If one reads today’s column in the Daily Tar Heel, you would think that drinking soda is some sort of gross evil. We’re told that foreigners think we’re fat and what we really need is a fat tax and, we should only be allowed to drink water. What’s really ironic is that this column comes from the same author who advocated pot legalization. So, what gives? Clearly this isn’t about my health. What investment does Ms. Dugan have in whether I drink soda or not?
The answer isn’t all together clear. She tries to argue that this fat tax will result in some sort of tax windfall that will alleviate our national debt problem. However, she also clearly demonstrates that she knows nothing about economics. Claiming that we are a cash-strapped economy (with Helicopter Ben printing cash like a madman, a cash-strapped economy we are not) and ignoring the more obvious consequences of discouraging consumption, Ms. Dugan clearly fails to understand the most basic consequences of raising taxes in a recession (or emerging recovery or whatever you want to call it).
Simply put, it’s none of her business what I choose to drink. If I put on 100 pounds because I drink 12 cans of soda everyday, that’s my problem, not hers. What it boils down to is personal responsibility. Ms. Dugan apparently feels like I have none. I, of course, beg to differ. I love drinking Coca-Cola. Ms. Dugan apparently does not. If I try to force her to drink Coca-Cola (i.e. force my personal preferences on her), than I am clearly in the wrong. But if she tries to force her personal preferences on me (i.e. not drinking soda), she sees herself as some sort of moral crusader. This is completely illogical. If she wants to go live her life as a starving, miserable, deprived human being, fine. Just leave me alone.
Well with the new health care bill coming into effect in 2014, you gaining a 100 pounds and becoming an obese, diabetic, burden to society does affect me. If you're right to become fat infringes MY right of lesser taxation (as you state in your "article") then it should become nullified. Become aware of the true discussion before you espouse your ridiculously one-sided warped views.
I completely agree, Eashan, that that does bring a problem. I simply wish to add that the problem then is on the poorly structured health care bill. If anything, it’s the health care bill who removes social and religious liberties, wouldn’t you agree? I just think it should be restructured so that government doesn’t get into something so ludicrously intrusive as to our choice of beverage.