Tax then ban

February 14th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A tax on sugary drinks could save lives and reduce New Zealand’s obesity burden, new research shows.

Research published today in the New Zealand Medical Journal shows a 20 per cent tax on sugary soft drinks would prevent 67 deaths from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and diet-related cancers per year.

Its author, Professor Tony Blakely, of the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago, said a tax on sugary drinks would be a simple and smart move to fight obesity and related illnesses.

“If you’re thinking of one tax or subsidy on food, then this is [it],” Blakely said.

No it isn’t. The fax tax introduced in Denmark was a disaster and was scrapped.

3 News reports:

Should fizzy drinks be banned? And should there be a fizzy drink tax? Next week a conference of public health specialists in Auckland will meet to discuss these questions.

They claim it will save lives, curb obesity, diabetes, risk of stroke, cancers, and several other health issues.

The American Heart Association say that the upper limit of we should get each day is three teaspoons for children, six for women and nine for men, but New Zealand data suggests we get three times that amount, ingesting 30 teaspoons a day.

Public health specialist Simon Thornley recently took a visit to Rangitoto College to see what was on the menu at the school canteen these days.

To Mr Thornley, this love affair with sugar is a full blown addiction, complete with binges, requiring increasing doses for satisfaction and finally withdrawal when we kick the habit.

He wants a sugar tax and restrictions on sale, just like tobacco, starting with a ban on sugary drinks and food in schools.

There is no end to the ambitions of these campaigners. It starts with tobacco, then it’s alcohol, then it is fast food, then it is soft drinks then it is probably chocolate – they want it taxed, restricted, not advertised and then banned. They do not think we should be allowed to make choices.

There is nothing wrong with having a coke, occassionally. Personally I almost exclusively drink the diet or zero versions because of the calories in the full versions – but that is my choice. Almost every food and drink has some calories in it. Apple juice does. No food is universally good or bad. It is all about frequency and portion size. Taxes and bans punish everyone.

Tags: ,

68 Responses to “Tax then ban”

  1. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Given National’s love of excise tax on cigarettes and alcohol and new draconian anti-liquor laws being introduced all the time I can see this being a goer under both major parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dave_1924 (121 comments) says:

    I cannot believe this at all. Calories unburned by exercise or normal body ticking over function, regardless of source, get turned into fat. Its a simple equation. The cure for obesity etc is simple. Control your food and drink intake and exercise regularly.

    I am on a weight reduction kick at the moment and the most effective tactic is to write down everything you take in in a food diary and then review it each day. The pure discipline helps lower food intake – add in a little regular exercise and the weight starts to come off….

    The do gooders seem to think everyone is too stupid to make their own choices and need to be controlled. Unbelievable…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Zebulon (125 comments) says:

    A “fax” tax would definitely not have an impact on disease rates!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. unitedtribes (30 comments) says:

    My Dad was a baker during the 50 through to the 70s. I remember up until the 60s there was a huge subsidy on sugar and other food ingredients. I think the subsidy was about 40%. Not many fat people around then either.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. EAD (1,448 comments) says:

    But but..we only want to help….we only have your best interests at heart….we only have the best of intentions…we are doing these things for your own good…

    At some point we are going to have to tell these people where to get off because they wont stop, they cannot stop. Its about control its about the desire to control others and its a basic instinct with these people. Live your life and enjoy it while you can because all too soon the ride is over and above all ignore the holier than thou busybodies.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    Sadly it is only a matter of time.

    In Ireland the Health Minister already gave it a go. He’s supposedly centre right!

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/reilly-sought-20-tax-on-sugary-drinks-in-budget-records-show-1.1689263

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    David Farrar – Personally I almost exclusively drink the diet or zero versions because of the calories in the full versions – but that is my choice.

