Seattle Sugary Drink Tax Take Effect: $10.34 Tax On $15.99 Purchase

download-8.jpgI have previously discussed my opposition to sugary drink bans or prohibitive taxation schemes in Chicago and New York.  While Cook County reluctantly yielded to public opinion and court decisions recently, Seattle has gone forward with a ridiculous tax of 1.75 cents per ounce on sugary drinks. This paternalistic law is designed to make such drinks economically undrinkable or at least unpalatable for citizens who do not share the views of the majority on beverages and health.  The result is that a large box of 35 bottles of Gatorade at Costco with a list price of $15.99 is now taxed at $10.34.  So almost $10.50 of the $26.50 price is taxes.

download-7

I have previously stated that I agree with the opposition to sugary drinks and the unhealthy consumption of such beverages. (We rarely let our kids have such drinks and I have literally not had a sugary soda in decades). However, that is our choice.  Too many politicians (largely on the left of the political spectrum) believe that they have a license to dictate (through either bans or prohibitive taxes) the lifestyles and choices of other citizens.  Liberals (who correctly balk at the government trying to dictate other aspects of their lives on issues of intimate relations or other health decisions) have no hesitation in “correcting” the bad choices of those with different priorities or lifestyles.  What you eat and drink is a lifestyle choice.  It is possible to consume sugary drinks and not be obese.

264 thoughts on “Seattle Sugary Drink Tax Take Effect: $10.34 Tax On $15.99 Purchase

  1. Normally i would oppose any type of gov’t interference that’s not absolutely essential. The obesity epidemic in this country is getting out of control, so a tax on harmful substances like cigarettes should not be ruled out. Of course it’s up to the citizens to approve this legislation.

    • What planet do you live on? There ARE taxes on cigarettes. In fact, those taxes grew exponentially between the 1990 and the present – we were told higher taxes funded anti-smoking campaigns. (See how idiotic that is?). What was the result? People still smoke. Maybe in lesser numbers, but they smoke. Faced with reduced sales, American tobacco companies outsourced. That put a lot of Americans out of work. Take Concord, NC as an example. There were two key industries there – textiles and tobacco. One of the best jobs sought in town was to work at the cigarette plant on state highway 29. They’d start you hourly making about three times the minimum wage at the time and from there the sky way the limit. So we raised taxes in the name of demonizing smoking tobacco and today that plant sits empty and idle and the people that could’ve worked there are struggling.

  2. I have mixed feelings about this tax. I agree with Karen and Allen in principle that less government intervention is better. Yet, I also agree with bam-bam. We have allowed society to pay for people’s healthcare costs. The consequences are that the government will try to reduce its costs.

    However, this tax is goofy on several fronts.

    “Diet soda won’t be taxed, and the council also chose to exempt baby formula, medicine, weight-loss drinks and 100 percent fruit juice.”

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-says-yes-to-soda-tax/

    Diet soda still makes a person release excess insulin, which, in the presence of a high-carb standard American Diet, will still lead to weight gain (not to mention the concerns about aspartame). Also, 100% fruit juice still hammers on the liver with its fiber-free fructose the same way high-fructose corn syrup does, which still can lead to diabetes or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Watch pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig’s Sugar: The Bitter Truth presentation.

    The obesity epidemic, with all its associated ills poses an existential threat to our nation, both financially and militarily.

    Kids are getting type II diabetes, hypertension, and NASH (thus necessitating a liver transplant). Paying for diabetes care over the course of a person’s life averages $85,000, but the younger a person is diagnosed, it has the potential to cost upwards of $130,000.

    https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809547

    Chris Kresser has written a book titled Unconventional Medicine that addresses this, in part. I have not yet read it, but the podcasts I listened to were very intriguing.

    Considering the baby boomers retiring is already straining us financially, something must be done to quell the rising tide of primarily diet/lifestyle-induced chronic disease. Do we go on a massive public education campaign or tax sugar? Both?

    According to the article:
    “Under the mayor’s plan, the bulk of the revenue would have funded education programs for low-income and otherwise vulnerable children. But the council shifted the emphasis more toward healthful-eating programs.

    The tax is expected to raise about $15 million per year. Some money will support the city’s Fresh Bucks program, which helps people using food stamps buy more fruits and vegetables at farmers markets.

    And the council approved an amendment offered by Councilmember Debora Juarez calling out food banks and soup kitchens as eligible to receive funds.

