Diego Chavira
EWRT 211
Deborah Garfinkle
November 20, 2014

Chance In A Bottle, Hope In A Ballot

In the 2014 San Franciscans voting ballot there was a proposition that would tax the sugar-sweetened distributors 2 cents per ounce on any sugar-sweetened beverages. The funds would go towards funding health, nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs throughout San Francisco, this was called Proposition E. Distributors should be taxed for sugar-sweetened beverages for it will create health and nutrition programs for San Francisco’s public school districts and the tax will give low-income neighborhoods the chance to be aware on living healthy. I believe that health and nutrition is very important for all people, especially children. Two cents per ounce is necessary so that the city of San Francisco can help teach kids to live a healthier life and give the communities the necessary tools to live healthy.
Proposing to tax distributors for every ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages will not reduce or “fix our waistlines”(96) as stated in the Rebuttal to those in favor of Prop E. Prop E may not reduce obesity, but what I do see Prop E doing is creating programs throughout public school districts and communities for children to be more active throughout the city, with low-income communities having priority. For instance, as a child I was always active. Equally important, I also never drank soda, the reason being, was because I was exposed to many sports and after school programs that incorporated and promoted nutritional values and healthy living and all these programs were funded by the City of San Jose. Till this day I live fairly healthy and stay active by running or playing sports and I owe that to the continuous programs that I was enrolled in. Though they had different agendas, the end outcome was so that those enrolled were able to make healthier decisions based on the knowledge that they learned. This tax will create programs throughout all of San Francisco to help children learn about nutrition, health and physical education.
Prop E tax is expected to earn roughly $35 million to $54 million a year. This money will be used by the city to fund programs to help people live healthier, but according to Paid Arguments AGAINST Prop E, it will increase the price on beverages and “drive up grocery prices” (100) later stating that it will be a loss to “those who can least afford it”(100). Although the tax proposed by Prop E would increase beverages cost with the possibility of increased grocery cost, low-income families would be provided with healthy food by the funds raised by Prop E. Many grocery store workers throughout San Francisco support Prop E and stated in the paid argument in favor that they “are proud to be a part of an effort to improve our communities health.”(98) Working at Whole Foods I know that eating healthy can be expensive, but eating healthy is very important. Giving access to those who cannot afford to eat healthy is vital to helping the people of San Francisco become healthier. Those in favor of Prop E know that can be made possible by making sure low-income families “have access to nutritious food.” (99) Having access to healthier food can have great effects; if people ate healthier they will be increasing their life expectancy.
The following statistics raise health concerns if things remain the same, as stated by those in favor with Prop E, 1 in every 3 children will develop “diabetes in their lifetime”(96) and “30 percent of teenagers currently have pre-diabetes”(98). Those statistics are really high and can be decreased if children are educated in health and nutrition. According to Paid Argument in favor of Prop E, Latinos have “the highest obesity rate in San Francisco”(99). Many of my family members are obese, and many of them have diabetes, my mother, grandmother and many aunts and uncles have diabetes. The chances of me having diabetes are high even after eating healthy and being