    Artificial sweeteners activate sweet taste receptors in enteroendocrine cells, leading to the release of incretin, which is known to contribute to glucose absorption. Recent epidemiologic studies in Circulation (2008;117:754-761) and Obesity (2008;16:1894-1900) showed an association between diet soda consumption and the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome.
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704432

    plenty more examples, just use Google

    Turn everyone off sugarery drinks to diet versions – a fucking dietary train-smash in-waiting.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Brian Smaller (3,965 comments) says:

    This is not about concern for a few dozen people who may or may not die in a year. it is about them exercising their compulsion to control other people. To have people listen to their superior wisdom, and obey. Fuck them and the sugarless drink they rode in on.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. redqueen (595 comments) says:

    Four feet good, two feet bad…

    Seriously, I’ll accept a ‘fat tax’ when they accept an ‘Academic Poll Tax’. Anyone with a PhD or above should be subject to a poll tax, which would weed out the wastrels and hopefully only leave us with scientists who are actually producing something of value to others (commercially…I mean voluntarily).

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. EAD (1,448 comments) says:

    One other factor that should be considered when looking at the banning mania that affects the Statists (including the current version of the National Party). This is their belief that everything belongs to the state – effectively totalitarianism.

    The welfare state gives them a spurious logic; if hospitals are paid for out of general taxation, then surely those that abuse themselves by eating too much, smoking, drinking and, horror, enjoying themselves, must be controlled and regulated by the State on behalf of the tax-payer.

    Thus, the welfare state, benefit system and publicly funded healthcare are vehicles leading us to totalitarian control over every aspect of our lives by those who think they know better – Bureaucrats.

    You ain’t seen nothing yet though, just wait till we get the Green variety rather than the Blue variety.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    I get lectured as it is about choosing Diet Coke or Pepsi Max as my drink of choice because they contain sweetners. Now some Nazi wants to add 20% to fizzy drink. Where will it stop? Cupcakes. Ban lollies from shelves. WTF. It is an endless slide.

    The only way to stop it sliding doing a ridiculous track is not to start in the first.

    Coke DOESN’T cause obesity. The imbalance between calories and calories out, does.

    Then the Nazi’s argue that taxing a product changes behaviour. Tax is a very clumsy way of doing that AND the burden of the tax falls disproportionately on those on low income.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thePeoplesFlag (281 comments) says:

    David Farrar has managed to lose a considerable amount of weight, he proudly informs us.

    I bet you won’t find him drinking 1.5 litres of pineapple fizzy on the way home from work. Perhaps he should, and post up the results in six months.

    [DPF: You’re an idiot. Who the fuck is advocating people drink 1.5 litres a day of fizzy drink?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tas (654 comments) says:

    I love how often the same people who want soft drinks banned also support legalising cannabis.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Meatloaf (275 comments) says:

    I say screw these idiots. And if their is a hell, I hope they go their. Now that we’ve finally got alcoholism under control and a reduction in smokers, they want to attack sugary drinks. What’s probably going to happen is those, who’ve reduced their cigarettes and alcohol, and decided to have more sugary treats are just going to go back to the same old habits.

    And drinking diet colas is very controversial. Some would say that its even worse than sugar. This is going to have a huge negative backlash, as people will realise anything fun gets taxed. Lets put it this way, because less tax is collected from cigarettes and alcohol, they have to tax something else. At pubs they are required to serve alternative drinks as an option, and now they are attacking those very alternatives. A bunch of liars and hypocrites are these people.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Fentex (1,130 comments) says:

    The fax tax introduced in Denmark was a disaster and was scrapped.

    Not really comparing two similar things except in their intent. I’m not so sure this would fail, because taxing sugar flavoured drinks in NZ is not the same as taxing fats in food in Denmark. New Zealanders are less likely to drive across a national border to shop for a quick supply of sugar laden drink than Danes were to drive into Belgium for baking goods with which to make the fat laden baked goods they enjoy.

    If enacted likely advertising and supply would switch to emphasise the excellent low or no sugar drinks available (Yuck, horrible stuff). Or possibly, depending on how the legislation is worded, to ‘healthy’ non-processed sugars extracted from fruit or something to substitute. Because Kiwis can’t hop over to Oz (or Fiji) for a easily transported bulk re-supply for often impulse purchases.

    I personally don’t like the idea very much (and not just because I dislike the taste of artificial sweeteners) but my disliking it is unrelated to it’s only faint similarity with what happened in Denmark.