    “Funds raised by the tax will put healthy food on the table for hungry families across our city,” said Tanika Thompson, a food-access organizer for the South Seattle community organization Got Green.”

    While getting more real food to people should be helpful, teaching them why it is important for their health and how to actually cook real food is important, too.

    • If the state of Washington wanted to resemble a developed nation, it would enact a state income tax. But instead, Washington impoverishes itself enabling Gates and Bezos to avoid paying for the services that benefit them and their fellow citizens. Gates favors consumption taxes that foster a piecemeal approach to taxation and that result in the poor paying taxes at a higher rate than he does. No surprise there.

      • Linda, take a deep breath and repeat after me:

        Washington’s Citizenry continually votes down an income tax.
        Washington’s Citizenry continually votes down an income tax.
        Washington’s Citizenry continually votes down an income tax.

        • The national statistics that compare the number of rich people who vote as contrasted with the number of poor who vote provides enlightenment for your redundancy. Assuming Washington matches the national profile, maintaining the disparity in voting between rich and poor is the GOP goal in voter suppression and gerrymandering. And, the tactics reflect its fear.
          The deep breaths and meditative chanting will be needed by the top 0.1%. I hope, sooner rather than later.

        • Also, Bill Gates supports a Washington State income tax.
          I forget the state income tax Initiative number, maybe it was 1098?, that both Bill Gates Sr. and Bill Gates Jr. backed.
          Odd that Linda never mentions this.

          • The comment I made about Gates/ Washington State income tax was in response to Darren’s 9:43 AM comment.
            It’s posted WAY down the line from Darren’s comment, so I just wanted to clarify why the “state income tax” issue was brought up in my comment.

          • Lately…Billy Gates “supported” an income tax, verbally. Billy Gates supported consumption taxes, before that.
            Also in November, Billy Gates spent money to defeat Washington state judges who had rendered verdicts favorable to public schools. Did he spend any money to back his words, in the income tax campaign?

            The oil and gas industry that backs the Koch’s Joni Ernst funded Englund’s campaign against Dhingra.
            Rhetorically, did Gates express an opinion in that 2017 Washington race?

    • Prarie Rose, I think this emphasis on healthcare costs to society is a bit strange. Our Constitution exists to protect the individual from government, not to protect the government from the individual.

      • Allan,
        I absolutely agree that is what the Constitution says. But, what it says and what we are now are vastly divergent. We, our government, pays for the medical care of the indigent, the elderly, and have the expense of Obamacare. Walking back government intrusion will be no easy road. How do we accomplish this when people either do not try to learn, do not act on whatever they have learned, or just want to pretend their problems will go away if they ignore it (by ignoring the problem, a friend’s relative just lost toes to uncontrolled diabetes)?

        You and I are paying for ignorance, willful or not, as well as downright irresponsibility right now. Letting them suffer the consequences of their choices means we pay for their healthcare, which will continue to increase in cost. I’d rather they get ‘hit at the pump’ along with improved access to and education about healthy food.

        I am open to other ideas to stop this rise in chronic disease. What are yours? I look forward to reading Chris Kresser’s book about how he thinks the problem could be approached.

        That said, our military recognizes obesity as a threat.
        http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2013/us-obesity-military.aspx

        To our society, there is lost productivity and medication/medical procedure costs that are hard on a family’s finances.

        Medical debt is the number one reason for bankruptcy. Since obesity is associated with increased heart attack probability, bankruptcy could be an issue, too:

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171116092706.htm

        Something has to change.

        • Prarie Rose, I had written a rather long posting on healthcare costs to make things more understandable. I can’t find it and it may have just been eaten up so I will rewrite a bit here. Firstly, however, just because we stretched the Constitution past its words and meaning with regard to healthcare doesn’t mean we have to further infringe upon it by dismissing our individual liberty which is in part what the Constitution is supposed to protect.

          Do smokers (and Coca-Cola) cost the taxpayer more?

          There are two expensive times in life that happen to all individuals; birth and death. The same two are present in the life of a smoker except on average he gets sicker quicker and dies at an earlier age. What does that mean? It means he worked a full or almost full life paying taxes and died before he could collect all his benefits such as Medicare, social security, age-related benefits, and the benefits of a nursing home should he run out of money. His smoking associated death is generally cancer of the lung, relatively quick. Chronic lung disease which generally permits one to work until near the end and heart disease. If he dies the day he retires and before receiving any benefits society is a big winner.

          Where does society lose the biggest? Chronic disabling disease which predominates in the elderly from the costs of Medicare, social security, and Medicaid (nursing home care). Smoking or drinking Coca-Cola might create illness, but if that is so, it also creates death at an earlier age saving the taxpayer money.

          I am not advocating bad health rather dispelling the myth that smoking and other bad habits cost society tons of money. There are, however, some illnesses that are preventable that do cost money, but our PC environment only stimulates those costs to climb because the penalties involved with those costs have been artificially placed into the hands of the taxpayer.

          • Allen,
            Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Sorry that your first one got eaten. I hate when that happens!

            Working within the system we currently have (I do not foresee it changing drastically in the near future), what should be done to reduce costs?

            Thought this was interesting:
            “Having diabetes is associated with substantially higher lifetime medical expenditures despite being associated with reduced life expectancy. If prevention costs can be kept sufficiently low, diabetes prevention may lead to a reduction in long-term medical costs.”

            ” People diagnosed with diabetes at age 40 years lived with the disease for an average of 34 years after diagnosis. ”

            At nearly $8500/year medical expenditures, that means diabetes costs a pretty hefty sum per person.
            The article overall is very interesting.

            http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/9/2557

            • Prairie Rose, there is no system that will not leave holes and people dissatisfied. Many believe healthcare should be free, but any intelligent person knows that isn’t possible for when it is free to one person someone else must be paying the bill. Some feel it should be a government obligation. Why? I understand the need to help those in need, but why should it be a government obligation to help those that can afford the costs? Some feel government is more efficient, but most of us laugh at government efficiency except where it comes to health care where emotions, not decision making dominates. If the government controlled the cellphone industry we would all be walking around with huge phones that were attached to very long wires. That is not what government does best. In healthcare, the government has led to tremendous amounts of churning and has added loads of third parties that are increasing the bills, but not improving healthcare. They have made our private physicians responsible to government bean counters not to the patient.

              The best system is where the patient controls the dollars. The purchase of insurance is fine but that means no third-party payer where the third party gets the tax deduction. That is probably one of the major causes of the failures of our healthcare system since WW2. All citizens should be treated equally tax wise. The government is needed to enforce contracts, transparency, honesty and to level the playing field. It can also provide a safety net such as Medicaid or a subsidy to help borderline citizens. Individuals know what they need and are best able to balance their needs when considering costs, access, and quality. They are a triad where one can only have the advantage of only two of the legs at a time. In other words, a decrease in cost will decrease access or quality, increase quality and that increases cost or decreases access, etc.. One has to look at systemic changes to alter all three in a positive direction and that means reduced government involvement.

              I think we should stop looking at how much the disease costs the government since the government should not be the primary payer. Patients with diabetes who have to pay the bill will likely watch their eating habits better than when the costs are paid by others. If that isn’t true then nothing will change their habits and one bad habit will be substituted for another. Education, however, can affect what people do, but it has to be voluntary for people aren’t going to listen to things forced on them unless those doing the forcing have guns to back them up. That is not the type of society we wish to live in.

              ” People diagnosed with diabetes at age 40 years lived with the disease for an average of 34 years after diagnosis. ”

              That means they die before their expected lifespan and that leaves more money in the Medicare and social security pots, a saving for the government.

              There are a lot of myths involved with healthcare (Issac is one of our biggest myth producers) so my advice is to compare how fast and relatively inexpensive computers have become to the costs of healthcare where costs keep rising and rising despite the fact that similar technologies are being used.

            • Yet we never seem to question the per capita cost of so many other failed do-gooder experiments. At one point does one assume responsibility for one’s life choices? No, I’m not saying we should leave people to their own self-induced doom. But I am saying that nutty tax schemes like Seattle’s won’t change anything – they’ll merely shift problems around and probably create new ones.

  3. I wonder how come the government can’t either ban, or tax, sodomy??? Because guys who engage in that activity have a 20% rate of HIV, which is the same percentage of smokers who got lung cancer.

    When someone gets HIV, they typically go on disability, and run up about $2-$4,000 medical bill each month. Sooo, the HIV bill is pretty costly for the nation.

    I mean, because if it is OK to ban, or tax, something that goes in your mouth, how come they can’t do the same to stuff that goes in your rear end???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • The same Buffett who gets so much glowing press, like he did a couple of decades ago for his decision not to give his kids, his fortune? In 2012, he gave $600,000,000 to the foundations that his kids started with their mother’s money.

        • It’s time for those among the top 0.1%, who get a free pass for mouthing the right words, to be exposed. Their words cover an insidious front creating a concubine party for the rich. Cases in point, Melinda Gates, privatizer of America’s most important common good and the Center for American Progress, funded by corporations like Walmart. Buffett pays some of the freight at the Gates Foundation. Read the New America plan for higher ed posted at its site- little if no difference from a Koch agenda. Then, look at who funds it.

  4. Well! Just mentioning *Paul Krugman* certainly brought the know-nothings out of their warrens. *Hint: that is a play on words, know-nothings.*

    • Mr. Benson,
      You need to stop extending yourself with your posts.
      Don’t worry about backing up your viewpoint…..the Pithy Proclamations from Pullman are suffient in lieu of any real substantive comments.
      Your declarative, empty posts consistently dodge any real debate.

        • It’s here…..the fact that you don’t recognize it is your problem.
          You’re among a group here who feel that stating their “beliefs” or “conclusions” is a somehow the same as supporting those conclusions.
          Stating your “conclusions” as though they were fact, because that’s what you “believe”, is what you do repeatedly.
          For such short posts, you still manage to waste a lot of space.

            • Linda, I never did anything illegal. In the end, the Helmsleys (mostly Harry) added to the lives of people and added to the wealth of our economy. That is far more than you have ever done.

              You prefer the Stalin way where tens of millions of people are killed and enslaved.

              • Allan, yours is an upside down world.
                The Stalin-like attacks on the press are courtesy of Trump. The Stalin-like statistics for imprisonments are at the door of the Koch’s ALEC, which contributed to the American people holding title as the most imprisoned population in the world. Men like the Koch’s have driven down the share of national income going to labor to its lowest point in recorded history. When almost half of the people have incomes too low to pay federal taxes and, when the median family income is $50,000, while at the same time 6 Walton heirs have wealth equivalent to 40% of Americans combined… affixing blame to the 99% is crazy (come to think of it crazy was a trait of Stalin, too).

                • “Allan, yours is an upside down world.”

                  Of course, it is to a Stalinist. I spend my days and nights building a home. Another guy spends his days and nights whoring it and taking drugs. In the winter you want to take my property and share it with the other guy. See how that worked out in Stalin’s world. Alternatively, supply us with your better solutions.

                  • Shocking to hear you talk about your president that way- Stormy, the porn star and Trump’s creditors left with a hole in their pockets, as well as the fleeced students from his “university”.

                    • Linda, I wasn’t talking about the President that way, I was talking about you and your friends. Trump made sure he could care for himself and his family instead of having to rely on other people so I don’t know how your brain got so screwed up. Everything you say is disjointed and nonresponsive. It almost sounds as if you are writing from a Medicaid nursing home.

                    • Or, are foreign nations with ulterior motives the source of Trump money? His tax returns would clear it up.
                      fyi- Stormy and the $130,000 are proven fact.

                    • Perhaps you ought to read a tax return so you know what is included on a tax return.

                      Sex with Stormy has not been proven and she denies it. However, what does that matter? I don’t care who you have sex with or who you pay. Why should I care about two consenting adults doing what they want?

                      Under your type of politics, Russia became very libertine to destroy the family and then puritanical to put people in jails. Your desire to equate consenting sex between adults is nothing more than the desire to tell other people what they must do. You are a Stalinist.

              • Allan,…
                At a recent STO meeting, we were shown a video used as a recruitment tool by the movement sworn to rid America of “the oligarchy”.
                The video features some of the typical foot soldiers of the “Oligarchy must go” movement.
                The “Napoleon XIV, Keith McDonald” recruitment video can be found online.
                Warning: Content may be disturbing to some viewers.

        • Whose fault is that, David? A debate takes at least two players. If you are the other player and you decline to debate then it is your fault.

          • Partly it is the narrow gutter format of the replies, on my mobile device, makes it difficult to follow the chain of thought, if there is any.

            Partly it is lack of interest on my part to carry on with those who have not read at least some of the great books; John Stewart Mills, Emanuel Kant, … What the heck, not even any of the 4 gospels…

            Or, at least, more derivative writers such as Moynihan or Krugman.

