In the News

For media inquiries, please contact Joe Arellano at
  • The Denver Channel - November 3, 2016

    Boulder County businesses caught in ‘soda tax' crosshairs

    BOULDER, Colo. -- Boulder residents are voting on a ballot measure that would tax sugary drinks like soda.

    Ballot Issue 2H would require distributors of the sugary drinks to pay a tax of up to 2 cents per ounce on beverages with at least 5 grams of added sugar.

    Healthy Boulder Kids says the measure, often referred to as a soda tax, would only target companies that distribute drinks with high-sugar content and would not affect consumers or retailers.

    However, the measure may leave a bad taste in the mouths of some Boulder County businesses who feel they may end up as collateral damage in the war against obesity.

    A Boulder-based tea company, Rowdy Mermaid Kombucha, told Denver7 partner the Denver Post that it may eliminate three popular probiotic tea flavors because they barely cross the threshold and would be taxed.

    The owners feel their drinks shouldn’t be grouped together with other beverages like Coke and Pepsi, which have much higher sugar content.

    The co-founder of Doctor D's water kefir, another Boulder County beverage company, said they were shocked to learn that their product, many appreciate as a soda alternative, would be taxed, too.

    The ballot issue would increase funding directed at promoting exercise and healthy eating.

  • Daily Camera - November 2, 2016

    Kombucha an unexpected casualty of Boulder sugary drink tax plan

    Jamba Dunn, who lost his mother to smoking and his father to Type 2 diabetes, founded the Rowdy Mermaid Kombucha company two years ago in large part because he wanted to give consumers an option that's healthier than more popular drinks — such as soda — that contribute to obesity, heart disease and the very affliction that killed his dad.

    So, naturally, Dunn was surprised to learn a couple weeks ago that his Boulder-based outfit may soon be subject to a new tax that targets the same sugary beverages to which he fancies himself a competitor.

    The tax, which appears on ballots as measure 2H, would install a 2-cents-per-ounce excise tax on distributors of drinks with at least 5 grams of added sugar per 12 fluids ounces; three of Dunn's probiotic teas, which retail on average for $3.29, would barely cross that threshold and thus would be taxed.

    The irony is not lost on him.

    "We wanted to provide an alternative to people from sugary beverages," he said. "That's why we started this. ... My feeling now is that we will probably have to kill those (taxed) flavors."

    The 2H tax and others like it around the country are often referred to as "soda taxes," because soda is the most dominant of the sugary beverages that contribute to public health issues and the soda lobby leads the fight against these taxes wherever they're proposed.

    The soda industry has also been responsible for billions of dollars in marketing aimed at children, who are more likely than ever today to develop Type 2 diabetes. Liquid sugar is also credited by scientists as the single largest contributor to the obesity epidemic, and no liquid sugar source is close to as popular as soda.

    In fact, the campaign in 2014 for a 2H-like tax in Berkeley was dubbed "Berkeley vs. Big Soda" — a bout that resulted in the industry's first loss at the ballot, compared with more than 40 defeated drink taxes.

    Caught in the crosshairs in Boulder, though, are Dunn and many others who not only would prefer not to be taxed, but who are offended by the fact that the tax impacts their products at the same rate it does Coke and Pepsi. Stuart Dimson, co-founder of the Louisville brand Doctor D's water kefir — a drink similar to kombucha, but with a less vinegar-heavy flavor that many appreciate as a soda alternative — said he was shocked to learn his products will also be taxed when distributed in Boulder, if the city's voters approve 2H.

    "I know the goal of this is to try to do something about what they call 'Big Soda,'" said Dimson, whose most sugary product carries 18 grams of sugar per 12 ounces, "but unfortunately the law does nothing to differentiate between drinks like ours and drinks like theirs."

    "It's just strange," added Dennison Bechis, manager at Boulder-based Upstart Kombucha, "because we're an alternative to the super sugary soda drinks. People don't want to have a drink that has 35 grams of sugar in it. They'd rather have something with less sugar, but that has health benefits and tastes good."

    All of Upstart's drinks would be subject to the tax.

    Kombucha is a fermented tea with health benefits that, while overstated in many cases — very little is known about how it affects health, despite claims that would suggest it's an elixir for youth and can help kill cancer — certainly make it better for one's body than, say, Coke.

    Most kombuchas contain live bacteria, and science increasingly backs up the idea that "good" bacteria is good for digestion and can even improve the immune system.