    I think the point to take away from that is not that it couldn’t work (as Danes had the opportunity we wouldn’t to undermine it) but how much people don’t like this kind of imposition and therefore how much it is dictating behaviour to people.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    Academics from Otago University? Pffftttt.
    Wowsers, killjoys, and do-gooders they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. DJP6-25 (1,389 comments) says:

    It’s not about ‘health’. It’s about power.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Sugary soft drinks have no food value AT ALL. They are cheap drinks and the supermarket shelves are full of them. Get rid of them starting with a heavy tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fentex (1,130 comments) says:

    There is no end to the ambitions of these campaigners. It starts with tobacco, then it’s alcohol, then it is fast food, then it is soft drinks then it is probably chocolate – they want it taxed, restricted, not advertised and then banned. They do not think we should be allowed to make choices.

    You confuse me again DPF, you have written that you also would ban some of these things if only you had the power, which suggests you don’t actually disapprove of dictating to people but merely disapprove of failing to secure compliance. Surely not.

    [DPF: I’ve said that tobacco is in a case of its own as it is highly addictive, and it kills you if used entirely as intended. Alcohol, chocolate, sugar etc are all fine in moderation. Tobacco kills you – even in moderation.]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    tvb

    Let’s change that a bit and see where we get.

    “Alcoholic drinks have no food value AT ALL. They are cheap drinks and the supermarket shelves are full of them. Get rid of them starting with a heavy tax.”

    or

    “Dairy Products contain a high level of fat , the supermarket shelves are full of them. Get rid of them starting with a heavy tax.

    Now do you see why most of us do not need any assistance from control freaks like you?

    If stupid people want to drink gallons of fizzy drink, or booze then so be it. We do not need to be told by the likes of you how to live our lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. jp_1983 (235 comments) says:

    Lets plain package food and life.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Why the hell do the left see the need to pass legislation that covers us all just so they can control the lives of the mind numbingly stupid?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nigel Kearney (1,094 comments) says:

    Sugary soft drinks have no food value AT ALL. They are cheap drinks and the supermarket shelves are full of them. Get rid of them starting with a heavy tax.

    This may shock you, but people don’t drink them for the nutritional value. They do it because they like the taste. My tastes happen to differ, but I have no interest in forcing other people to comply with my preferred taste in food and drink because I am not a socialist control freak like you and these health nazis.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    Calories unburned by exercise or normal body ticking over function, regardless of source, get turned into fat. Its a simple equation.

    Well, it sounds simple. In practice, the relative ease or difficulty the body has in extracting and using the calories plays a big part in how much gets turned into fat, and that ease or difficulty covers a wide range. Sugary soft drinks are way down the ‘easy’ end, which makes them excellent lard-generators.

    Sugary soft drinks have no food value AT ALL.

    That’s not true. They have absolutely enormous food value, which is exactly the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. chris (647 comments) says:

    Imagine a life where we only ate or drank food with nutritional value, and no thought to anything else. How boring would that be?!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Let’s be blunt about this problem . . . it belongs to a specific ethnicity, and no one has the balls to confront them.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Brian Smaller (3,965 comments) says:

    Imagine a life where we only ate or drank food with nutritional value, and no thought to anything else. How boring would that be?!

    Socialist Utopia! One where the lumpen masses did what they are ordered by those that know better.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Left Right and Centre (3,007 comments) says:

    (1) Exactly. Everyone gets punished. I’m 80kg at 183 and I run and lift and dance. If I want a fucking full-evil Coke I’ll have it without having to pay tax aimed at disabled elephantoids. Do the genius doctors think they got that way just sitting on their blobbom downing full sugar soft drink all day long ? No – there’s an entire supermarket and prepared food industry worth of shit out there. So where does that leave us ? Oh right – it’s just like the old soon to be permanent 4km tolerance slippery slope. The fat and sugar slippery slope. Starting off with ‘sugary drinks’ and then…. if you go down to the woods today, you’re in for a big surprise….

    If you did everything the bloody doctors told you to do – you’d be a very healthy sad little no life who never had any fun ever.

    Life is for living. If you want to have a shorter life filled with food goodies versus a longer life of a food prison sentence – do it. To me that looks like say 60-70 fun-filled fat years instead of maybe 85 boring wowser years. I’ll tell you what – if I get a terminal illness – I’m putting away everything all day every day with the goal of eating myself to death first.

