Should Sugar Be Regulated Like Alcohol

MrChristianB · March 3, 2012, 9:38am

I think the only type of sugar that should be regulated is HFCS: High Fructose Corn Syrup.

That being said, it would be hugely challenging considering the corn industry is in bed with the government.

If there were stricter labelling laws e.g. “This product contains HFCS” I think it would help raise awareness and encourage people to choose healthier foods.

That being said, taxing or imposing age limits on such foods would most likely be a waste of time as we can see from tobacco and alcohol: If someone wants something bad enough, they’ll always find a way to get it

Scootdog61 · March 3, 2012, 4:45pm

[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]

Very well put. Just as long as I don’t have to pay for some one health care costs that puts themselves in that situation. There are too many safety nets for those that do damage to themselves. People need to take responsibility for their actions and if eating sugar makes them fat then so be it. Let them pick them selves up and change their life.

Tech_Junkie · March 3, 2012, 5:09pm

[quote]MrChristianB wrote:

That being said, taxing or imposing age limits on such foods would most likely be a waste of time as we can see from tobacco and alcohol: If someone wants something bad enough, they’ll always find a way to get it[/quote]

Exactly

benos4752 · March 3, 2012, 5:25pm

[quote]qsar wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

I think that insurance companies should be able to charge those with bad eating habits more for insurance, instead of passing the buck by raising everyone’s cost…however, who would decide what’s healthy? The USDA? Most of us would be screwed haha

Then you’d have to deal with the bleeding hearts who would say that people were being discriminated against for their weight, eating habits, etc.

bam7196 · March 3, 2012, 5:28pm

People have always looked at the US government’s regulation of some small aspect of daily life and said “IF YOU LET THEM DO THIS THEY WILL INEVITABLY COME AND TAKE ALL OUR RIGHTS AWAY AND JAIL US AND ENSLAVE US AND…”. This should be hyperbole but people buy it.

If you enjoy the standard that mandates that if you were in a car wreck without your wallet and were delivered comatose to an ER that you would still receive all necessary intervention to stabilize you without care for what insurance you carry then issues such as this will never be a simple answer. As stated above, un-insured individuals will continue to eat poorly it seems, will continue to have MIs, Strokes and DKA etc. They will likely not attend primary care, but the ER for care.

A push like this from the government is not a sign of apocalypse. It is a continuing trial-and-error solution to a very complex problem

roybot · March 3, 2012, 10:37pm

[quote]
LUSTIG: That’s a great question, and I can’t tell you the absolute answer, but let me give you a little piece of evolutionary interest. We as human beings really only had sugar available to us one month a year, it’s called harvest time. [/quote]

^This is nonsense. We are opportunistic eaters by nature. Our natural carb intake isn’t regulated by “fruit orgies” one month a year,… Even before agriculture we had more options than fruit-bearing trees. Heck, the article mentions honey! If there is any carry-over from the observations in the article to a taxation of sugar, it’s that people will opportunistically seek out the cheapest source of fix. We’ve already seen this with tobacco and alcohol.

If sugar was taxed, then it would mean that the people they’re trying to save would gravitate towards food choices with even less of the good stuff just to offset the price of the sugar. Some people just don’t live in the real world.

qsar · March 3, 2012, 10:59pm