Ignore those large plastic bottles and familiar names, and glance over at the upper tight side of that picture.

See that nondescript glass bottle with the label turned away, filled with deliciously orange liquid?

That's Stewart's Orange and Cream. That's the one you want. Trust me.

"Just throw money at it" is not a solution.

George W Bush created PEPFAR. When he did it, he insisted that NGOs in East Africa adopt an ABC model to HIV prevention "A= Abstinence, B= Be Faithful, C= Condoms". This approach makes no sense in societies where concurrency is a common practice.

For those who don't know, concurrency is where someone has multiple partners, whom they remain exclusively faithful to, for many years. In the mind of a man with five girlfriends, he is being faithful- to all five of them. He's likely to have those same five women in his life his whole life, and never keep with anyone else. However, each of those five women have five boyfriends, and each of those boyfriends has five girlfriends. Now, if even one of them seroconverts, its like a superhighway for HIV transmission. The risk for seroconversion depends on how many repeated exposures someone has to an HIV + person multiplied by the relative risk of their sexual activity, modified by medications if they are undetectable. For those not using condoms (because remember- they're faithful to their five partners) and not having access to medications (in much of East Africa people don't), this means everyone in the daisy chain is at an increased risk for transmission. And it also means ABC doesn't work.

Further, those programs which did try to be more frank in their discussions of sex were often designed by people who had never lived in East Africa, and were completely unfamiliar with social customs there. Overt discussions of sexuality on billboards in Uganda drove many people away from the well-meaning if clueless NGOs trying to assist them. This further intensified the epidemic, as the controversy made it look like the only people at risk for HIV were "promiscuous", an actual term used by many in International Relief that just so happens to have religious connotations in places like East Africa.

Uganda went from relatively few HIV cases to an exploding epidemic, and the system set up to prevent HIV from spreading there instead fueled it. But it was well-funded, I will say that.

What they needed wasn't more money. They needed an anthropologist to help them plan an appropriate marketing campaign.

Cf. The Invisible Cure by Helen Epstein, The Wisdom of Whores by Elizabeth Pisani, and A Bed for the Night by David Rieff

Yay new regressive taxes!!!

Fuck you, Murray.

Adding on to a regressive prole tax on sugary drinks, how about adding a bourgeoisie tax on wine? The proles in the Seattle area shouldn't be the only ones taking on the usual regressive tax burden to fund education.

@3, @4 You don't need soda to survive, therefore a tax on soda/sugar drinks is not regressive. Also, soda companies bear a striking resemblance to tobacco companies as well:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/foo…

There are good arguments for a soda tax. Pure unadulterated "for the children" hitching an unrelated preschool to it -- that is not one of the good arguments.

@4 wine is subject to excise and sales tax (and duty tax when applicable). Soft drinks have no excise tax to speak of. In fact, the price of soft drinks depends greatly on large subsidies (taxpayer money) to agribusiness (corn).

Funding preschool education through the use of taxes on sugary drinks is a TERRIBLE idea.

By doing this, you are incentivizing schools (and parents of preschool age children) to buy, and encourage others to buy, as much sugary drinks as possible. After all, the more sugary drinks sold, the more funding the schools and their children get. If drink sales dry up, so long preschool funding.

That's like funding police departments with court ordered fines criminals pay.

Terrible, terrible idea.

@5 Sin taxes are regressive. You don't need cigarettes to survive, but cigarette taxes are, by their nature, disproportionately effect the poor more than the rich. A homeless guy buying a pack of cigarettes pays a higher percentage of their income to a sin tax than Jeff Bezos or Tom Douglas. That is the definition of regressive taxation, not by whether or not the product is a necessity.

Sin taxes also are different than luxury taxes, where taxes affect the wealthy. Why don't we increase the tax on diamond earrings or gold class rings? Or how about taxes on new furniture over $300? Or, car sales valued over $25k?

We here in Seattle are ADDICTED to regressive taxation. For over a decade, The Stranger and Charles Mudede have occasionally written a passive think piece or two about how upside-down our tax structure is - our state is the worst in the nation - but whenever another regressive tax is up for debate, everybody pulls out their wallets to engage in mutual self-satisfied fellatio that they're paying their fair share.

If you support the tax, fucking own it. Own up to the idea that you love regressive taxation and are willing to support yet another round of it for a pre-school. Don't try to say "it's not regressive" because that's a fucking lie.

@9, et al- We had a soda tax for a long time. It initially funded all sorts of great stuff, like drug and alcohol prevention activities. The funding was diverted and diluted over time and it was repealed (by I-1107) in 2010 If I'm not mistaken.

Also- taxation helps offset the health care costs and discourages the use- as per a number of studies ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/upsho… ) . Soda is delicious, but serves no purpose that an essentially free product, water, does not also serve. The upshot is this- we don't need to make it cheaper to make the wrong choice- especially when that wrong choice costs us money. 'Sin taxes' are a great way of helping to align the negative externalities of personal choices- way better than outlawing a choice. Just make it expensive. The lottery is actually the most 'regressive' thing we have going in this state- essential a tax on being stupid.

@10,
There are a number of misleading statements in your comment. For one, clean, potable water isn't free. It costs a lot to treat it, store it, and deliver it safely and efficiently. Just because we don't pay an on-the-spot, fee-for-each-drink price doesn't mean it's free or even close to free.

Second, there are plenty of other things that serve no purpose that a "free" commodity already covers that aren't regressively taxed. Is there a sin tax on guns and ammunition? Those aren't required to live and they also contribute to higher health care costs. Do we impose extra taxes on those? How about boats? Also unnecessary. Powered landscaping tools? Boutique chocolates?
The point is, the taxes are imposed on the unnecessary and potentially unhealthy things that poor people buy, not the unnecessary and potentially unhealthy things that wealthy people buy. Just another way to demonize, punish, and feel morally superior to "the poors."

Finally, your comment about "making the wrong choices" smacks of contempt for the poor and is a belief rooted in psychological fallacies like the fundamental attribution error and the just-world hypothesis.

Powered landscaping tools are for the rich?

@10 Fun fact: Bottled Water also used to be taxed here until 2004.

At least your arguments don't deny that you're supporting a regressive tax.

And, you're willing to admit that you're looking to impose your belief system on poor people whom you believe to be making far worse choices than you are and aren't able to pay their way out from your brand of authoritarianism. It's freedom for the rich, and water for the poor.

I wonder if there is a way to tax egomania.

@12,
If poor people are going to garden, they'll buy shovels and rakes, not electric tillers and gas powered leaf blowers.
If they do buy powered lawn tools, it'll likely only be a lawnmower, and they'll get it second-hand, through craigslist or something, not brand new... thus, they wouldn't be paying a special tax on it anyway.

Was that really your question?