    It’s all about $$$$$$. Want to know why something is happening ? Look for the $$$$$$$. Tobacco = health cost. Obesity = health cost. If being fat didn’t cost health money no-one would blink.

    (2) Sofia – the Earth is not flat. Everyone agrees.

    Not everyone agrees about the effects of artificial sweeteners. There’s scientific studies and then there’s scientific studies. And then there’s you. You reek of crackpot ‘make the evidence fit the conclusion at all costs’ bias – same as Mr Scone. You two are peas in a pod – clearly.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    Will I have to get rid of the lolly jar for the grandkids?

    Not only a tax on the demon booze – now the Satanic soft drinks as well. Just as well we are allowed to drink water.

    And even more poverty as the fat poor struggle to pay the price of fags and now sodas.

    Why can’t these wowsers just leave us alone to choose our own roads to perdition?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Goldsmith (27 comments) says:

    They want it taxed, so that money can be given to them to trough around in while calling it “research”.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. JeffW (327 comments) says:

    These “academics” are responding to the signal put out by government. If government wasn’t paying them to do this stuff, they probably wouldn’t do it. Who is paying for the conference that DPF mentions – it will be government. So, don’t blame this academics, as nice as that feels; blame government for wasting more of our tax dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Bovver (173 comments) says:

    I’ll give you my Pepsi when you pry it from my cold dead hands

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. NoCash (260 comments) says:

    Immoderate consumption of dihydrogen monoxide is very dangerous too, we should tax and ban it as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Simon (780 comments) says:

    Overweight kids Obesity rates in children aged 2-14 in 2012

    • 10% of all children
    • 19% of children in poorest 20% of homes
    • 3% of children in richest 20% of homes
    • 6% of European/other children
    • 17% of Maori children
    • 23% of Pacific children
    • 7% of Asian children

    Source: Ministry of Health http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10889144

    There is the fucking problem State dependency. Cant repeat often enough the State damages society. Poorest people are hit the hardest. Those on permanent welfare. Reduce State dependency and far more than 67 lives will be saved. The State is the problem.

    http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/obesity/obesity-key-facts-and-statistics

    Child obesity statistics

    The 2012/13 New Zealand Health Survey found that:

    one in nine children (aged 2 to 14 years) were obese (11%)
    a further one in five children were overweight (22%)
    19% of Māori children were obese
    27% of Pacific children were obese
    children living in the most deprived areas were three times as likely to be obese as children living in the least deprived areas. This finding is not explained by differences in the sex, age or ethnic composition of the child population across areas of high and low deprivation
    the childhood obesity rate has increased from 8% in 2006/07 to 11% in 2012/13.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    Can’t repeat often enough: the State damages society. Poorest people are hit the hardest.

    Well said!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    If they want healthy people to pay more for obesity-related health costs, why not just propose an increase in general taxation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    As always, a tax on sugary soft drinks only makes sense to the extent that consumption of sugary soft drinks is a good proxy for being fat, and there is no other good way to tax fat people (I’m assuming here the intent is to tax fat people). It is also reasonable to question whether it would be “fair” and reasonably consistent.

    Firstly, it’s not a good proxy. Lots of skinny people drink sugary drinks. I presume Gatorade would be high on the list – when I was marathon training I went through a fair stack of the stuff. So you’d tax people who weren’t fat. And I’m fairly sure that some fat people don’t drink sugary drinks – they probably overeat on other things though. So there’d be some fat people not paying the tax.

    Secondly, there are lots of other ways to tax fat people. Like, for example, just taxing fat people. Or, alternatively, making fat people pay a portion of their health costs. If you turn up to hospital for a fat-induced disease, you get a co-payment. That’s what we really need, but probably the health policy folks would suddenly realise how unpalatable that would be as a policy decision.

    Finally, there’d be a hundred ways around it. I can make my own sugary drinks pretty easily from flavouring and sugar. Or from soda stream. Or I could just drink orange or apple juice. Or I could make milk drinks (milk’s full of sugars). So it’s not remotely fair or consistent, it’s another way of saying “those fizzy drinks, so lower class and yucky, we should tax them”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    The obese German criminal must drink heaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Left Right and Centre (3,007 comments) says:

    Professor of Marketing Janet Hoek said restricting advertising, increasing tax, adding warning labels and using plain packaging were all ways to encourage people to look for healthier food options.

