It's a little too "Big Brother" for my liking.

60% of the US is overweight or obese. enough said.

This is not the city of San Francisco's responsibility. Each individual needs to accept the consequences of every decision he/she makes - the government is not a parent.

I'm undecided on issues like this. On one hand, I think it's a good idea to keep people from being unhealthy. On the other, I think this is a free country and people should be able to be unhealthy if they want to be.

I think people need to WANT to be healthy, no need to be all communistic about it. Plus, its going to be bad for the economy.

From what I've seen, people in San Francisco seem to be some of the most health-conscious in the country...so I don't know if this would help much.

It's an issue of personal responsibility and choice. Besides, how does the city of San Francisco know that this is the one soft drink I may have all week, the one splurge on a coke, burger and fries in the week? It's just too Big Brother for me too.

The government is not a parent... yet the corn/sugar cane/beet lobby (which is extremely powerful) has cajoled high-fructose corn syrup to become extremely prevalent in a lot of processed food and soda on the market and our federal government has allowed this to happen. I support this type of action with the prospect that it will be adopted in less healthy cities in time.

this is too big brother for me. it's your personal responsiblity to take care of yourself. it's like he thinks people are all a bunch of babies and need someone to hold their hand. does the mayor of a big city really have time to mess with this?

ppl should be able to decide what the eat and drink and not have to pay a penalty for it. They want to fat and unhealthy or fit and trim, their call.

I really don't drink pop, and if I do it is diet so I don't care! Bring it on!

I don't drink soda so I can't really say but for those people who do I can't imagine they like this idea...

I hate feeling like the government is micro managing my life. Thank you very much but if I want a soda I should have it. Like a tax is going to stop anyone anyway? and like kiwitwist said it's my Right to be unhealthy if I so choose. I understand wanting to help people be healthier and whatnot, but seriously you can't force people into it. It's not right

I agree with tinyflame 100% - Comment 3.

Taxing soda?! Honestly?!!! I am so APPALLED that more people think this is cool than not. If you're going to do this, why not tax red meat, chocolate, video games and movie rentals? Where does it stop? Why is government trying to influence my personal choices now? I can understand alcohol, guns and cigarettes ... because someone else is being affected by a person's decision to use those. But SODA?!

I'm almost certain it wouldn't pass, because I know more people would have sense than that. Why aren't more people outraged by this?

If the government was banning high fructose corn syrup, I'd say 'oh no Big Brother'. But they're just making it pricier - which is the exact same thing that's already been done with millions of products for all of history since their existence. People are just upset because they can't get their unhealthy fix without shelling out a little extra cash.

Maybe this'll get people to start sweetening with sugar, not disgusting high fructose corn syrup, like the rest of the world.

I kind of like this idea. Maybe it will force more soda companies to use real sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. I don't drink a lot of soda (maybe one a week), but my favorite brand of soda is Fitz's becuase they use sugar and it tastes so much better. I have also started drinking Jones now that they have switched to sugar.

The government is not banning anything. They're just encouraging you to be a little healthier. And since the money goes to help educate the public on health issues I think its a great idea. And the number 1 comsumers of high frutose corn syrup are children who do not necessarily have a choice on the matter, so maybe an increase in price will encourage parents to buy their children healthier options.

It's great to try to keep people healthy, but at a certain point I totally agree with gigill - way too Big Brother-ish. Besides, all these fees aren't getting at people's basic attitudes about food/exercise/health, which is the root of the problem.

This has gone too far. what's next? Governmt appointed counselor to monitor your food intake during regulated breakfast, lunch & dinner hours?

The people who want to eat right will. Don't penalize everyone just because some people can't/don't want to control themselves.

I don't drink regular sodabut when I am sick there is nothing like a non-diet 7Up or Sprite. I think this is way over the top. Prices are going up on everything because of oil prices, so taxing it on top of that is a waste.

"what's next? Governmt appointed counselor to monitor your food intake during regulated breakfast, lunch & dinner hours?"

ha! I wish. I'd love for someone to come over and tell my fat ass to stop eating.

I'd support this. There is no reason anyone should be drinking or eating HFCS. It's crap. I wish it were banned, then I wouldn't have to waste time reading the labels of innocent-sounding food for evidence of that poison. And here they aren't even banning it--it's like the cigarette tax. You can still get a cancer-stick if you want, but it will cost you more.

You can't protect people from themselves just like you can't "force people to be free." People have to take personal responsibility for their own actions.

While I dont consume anything with high fructose corn syrup in it, I have no right to FORCE (and by adding a tax to such items you are more than encouraging people you are forcing people) my beliefs on another person.

How would you feel if it were flipped and they taxed people's gym memberships citing that while most people can use the gym in moderation, some people use the gym to sustain unhealthy low weights.

I don't see how the gym hypo is relevant. it's not SOME people who are obese. It's a LOT. It would be ridiculous to impose an extra tax on something that the majority of the people can use responsibly and that is good for those people. It's very clear that the majority of Americans won't eat right. Unfortunately, that affects EVERYONE. Obesity related health problems are costly. Also, maybe this will be a wake-up call to soda producers. HFCS is not a necessary ingredient for soda.

Up to the North, Washington has had a 'sin tax' on soda since 2004.

This is just SILLY! Yes soda is bad for you, but so are a lot of other things.... sweetened tea, anything from Starbucks, etc, etc, etc....

I think it's a great idea. With 60% of Americans overweight the government needs to start taking more measures like this to enforce heathier living or else we'll only have 40% of our population left.

Heck NO...what's next after this? This is a BAD and LAME idea.

Another person in agreement with tinyflames response. If you start charging fees for soda, what's next? Cookies? Ice Cream? Pizza?

Everything in moderation. No fees necessary.

Well I think it is wrong but belive it or not every state has a different tax on something. for example not sure what state it is but they have a junk food tax and the only reason I know that is because I drove a semi across 48 states.

We already pay a nickel deposit on the can. They can bite my butt if they think they're going to charge me more.

I think it's ridiculous. Lots of people drink soda and don't have a weight problem...it's not like soda is the only culprit. You have to consider a person's entire lifestyle. I drink diet soda and I'd have to say I'd be pretty pissed if the government tried to tax it.

I don't need big brother telling me what I can and can't do- he's already sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong. Don't need to make it worse.

People are just dumb if they know how bad something is for them and continue to consume it, so no, the tax probably wouldn't do much good in the long run. Cigarettes are expensive but people continue to smoke. If people really want to be healthy they will take the initiative to find out what they're putting in their bodies, instead of downing diet coke thinking it's better for them than regular coke.

I agree 100% with freegracefrom. This is appalling.

I agree 100% with freegracefrom. This is appalling.

I don't think it's anyone's business and sounds a bit against our Constitutional rights, honestly.

As a SF resident, I say "Hell No!" even though I am anti-HFCS.
SF already accesses far too many fees and taxes and city residents as it is. We SF resident agreed years ago as a supposed temporary measure to pay a higher than state average sales tax, and then our Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the Mayor made it permanent with the ability to raise it. As a city employee I pay a city tax which I didn't pay when I worked in the private sector. We pay parking fees, syrofoam and recyclable plastic have been outlawed and were about to start being charged a fee at the grocery store for a paper bag if our groceries won't fit in our clothe bags or we forget them.

It's freaking outrageous and a new tax on consuming soda won't stop people from consuming soda. maybe we should ask Gavin to tax all wine sales since he owns a wine shop and numerous bars and restaurants and declared himself to have a drinking problem. Wait will they also tax all the gzillon Starbucks Coffee shops that add HFCS laden syrups to their drinks? I think not. Geez, I'm glad I voted for Matt G.

Better they should stop subsidizing the corn industry.
Here's an article on the subject:
http://media.www.thesantaclara.com/media/storage/paper946/news/2007/05/1...

SO COOL!!!! f*ck HFCS!!!!!!

GAH you people! It's not about the SODA; it's about the HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP!!!

Corn syrup has been proven to be unhealthy and to a point actually addicting. Companies should be using sugar anyways, they only use corn syrup because it is less expensive for them as a company. This will effect the companies just as much as the average consumer and hopefully cause them to use regular, less processed sweeteners. Also, San Francisco is pretty small if you want to purchase a huge case of soda (which contains high fructose corn syrup) you can just go to San Rafael, Corta Madera, Sausalito, etc. Also you can order it on the web. I think it is cool that the money which is earned from this will go to public awareness and health programs. That is pretty awesome in my book. Also, there are so many sodas out there that do not have high fructose corn syrup in them and they taste the same if not better than their less healthy counterparts. Even coca cola has a sugar sweetened soda and I think Dr. Pepper does as well. As long as you read the ingredients first you won't have to deal with the taxes that some seem to be so seriously opposed to.

Wackdoodle makes a really good point though. When administration gains an ok and then oversteps its boundaries it is very upsetting. Some things help the city and other things just exploit the people who live in the city. It is a fine line and it is sometimes hard to judge what is helping and what is hurting the populace.

THis is so strange. I don't think they should so this.

A lot of times, I think that the government should just get involved and make an executive decision. This is not one of those times. I love my sodas, and I wouldn't give that up. Why should the government decide if something sugary is bad for me? Maybe the sugar doesn't affect me as much as it affects someone else, and that's not fair. I think Newsom should just concentrate on the whole no-plastic bag thing and stop trying to change people's beverage of choice.

I don't think its the governments place to regulate things like this. Promote wellness and protect us from things that are dangerous, yes. Maybe if this money went to improving the FDA, I'd be a little bit more on board. Prohibition, anyone?