    But the line the tax draws — which is less selective than Berkeley's — also includes a slew of other beverages that are also popular among people who want to eat and drink healthy. These include coconut water, sweetened teas and coffees and certain exercise drinks.

    Meanwhile, a number of products are exempted from the tax. The exemptions include sweetened milks, medical drinks and alcoholic drinks, a distinction kombucha, with its trace alcohol levels, does not reach. Also exempt are diet drinks with artificial sweeteners, which is of great frustration to the kombucha and coconut water peddlers, whose drinks are much healthier than the untaxed Diet Coke.

    Several of those interviewed referred to the tax's inclusion of kombucha and other drinks widely viewed as healthy options as an "unintended" consequence of the 5-grams-per-12-fluid-ounces rule proposed within 2H.

    Angelique Espinoza, campaign manager for the group pushing 2H — Healthy Boulder Kids — offered a statement Wednesday that would indicate the inclusion was, in fact, intended.

    "In establishing the amount of added sugar in drinks to be taxed, the drafters of 2H took feedback from Berkeley and reviewed numerous proposed policies from other jurisdictions," she said.

    "Based on legislative history research and a product scan to get an idea of what kinds of products would be included they decided that the (5 grams) threshold was reasonable."

    Responding to claims made specifically by Rowdy Mermaid Kombucha's Dunn, Espinoza said, "(A)lthough we understand he truly believes his products have healthful benefits, those claims have not been scientifically verified. With the information currently available, it makes sense to include the higher sugar content kombucha with other drinks that have added sugar."

    The good news for those business owners who want off the list of products potentially taxed by 2H is that the City Council will have the authority to amend that list after Election Day, if it's so inclined.

    But don't expect anything too sweeping, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kathy Haddock said.

    "Council can make changes if it needs to," she added, "but 'needs to' would be described very narrowly if the voters approved this, to make sure that council doesn't interfere with the voters' intent."

  • Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC - November 1, 2016

  • Daily Camera - November 1, 2016

    Jamba Dunn: Unintended consequences of 2H

    I am the owner of Rowdy Mermaid Kombucha, a small beverage manufacturer located in Boulder. I am also a father, and a member of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce and a board member for Workforce Boulder County. In recent days, I have also become an avid supporter of the No on 2H campaign.

    What is Kombucha? Kombucha is a healthful, low-sugar, living probiotic beverage which contains 2-5 grams of pre-digested glucose per 12 ounces. In 2014, I opened the first kid-friendly, herb and flower infused kombucha tasting room in Boulder. Kombucha is a rapidly growing industry which is partially responsible for the decline in sugary soda sales in recent years. As a father of two, the son of a diabetic and the son-in-law of a former American Heart Association chapter president, I started Rowdy Mermaid Kombucha to honor health and vibrancy and to stand against diabetes.

    Unfortunately, the way 2H was written it leaves out a definition for the word “added,” so while kombucha contains no added sugar but can contain up to 5 grams of pre-digested glucose per 12 ounces, the Boulder city attorney confirms the passage of 2H will place a tax burden on the sale of our kombucha.

    It is unwise to assume distributors will not simply pass the tax back to the stores and manufacturers since this happens currently, but big soda is in a position to consume that cost — especially when companies like mine are no longer competitors due to the tax.

    Furthermore, this week I contacted the city of Berkeley and learned that the 62 percent increase in water consumption mentioned on the campaign website is entirely bottled water.

    We support the intention of 2H, but it will have a negative impact on companies like mine that are part of the solution.

    Jamba Dunn

    Founder and CEO, Rowdy Mermaid Kombucha


  • Daily Camera - November 1, 2016

    Peter Arts: 2H sets dangerous precedent

    About the “sugar tax.” I feel this is unnecessary and sets a dangerous precedent. If Healthy Boulder Kids wants funding for healthy eating programs they should do like all the other human service nonprofits have done, fund themselves through donations instead of a tax. If the “sugar tax” passes, the precedent will be set for other nonprofits to ask for taxes to support their needs. Will the homeless shelter ask for a tax on blankets? Will food banks ask for a tax on canned goods? Will learning programs ask for a tax on school supplies? Where will it stop? Limiting the amount of sugar in children’s diet is the responsibility of the parents. My wife and I managed to raise our children and manage their sugar intake without a tax. I am in favor of educating people about over consumption of sugar, but not in favor of funding the programs through a special tax. How many of their goals could have been met with the money they have already spent for this campaign?

    The claim is that this is a tax on the distributors, not on retailers. Do we really believe that distributors are not going to pass this tax along to retailers? And if they do, who is to say that the retailers won’t increase prices on other goods to cover the tax so their soda sales don’t suffer?

    Way too many questions to justify a Yes vote.

    Peter Arts


  • Daily Camera - October 25, 2016

    David Kidd: No on 2H

    As a CU student, I am very concerned with the proposed sugar-sweetened beverage tax that will be on the ballot this November. Measure 2H is an unnecessary money siphon with little underlying purpose.

    I made the decision to live in one of the healthiest communities in the nation. I chose a community centered around my desired lifestyle. In the form of a tax, 2H will steal money from our local community in an attempt to reduce my ability to make my own decisions. Taxes don’t fight obesity; healthy lifestyle choices do. As citizens our choices should not be influenced and decided by a tax. As a community, we should put our tax money towards issues that actually matter, not towards an attempt to diminish our innate ability to make our own healthy lifestyle choices.

    The primary proponent of 2H, Healthier Colorado, does not represent Boulder. Healthier Colorado has received almost three quarters of a million dollars funding to push this tax onto our community. It is not clear where this money is funneling from, and to the consumer’s detriment may hold ulterior motives.

    Measure 2H is a restrictive and unnecessary attempt to fix a Boulder lifestyle that is not broken. Along with many other students of the Boulder community, I pledge to vote no on Measure 2H.

    David Kidd


  • Daily Camera - October 24, 2016

    Meg Collins: Where's the money coming from to back 2H?

    The Daily Camera recently ran a story that covered the funds being poured into the soda tax. This is the most expensive campaign in Boulder's history — for what? Healthy Boulder Kids, the organization advocating for measure 2H, has raised $724,000 and spent $670,000 to date. This is big, big money.

    We know that Healthy Boulder Kids is getting their money from Healthier Colorado, who in turn is getting their money from the Colorado Health Foundation. But I am asking what is the source of those dollars for a local race in a small community. Is it Bloomberg? This is dark money. Boulder residents have the right to know where all this money is being funneled from.

    I support personal choice and these taxes don't work.

    Meg Collins


  • Daily Camera - October 22, 2016

    John Hayes: Sugary drinks tax will hurt businesses

    As a resident of Boulder since 1999, I have found Boulder to be a diverse and vibrant community where we take great pride and responsibility in ensuring that our future is as bright as our past. Boulder is a place where we may have differing perspectives, yet share similar values, and a community in which the private sector, the public sector and local government cooperatively can contribute to providing a good lifestyle, great jobs and support for key community efforts. We are a community that comes together to solve complex problems and to help our neighbors in need.

    Unfortunately, a special interest group that is primarily funded by organizations who don't call Boulder home is advocating for a significant tax increase on sugar-sweetened beverages, arguing that the tax will improve the health of children in Boulder. Though obesity is a serious issue impacting communities across our nation, a tax on beverages is not the solution. If establishing taxes on food items was the solution to improving health, why are we limiting the tax to beverages? Why not discuss the processed foods we ingest? Or the sedentary lifestyles created by electronic devices? Or the lack of focus on physical education in our schools? Or any number of other items that can contribute to weight gain and obesity-related problems? If we want to address the health of our children, then let's do it in a way in which we can work together — as residents of Boulder — and engage constructively to make a real impact on these issues.

    This proposed tax increase isn't really about the health of our children. If it was, the discussion would be far different than the one playing out on the pages of the Daily Camera. Instead, our concern for the health and well-being of our children is being twisted by special interests into another tax, another burden on Boulder businesses and on Boulder families who know that raising healthy kids requires much more than paying a new tax on certain items in our grocery stores and restaurants.

    This is not a battle between people who care about children and "big soda." This is a tax increase that will hurt Boulder businesses who contribute so much to our community and who care about kids too. The tax won't solve the health issues facing our kids. Boulder businesses can continue to be a source for solutions to key issues in our community, but not by adding more taxes and more red tape. Please join me in voting no on Question 2H.

    John Hayes is president and CEO of Ball Corp. in Boulder.


  • Daily Camera - October 20, 2016

    Kyle Chessman: 2H against the concept of personal liberty

    Boulder should not pass 2H (the sugary-drinks tax) because it is against the concept of personal liberty and freedom of choice. It will also add an additional financial burden to families.