    “I would begin with carbonated soft drinks as these offer no nutritional benefit at all,” she said.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10888572

    These people have seriously lost the plot – it’s not health food – but it’s not tobacco. If it was – you’d stick the bottle in your gob and light the other end of it.

    More academic loopy lunacy : Have these university lifers heard of cause and effect ?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/element-magazine/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503340&objectid=10887359

    Poor dumb people shop more at discount supermarkets. Mystery solved – well done. Rich people shop at organic and health food stores more. Aha.

    Conclusion: The poor area supermarkets are wrong. They’re dictating consumer preferences by selling evil nasty stuff and the sheep will buy whatever is in front of them. Really ? I don’t think so. If you’ve got a brain – you can come out of a poor dumb person supermarket with vegetables and none of that other shit. It’s actually quite easy. If you’ve got a brain and choose to eat healthy. I think more chippies and biscuits are on the shelf because poor dumb people want to buy lots of them. I think the shop responds to demand – not the other way around. So – poor dumb person sees loss leader 130g bag of chippies $1 a bag. I cannot help myself. I must have them. Is that what they mean ? Ai ai ai – what a bunch of noddys.

    I’ve got my own ‘buying shit on low price’ story – run out sale family size chocolate blocks $1 each. Bought six. Ate two and a half. Finally woke up and threw the rest down the garden with the scraps.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Calories unburned by exercise or normal body ticking over function, regardless of source, get turned into fat. Its a simple equation.

    Nope..very wrong. A calorie is NOT a calorie…its how its packaged when it goes in that makes all the difference as to whether you put on fat of not. Insulin…the main fat making hormone uses carbs/sugar to make triglycerides (fat) with….not saturated fat or protein…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. calendar girl (1,257 comments) says:

    DPF@1:41pm – “Tobacco kills you – even in moderation.”

    It’s a surprise that you wrote that. Maybe it just slipped out unwittingly in the heat of the debate, but it does lend a whiff of fanaticism to the discussion. We all know that, while smoking can be very harmful, many thousands of smokers live to a ripe old age, sometimes past 100 years. Would they live forever if they did not smoke? Of course not. Other maladies strike them down, even old age itself if all else fails. There is no evidence that tobacco kills every user, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    Probably every teenager and adult living in New Zealand now knows the health dangers of tobacco. And smokers pay enormous – deliberately punitive – taxes which offset increased health costs. (At the present rate of taxation, a smoker of 20 cigarettes per day pays around $80,000 in cigarette tax over a 40-year period of smoking. And to the extent that smoking shortens many lives, so it reduces the otherwise-higher costs of NZ superannuation and geriatric care.)

    The anti-tobacco campaign – like those that follow its lead and are being waged against alcohol, fizzy drinks and selected foodstuffs – relies on statist control of the population and on denial of personal choice and decision-making. Sadly you make yourself part of all that, DPF, with exaggerated claims about smoking always leading to death, and with support for trials of so-called “plain packaging” of cigarettes.

    Even NZ’s great walks can’t insulate one from the insidious effects of living inside the beltway.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Fentex (1,130 comments) says:

    tobacco is in a case of its own as it is highly addictive,

    So, I’m sure, would many argue of sugar.

    We outlaw heroin on mostly similar logic that it’s a nasty addictive life destroying thing.

    We regulate with the intention of reducing consumption of tobacco on similar logic, but not as harshly because it isn’t thought to be quite as dangerous.

    What these folks are suggesting is applying similar logic to sugar, arguing it also is an addictive product marketed to effective junkies just as we don’t let heroin and tobacco be marketed.

    And on such terms there’s not much difference in principle in regulating sugar to reduce it’s consumption as for heroin, tobacco and any number of other substances and behaviours we legislate against in the public interest.

    So a flat-out proclamation that such regulation inhibits freedoms is unconvincing from anyone who doesn’t also agitate consistently for anarchy. We inhibit lots of freedoms in our laws.

    I don’t like this suggestion much because I expect it’s implementation to be problematic, that there are better options for a public that wishes to discourage excessive sugar consumption, and I generally prefer to leave other peoples vices alone.

