Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
Ok, now you're just showing your lack of research on the topic of neurobiology. "By that logic...." really no you can't because they're completely different! Different neurochemical reactions and hormones. Puppy petting is an oxytocin generating activity. Race car driving is an andrenalin and endorphin activity. Sitting on the beach...no idea what that is...you're just making stuff up.
lol @ making stuff up when you are claiming that sugar is and addictive substance when it has never proven to be so.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
But if humans are already self-reporting addiction symptoms, we don't need to get anybody hooked. If you're correct, we have many people who are already hooked, some of whom surely could provide the informed consent necessary for human research, the type of research we do regularly on addictions to nicotine, cocaine, etc.
In fact, in my city, a university is frequently seeking cocaine addicts to volunteer for research studies on addiction. I see the ads on public transit all the time. I doubt they're engaging in unethical or illegal behavior.
You asked for a study where "humans became addicted to sugar" not a study of people who are self reported sugar addicts.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
But free will has its limits when it comes to public health...that is why some drugs are illegal, the food alcohol is regulated, and smoking is also regulated. Obesity causes cancer just like smoking AND it causes a lot of additional health problems all resulting in premature death..,,so why would free will apply to obesity when it doesn't to these substances? Now I'm not for anything as extreme as what we do for alcohol and smoking, but I think at the very least we should dismantle billions in government subsidies that encourage the production of fast food and we should have better labelling laws, better school lunches and restrict advertising. Shouldn't the money spent on making fast food so available and cheap instead be spent on making healthy food available and cheap? The world doesn't have to be an uphill battle to eat well, it can be made easier.
again, you are basing this on the assumption that government as some kind of authority to provide these services to the population as a whole, which they don't.
What?! The government absolutely has authority over farming subsidies, food labelling, school lunches and advertising. How can you say they do not have these authorities?
go read the US constitution and tell me where in the enumerated powers the federal government has that authority.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Actually, the sixteenth amendment to the US Constitution does give the Gov the right to collect taxes.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"0 -
It's never smart to plan taxes to try and discourage or eliminate something considered negative.
If it did work, to any extent, then the budget that was depending on those taxes drops (and once a government budget gets money, it *always* budgets on that amount continuing) and then you have to find *another* alternate way to raise that same money!
In essence, it's setting yourself (yourself being the one who sets the taxes) up for failure.
Much like taxing (and limiting places for) cigarettes, the more they succeed in cutting cigarette sales down, the more money they DON'T make, such that the government isn't really motivated to actually make progress in reducing smoking, they just want to appear that they do.
All vice-taxes are for is appearing good to an uniformed public that doesn't understand critical thinking.
(yes I am just seeing this thread, no I haven't read the 46 pages previous. My thoughts offered as is, take them or leave them, makes no difference to me.)2 -
It's not the responsibility of the government (state or national) to tax food thus "punishing" people for their food choices. That's part of free will and living in the country we do (assuming you live in America).
Maybe instead we should work on solutions making all food equally available around the nation so that people of all incomes can afford either choice without guilt over those choices.3 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
the study you posted is not avaialbe in full text.
and see @WinoGelato comments..
I'll post this link again. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serge_Ahmed/publication/236967373_Sugar_addiction_Pushing_the_drug-sugar_analogy_to_the_limit/links/02e7e51dab5fbc2754000000/Sugar-addiction-Pushing-the-drug-sugar-analogy-to-the-limit.pdf
It should take you to research gate where you can download it for free. Cheers0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
But if humans are already self-reporting addiction symptoms, we don't need to get anybody hooked. If you're correct, we have many people who are already hooked, some of whom surely could provide the informed consent necessary for human research, the type of research we do regularly on addictions to nicotine, cocaine, etc.
In fact, in my city, a university is frequently seeking cocaine addicts to volunteer for research studies on addiction. I see the ads on public transit all the time. I doubt they're engaging in unethical or illegal behavior.
You asked for a study where "humans became addicted to sugar" not a study of people who are self reported sugar addicts.
You're referring to someone else, I never asked you for a study where people became addicted to sugar. I appreciate you clarifying what point you were attempting to make though.