    This reminds me of when Boulder passed the tax on plastic bags. I still use just as many plastic bags as I did before. They are quite useful for picking up pet droppings and for carrying things, after all. All it did was get me to shop elsewhere, like Longmont and Westminster, where I can still get grocery bags. This tax will just lead me to boycott more Boulder businesses and shop elsewhere.

    Kyle Chessman


  • Daily Camera - October 17, 2016

    Aaron Stone: Attitudes on sugar must change

    I've never favored sin taxes. This is by no means a new idea. First it was alcohol, then tobacco, and right now, in Colorado, marijuana.

    They've always been a way to take money from people who choose to use a drug just because someone else deems it to be bad for them. Using a drug is a choice. Responsible adults should be allowed to make that choice without big brother trying to make some extra cash off the top.

    While there is always supposed good use for the money in almost all cases it gets squandered or misappropriated.

    I believe more information is the correct way to pursue this issue. Sugar should be treated like any other drug. If I want anything above 2.5 beer I have to go to a liquor store. If I want marijuana I have to go to a dispensary. Even more and more companies are removing cigarettes from their shelves. So if I want food with added sugar why shouldn't I have to go to a candy store?

    This issue goes way beyond just sugary drinks. Companies are adding sugar to foods you wouldn't expect to find it in and placing them right on the shelves alongside food that doesn't contain the drug. How can any consumer know exactly what they are getting?

    Far too often people are willing to pass a tax if it doesn't effect them personally. I believe passage of these sin taxes can often be attributed to this state of mind in the electorate. Too many people use sugar on a daily basis. Until public attitude changes about sugar I do not believe a proposal like this will pass on the ballot.

    Aaron Stone


  • Boulder Weekly - October 13, 2016

    2016 Vote Guide

    Welcome to our 2016 Vote Guide

    It is not easy putting together Boulder Weekly’s vote guide. What makes it so difficult is that we take the responsibility of endorsing candidates very seriously. In a year like this wherein the electorate is in near revolt against the establishment of both major parties, it becomes an even trickier proposition.

    So here is how we made our decisions. BW’s staff of four editors did its best to conduct as many interviews with candidates as possible, in person, on the phone or via email as a last resort. We weren’t able to get through to everyone but we only missed a few.

    We also attended candidate forums and researched the candidate’s websites. In addition, we looked into incumbents past voting records, and to the extent we could, used other information sources to determine things like who’s funding the candidates.

    After all that, we sat down in the same room and, with additional input from our publisher, attempted to reach a consensus in order to endorse a candidate in each race. If we couldn’t all agree on whom to endorse, then the majority ruled the day.

    It wasn’t easy. And you’ll notice we did not endorse a candidate in every race.

    On a personal note, I found this to be a particularly difficult year for me when it came to endorsements. As many of you who regularly read my column know, I have grown weary of a two-party system wherein the parties’ largest donors decide who gets to run, and what backroom deals get cut and for whose benefit. I don’t have to tell you that the main beneficiary of such maneuvering in this state is the oil and gas industry, regardless of which party is in the backroom.

    Not long ago I encouraged BW readers to stop voting for candidates who take money directly or indirectly from the members of Colorado Concern. Unfortunately, if you take that advice, you will find it is nearly impossible to vote for any establishment Democratic or Republican in Colorado, and in many races those are sadly the only choices. So all of us must do what we think best.

    As a matter of full disclosure, I didn’t vote to endorse very many candidates in this year’s election.

    First of all, I refuse to cast any vote out of fear, I believe that to do so plays into the hands of the establishment’s political consultants. I also tried to practice what I have been preaching for several years now with regard to the candidates funded by the small handful of billionaires and powerful corporations who run both major parties in this state. The exception was my vote to endorse on the “At Large” race for University of Colorado regent. My decision is explained in the write up for that contest.

    So that’s it. Welcome to our 2016 Vote Guide.

    And let me just add that while this issue is one of the hardest things we do all year, it is also the most important and rewarding. We know that most of you simply don’t have weeks of spare time to do this kind of research for yourselves and it makes us feel good about our jobs to know that we are helping our readers to stay informed.

    Thank for your continued support and we hope you find this information useful.

    — Joel Dyer

    City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2H: Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax


    Ballot Issue 2H adds a $0.02 excise tax on distributors of most drinks with more than 5 grams of added sweetener per 12 ounces. We oppose 2H with exactly the same line of logic as we use to oppose Amendment 72 — this is a sin tax that provides money for beneficial programs on the backs of a small segment of the population. We reiterate that sin taxes are regressive, and research shows they do little to curb consumption or improve public health.

    We hate it when people call Boulder a “nanny state.” We hate it more when they are right.

    We endorse a no vote on Ballot Issue 2H.

  • Daily Camera - October 13, 2016

    Jeff Schulz: Imagine Sustainaville

    One of the best local ideas I've seen in a long time is the proposal to found a new city on open space in rural Boulder County called Sustainaville.

    This will be an entirely new town with all of the current government priorities already taken into account from the beginning. Complete social justice will be embedded in the town's lifestyle and with an extremely compassionate citizenry, there will be no pushback against the leader's agendas. The entire city will be sugar-free and most residential housing will consist of co-ops surrounded by tiny homes for those who want to age in place in gentle infill.

    The town's leaders will be comprised of former Boulder City Council members who will be housed in the Sirklejirc co-op. And, in order to ensure that Sirklejirc's vision of equality is properly enacted for everyone, at least two city planners will be required for every resident.

    The Spinrad-Selvans section of town will have high-rise buildings zoned for five hipsters per room and, true to their namesake's philosophies, will be paid for by other people. And, in a total triumph for NozziVision Transportation Planning, the main access road to Sustainaville will have a 20 mph speed limit, with all cars parked at the city limits, requiring the town's citizens to walk, ride bikes and use horses and buggies. Xcel will not be needed since everyone will have their own solar panels provided by the Sustainaville muni. Most importantly, all homeless will be welcomed to live alongside the compassionate co-op residents, prompting an exodus of transients out of Boulder to Sustainaville.

    While the city of Boulder itself will likely suffer from the drain of extremist social engineers and hard-core homeless criminals, I'm confident it will survive.

    Jeff Schulz


  • Daily Camera - October 1, 2016

    Matthew Smith: Students against sugary drinks tax

    As a student at the University of Colorado, I am very concerned with the proposed beverage tax that will be on the ballot this November. I can say with full confidence that this measure will have a heavy impact on CU's student body. A substantial amount of college students' money is spent towards food and drink. This tax would place a heavy burden on our wallets.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders has spoken out against a similar tax proposed in Philadelphia due to its regressive nature, stating, "A tax on soda and juice drinks would disproportionately increase taxes on low-income families in Philadelphia." In my opinion, Sanders is right. This measure places an unfair burden on low-income and middle-class families.

    Finally, taxes do not make people healthy, lifestyle choices do. Boulder is one of the healthiest cities in the United States. Let's shift our focus on issues that are actually relevant.

    Measure 2H is not the answer. Along with myself, many students I know are pledging to vote no on 2H this November.

    Matthew Smith


  • Daily Camera - September 27, 2016

    George Narcavage: A tax on poor people

    Bernie Sanders is correct in saying a sugar tax is bad because it is "disproportionately a tax on the poor." The activist group "Healthy Boulder Kids" wants a tax on sugary drinks to provide funds for pet projects the City Council does not fund. The $3-$4 million raised by this tax will be spent on "new" health, nutrition and physical activity programs.

    The sugar tax is 2 cents per ounce on drinks that contain at least five grams of sweeteners per 12 fluid ounces, mainly soda, but also sport drinks. Juices are "exempt" although orange juice has 24 grams of sugar in 12 ounces (not healthy for diabetics). The sugar tax adds $1.44 to the cost of a six-pack of 12-ounce cans and $1.35 to a two-liter bottle.

    It is claimed Berkley, Calif., with a 50 percent smaller 1-cent-per-ounce tax reduced sugary drinks sold there. Maybe so, but it does not mean people are healthier as they may be buying "tax-free" out of town. In 2014 Denmark ended its sugar tax. The Danish economy was hurt by people buying tax-free in Sweden and Germany.

    A Berkley survey taken prior to its sugar vote indicated 55 percent of the town never use sugary drinks. A tax on "low-income sugar users" is a no-brainer for "high-income PC non-sugar users" to support!

    This ballot proposition is simply a bad regressive tax. If these activist programs have merit, Boulder should fund them in its $320 million budget without a new exploitive tax on the poor.

    Vote No on Sugar Tax 2H.

    George Narcavage


  • Daily Camera - September 26, 2016

    Bob Greenlee: Good intentions gone astray?

