Wednesday, March 17, 2010

The "Soda Tax" Myth Part 3: It's a Slippery-Slope

When people say something is a "slippery-slope", it's considered a informal fallacy because it says there can be no middle ground when people argue a point. I've used the term a lot, and I want to acknowledge that I do see a middle ground in this, but to get there, I have to start with the simple fact that this is the start of something bigger here.

We began with taxing alcohol in 1862 at 20 cents a gallon under Lincoln to help pay for the civil war. Later on, we began taxing cigarettes, largely in part to help generate revenue, but with then a side-effect of helping health. From there, we began smoking bans, and then banning trans-fat foods.

In the end, we accepted all of these ideas and regulations. We realized that alcohol and tobacco was bad for us and we allowed the government to take more and more steps to stop us from, in a sense, killing ourselves. From simple taxation we went to bans. Its gotten to the point where smoking is banned anywhere but your own house, and to be honest, even as a non-smoker, I felt bad for the people who did smoke. In terms of drinking beer, we've agreed that alcohol should be consumed in reasonable quantities and by adults only.

So how does this relate to soda and sugary-drinks?

Sugary-drinks aren't that good for you. Period. Over the past few days, I've defended soda with as much fever and pride as possible. For me, a soda drinker, it effects me a lot. For some people I know, they don't think it will effect them at all, although I am quick to point out that in Philadelphia's case it most likely will.

But they aren't the problem. The problem is with over-consumption, abuse, and not taking personal responsibility for your actions.

That's IT. It's not hard, it isn't difficult, and it isn't much. If you consume too much of anything you run into problems. We seem so quick to run to the government to govern how we live. Why? Why are we so willing to give up our own personal freedoms for the sake of a little ill-conceived safety? We all know and realize that the biggest problem with this tax is that it isn't going to make people healthy in and of itself. We all know that over-consumption is the problem, be it fast food, junk food, or... well, anything.

So, where is this all going?

You may scoff at me getting so mad about this, but consider this: New York State is considering banning additional salt in restaurants. I am not kidding. SALT. Oh, come on, you know why; it's bad for you. Too much salt can give you a heart attack. Salt can kill you. We all know it, we all know its a fact... so why NOT ban it, right? I mean, if the government knows that TransFats will kill you, that soda isn't good for you, they MUST know better than us that salt must be banned as well, right?

Now we're looking at Pizza Tax. Why? Because it's BAD for 'ya! Come on, we all know it! Hell, it's WORSE than salt, let alone soda, right? The government is here to help! They want to make sure you eat right! An extra 10% per pizza isn't too bad, right?

Right?

I think you see my point.

So the soda tax was only the beginning. You, the people, have already shown your OK with the government regulating your day-to-day life and that they should be allowed to tax and/or ban anything THEY deem unhealthy for you. You? You have no say in this. These aren't put up to public vote, only to legislators.

Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?! When did we all decide that giving up our personal rights? When did we decide that we are no longer a nation of grown adults who should be able to make decisions based on what we know an instead nothing more than children? I was never informed! Never got a memo, never got a IM, never got an e-mail, let alone a phone call.

Is this a "slippery-slope" No. The middle ground is there, and it can be reasonable if we actually start to look for it. If we're too quick to jump to a conclusion and don't look for alternatives, we're going to miss it and wonder why things got so bad. But I have argued that, yes, this is the start of the lost of some of out personal rights.

In the end, that is why I oppose this tax more than anything else. Yes, I may be mad about the fact that I'm finally getting taxed for what I enjoy as opposed to the smokers and drinkers. Yes, I may complain about why I think it doesn't make any fiscal sense. And, yes, I may have spent a ton of time and energy just to get to this point. The bottom line is that this tax is, literally, just the beginning of them taxing away your rights and, even more importantly, your responsibility to keep yourself healthy and alive.

Why do I oppose this tax? Because I want to be treated like an adult!


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You assume that it's only a personal responsibility issue but it's also an access issue. If the only grocery store a low-income person can access in his neighborhood sells mostly sugary drinks and the take-out place piles on the salt, what level of personal responsibility does he have to choose something more healthy? What if there are no healthy options in his neighborhood? What if no one in his family or in his community is educated about what healthier options are, and what if they are harder to get to because of lack of transportation? I mean limiting salt is a no brainer because everyone has the personal choice to add it in after the fact--they don't have the choice to always eat in places that use healthier cooking methods.

Mark Skull said...

In the end, personal responsibility does matter.

I don't live in posh places myself. There's a reason it's called "angry, Young, and Poor" ;). Most corner stores around me don't have great food, and there's easy access to stuff that isn't great for me.

We're going through a period where we are teaching kids in school to eat better, and the same is true of parents. Sadly, there are "food deserts" in Philadelphia... but those are getting a lot smaller. In the area of Chew Avenue between Broad & Olney and Chew & Chelten, a fairly poor area, a new Fresh Grocer opened up not too long ago, and the place is always packed, and has a ton of fresh food.

In the end, you actually just made another case for not taxing soda.

Why not, instead of taxing soda, encourage more places to sell healthy food and get my super markets into areas that don't have them? Why not encourage healthy eating in a positive way instead?

The role of government is not to babysit you, but to help you when you need it. Are we really so irresponsible that we need to have anything we enjoy taken away because we can't control our intake like responsible adults? Or the fact that we simple do need to teach our kids to eat better?