WOW! Just what we want, MORE government control. noooooo!

I've just started drinking diet sodas. Very refreshing!

Did you pay the extra tax on the water too?

I looked it up, it's on "sweetened beverages" only and went into effect last month. We stopped buying soft drinks ages ago and I can't say I miss them. I understand this tax is for an area other than where you live but have you tried carbonated mineral water? I find it more thirst quenching than soft drinks.

La Croix water is flavored, unsweetened carbonated water. I think Walgreens may not know what they are doing. I'd take it up with them, then report them to the county.

http://www.lacroixwater.com/

In Philadelphia the soda tax covers far more than just soda. According to a lot of articles it's a huge fail! However once the government gets their hands on something they will never admit they were wrong and retract.
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/06/13/soda-tax-revenue-philadelphia/

It is more than just Chicago, it is Cook County, and we get to listen to ads (paid for by Michael Bloomberg) telling us how the tax is going to prevent childhood obesity, diabetes, and renal failure/dialysis.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bloomberg-soda-tax-ad-met-0901-20170831-story.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-michael-bloomberg-soda-tax-met-0912-20170911-story.html

Elmer....I live in a town with 7 FREE soda springs. It's not my thing....at all. :0) I remember when they thought wine, coffee...etc was soooooooooooo bad for you ....and now everything in moderation is fine.

People are smoking pot and think it's not cancer causing. Eating it ...may be Ok for now, until a study comes out.

In Alberta, we pay 5% sales tax, plus an enviro fee per bottle (6-pack, 12-pack, etc.). PLUS a bottle deposit PER bottle. A $2 12-pack of water can come to $5. BUT: bring your bottles back to the bottle depot and you get the deposit back.

eta: in every other province in Canada, they pay a provincial sales tax, on top of the 5% sales tax aka: GST. Not sure which provinces charge the enviro fee or bottle deposits though.

I'd say Walgreens doesn't know what they are doing . . . and they may be making extra profit for they dont have to pay tax to the county on non sugar drinks. Perhaps it's just easier bookkeeping for them at the cash register. I would go get my soft drinks somewhere else!

people from the city (Philly)go to the suburbs to buy their soda etc, according to the news/articles. there is always a way around everything.

haven't bought soda or sweetened beverages in years, so we would not be affected anyway. although we don't live in the city so moot point for us. i think, in concept, its a means to steer people away from unhealthy products & toward healthy options. How about water or what Elmer suggested? but then everything always goes back to the almighty dollar!

as far as Philly, the tax $ is suppose to go toward the failing school system, lets hope it is!!

I get what it's trying to do but it won't work. People who really want soda aren't going to stop buying it because it's slightly more expensive.

Unless it goes the way of cigarettes in some areas. NYC charges $13 a pack and I know people who quit because of it.

Take a nice short trip to the Wisconsin border, hit Woodmans for your soda and stock up on it. It's a nice drive and the prices are great.

I could go either way on this issue, but I teach 18 year olds, and I teach a broad spectrum. Many I would say are obese. Several factor could contribute, but I am certain sugary sodas and fast foods are a factor. I am diabetic, and though I do claim there is a genetic propensity in my family, I spent years drinking sugary juices like orange and grape juice. And in my twenties I drank so much soda. Remember RC colar? I was addicted to it. Years of sugars. Probably contributed.

Whose ox is being gored here, do you think? Who wants public support against this tax? Who is wasting taxpayer money to defend against their lawsuits against the tax? Clue: Who doesn't want to lose huge profits selling cheap sugar-water?

Remember how Big Tobacco fought taxes? Remember how they lied about addiction? Remember when people decided to wean themselves from cigarettes --only after the taxes became exorbitant?

DH and I have maintained healthy weights largely by ignoring refusing to enter the Poison Food Aisles -- the Salt and Sugar aisles carefully placed in the center of all grocery stores -- where all the high profit items are shelved.

Own any Coca-Cola stock?

two2acres, I live in Wisco and shop at Woodman's. Great prices. I just happened to be in the NW suburbs of Chicago, in Cook county, for my Mom's funeral. Perhaps Walgreens doesn't know what they are doing, and I did question the amount because NOTHING contained sugar. Diet soda and sparkling water. For those who don't know, Illinois is one the most heavily taxed states in the union and Cook county is even more heavily taxed. But if it's true that food stamps, or whatever the heck politically correct term they are using, are not subject to the tax I would be furious!!

I think the pc term in Illinois is the Link Card.

Don't know if you happen to catch local Chicago news up North. Today Rahm Emanuel was talking about Chicago trying to get Amazon to move to the city. I was quite entertained by the Mayor saying that Chicago had the lowest cost of living of 10 major cities. That must have been from a survey before they added the soda tax, the garbage tax, higher water, property and amusement taxes, higher parking meter costs and don't forget the tax for the bag they put your groceries in.

Walgreens was mistaken, sleeperblues. Stores have had to set up for this tax, then put it on hold, then re-jigger their systems -- thanks to the manufacturers of sugared drinks trying to hang on to their markets by fighting the tax. Salt and sugar are such cheap ingredients; making this stuff is enormously profitable. I bet some people are shocked to find sugar tax on the *juices* they've bought for years, never seeing the sugar added to them.

I believe Link Card purchases were not included in the tax to save small 'corner stores' -- the mainstays for people in poor areas. They said they couldn't afford to continue in business if they had to institute collection systems for items paid by the cards. Poor areas are notorious 'food deserts' already.

Chicago property taxes are astoundingly low, compared to those outside the city. Homeowners are voters. It's so politically dangerous to raise RE taxes that other unit taxes have had to be instituted to make up the shortfall. It's been a battle just to put water meters on city homes! (Un-metered water use? Today?)

One of DH's favorite maxims is, "You can pay for it now, or you can pay for it later." It's the same as, "There's no free lunch."

Chicago does have a pretty low cost of living for such a huge city. I've always been surprised by real estate prices compared to New York or LA or San Francisco. I don't know about tax rates though.

In California we have to pay 10 cents for plastic bags now. I have so many because I forget to bring them to the store. It's interesting to see the people who refuse to pay for bags and will just leave everything loose in their cart. I always wonder how long it takes to load and unload the car.

Taxing sugar drinks is nanny state at its worst.

I loved my nanny, bring it on! More, more.

I just returned from a visit to several countries in Europe, In most countries there are high taxes to pay for various versions of nanny states. As an example, there are closed circuit TVs all over public places in the UK for law enforcement purposes. A privacy invasion, some would say? They identified at least one suspect for the recent London Tube incident from video images from the street he lives on. The same has been true for other incidents in the UK and elsewhere. Would that be tolerated here by the misguided freedom screamers? I don't think so.

I like my Nanny. I like seat belts and speed limits. I like smoke-free public places. I like not seeing plastic bags flapping from trees or poisoning the waterways. I like vaccinations required of students. I like the restrictions on the sale of drugs, tobacco and alcohol -- and sugar. The WHO supports sugar taxes.

I'd like to spend fewer dollars trying to medically repair people who are unwittingly consuming salt and sugar that poisons their bodies.

Check Wickipedia. Read past the "anti" antics -- efforts by the sugar industry and sugar-water manufacturers to resist costly change. Read where sugar taxes have successfully helped reduce sugar consumption. Read how manufacturers that switched to producing non-sugared products did not suffer financial losses.

Y'all can have it. Most of us are mature enough to make our own informed decisions.

rob, there are a lot of things the term Nanny state implies that are much broader than this. In particular, things that a majority in a "society" decides it wants the government to do, because it defines the kind of country and world they want to live in.

As far as overarching control from above, as regards what some call "sin taxes, you live in an area where lifestyle health problems like obesity (of which soda is a small part) are rampant. Here's an idea - spend the money collected for public education and awareness about preventing health problems. Prevention is cheaper than treatment, you probably know that.

Increased cigarette taxes have led to dramatic reductions in smoking rates. Wasn't it a good thing that the action of governments at many levels brought about that result?

What's next flour? Not eating enough veggies? Get out of my home government!

I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for people who do not like unnecessary government intervention. However, there are behaviors that affect public health and thus the public purse. It is the government's job to nudge those behaviors in the right direction because we the people all pay for the problems created by smoking and obesity for example.

