YES YES YES on D: Berkeley vs Big Soda

This one is pretty simple: sugary drinks are bad for us. They cause major health problems, particularly to kids: diabetes, tooth decay, heart disease.

Putting a tax on the distribution of sugary drinks will make them a little more expensive, so we'll buy less of them. That will make us healthier, because we'll probably drink healthier things instead.

Plus, the city will have some money it can use for good things. And they'll have a panel of experts to advise the city on how to establish and/or fund programs to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks.

Oh, and the Big Soda companies will have a little less money. That's good, because they currently spend millions on marketing those sugary drinks to our kids.

It really is that simple.



Please Vote Yes on D. If you don't take my word for it, check out their LONG list of endorsements -- lots of health groups, community & education groups, every single councilmember and school board member, plus the Mayor.

You can print out a window sign -- or visit the Yes on D website to see how to pick up a lawn sign or volunteer for the campaign.

If you live in Berkeley, you've probably gotten lots of mailers or phone calls from the "American Beverage Association California PAC." That is the association of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and all the other big soft drink companies in the country. They're running push polls and hiring lots of people to hand out materials at BART stations. They're trying to sow doubt about the measure. They've spent $1.675 million so far -- over $20 per registered voter in Berkeley, and they're going to spend more.

Don't be fooled! I've read their mailers and talked with a couple campaigners, and I'm not impressed. Their big argument seems to be that some sugary drinks are exempt while others are taxed. I've read the measure -- front to back -- and most of those exemptions seem reasonable to me. To the extent that they're not, I'm sure the problems can be fixed down the line. And yes, the measure puts the money into the general fund -- that is so that it only has to get a majority vote. If the ordinance had specified the money be used for specific purposes, it would've been a "special tax" that (thanks to California's crazy tax laws) would've needed a 2/3 super-majority vote.

Vote Yes on D for a healthier Berkeley.