cigarettes and soda..

Strange combination? What could the two have in common? Actually quite a bit. We knew for years the lethal effects of smoking cigarettes. For years tobacco companies lobbyed congress actually denying the effects of cigarette smoking. for years the tobacco companies spent millions of dollars both lobbying their political enablers of death products and what was worse spending millions on advertising geared towards recruiting new smoker-children. The US actually subsized tocabbo growers. It wasn't until the counrty and lawmakers grewup/woke up and started to tax cigarettes which had the greatest impact on healthcare in the US.
Now the soda part. For over thirty years I have worked with children. I would watch in office/school waiting rooms while children drank soda and fruit drinks that actually had only 10% actual fruit. The alternative to these drinks were also cheaper-which in poor areas makes a big difference. We know the effects of diet on childrens's school performance. With utter frustration I would try to inform the parents that anything with"ose" on the labels was a form of sugar During that time children obesity levels as well as levels of childhood diabetes have skyrocketed. The contributions of sugar to the activity of children is also a costly concern here. The average can of soda has at least ten teespoons of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup. By the way, the US subsidizes corn that becomes high fructose corn syrup. Much of the advertising for soda is directed at...yes children. "[People get fat from other things' I knew someone who smoked for 20 years and didn't get cancer. Haven't we gone down this road before?
A brave attempt by New York Governor Patterson to have a sugar tax placed on sugary drinks, never made it to the floor of the state legislature. (The dysfunctional nature of this body is the subject of another post here). The arugments were the same as with cigarettes. The bottle industry and members on both sides of the political isle framed the the proposal as yet another tax on people-especially poor. "Just what we need yet another tax" and like with the health problems for cigarettes the lobbyiests and their political enablers took a short sighted approach to a long term health problem. Emotions and vs noting the saving of lives framed and won the debate. The long term individual and government savings in health care costs were not even considered. "Yet another tax"..it is not a tax, not even a regressive tax if people have cheeper and more nutricious alternatives. Once again the argument is being framed, not for the concern of children, and their families.not for the reduction of preventable health care costs for everyone. . but for the short term financial concerns of businesses and politicians. Cigarettes and soda? Awful combination.