1 -
I feel all taxes are evil - because then it gives power to politicians who then get to decide how to redistribute the taxes they steal from us. And if you dont think its a from of Theft then you clearly are not working and paying any. That being said - a tax on sugar is just the Govt cutting itself in on the action. They see a large pocket of money and they want more. Same as Tobacco tax. It has nothing to do with Govt caring about citizens. That is why I will never vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything. Its a sign that they are not interested in solving problems - just taking power.1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.0 -
I feel all taxes are evil - because then it gives power to politicians who then get to decide how to redistribute the taxes they steal from us. And if you dont think its a from of Theft then you clearly are not working and paying any. That being said - a tax on sugar is just the Govt cutting itself in on the action. They see a large pocket of money and they want more. Same as Tobacco tax. It has nothing to do with Govt caring about citizens. That is why I will never vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything. Its a sign that they are not interested in solving problems - just taking power.
I work, I pay taxes. I don't consider them theft. I understand the arguments made by people who do consider them theft, but it's ridiculous to claim that only the unemployed accept that the government requires at least some sort of funds in order to operate.
If you don't ever vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything, ever, I imagine you're mostly voting for third party candidates or sitting out a lot of elections.1 -
Interesting thing about taxes.. some people will find a way to get around them via a black market or good old fashioned resourcefulness. A few years ago New York state levied a huge tax increase on cigarettes, which made them cost considerably more than the same pack in bordering states. Politicians and bureaucrats were surprised when the tax revenue decreased because people went across the border in droves to buy cigarettes, in some cases coming back with car loads or even box trucks full (purchased legally).0
-
Interesting thing about taxes.. some people will find a way to get around them via a black market or good old fashioned resourcefulness. A few years ago New York state levied a huge tax increase on cigarettes, which made them cost considerably more than the same pack in bordering states. Politicians and bureaucrats were surprised when the tax revenue decreased because people went across the border in droves to buy cigarettes, in some cases coming back with car loads or even box trucks full (purchased legally).
True, but if the authorities catch the bootleggers they face heavy penalties.0 -
Interesting thing about taxes.. some people will find a way to get around them via a black market or good old fashioned resourcefulness. A few years ago New York state levied a huge tax increase on cigarettes, which made them cost considerably more than the same pack in bordering states. Politicians and bureaucrats were surprised when the tax revenue decreased because people went across the border in droves to buy cigarettes, in some cases coming back with car loads or even box trucks full (purchased legally).
Smoke running has been a thing for a long time. I live in Virginia, so we VERY often see people hitting up Wawa and Sheetz to buy the max number of cartons possible in one shot, and they always pay with cash. They also always get back into a vehicle with PA, NY, or NJ plates.
When your taxes are so stupid that it makes sense for people to drive 500+ miles to get a product, you really need to rethink your priorities. The funny part is, these taxes are usually pushed by Democrats, who are so concerned about global warming. Yeeeeah, all those people driving that far for cigs aren't helping that problem.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
But if humans are already self-reporting addiction symptoms, we don't need to get anybody hooked. If you're correct, we have many people who are already hooked, some of whom surely could provide the informed consent necessary for human research, the type of research we do regularly on addictions to nicotine, cocaine, etc.
In fact, in my city, a university is frequently seeking cocaine addicts to volunteer for research studies on addiction. I see the ads on public transit all the time. I doubt they're engaging in unethical or illegal behavior.
You asked for a study where "humans became addicted to sugar" not a study of people who are self reported sugar addicts.
You're referring to someone else, I never asked you for a study where people became addicted to sugar. I appreciate you clarifying what point you were attempting to make though.
Sorry that was ndj, not you, my mistake. The studies are all on rats. Human studies haven't yet been done...and as you say it would have to be done with people who are self reported addicts. The kicker with sugar is that it is a silent killer. It's not like drugs or alcohol which make you stoned or drunk...you get a bit hyper yeah but you can drive, you can function, etc. Too the coming down is less extreme and you can't get a sugar hangover lol! Even if it is as addictive as cocaine... it is nowhere near as toxic...so the two aren't comparable as a whole.
I think what really matters is that we are eating too much sugar and it has real health consequences. Whether or not it is addictive would just shape the public health approach to handling it. But I think we can all agree...we're eating too much and I personally would be for reducing the amount of sugar being added to foods by better labelling laws (stoplight system) and ending the billions in farm subsidies on corn and other sugar sources which have led to it being so cheap and easy to add to processed foods.1 -
I feel all taxes are evil - because then it gives power to politicians who then get to decide how to redistribute the taxes they steal from us. And if you dont think its a from of Theft then you clearly are not working and paying any. That being said - a tax on sugar is just the Govt cutting itself in on the action. They see a large pocket of money and they want more. Same as Tobacco tax. It has nothing to do with Govt caring about citizens. That is why I will never vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything. Its a sign that they are not interested in solving problems - just taking power.
