Let's see ... okay, I think I'm going to let the article speak the issue:I-77 would slap a 10-cent tax on espresso drinks sold in Seattle to pay for early-childhood education. Levying a tax on lattes, no matter how modest the hit, would place an unfair administrative burden on businesses large and small, and establish a worrisome precedent . . . .

. . . . there is no logical link between early learning and the sale of espresso drinks. Initiative sponsors argue, weakly, the need is great, lattes sell well, a source of revenue exists, so tap it. That's not good enough.Yes, they're arguing over a latte tax in Seattle.

I think it's time to reassert the need for legalization of marijuana and the taxation of the same. Drugs are a challenge to schools. Harvest the profits of the drug trade. Put it to some use in society.

Our schools up here have problems at all levels, but not as severe as some places in the country. And as much as I could care less about a latte tax in and of itself, I can't exactly buy into the idea of such a random tax.

Remember, though, that caffeine is an addictive drug that affects people's attitudes. It ought to be regulated and taxed anyway. Just not as a convenient source of funding. There was a time in Oregon, for instance, when if every tobacco smoker in the state quit smoking, the health plan would collapse.

To the other, I don't live in Seattle proper anymore, so I ought to leave them to it. But I would be annoyed if I lived there and had to discuss a freaking latte tax with my neighbors on a daily basis. In that sense, I'm so glad I'm out of the downtown workplace ....

- Staff, Editorial. "I-77: Just cause, bad brew". The Seattle Times. September 7, 2003. see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2001716809_latteed07.html

Note: The Times also rejects local Initiative 75, which would direct local law enforcement to keep marijuana misdemeanors as its lowest priority. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2001716817_weeded07.html

Consider that there is already a tax on lattes in Washington state, the sales tax.

So an additional tax on lattes, or donuts or whatever, is analogous to the gas guzzler tax or the luxury tax on the most thirsty and/or expensive cars. But SUVs were exempted from these taxes through lobbying efforts, even for hogs like the Hummer. To be consistent then, I support a tax on donuts and other foods of dubious nutritional value but would specifically exempt lattes. And rather than the junk food tax supporting early education the proceeds should go back to the junk food industry so they can develop ever more tasty snacks, so that customers will gladly pay the tax and no junk food jobs will be lost, like how in North Carolina the tobacco industry payouts go to tobacco farmers.