            There are those here that know much more about America law than I do. I learn something but I don’t see how to debate it.

            • Mr. Benson,..
              – I think if you’re going to make dismissive remarks about “lots of no-nothings” on a thread, you should find room to support that statement.
              Either don’t make those statements without backing them up, or don’t make the statements in the first place.

                • That’s correct.
                  Mr. Benson is free to make his proclamations, I’m free to call BS on the proclamations of the Wise One from Pullman.
                  Nobody’s disputing that it’s “a comments section”, but you’re very onservant to identify it as such.

                  • “Either don’t make those statements without backing them up, or don’t make the statements in the first place.” – Tom Nash

                    Calling BS is one thing. Making silly demands is another. Better to have stopped after your first sentence.

                    • You should have stopped after your last post, anonymous.
                      I gave you credit for your observation that this is a comments section…….once you made that valuable contribution, it’s likely to be all downhill for you.

                    • Well anonymous, do you enjoy trying to silence free and open debate as much as you do paying out the ying yang for a Pepsi in Seattle?

            • Interesting, of course, I would expand and alter that list of writers, but it is not the number that counts rather the integration of that knowledge with what one has learned and how one utilizes that knowledge.

              Your assumption is that a man has to be well read to have anything important to say. It helps, but that is not necessarily true. Even people who have not read The Books can have tremendous intellect and wisdom. Too many rely on what they consider to be their excellent education in studies and books failing to observe the world around them. I have met all too many of those people. Real life experience gives an added dimension to a portion of the world that is not completely found in books. That is something that is lacked by all too many academics.

              Based on what little I know of you I would recommend you read Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell and for international affairs Thucydides or On the Origins of War by Donald Kagan. I provide the first because Sowell has a lot to say about academics along with economics and culture. I provide the second because despite the trivialities discussed on this blog we have international problems that can lead to a devastating war so understanding the thinking process that occurs between such wars might be helpful.

  5. Why would anyone want to live in a place like this? Why would anyone want to live in a state that wants to micro manage your life. I don’t drink much carbonated soda, but that’s a decision that I freely made myself. I quit smoking years ago. Again a decision that I made on my own. If you choose to smoke cigarettes or drink soda that’s your business not some feel good hack politicians.

    • Yeah, and we insist that you drive at no more than the speed limit! Moreover, during big snows you can’t drive over the pass without chains!

      How regulated can you get?

    • Once the government, has a financial stake in your health. . .a stake in the costs required to medicate you. . .treat your numerous and varied health issues. . .operate on you. . .scan you. . .x-ray you. . .hospitalize you. . .pay for attendants to help you live and just get out of bed. . .etc.–you have let the government into your personal and private life, whether you like it or not. Just a fact. The government has an interest in making sure that you are not going to overburden the system. . .use more than your fair share. . .so it is trying to keep you from making choices which will, undoubtedly, cause a host of medical problems. The government isn’t banning soda. All of you junkies and addicts need to calm down and stop shaking. . .this is a tax, imposed on soda–laden with sugar–where the government is attempting to dissuade your use of a beverage known to cause numerous health problems. Don’t drink much soda? Great, then you won’t mind paying a little bit more when you do indulge. Drink the crap by the gallon, on a daily basis? Then, you may need to get the monkey off of your back. You will pay, in one way or another, for destroying your body. The government only cares about what it is going to cost it to treat and medicate the hoards of massively obese, diabetic amputees, who couldn’t stop chugging the stuff and need Big Brother to tell them, like the infants that they are, come on, now, enough already…

      • Bam Bam, you did a great job of making the case against socialized medicine. But you forgot to mention that govt will also decide in your later stages of life whether your societal contributions justify the cost of keeping you alive.

    • One thing that can be said about most of the metropolitan areas of WA, such as Seattle (King County) and Snohomish County, is that the politicians there are especially micro-managing and display keen interest in controlling everything. One trick the state uses is requiring a license for nearly everything and then threatens to revoke the license for a litany of “causes”. The legislature in the past used this process when the courts ruled against some overreaching criminal laws. In response, the state then voted to civilly sanction driver’s licenses and occupational credentials such as trades certificates, etc.

  6. How many miles outside Seattle do you have to go to make a viable black market purchase? Not too hard. I wonder if we will see someone choked to death on the street for resisting arrest for selling “loosie” Cokes?

