of juice/coffeee/sports drinks that are readily available that aren't basically containers of flavored HFCS or sugar. The case of the biggest offender, etc.

:shrug

 

[JinjoUnchained]

This is just a genius covert ploy by Soda Stream to sell more units.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You're excluding increased advertising, endorsements, variety, larger distribution, and at least one generation (and probably half of another) that never tasted it with real sugar in the first place.

Those are larger contributors than "Oh, they must like the sweeter taste!"

All I said is that they like it just fine as seen by increased consumption. No amount of marketing and endorsements are going to convince people to drink things they don't like or at least believe there is a perceived benefit.

Some people may prefer the sugar version over the HFCS version, but I imagine that for most people, the difference is pretty negligible.

As for the law I think it's stupid. Why not all sugar drinks? Juice, coffee drinks,sports drinks etc.

It appears to be all drinks with a significant amount of "added" sugar, which unfortunately excludes 100% natural fruit juices and things with milk as the primary ingredient.