I'm a US citizen in the U.K. so I pay taxes to both the US and the UK. My US tax bill this year was $15k... I don't consider it theft at all. Now, I am against taxing junk food because "sin" taxes have been shown to not work to reduce consumption. Also while the revenues are initially earmarked for good causes, the money is inevitably funnelled off elsewhere.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
But if humans are already self-reporting addiction symptoms, we don't need to get anybody hooked. If you're correct, we have many people who are already hooked, some of whom surely could provide the informed consent necessary for human research, the type of research we do regularly on addictions to nicotine, cocaine, etc.
In fact, in my city, a university is frequently seeking cocaine addicts to volunteer for research studies on addiction. I see the ads on public transit all the time. I doubt they're engaging in unethical or illegal behavior.
You asked for a study where "humans became addicted to sugar" not a study of people who are self reported sugar addicts.
You're referring to someone else, I never asked you for a study where people became addicted to sugar. I appreciate you clarifying what point you were attempting to make though.
Sorry that was ndj, not you, my mistake. The studies are all on rats. Human studies haven't yet been done...and as you say it would have to be done with people who are self reported addicts. The kicker with sugar is that it is a silent killer. It's not like drugs or alcohol which make you stoned or drunk...you get a bit hyper yeah but you can drive, you can function, etc. Too the coming down is less extreme and you can't get a sugar hangover lol! Even if it is as addictive as cocaine... it is nowhere near as toxic...so the two aren't comparable as a whole.
I think what really matters is that we are eating too much sugar and it has real health consequences. Whether or not it is addictive would just shape the public health approach to handling it. But I think we can all agree...we're eating too much and I personally would be for reducing the amount of sugar being added to foods by better labelling laws (stoplight system) and ending the billions in farm subsidies on corn and other sugar sources which have led to it being so cheap and easy to add to processed foods.
Funny thing though: I eat high sugar (150+g/day) when bulking. I eat almost none (less than 10g per day) when cutting, and most of that comes from asparagus. I can switch from bulk diet to cut in a single day with no winding down period, and suffer no ill effects.
I guess I'm just a special snowflake outlier who can't become addicted to anything right? Even though I'm a former drug addict, current smoker, and have stimulant habits that would make most recreational coke users think I'm insane. If anyone was going to have sugar addiction problems, it would be me.5 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
sugar has never been found to be an addictive substance, never.
That's not true. Sugar has been found to be highly addictive in multiple studies. In brain scans it was shown to be as addictive as cocaine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/sugar-addiction-like-drug-abuse-study-reveals/
Please find me a study on humans that has conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive.
and you get the same reaction in your brain to petting puppies as you do to sugar, so does that mean that petting puppies is addictive as cocaine.
Here you go. You may get the same type of reaction in brain by petting puppies..but the magnitude is far far lower. Just like the effects of paracetamol vs. Morphine. Yes both are analgesics, but paracetamol is not addictive like an opiate is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144.
nope, that is not what I was asking for. I mean show me a study where humans became addicted to sugar. Pleasure centers does not prove anything, because by that logic one can be addicted to racing cars, petting puppies, sitting on the beach, etc, etc...
You can't test humans that way because it's unethical and against the law. You can only test animals like lab rats. In this particular study they report how rats given the choice between self administering cocaine or sucrose, chose sucrose. They also would go for the sucrose even if it meant an electric shock to get it...even though there was plain water available with no electric shock to punish them. In self assessments, humans have reported addiction symptoms and have shown addictive behaviour for sugar. But we can't do a study where we deliberately hook someone on sugar...
the study you posted is not avaialbe in full text.
and see @WinoGelato comments..
I'll post this link again. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serge_Ahmed/publication/236967373_Sugar_addiction_Pushing_the_drug-sugar_analogy_to_the_limit/links/02e7e51dab5fbc2754000000/Sugar-addiction-Pushing-the-drug-sugar-analogy-to-the-limit.pdf
It should take you to research gate where you can download it for free. Cheers
Looks like the claim is sweetness has the effect, not sucrose specifically. They found it with saccharine too: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000698. So that hardly supports the claim that it doesn't apply to glucose or fructose (which together make up sucrose anyway).
