There's a connection between diet coke and testicular cancer...

That's why you mostly see women drinking it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. I really haven't a clue ... just thought I'd throw your game off.

They should put a 2X tax on top shelf booze ... the booze favored by the politicians when they go for dinner to discuss how they will screw us. They drink the top shelf to loosen up and talk truthfully and all they end up doing is spitting on each other and grabbing a ho(male or female) to go home with.

But Patters, isn't there something to be said for personal responsibility? Do we really need to tax soda so we can fund programs telling people not to drink soda? Is there anyone out there that thinks soda is good for them? What about cigarettes or cheesecake etc., we KNOW these things are bad for us, but it should be up to the individual to be responsible for their own health, read the labels on things once in a while, quit smoking, give your kids a healthy lunch instead of taking them to McDonalds, get out and excercise instead of sitting on a couch all day and night.

I am sorry for the loss of your friend though, its never an easy thing to go through.

You sir have made an enemy for life with that suggestion!

You don't like the diareah speed rack I see.

I usually drink the cheap stuff, but every once in a while I like to splurge on a fancy bottle of gin or scotch or rum, and I don't want to pay more than I already do!

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think people get addicted while they're adolescents, and brains aren't fully developed until a person reaches their early to mid-20s. Also, you have the problem that bad diet leads to health problems, which costs the system in one way or another (such as increased Medicare costs and more sick time). I see nothing wrong with taxing harmful things (like cigagettes, alcohol, gambling, and sugar) provided that the taxes are modest and the money actually goes towards addressing a problem that should have been addressed in the first place by our educational system.

Thanks. He was one of the smartest people. He had a photographic memory and in the context of a conversation could pull out perfect quotes from great literature, without any sort of pretension. He was also a terrific mimic. His mother is a deeply religious conservative, but she told me she's going to leave her estate to stem cell research, which could have led to a cure to save her son. I think his suffering (which was ultimately due to suffocation) made her change her views on stem cell research. It also made me regard the issue as more important than I once did.

They Live is an awesome movie. Nice pic.

I'd disagree that there's anything addictive about junk food, I guess maybe you could say so with soda because of the caffeine, but adolescents are surely developed enough mentally to understand how to read the ingredient list and calorie information on what they eat and drink. We've had this discussion before, but my solution, rather than asking government to control what we eat/drink, or tax it to raise money to tell us what to eat/drink, then have government pay for us to get better when we get sick from making bad choices would be to leave government out of it, let people eat what they want, and instead of worrying about increased medicare costs, cut medicare and force people to worry about their own healthcare. I know that is a solution that doesn't sit well with you, but I'm a firm believer that problems are best solved by the people rather than the government. If anything I would say continue funding of programs that give low income folks access to healthy foods, with things like food stamps. Now THERE you could make it so food stamps are only to be used on healthy items, not sugar-filled sodas and desserts. In that case it would be OK for government to limit choice, since it is a handout, and would be a mechanism to ensure that our tax dollars are used as intended, to get good food to people that can't afford it, rather than more Ben and Jerry's and microwave burritos. Why should I be punished and have to pay an extra tax for the once a month or two that I go to Burger King because someone else can't stop themselves from going 3 times a week?

Thus is the difference between us and them. We don't think that raising taxes in every (or some of us, any) situation will solve the problem. I'm with the personal responsibility route here too. I used to weigh 300 pounds and now I'm around 190, specifically because I changed my eating habits for myself, no tax incentive needed.