• rambaroo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Cool so when do we start banning junk food? This isn’t a slippery slope argument. I’m using the same logic you’re using against tobacco, except sugar kills more people than tobacco does.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      My intake of sugar has no affect on anyone else.

      Food is a necessity: smoking is not

      Obesity is also more complicated than just sugar. I can only go by personal anecdote here but I struggle with weight issues despite not eating much junk or overly processed food. A sugar tax would affect actual foods but not be sufficient nor even useful toward improving health

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Your intake of sugar absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.

        Sugar doesn’t just cause obesity, it also causes all kinds of cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9775518/

        And sugar is not a necessity. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/

        You will get by just fine without sugar in your diet. I didn’t say we should ban food, I said we should ban sugar. You’re struggling to show me why it’s so different from tobacco.

        The only real differences are 1) everyone loves sugar, so they’ll make up a reason for the double standard and 2) public consumption doesn’t immediately hurt other people. But then I never said I was opposed to banning smoking in public so that’s actually irrelevant.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          No, I’m clearly stating that taxing sugar is neither clear cut nor is it sufficient to be in any way useful.

          – plenty of beneficial foods have sugar, and plenty of harmful foods do not

          – there’s lots of food with negative nutritional value but it’s not just sugar nor can it be clearly distinguished from other foods

          — obesity is more a matter of habits and quantity than one ingredient .

          Yeah it’s satisfying to demonize the hypothetical person who drinks two liter bottles of soda every day but that’s like cutting social programs because “welfare queens” or building a wall because “anchor babies”, or police needing military gear because “gangs”, or election results needing to be overturned because “fraud”. What they all have in common is they’re a target for outrage but not real or not significant.

          I’d be all for a sugar tax if I thought it could be well defined or make a difference, especially if it could make a difference for me. However of all the people I know or have met struggling with weight issues, I don’t recall any being that hypothetical sugar queen, any with any significant sweets habit that would be affected, any that could in any way be changed with this approach

        • nybble41@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Your intake of sugar participation in extreme sports absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.

          It’s not as if there’s some natural law obligating you to pay for anyone else’s health issues. Your government is responsible for externalizing that private cost onto you and others, effectively subsidizing risk-taking and irresponsibility. If you don’t like it, insist that people pay for their own health care and insurance at market rates, without subsidies.