Obesity is a slippery slope is my point. Some things should be regulated. This aint nobody's business but that person's.

In Cook county, tax is on any "sweetened" beverage, whether it is sugar or artifical. Most juices are also taxed. Bloomberg runs several ads, some with MD's spouting off about weight gain and diabetes. My favorite is the 5 year old, so heavy he can barely walk. Don't blame the soda, blame the parents that allow it!

Don't fool yourself this is being done for your health. The county is flat out broke and needs money. This was a fast way to increase their revenue. Sorry, ,just because they can't balance the budget, don't come after me. when my budget doesn't balance, I can't turn to anyone else to make up the deficit.

Me, living in Cook, will take a fast trip to Dupage, next door, for my diet Coke. I am an adult with a brain that works just fine. I don't need a nanny.

I agree with regulations and taxes when it comes to things that affect other people. Cigarettes do, texting and driving does, etc. If someone drinks soda or not has zero effect on me, so i think taxing it on the name of public interest is overboard.

While it's true that obesity costs a lot on a national scale, this isn't really going to help that. There are much larger issues at play there.

The health crisis in the city of Chicago is homicide. 500 so far in 2017. What is the public cost of treating these victims and the countless others who are shot and survive?

Perhaps Chicago politicians should concentrate on reducing gang violence instead of worrying about taxing a bottle of pop.

Amen and amen, aardvark!!

Aardvark, it's a Cook County tax. It has nothing to do with Chicago's city government. Do you want to reconsider your comment?

I haven't bought a soda/carbonated/sweetened beverage in years...

I agree with aardvark. Everyone in Cook County and Chicago city has more important things on which to focus. Amen!

I wish they would look at everything going into foods now. Right now chemical enhancement made in the lab may legally be called ' spices ' on the label.

Rather than taxing soda, I'd like to see more discussion on how to get people off fast and cheap foods. A study was done where they looked at what low income area stores were stocking and what people bought. People with very little buy the least expensive and the stores carry those items and not healthier, more expensive items. Fast foods are trying to keep costs low and make a profit. I don't think a soda tax is going to fund all the medical care that a lifetime of poor eating creates. Estimates are that by 2030, 40 percent of Americans will be having obesity related health problems.

Kittymoonbeam, the problem poor people face is that they do not know how to cook and store food. The Junior League in my town has spent years partnering with agencies in our county, teaching people how to make simple, inexpensive meals. Processed food is not cheap by any means- it does a disservice to the conversation to pretend that people make poor choices because those choices are financially driven. From my experience working with low income communities in my area, people eat processed food because because it tastes good, it feels like a treat and it saves time. From a financial point of view there is only downside to eating that way- you pay now for too little nutrition at a high cost and you pay later with your health. As a parent I have a great deal of sympathy for parents who cannot afford to buy their children many treats, but can afford candy and chips and soda, so feel like at least they have those things to offer.

Learning to prepare brown rice and beans, knowing how to steam frozen vegetables so they do not become an unappealing mush, becoming familiar with seasonal herbs that can make a simple omelette into treat, these are skills that must be taught and encouraged. Also, knowing how to make large batches and store them for meals on the run or at work is helpful too.

My organization has had tremendous success when it brings in the whole family into the educational process- children, parents and grandparents working together to share knowledge, learn new skills and make lasting changes.

PS My family went on a road trip this summer. We do not as a rule eat much fast food- the occasional In-n-Out burger is a one off, never a family meal. I was absolutely amazed at how expensive meals at fast food places were. There is definitely nothing economical about eating in such places.

Most voting for the Cook Cty tax represented Chgo, and most voting against represented the suburbs.

The counties surrounding Cook will benefit from those wishing to avoid the tax.

Rob, wrong is wrong. Amen!

There are still Daleys in Chicago politics :-)

aw, aren't you cute elmer? Put your foot down. Wrong for you to butt into someone else's life, is wrong.

ETA: also known as your rights end at my nose.

I think time savings is a big reason. There is a big correlation between income and obesity. Lower income people usually work really long, tiring hours for minimum wage. Sometimes multiple jobs, and often single parents. Then they have to choose between grocery shopping, prepping and cooking food and then cleaning it all up. Or picking up a few dollar menu items on the way home and relaxing for the night. I can understand why some make that choice.

Rita, your organization sounds great. Getting the whole family involved is so important.

A tax on sugared drinks has *nothing* to do with whether there are other problems. Drug Gang warfare within a small, impoverished area of SE Chicago is not relevant *to this discussion*.

There are two things going on with the sugar tax. Saving lives and the public cost of health care for preventable disease is one. Patching shortfalls in unrealistic RE taxes in Chicago is another.

Curbing sugar intake by the public is Public Health 101. Every American taxpayer is paying for health care due to epidemic diabetes, caused in part by the consumption of sugary beverages. (*Some* change is better than *no change*; silly to argue that drinks are not the whole problem.) You can preach 'health' forever without impact. The impact on the pocketbook has been proven to be *the* most effective in causing change. Taxing sugar-water drinks is one, effective way to reduce sugar consumption.

This is no different from the way cigarette taxes were the last straw, finally effective in stopping people from turning themselves into patients in cancer wards -- at public expense. Fines for not using seat belts and child car seats reduced accident deaths and injuries tremendously -- saving lives and public costs of care.

Because politicians fear a voter backlash, none will tax homeowners in Chicago appropriately. Because they need campaign contributions from businesses, none will tax business properties appropriately. Moaning about corruption does nothing. The sugar tax does *very little* to improve public services -- like schools. (Beyond the graft that is endemic to all public institutions, CPS can't compete with suburban schools' fat RE tax revenues.)

Ever read the Dr Seuss story of The Zax? There's a lesson to be learned- anyone who thinks there are absolutes/non negotiables of any kind, in the world or in life, will get nowhere.

Rita, thank you for everything you are doing. I cook my own and save extra as well. That was an LA based article and they were just looking at what the stores had and asking what was selling. I was at a farmers market in downtown LA last month but it was few fruits and vegetables and mostly baked goods, teas, coffee, crafts and gifts. Festival time brings good local food reasonably and food trucks serving traditional foods are popular on the streets of LA. The latino markets have great prices on produce and so do swapmeets. Where I notice people getting a lousy meal is at fast food or buying cheap frozen stuff from the dollar store. One kid had a basket of instant ramen and the cashier asked if that was his dinner.

I agree, not everyone eats that way and parents and grandparents who cook are heroes.

Here's a map of the Chicago homicides. It's not all in one area. Violence is spreading to the expressways and outlying suburbs. Keep in mind, if the victims go to the hospital and have no health coverage, we all get to pay, including Elmer J Fudd. The cost of a single hospital stay may easily outweigh 10 years of more of diabetes treatment for a person.
Chicago Homicides

I'm thankful my area isn't experiencing crime problems like that. I hope the police agencies and others involved can put a lid on it. Here are two more peripheral things to think about that could help:

1. Federal programs providing broader access to health care for everyone, including more money to fund broader coverage and better payment rates for Medicaid. That way everyone's costs for medical care will decrease (to address the problem you've cited), and

2. Enactment of strict gun control laws and adequate funds to purchase/confiscate the tens of millions now in circulation, to reduce gun violence everywhere in the US.

Other countries have done both of these things, doing so does work. Are you ready to sign up to support such efforts?

I'm not denying the gang/gun tragedy, but the public health/sugar tax discussion is separate from it. We are able to tackle more than one problem at a time.

I count 18 homicides on that map that are north/east of the I-94 expressway. That's four percent. There are so many clustered within 'gangland' that I can't count them, and the expressway killings are all gang-related. Are you ready to enact strict gun laws? (I would like to follow Canada and Australia in national laws, but many would not, and this can't be stopped piecemeal.)

We could also take the drug trade off the streets by legalizing and licencing what is obviously a huge public market for drugs *everywhere*. (Gang warfare between bootleggers largely ended after alcohol was sold legally after Prohibition. People also stopped being killed by adulterated product.)

I don't know how we solve the problem of jobless youth who see gang membership as their only way to survive.