    One would like to believe the local group calling itself Healthy Boulder Kids was truly concerned about "sugary drinks" and childhood obesity instead of just demonstrating how to employ the ballot box to promote a special interest against a notorious predator like "Big Soda." BS, of course, is accused of preying on vulnerable children incapable of being controlled by their adult guardians who must be taxed for their uncontrollable sins.

    It's certainly true that childhood obesity rates have increased, although sugary drinks are but one of many reasons for this trendy concern. According to the Centers for Disease Control, leading causes for the rise in childhood diabetes include a variety of controllable behaviors along with many uncontrollable factors like gender, ethnicity, and genetics. Simply put, humans are susceptible to diabetes because of our inherited genes or when caloric intake is out of balance with calories expended. A person's overall diet and the amount of physical activity are also primary variables. For children, the CDC recommends at least 60 minutes a day of physical activity to keep youthful caloric consumption in balance.

    How about a vote to require parents to provide at least an hour of intense physical activity for their kids instead of attempting to place the blame for childhood obesity on sugary drinks?

    The sugary drinks petition demonstrates what awkward citizen-initiated proposals often produce. This effort attempts to manipulate the price of a product by taxing it just like other "sin taxes." Whoever believed adding a 2-cent-per-ounce penalty on sugary drinks and thought such a move would automatically pass legal muster demonstrates extreme naivete. The language in the petition submitted is so poorly written that many believe the proposed taxing scheme will never happen. Instead of changing the language of the ballot issue as Boulder's city attorney has suggested, the nonsensical wording of the petition will be placed on the ballot. In addition, when it comes to identifying which sugary drinks would be included for taxation, a number of them contain absolutely no sugar whatsoever. These inherent deficiencies don't appear to concern those who have labored to foist this questionable initiative on the ballot. If and when voters ever pass this law they will likely see the matter endlessly litigated and also go down to defeat.

    So far the only city where a public vote was held to impose this kind of labored rejection of personal choice and freedom is Berkeley, Calif. No surprise. Perhaps the real intent of such questionable initiatives is to see how far left-leaning communities might be willing to accept any number of artificial ballot measures to control outcomes or enact additional taxing schemes that require public votes. If the "sugary drinks" plan were to ever pass here, what would be the next likely target for some other special interest group?

    If Mike, who now operates Freddie's hot dog cart in downtown Boulder, and other such local food vendors aren't careful, they just might find themselves being the next target of Boulder's healthy food elitists who might want them controlled, taxed, or eliminated. Mike's tube steaks contain meat and fat and who-knows-what other verboten substances. Food vendors are likely targets for the puritanical farm-to-table-to-toilet-paleo-vegan-dairy-free-GMO-free scolds who are forever attempting to enlist converts to their particular food fads and lifestyle choices. When it comes to manipulating the behavior of others there's no better living laboratory attempting such coercion than Boulder. Whereas the sugary drinks industry has Big Soda behind it to counteract misinformation and misrepresentations there's no one currently representing Big Weenie to defend their products.

    Boulder and Colorado voters have seen many instances of unhealthy, impractical, and downright damaging voter-initiated laws passed already. It's far too easy to hire a bunch of paid and volunteer petition gatherers to get naïve voters to put questionable things on the ballot.

  • Daily Camera - September 23, 2016

    David Paule: Sugary drinks tax will lead to more useless city spending

    How nice that we have the opportunity to vote for yet another dedicated tax, the sugar tax, which will pay for even more junk mail and additional Boulder government propaganda. Plus, of course, more City staff.

    If the income from this tax went into the general fund or even towards the never-ending municipalization fight, that would be a slight improvement. But it doesn't.

    Want to suggest to the next Council that they rethink this sort of thing? Vote no for the sugar tax and yes for term limits.

    David Paule


  • Daily Camera - September 19, 2016

    Cheryl Link: Leave sugary drinks to personal choice

    I think we should ban sugar since it is so unhealthy right after we ban tobacco and alcohol!

    Government and politicians need to quit muddling in peoples life style choices. As a health-care professional, I see the devastating affects of alcohol and tobacco. I also see the adverse affects of obesity but each individual makes their own personal choices.

    We lose the lives of people frequently due to bicycle and motorcycle accidents. Should we ban or excessively tax bicycles and motorcycles? Many don't wear helmets. How about we excessively tax or fine them?

    Do any if you see my point? Everyone of us makes choices based upon our beliefs or desires. "We The People" need to allow that even if we don't agree with those choices. It is starting to feel like Big Brother really is watching!

    Cheryl Link