    However when you have public funded health service, and a real concern for the incidence of preventable problems for that service, there’s going to be a strong incentive for the publicly funded resources to minimise their expected expenses. So if the case against excess sugar stands we can expect our government to attempt something to minimise it and everybody who proclaims economics is how we shape our actions and choices should expect economic leverage to be involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fletch (6,517 comments) says:

    Sugar is banned in the future, doncha know?

    Judge Dredd could give you 20 years for importing it.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wB5SLBNJ9ME/Uv2RGuCwEiI/AAAAAAAAAQA/Ql4ImvuEhwA/s1600/dredd_sugar.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    Do not vote for National if they go along with shit like this. It’s as simple as that.

    They might be the lesser evil compared to Labour, but you’re still voting for evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. CharlieBrown (1,054 comments) says:

    DPF – “There is no end to the ambitions of these campaigners. It starts with tobacco, then it’s alcohol, then it is fast food, then it is soft drinks then it is probably chocolate – they want it taxed, restricted, not advertised and then banned. They do not think we should be allowed to make choices.”

    You constantly backup nationals stance on tobacco and to a lesser extent liqour laws – by doing that you are enabling such piss poor ideas like this to come forward and gain traction. The logic these people use on sugary foods is the same logic you show with tobacco. As someone that has more influence than most people posting on this you should really start voicing opposition to the national party’s actions on tobacco and alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. CharlieBrown (1,054 comments) says:

    We need to stop allowing these peoples voices to become mainstream. I’m sure most national mp’s think the sugar tax idea is absurd – so what they should do is openly ridicule the “ban and tax brigade”. Go to the media and tell them that their opinions don’t count as they are stupid, make them feel small and insignificant. By even acknowledging them with an argument you are giving them a sense of authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Meatloaf (275 comments) says:

    And the way you do that, is you tell National, I thought you were a right wing party, if you do this, I’ll consider voting for someone else. Their are plenty of other parties that are about as right wing as National. The Conservatives, they are Social Right, or have you heard of Focus NZ. Their all about chopping down the regulations, and about empowering those who don’t have jobs and want a job to get a business up and running. Then their’s all the usuals. Only when people say we won’t vote for you if you pass this bill, will they make a change. Someone is pushing for this bill to happen, and it will happen unless people say we won’t vote for you, if you do this. Its all about pressure, the person with the most will win.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    And on such terms there’s not much difference in principle in regulating sugar to reduce it’s consumption as for heroin, tobacco and any number of other substances and behaviours we legislate against in the public interest.

    So how many inspectors shall we employ to march into homes to make sure Kiwis aren’t baking pavlovas or chocolate cakes?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. johnwellingtonwells (137 comments) says:

    From the TV1 news story – one-sided as normal. How to piss of their fizzy drink advertisers

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    National supported the Green anti parent discipline bill and a significant number supported the Labour travesty of marriage bill.They have an ETS and speak of a multicultural New Zealand.They support the Maori Party anti private property rights tobacco activism.

    In parliament they are not a genuinely conservative party. Unfortunately the opposition is even more barking mad.

    Where do you go?

    I’ll be voting Conservative.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    ….”I’ll be voting Conservative.”….

    Another of Colin’s Crazies off to waste his vote. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    Yeah ,vote National get Labour/Green social engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Meatloaf (275 comments) says:

    Well the conservatives will do far more good than harm. If Colin wins his seat, every vote will count. I am skeptical of him getting that 5%. But even if its a wasted vote it still sends the National Party a message, that they are out of touch, with those NZs who have social values. But for me I’m with Focus NZ, they’re all about making government the servant. By completely chopping out all unnecessary regulations, making the family unit and the individual sovereign. By doing this, we’ll never have to worry about silly social engineering. And the first thing that will happen is to implement a plan that will end welfare dependency. It won’t leave people out in the cold, but by creating real jobs. 10% of us produce something, that means 90% of us are bidding to provide a service to those 10%. The plan is to get some of those 90% to produce something. Its called wealth creation. And no, tariffs isn’t part of the plan. And all of their policies are geared toward this.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    ADD CAFFEINE SUGAR SALT OR ALCOHOL

    NICE LOGO AND PACKS

    AND YOU CAN MAKE MILLIONS

    Low in Fat high in one of the Above
    Low in Sugar High in Something else

    How else are people going to get a Legal High from the white powder

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. OneTrack (3,347 comments) says:

    “If they want healthy people to pay more for obesity-related health costs, why not just propose an increase in general taxation?”

    No problem. They want to do that too.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    “I would begin with carbonated soft drinks as these offer no nutritional benefit at all,” she said.

    Where does this bullshit come from? Sugar is of enormous, intensely concentrated nutritional benefit, that’s exactly why it makes you fat. If you could get fat from consuming stuff with no nutritional benefit, a diet of toilet paper would make you the size of a house.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. OneTrack (3,347 comments) says:

    “So how many inspectors shall we employ to march into homes to make sure Kiwis aren’t baking pavlovas or chocolate cakes?”

    Limits on the numbers of cream buns that you can buy from a bakery ( if they haven’t been banned completely. I guess backstreet tinny houses could start a sideline in muffins and eclairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    Health insurance is the democratic option.

    Taxation, bans and restrictions are the totalatarian option.

    As long as you have health insurance where you can pick ‘n pay for what you are treated for, the more preventitive of ill health insurance will be to you, eg:

    If I don’t want diabetes insurance, then I won’t pay for it, based on the fact that I consume very little sugar.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    YES DPF they will ban fizzy drinks, just like they banned alcohol and cigga…. oh, wait… :-P

    No disagreement about the taxation… I can quite readily see the group-think pushing on with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Hair Removal Specialist (80 comments) says:

    DPF, you are in favour of trialing plain packaging for tobbaco, what about sugar?

    I understand that smokers have a shorter life expectancy and cost the state less despite health care costs as they die earlier and save superannuation costs. I assume the same can be said for heavy consumers of sugar. Like the lady who drunk 10 bottles of coke a day – the modern natural selection.

    Acknowledging the calories in normal coke, how can you even stomach diet/zero coke, tastes like absolute a%$#?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wiseowl (974 comments) says:

    Charlie Brown is dead right.

    And while it has been touched on, I think there needs to be some questions asked about Otago Uni and the funding of these arrogant intellectual individuals who want to control our lives .
    Why doesn’t National have the balls to say stop spewing out this crap or funding for Otago Uni will be cut.
    It’s like the global warming scam. These so-called educated wankers survive on taxpayers money but don’t possess an ounce of common sense.
    Another opening for the Conservatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Hair Removal Specialist (80 comments) says:

    wiseowl, i hate to say it but I think you are right in that the conservatves seem to be the only party with some balls to stand up to this left wing bull shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Tauhei Notts (1,687 comments) says:

    I like Coca Cola with my Jim Beam.
    I usually mix it three parts Jim Beam to one part Coca Cola. As the Coca Cola, with its huge sugar content, is obviously bad for me I would like to see;
    (a) An excise duty on Coca Cola.
    (b) Removal of the excise duty on Jim Beam.
    To improve my health I might change that 3:1 ratio to 4:1.
    One friend remarked that I’m the only person he knows that likes Jim Beam and is from neither Upper Hutt nor west Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    You must have originally been from Wainui Tauhei! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Hair Removal Specialist (80 comments) says:

    Tauhei Notts, Jim Beam drunk extensively in other parts of the country … by imports from upper hut and west auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Fentex (1,130 comments) says:

    If Colin wins his seat, every vote will count.

    This is why the 5% threshold is undemocratic – 120 seats? Then the threshold is 100/120% = 0.8333% and then every vote always counts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fentex (1,130 comments) says:

    Why doesn’t National have the balls to say stop spewing out this crap or funding for Otago Uni will be cut.

    You can’t dictate what academics study or conclude on threat of government funding attacks.

    You really wouldn’t like to live where that attitude is the norm when someone you don’t like governs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. southtop (251 comments) says:

    While the statist govt is at it (May come if we continue on this road) they should make people come in plain packaging and tax make up.
    Go out on the hunt, score unwrap then hope the result is as expected? Push up, tuck in, poly filler poor lighting, all makes this exercise risky, expensive and not good for the health.

    My tongue is only slightly in my cheek

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote