As San Francisco braces itself for the possibility of spending a quarter extra just for the privilege of enjoying an ice cold can of bubbly corn syrup, the lobbyists from Big Soda would like to make sure that San Francisco's carbonated libertarians hear the other side of the story.

According to the soda lobby, our small report on the proposed legislation "lacks industry perspective." So we have reprinted below email we received from the VP of Communications and Media for community organization and public affairs firm BMWL, on behalf of their client: an organization called "Californians For Food And Beverage Choice," which is a front for the American Beverage Association:

Statement on Proposed San Francisco Beverage Sugar Tax

Californians have rejected beverage taxes like the one San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener proposes because such measures are unnecessary, wasteful distractions from serious policymaking. Providing people with education, opportunities for physical activity and diverse beverage choices to fit their lifestyles are proven strategies for maintaining health. Just last November, voters in the California cities of El Monte and Richmond said as much by soundly defeating proposed taxes on the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages—with 76 percent and 67 percent, respectively, voting “no.”

OK, so there you go, folks. The Soda lobby would like you, dear consumer to kindly pick the beverage choice that appropriately fits your lifestyle. For this SFist editor, that happens to be a decent glass of Bourbon, which the city already taxes to death anyway.

Previously: Here Comes San Francisco's Soda Tax
California Senate Bill Hopes Soda Tax Will Eradicate Childhood Obesity

In nanny state news: Supervisor Scott Wiener plans to introduce legislation this week that would add a 24-cent tax on every can of soda sold in the city of San Francisco.

Wiener's bill calls for a tax of two cents per ounce for any drink that has more than 25 calories and is less than 50 percent juice. (So Diet Coke addicts are spared the sin tax here.) Assuming the Board of Supervisors goes along with Wiener's initiative, the bill will make an appearance on the November 2014 ballot where it will need support from two-thirds of the city to pass. It is expected to raise roughly $31 million per year to be set aside for health and exercise programs at city schools and recreation centers.

A similar statewide initiative is currently in limbo awaiting approval by the state Senate appropriations committee, but other efforts to legislate America's diabetes-inducing cola addiction have failed either at the ballot box or in court. In Richmond, California a similar ballot measure was shot down last year after Big Soda spent millions opposing it. In New York City, a court decided Mayor Bloomberg's administration overstepped its bounds when they tried to ban any soda larger than 16 ounces.

Recent polls in California, however, show that the state is OK with the tax as long as the proceeds goes to school programs that keep kids healthy. "I try to cross my t's and dot my i's, and I wouldn't pursue this if I didn't think it had a chance," Wiener told The Chronicle. "There will be a big fight - the beverage industry will try to pull all the shenanigans they have pulled elsewhere - but we have a strong coalition behind this. San Francisco is always at the forefront of public health issues and trying to find innovative ways to keep the city healthy."

San Francisco famously banned toys from happy meals back in 2011, and most recently has made a push to replace booze with fresh produce at your neighborhood corner store.

Previously: California Senate Bill Hopes Soda Tax Will Eradicate Childhood Obesity
[Chron]

Just one week after the makers of Monster Beverage sued San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, the D.A. has struck back. Today, Herrera filed the People of the State of California v. Monster Beverage Corporation, a lawsuit challenging the "unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices" of the company.

The lawsuit argues that Monster's marketing practices reach children and teens in disregard for health threats suggested by researchers, including "significant morbidity in adolescents, elevated blood pressure, brain seizures, and severe cardiac events". These findings have prompted a separate FDA investigation.

From the lawsuit:

MONSTER aggressively markets its products to children and teenagers by sponsoering youth sports tournaments and prominently featuring profiles of youth ranging in age from 6 to 17 on its Monster Army website. MONSTER also targets children and teenagers by promoting a "lifestyle" that features extreme sports, music, gaming, military themes, and the scantily-clad "Monster Girls."

Herrera also takes issue with Monster's "unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its 'killer' ingredients and 'energy blend' that 'unleash the beast'" Although we might consider ourselves lucky that this particular beast, whatever it is, remains leashed.

Herrera says that the lawsuit is not a retaliation for last week's suit filed against him by Monster claiming that they were being unfairly singled out by the D.A. Herrera says the company is the biggest offender in a host of energy drink slingers that includes Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and PepsiCo's Amp.

Previously: Monster Energy Drink is Suing S.F. for Being Totally Lame
[S.F. City Attorney's Office]
[L.A. Times]
[SJ Mercury]

Herrera photo credit: shawncalhoun

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is trying to kill your buzz, folks. Again. The most recent example is their cracking down on bars serving infused alcohols. Demian Bulwa of the SF Chronicle reports that on a recent Friday night, the AB "entered [Bourbon and Branch] and warned bartenders they were breaking California law by altering alcohol - infusing it with the flavors of fruits, vegetables and spices."

Allowing the infused booze to sit and age on a shelf, Bulwa goes on to point, could cause rectification, which is illegal in the U.S. sans a special license. (Everclear, for example, is produced by rectification.) While adding fruit, cucumbers, hydrangeas, cat whiskers or whatever unique items mixologists are cramming in their shakers these days, allowing them to stew isn't cool with the ABC. This means that beloved sangria, which needs to marinate with a bushel of fruity goodness before its ready to serve, could come under fire.

Pft.

Anyway, the ABC does not plan to cite Bourban & Branch, or the three other bars they tagged, and say that agency thugs "stopping infusions is not a new - or high - priority."

(By Eyleen Tavy)

Somebody amend the Constitution, already! Even as one right is affirmed, another is torn from our grasp -- the right to manufacture pre-mixed caffeinated energy drinks.

That's right, "Anheuser-Busch said it will reformulate its popular 'Tilt' and 'Bud Extra' brands to remove the stimulants they currently contain." Thus making them just plain old "bold berry flavor"ed booze.

If we learned anything from the "reformulation" of our favorite shampoo, it's that when reformulation is threatened, buy up as much of the old stock as possible. Since we work in the Civic Center area we have no shortage of liquor stores to scour. So off we go.

Ok, that's a lunch hour we're never getting back. And guess how much Tilt or B to the MFing E we found? NONE. Guess how many store owners who looked at us blankly, or just laughed when we asked? ELEVEN.

So where's the Tilt, San Francisco? Where's the Bud Extra? Tell us about a local liquor/corner store where we can try this soon to be forbidden ambrosia in the comments, and if (do we dare to hope? Yes, dare!) there's a bar that serves these EXACT beverages, you've GOTTA tell us. And then promise to meet us there.