As our government has mandated us all to remain on the super-duper double-triple highest state of terrorist alert, you may be wondering why I expect you to give a puny issue like the sale of soda in schools your full attention.

As we’re constantly being reminded, the war on terror is not a single operation; it is a sustained campaign. How we deal with terrorism is a choice that will probably occupy the majority of our international attention for the rest of our adult lives. Nevertheless, we live in a republic, and we’ve got a country to run.

But enough about the war. Let’s talk about Britney Spears.

The only goal of adolescents is to simultaneously fit in with peers and act like adults, and they’re subjected to countless billion-dollar target advertising campaigns.

The cola companies have gone a step further. Pepsi is implanting multimillion-dollar ad campaigns directly into students’ lesson plans. “Channel One,” a daily news program shown in more than 12,000 schools, has an advertising contract with Pepsi.

This campaign may or may not be effective, depending on whether Coca-Cola has an exclusive contract with the school district, in which case Coke, and not Pepsi, will be available in every hallway.

These corporations compete for lucrative contracts that generate millions of dollars for their respective districts. They compete for territory in the learning environments of American schools.

State Rep. Virg Bernero, D-Lansing, recently introduced a bill to regulate the advertising and sale of pop in public schools. He has a superb plan to supplement income that would be lost by schools.

His primary concern is the health of children. When I contacted his office, he was happy to provide me with reams of statistical evidence citing the tremendous increase in the consumption of soft drinks by school children, as well as documented relationships in obesity, osteoporosis, kidney stones and a host of other medical ills.

Soda is basically liquid candy laced with a mildly addictive drug. It’s junk food, and among children it occupies the space of other more nutritious drinks that should be contributing essential vitamins like calcium.

The soft drink companies deny this. In a statement reminiscent of Philip Morris’ notorious nicotine doublespeak, the National Soft Drink Association claims, without flinching, “Soft drinks represent a positive addition to a well-balanced diet.”

It goes on like this for several lines, citing the irrefutable evidence that the sugars found in soft drinks also occur naturally in fruits. This statement is provided on a poster, free of charge, to public school teachers.

Ridiculous.

Liquid candy may not seem that potent to the average college student. But when an 80-pound 10-year-old who has never had a cup of coffee slams a 16-ounce bottle of Mountain Dew, you can bet it packs a pretty serious punch.

Soft drinks are unhealthy, and letting companies shove them down children’s throats when they go to school is unfair.

We’re talking about children who cannot make rational decisions about the relative health benefits of the foods they consume.

A kid in a candy store should not be expected to trust himself to buy an apple. Multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns targeted at vulnerable adolescents can make the lure of liquid candy nearly irresistible.

A school is not a free market, students should not be treated as consumers and school districts should not be treated as corporate labor pools.

Teachers already have a difficult enough time holding students’ interest without regular doses of the official stimulant of Britney Spears.

The omnipresent liquid candy machine has no place in the learning environment of school-age children. It detracts from the educational mission of the American school, and should therefore be removed.

As for the money generated for participating school districts, Michigan should enact a soda tax policy similar to those of Arkansas, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia.

I realize most MSU students are already flipping out about the outrageous $1.25 price tag on a 20-ounce bottle of sugar water, but the necessary tax would be minuscule, and probably wouldn’t effect the horrible price gouging to which college students are already subjected.

If every state taxed soft drinks at Arkansas’ current rate (2 cents per 12-ounce can) it would generate $3 billion for schools every year. That’s a tax hike I think I can live with.

I applaud Bernero’s initiative and urge you to support his bill.

Andrew Banyai is a political science and pre-law senior. Reach him at banyaian@msu.edu.