The abstract says this: "At the neurobiological level, the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward appear to be more robust than those of cocaine (i.e., more resistant to functional failures), possibly reflecting past selective evolutionary pressures for seeking and taking foods high in sugar and calories."
Like WinoGelato said, sensible rats!
I do think we tend (in many cases) to subconsciously seek out high cal foods that were evolutionarily helpful, specifically sugar and fat, but don't think this is the same thing as addiction in any meaningful way.
Personally I don't think it matters to the tax argument, though.
I'm all for cutting farm subsidies, but it's going to increase food prices, specifically meat and dairy (which tend to be artificially cheap here), as janejellyroll noted, in the US. (Thus, probably yogurt prices go up, and most of the good quality yogurts have cane sugar, not HFCS, which tends to be the cheap, helped more by subsidies, one. It will also increase the cost of the sugarless flavored yogurts (which have artificial sweeteners and are quite easy to find, although I don't buy them myself as I mostly like plain or occasionally a really good cane sugar one, ideally frozen).
But whatever. Food in the US is actually pretty cheap.
Side effect of gutting the farm bill, of course, is that's how we finance SNAP here in the US and part of the overall compromise, but of course all the libertarians (which I am not) won't be bothered by that.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
I would suggest starting with the tenth amendment and working back from there. Taxes were originally to provide for the common defense, not to provide well fare, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc..
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I feel all taxes are evil - because then it gives power to politicians who then get to decide how to redistribute the taxes they steal from us. And if you dont think its a from of Theft then you clearly are not working and paying any. That being said - a tax on sugar is just the Govt cutting itself in on the action. They see a large pocket of money and they want more. Same as Tobacco tax. It has nothing to do with Govt caring about citizens. That is why I will never vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything. Its a sign that they are not interested in solving problems - just taking power.
I work, I pay taxes. I don't consider them theft. I understand the arguments made by people who do consider them theft, but it's ridiculous to claim that only the unemployed accept that the government requires at least some sort of funds in order to operate.
If you don't ever vote for anyone who advocates raising taxes on anything, ever, I imagine you're mostly voting for third party candidates or sitting out a lot of elections.
those would be for things that the government was originally given the power to do, such as defense and military.
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
it is not my interpretation, it is what the document actually says. No where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to levy taxes to redistribute it back to someone else in the form of subsidies. That power lies with each individual state, not the federal government.
Yes, the federal government has the power to tax in order fund the powers expressly given to it by the constitution.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Interesting thing about taxes.. some people will find a way to get around them via a black market or good old fashioned resourcefulness. A few years ago New York state levied a huge tax increase on cigarettes, which made them cost considerably more than the same pack in bordering states. Politicians and bureaucrats were surprised when the tax revenue decreased because people went across the border in droves to buy cigarettes, in some cases coming back with car loads or even box trucks full (purchased legally).
Smoke running has been a thing for a long time. I live in Virginia, so we VERY often see people hitting up Wawa and Sheetz to buy the max number of cartons possible in one shot, and they always pay with cash. They also always get back into a vehicle with PA, NY, or NJ plates.
When your taxes are so stupid that it makes sense for people to drive 500+ miles to get a product, you really need to rethink your priorities. The funny part is, these taxes are usually pushed by Democrats, who are so concerned about global warming. Yeeeeah, all those people driving that far for cigs aren't helping that problem.
It's not just the driving. Eric Garner's death resulted from cigarette taxes and zealous enforcement in NYC:
"Why were the cops so hell-bent on stamping out the sales of loosies, which typically sell for 75 cents a pop in Staten Island (and two times or more that in Manhattan)? New York City boasts the highest cost for cigarettes in the nation, with a pack ranging anywhere from $12 and up. The city lays its own taxes on top of the state’s, in an effort both to raise revenue and discourage use of tobacco.
The result is a thriving market in sales of loosies and black-market cigarettes more generally (for a fascinating look of how the market in loosies operates, check out this 2007 study published by the National Institutes for Health). Since 2006, the tax on cigarettes in New York have risen 190 percent and cigarette smuggling has risen by 59 percent, writes Lawrence J. McQuillan of the Independent Institute. Whether it’s liquor, drugs, or cigarettes, when you try to stamp out something consenting adults want, you cause as many or more problems as you ameliorate."2 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
Society bears the cost of sugar and HFCS via government subsidies. Your taxes are paying for sugar and corn to be grown, increasing availability and artificially depressing the prices. This makes it cheap to use in food...and food companies like cheap ingredients. Society also bears the costs of the healthcare associated with sugar and HFC overconsumption...like type 2 diabetes..via higher health insurance premiums and higher Medicare/Medicaid costs.