  7. Trying to mandate health led to Prohibition, Eugenics,

    If we give the government the power to determine how we eat, then they would have to ban Veganism, on which is quite difficult to be healthy.

    Just think, Monsanto has been entrenched in every Democratic and Republican government for many years. If government has the power to legislate our diet, how much influence would Monsanto have over their fiats?

    A better approach is cultural. Every nation has its culture and traditions. The French are famous for their wonderful food, gustatory devotee Julia Child, and for the level of outdoor activity per capita. Everyone walks. Many cultures have a tradition of activity. In Kabul, before the extremists ruined it and threw a burka over all the women, families used to walk in the squares every night and visit. High Northern latitudes cherish sunlight so much that building codes in Breda, I believe, require that each and every employee have access to daytime sunlight, if they have to build a skylight and atrium to do it.

    So, how do you guide a cultural valuation of outdoor or indoor activity?

    • Great question and analysis. I think that now government is in our healthcare business, every health issue becomes a political issue.

        • “Every American” should also read Paul Krugman’s prediction that the stock market would crash if Trump became president.
          “Every American” should read the Washington Times article, “A Dunce Cap for Paul Krugman”.
          The smugness and arrogance of Paul Krugman has not helped his track record.

            • The broken clock ploy can be effective, eventually.
              If one makes the same erronous prediction time after time, the “payoff” is that eventually the prediction will come true.

              • I see people still quoting David Stockman, as if he is some sort of an authority or seer.
                Go back 5-6 years and look at his predictions…he’s been consistently wrong.
                If a dozen erroneous predictions are made about the stock market by the same individual over a period of years, they might be seen as vindicated if they are eventually right ( once) after blowing it for years.
                There are all kinds of “gurus” out there with terrible track records, but that doesn’t seem to bother their dusciples.

    • Thanks, David B. Benson.

      “Clearly, we need policies to spread the benefits of growth and innovation more widely. But one way to think of Trumpism is as an attempt to narrow regional disparities, not by bringing the lagging regions up, but by cutting the growing regions down. For that’s what attacks on education and immigration, key drivers of the new economy’s success stories, would do.

      “So will our modern know-nothings prevail? I have no idea. What’s clear, however, is that if they do, they won’t make America great again — they’ll kill the very things that made it great.” -Paul Krugman

      • What I’d love for a priss like you to explain is this: do ****hole countries have a responsibility to help themselves up?

      • “policies to spread the benefits of growth and innovation” – but I thought according to the left these things were bad and instead we needed “sustainable” economies.

        “they’ll kill the very things that made it great” – which were?

        Paul Krugman is a fool.

      • Charles and David Koch and Bill Gates are the enemies within. People are aware of the Koch machine, i.e. ALEC, State Budget Solutions, State Policy Network and Americans for Prosperity (the top 0.1%’s), thanks to Jane Mayer and the Center for Media and Democracy. Most don’t know that Gates spent money to defeat Washington state judges who rendered decisions favorable to public education. Nor do they know about his Aspen Pahara Institute. Every person among the 99% should read the Philanthropy Roundtable interview of the founder of New Schools Venture Fund. She is the driving force behind 4 organizations funded by Gates, aimed at privatizing America’s most important common good.

        • Yeah, that wasn’t an actual quote though the meaning appears embedded in history. Read Plato who says about the same thing.

            • Correct. That is why there would be no quote from Socrates and any quote would have been written by Plato paraphrased or not. But Plato recorded a similar statement about himself

              .

                • There are actually three items in my comment, not one, so I am not even sure which item you are questioning. I am not an expert on Plato so what I have said is based upon memory over a long period of time about something that is not my primary interest.

                  I might just look it up after you define your question and provide the alternative statement of fact.

  8. Here’s what happens next: people that can buy sodas and such outside Seattle will do so, thus taking business away from Seattle retailers. Some of those enterprising folks will sell sodas and the like will take to selling loosies on the down low. Presto, a whole new criminal class has thus been created.

  9. Instead of going to the Costco on 4th Avenue South, customers will drive a few more miles down the I-5 to the Tukwila store for their groceries. Not only will there be a dramatic reduction in sugary drinks, it’ll adversely impact the entire supermarket industry inside Seattle city limits. I doubt the Einsteins on the city council gave it that much thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s