Should Sugar Be Regulated Like Alcohol

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.[/quote]

Because the legalization of some things bring more demonstrable harm than good to society. I think we should assess each substance individually. [/quote]

“harm than good to society”

Tell me, where does society hurt?

You can then literally justify ANYTHING as for the general good. [/quote]

No you can’t.

There would be little demonstrable benefit for the legalization of crack or murder or rape and they would all be accompanied with huge negatives.
[/quote]

Comparing crack to murder and rape is apples to oranges.

One is a substance one can choose of ones own free will to place inside their body.

The other two are crimes of violence that violate the life and dignity of another.

22

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.[/quote]

Because the legalization of some things bring more demonstrable harm than good to society. I think we should assess each substance individually. [/quote]

“harm than good to society”

Tell me, where does society hurt?

You can then literally justify ANYTHING as for the general good. [/quote]

No you can’t.

There would be little demonstrable benefit for the legalization of crack or murder or rape and they would all be accompanied with huge negatives.
[/quote]

Eugenics is murder and has tremendous societal advantages…

23

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.[/quote]

Because the legalization of some things bring more demonstrable harm than good to society. I think we should assess each substance individually. [/quote]

“harm than good to society”

Tell me, where does society hurt?

You can then literally justify ANYTHING as for the general good. [/quote]

No you can’t.

There would be little demonstrable benefit for the legalization of crack or murder or rape and they would all be accompanied with huge negatives.
[/quote]

Comparing crack to murder and rape is apples to oranges.

One is a substance one can choose of ones own free will to place inside their body.

The other two are crimes of violence that violate the life and dignity of another.
[/quote]

I actually wasn’t comparing them. I was giving examples of things that refute DD’s line of “You can then literally justify ANYTHING as for the general good.”

24

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.[/quote]

Because the legalization of some things bring more demonstrable harm than good to society. I think we should assess each substance individually. [/quote]

“harm than good to society”

Tell me, where does society hurt?

You can then literally justify ANYTHING as for the general good. [/quote]

No you can’t.

There would be little demonstrable benefit for the legalization of crack or murder or rape and they would all be accompanied with huge negatives.
[/quote]

Eugenics is murder and has tremendous societal advantages…[/quote]

And colossal disadvantages that crush any realized benefits.

25

[quote]therajraj wrote:

And colossal disadvantages that crush any realized benefits.
[/quote]

Like what? and for whom?

26

Trying to steer this back to the original topic:

I think that the first issue with sugar regulation is definitional: to wit, what we mean by “sugar.” In my hypo, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we mean products (i) whose calories are primarily comprised of, e.g., 80% carbohydrates listed as “sugars” by FDA regulation; or (ii) any product that uses sugar (in whatever form) as one of its primary three ingredients. Then, if you wanted, you could have an exceptions clause covering, e.g., fruits, vegetables, etc.

So, this is assuming there’s a sensible definition in place. Given that, I don’t fundamentally have much of an issue with regulating sugar similarly to the way cigarettes and alcohol are regulated. That said, I do feel that all these taxes should be more distinctively economic, grounded in calculations of the externalities that consumption of these products imposes on society at large.

To those saying “freedom is a double-edged sword” and such, I think that from a policy standpoint you have to set that sentiment aside because, frankly, that battle is sort of lost. Most people don’t like the idea of living in a society where someone can die of a heart attack or whatever when help is readily available were it not for lack of health insurance. Moreover, it’s a pretty easy sentiment to put forward when one is a 20-something who spends most of his time lifting heavy things, going to class, and eating (raises hand). This isn’t so much an argument for universal care as it is just a recognition that whether someone suffers the brunt of the consequences of poor decisions themselves, there is still going to be a social cost to that decision.

27

For the record, Canada also regulates cigs and alcohol heavily, and it doesn’t help people from hurting themselves one bit. We have just as many chain smoking alcoholics as anywhere else…
Not only that but a lot of the fortune 500 food companies make their money selling these poor quality sugary products. Have fun trying to take their profit away, I imagine it being somehwat akin to trying to steal a bone from an angry pitbull.

28

[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
For the record, Canada also regulates cigs and alcohol heavily, and it doesn’t help people from hurting themselves one bit. We have just as many chain smoking alcoholics as anywhere else…
Not only that but a lot of the fortune 500 food companies make their money selling these poor quality sugary products. Have fun trying to take their profit away, I imagine it being somehwat akin to trying to steal a bone from an angry pitbull.[/quote]

Well, I think an alternative view is that the goal isn’t to have people stop doing those things so much as to have the externalities created by the behavior covered by those engaging in the behavior itself.

Of course, not everyone who consumes sugar will necessarily contribute to those externalities. But some people drink alcohol without creating externatlities or even smoke without doing so. The point is that in a country as large as ours, targeting those social costs upon the originators of those costs has to be applied in a way that is generalizable. That’s why it’s important to find, at the very least, a very strong correlative value between the behavior and the externality.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

And colossal disadvantages that crush any realized benefits.
[/quote]

Like what? and for whom?[/quote]

If you’re unfamiliar with the disadvantage of eugenics, plug in rape.

You can’t justify rape for the good of society.

30

[quote]hungryone wrote:

I find it absolutely ridiculous that for a low income family it costs the same amount to go get a child a McDonald’s happy meal dinner as it does to buy a head of broccoli and some carrots. .[/quote]

LOL.

No kid is getting a full meal from broccoli and carrots. Between those two options, if my goal was to make it through a day, In would pick the Happy Meal also. There’s real meat in there and “real” calories I can use.

Also, Mc Donald’s sells pitas, breadless sandwiches and grilled chicken. Quit demonizing the restaurant itself.

31

Raising insurance premiums for unhealthy eaters, as some suggest, will not help, and will make things worse as more people will abandon their health insurance for cost reasons and use the Emergency room for their primary care, which ultimately passes on the burden to the rest of us.

I believe health care in a free market creates too much conflict between profits vs humanitarianism.

Putting a tax on sugar and sugary products would at least send a message to everyone, even outside the U.S., that sugar is something to be wary of.

Restricting access to sugar probably would NOT go very well. The logistics in executing such a thing seem pretty ridiculous.

How about making doors in fast food joints only 6 inches wide so people that are too big can’t get in? (i mean this as an equally ridiculous proposal on addressing the problem).

32

[quote]qsar wrote:

How about making doors in fast food joints only 6 inches wide so people that are too big can’t get in?
[/quote]

Yeah, that would include every bodybuilder over 200lbs.

Once you start regulating this, it will be short time before something that directly affects you is restricted.

What person who trains 6 days a week needs to avoid sugar like the plague?

You can’t turn personal responsibility into “the government’s job” and expect anything but extreme control and the loss of rights, privacy and your own freedom.

This is the same shit that went down after 9/11 when the public let fear dictate what policies slipped through.

Why would government need to regulate what I eat? If I get fatter, it likely wasn’t exactly by accident.

33

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]qsar wrote:

How about making doors in fast food joints only 6 inches wide so people that are too big can’t get in?
[/quote]

Yeah, that would include every bodybuilder over 200lbs.

Once you start regulating this, it will be short time before something that directly affects you is restricted.

What person who trains 6 days a week needs to avoid sugar like the plague?

You can’t turn personal responsibility into “the government’s job” and expect anything but extreme control and the loss of rights, privacy and your own freedom.

This is the same shit that went down after 9/11 when the public let fear dictate what policies slipped through.

Why would government need to regulate what I eat? If I get fatter, it likely wasn’t exactly by accident.[/quote]

I think you’re missing a few distinctions in what a general tax does and does not do. It does not disallow you from buying [insert sugary product. Let’s say Coke]. It simply makes you pay more to drink your coke than you normally would.

Granted, depending on how heavy the tax is relative to the price elasticity of Coke, Coke consumption would go up or down. But the tax on sugary beverages and such is not the same as a blanket ban on them. For Joe Bodybuilder, who is otherwise healthy and simply wants a Coke, he is paying the tax for two reasons: (i) his intake is contributing to overall demand of the product that is causing the externality; and (ii) the behavior in question is determined to be highly correlated with that externality. Justification (ii) may be more dubious than (i), but it’s a sensible stance to take when talking about a very large society where some generalizations of highly correlated events are useful to regulate social costs.

It honestly has almost nothing to do with personal responsibility. It has to do with the fact that decisions have costs, whether a person actually pays those costs or not. As it currently stands, society-writ-large bears the vast majority of those costs; under a model that taxes sugar, those high social costs would be at least somewhat mitigated (again depending on how steep the tax is).

34

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]qsar wrote:

How about making doors in fast food joints only 6 inches wide so people that are too big can’t get in?
[/quote]

Yeah, that would include every bodybuilder over 200lbs.

Once you start regulating this, it will be short time before something that directly affects you is restricted.

What person who trains 6 days a week needs to avoid sugar like the plague?

You can’t turn personal responsibility into “the government’s job” and expect anything but extreme control and the loss of rights, privacy and your own freedom.

This is the same shit that went down after 9/11 when the public let fear dictate what policies slipped through.

Why would government need to regulate what I eat? If I get fatter, it likely wasn’t exactly by accident.[/quote]

What’s the solution to rising healthcare cost due to rampant unhealthy eating? idk.

35

[quote]hungryone wrote:
Its not in anyone’s best interest to deter you from doing what’s detrimental to yourself, I guess…[/quote]

I think it’s good to have people try to deter people from destroying themselves, yes. Churches, families, volunteer groups, etc. Not the government. Determent shouldn’t be in the form of taxes or regulation or prohibition; none of which work. If people wanna smoke, they’ll smoke, even if the tax on tobacco is raised. You make something illegal, it goes underground. It does not work. And even if it did, I don’t give a shit. It’s not the governments business if I want to smoke crack, or tobacco, or drink alcohol, or eat a god damn snickers; it’s my choice.

Freedom, liberty, isn’t always pretty, I think that’s why so many progressives are so scared of it…they’re to cowardly to accept the fact that things aren’t perfect…and too cowardly to accept the responsibility for their own lives. When given freedom, there will be failure stories. Not everyone is born to be a winner. The government’s only job in regards to liberty, is to protect my liberty from encroachment from those that would wish to take my liberty. To protect my ability to live my life the way I want, so long as I don’t infringe on anyone else’s liberty. If I choose to lay down and shoot up til I’m dead; or eat junk food till my fat neck crushes my own windpipe, it’s not your business, it’s not the governments business.

If I become a problem, then punish me. If I break into your house and steal your tv, if I mug someone, if I neglect my child, then punish me for those. But all those things can be linked to drugs, or alcohol, or losing my job, or gambling, or spending myself into extreme debt, or just being a douche. If I am harming no one else, than it’s no one else’s business.

36

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]hungryone wrote:
Its not in anyone’s best interest to deter you from doing what’s detrimental to yourself, I guess…[/quote]

I think it’s good to have people try to deter people from destroying themselves, yes. Churches, families, volunteer groups, etc. Not the government. Determent shouldn’t be in the form of taxes or regulation or prohibition; none of which work. If people wanna smoke, they’ll smoke, even if the tax on tobacco is raised. You make something illegal, it goes underground. It does not work. And even if it did, I don’t give a shit. It’s not the governments business if I want to smoke crack, or tobacco, or drink alcohol, or eat a god damn snickers; it’s my choice.

Freedom, liberty, isn’t always pretty, I think that’s why so many progressives are so scared of it…they’re to cowardly to accept the fact that things aren’t perfect…and too cowardly to accept the responsibility for their own lives. When given freedom, there will be failure stories. Not everyone is born to be a winner. The government’s only job in regards to liberty, is to protect my liberty from encroachment from those that would wish to take my liberty. To protect my ability to live my life the way I want, so long as I don’t infringe on anyone else’s liberty. If I choose to lay down and shoot up til I’m dead; or eat junk food till my fat neck crushes my own windpipe, it’s not your business, it’s not the governments business.

If I become a problem, then punish me. If I break into your house and steal your tv, if I mug someone, if I neglect my child, then punish me for those. But all those things can be linked to drugs, or alcohol, or losing my job, or gambling, or spending myself into extreme debt, or just being a douche. If I am harming no one else, than it’s no one else’s business. [/quote]

Holy crap…are we related?

37

shoot for “0” added sugar. Cheating is psychological. a weak mind is no excuse.

38

[quote]qsar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]qsar wrote:

How about making doors in fast food joints only 6 inches wide so people that are too big can’t get in?
[/quote]

Yeah, that would include every bodybuilder over 200lbs.

Once you start regulating this, it will be short time before something that directly affects you is restricted.

What person who trains 6 days a week needs to avoid sugar like the plague?

You can’t turn personal responsibility into “the government’s job” and expect anything but extreme control and the loss of rights, privacy and your own freedom.

This is the same shit that went down after 9/11 when the public let fear dictate what policies slipped through.

Why would government need to regulate what I eat? If I get fatter, it likely wasn’t exactly by accident.[/quote]

What’s the solution to rising healthcare cost due to rampant unhealthy eating? idk.
[/quote]

If one was atheistic, who cares? The strong survive, the weak will fade. There is no solution but to watch those whom suffer, die out. just ask Darwin. The greek survived without added sugar, we can too.

39

[quote]eightohfive wrote:

[quote]qsar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]qsar wrote:

How about making doors in fast food joints only 6 inches wide so people that are too big can’t get in?
[/quote]

Yeah, that would include every bodybuilder over 200lbs.

Once you start regulating this, it will be short time before something that directly affects you is restricted.

What person who trains 6 days a week needs to avoid sugar like the plague?

You can’t turn personal responsibility into “the government’s job” and expect anything but extreme control and the loss of rights, privacy and your own freedom.

This is the same shit that went down after 9/11 when the public let fear dictate what policies slipped through.

Why would government need to regulate what I eat? If I get fatter, it likely wasn’t exactly by accident.[/quote]

What’s the solution to rising healthcare cost due to rampant unhealthy eating? idk.
[/quote]

If one was atheistic, who cares? The strong survive, the weak will fade. There is no solution but to watch those whom suffer, die out. just ask Darwin. The greek survived without added sugar, we can too.[/quote]
I agree with you and X. I’m saying that the unhealthy people are driving MY healthcare costs up. If you’re fat, it affects MY wallet. What’s the solution for that?

To oversimplify but show why they affect my wallet: The number of unhealthy eaters rises. This leads to bigger costs in treatment of diabetes and heard disease. This leads to higher premiums (for everyone). This leads to more people opting out of health insurance. Hospitals can’t refuse treatment for not having money so to compensate for the loss, hospitals start charging more. This drives insurance costs even higher. This makes more people drop their health insurance. etc, etc, etc. What’s the solution?

40

Step 1: Stockpile Sugar, weapons, and Mexicans.
step 2: wait…
Step 3: Start Brutal Sugar Cartel.
Step 4: Profit.

2012 is my year!