Avoiding the question posed.
I asked why?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
I would suggest starting with the tenth amendment and working back from there. Taxes were originally to provide for the common defense, not to provide well fare, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc..
It actually says "for the common defence and general welfare". So yes....taxes are meant to be used on welfare....the Constitution is why it is called welfare.1 -
I thought of this thread when I read an article on Reason the other day, so I'm glad ol' pot-stirrer Lemur Cat brought it back.
Philly heavily taxes sodas ($57 tax on a $60 bag of syrup) and hilarity (sad, ironic, predictable hilarity) ensues, at least in the first couple of months:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/with-sales-depressed-by-soda-tax-philly3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
I would suggest starting with the tenth amendment and working back from there. Taxes were originally to provide for the common defense, not to provide well fare, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc..
It actually says "for the common defence and general welfare". So yes....taxes are meant to be used on welfare....the Constitution is why it is called welfare.
sorry, that is not at all what "general welfare" means. There was no welfare at the founding of the country so there is no way for them to have implied a welfare system that we have today. The "general welfare" was commonly understood to be roads, defense, and postal service. Try and read the federalist papers.1 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
Society bears the cost of sugar and HFCS via government subsidies. Your taxes are paying for sugar and corn to be grown, increasing availability and artificially depressing the prices. This makes it cheap to use in food...and food companies like cheap ingredients. Society also bears the costs of the healthcare associated with sugar and HFC overconsumption...like type 2 diabetes..via higher health insurance premiums and higher Medicare/Medicaid costs.
Avoiding the question posed.
I asked why?
That's a really complex thing to answer. Most farm subsidies were set up in the Depression era because people were starving, the economy had tanked and the post WWI era was one of isolationism. They currently cost around $20B/yr in taxpayer funds. Higher healthcare premiums are because everyone that a healthcare company covers is in a risk pool...the higher the prevalence of ill health, the higher the costs to pay for the medical care..these costs are then apportioned out so that the healthy are subsidising the care of the sick. Medicare/Medicaid costs are going up and they are considered entitlements...or a sacred cow...in the budget..so the government pays whatever the cost is no matter how much it goes up. Extra funds are drawn from other taxes to cover any deficit. If it gets too much, the Gov can raise the %taken from each pay check in Medicare/Medicaid taxes. The government has the authority to do this for the general welfare of the US per article 1 of the Constitution. What gets funded or not funded is determined by the political process in Congress via the annual budget bills...which is influenced by lobbyists and constituents.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Enough with the taxes already. People should exercise some self control and just don't eat it. It's that simple.
I would tend to agree, but with 70% of the US population obese or overweight, how's that working out?
that is their choice and is called free will. If someone wants to gorge themselves to the point of obesity then they are free to do so. Government has no right to be regulating personal decisions on food choice.
If we were living in the old west where when someone did something stupid, destroying their health, they just crawled back behind the barn to die and the buzzards and coyotes took care of the carcass, I'd be in full agreement with you.
Now when someone exercises their free will by gorging themselves on Coke, Ding Dongs, candy bars doughnuts, or whatever, society has to pay to fix the problem via higher taxes, higher prices on good and services, etc.
That is a false argument. Society pays for those things because the government has determined that it has the authority to take from one person and provide to another, which if you read the Constitution the government has no authority to take my wealth and give it to someone else to subsidize their poor choices.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution we have taxes (taking your money) paying for obesity related poor choices (subsidies) in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, paid health insurance for government employees/military, etc.
Which of these things has been declared unconstitutional?.
I would suggest starting with the tenth amendment and working back from there. Taxes were originally to provide for the common defense, not to provide well fare, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc..
Didn't answer the question. Which one of the programs mentioned have been eliminated due to the laws establishing them being declared unconstitutional?0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »I thought of this thread when I read an article on Reason the other day, so I'm glad ol' pot-stirrer Lemur Cat brought it back.
Philly heavily taxes sodas ($57 tax on a $60 bag of syrup) and hilarity (sad, ironic, predictable hilarity) ensues, at least in the first couple of months:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/with-sales-depressed-by-soda-tax-philly
I live on the other side of the river from Philly. The "axe the tax" commmercials are running non-stop on the local radio stations.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions