Look at people's dependence on caffeine. And how people talk about how they "haven't had their coffee this morning". And the headaches people get when they don't have it. Most definitely mood altering and dependence forming. Anyone seeing a kid with a little sugar in them knows its impairment abilities as well. Or anyone, adult included, who has had to much sugar and begins to shake. I understand your driving point, and thus a rule not to drink and drive. Rape? ok. Don't know how they regulate against it. But why is there an age limit for alcohol and not coffee, or sugar, etc. Alcohol is regulated to prevent driving, but then also for adults only. And adults clearly don't make great decisions with driving, etc. on it. Why the kid/adult regulation? Why do we let government mandate seat belts. It could save my life. The same way regulating against sugar can. But I don't put anyone else at risk when I don't wear it, just myself. Why make me wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle in some states? Etc. Why tell me what I have to wear(in the car) but allow me to stuff my fat face with shitty sugary soda that so much of this country abuses?
When congress passed legislation requiring that hospitals treated everyone who comes to an ER, health went from being a private issue to a public issue. Somebody has to pay for emergency room visits for those who can't pay. That somebody is either the taxpayer or other patients attending that ER. If you agree that it's ok to stick all of us with poor people's ER bills, don't get mad when we start passing legislation that drives down those bills. Helmet laws, seat belts, soft drink laws, preventative medicine, subsidized birth control--to me it's all about reducing ER visits (and consequently my own overall health care/tax bill). Yeah, it creates more of a nanny state, and a side effect is a limitation on my freedom to not wear a seat belt or eat a 60oz soda. But I feel like it's an acceptable trade off.
I think the difference between sugar/caffeine and alcohol/drugs is clear enough and what they do to people, impairment wise. I mean, neither of the former impair me or anyone else I know. But as to the latter, it's 100% for everyone. As to seat belts, I disagree with the regulation of them. I feel if I want to not wear them (or a helmet on a motorcycle or bike) then that is up to me. If I get injured as a result, then it's on me and I accept the responsibility. Neither plays a factor in harming others. That said, I have no problems regulating infant car seats as it now directly effects the safety of others and people have been known to disregard those rights. Especially coffee, soda and burger consumers, ya know.
I agree that it doesn't impair you like alcohol/drugs. But let me use an anecdote (not good science sorry) to give some sway. I used to drink about 3 or 4 glasses of soda a day. Then I cut back to about once every two weeks, but when I do, I feel pretty sluggish for a few hours. Have you had any similar experience?
The regulation of cigarettes seems to be strictly a health issue, so why not do the same thing on stuff like pop. Tax it sky high and put an age limit on it, take away commercials and advertisements, and make them say there's a chance you'll die of heart disease if you drink the shit by the two liter while sitting on your ass all day.
As a reformed soda drinker (2-3 per day down to 2-3 per week; plus, I've taken out my morning hot Starbucks cocoa) I haven't seen a difference at all except that I think I fall to sleep faster at night if I don't drink a soda after 7PM.
The leading cause of death in the US is Heart Disease, not cancer. Shouldn't we regulate the cause of it? (Not just sugar obviously)
That's an interesting debate. But why tax at all for cigs, booze, soda, pizza, fries...? I mean, let's take this point of view and run the continuum with it... Shoes can be harmful. So do we tax shoes? Many people say meat is harmful. Do we tax all meat? All forms of transportation can be harmful. Do we now tax that? Certain foods like grapefruit, kale... cause medicines to interrupt. Do we tax those? Some people's blood pressure goes up on message boards like this one. Do we tax those? I could go on with hundreds if not thousands of examples. And for some, it always ends in taxes, taxes, taxes. At some point in time, sanity needs to step in. Taxes for anything and everything that could be construed to be potentially harmful and therefore it requires deep taxation just doesn't work for me. It's a slippery slope. Tax income, tax property, tax business, tax imports and have reasonable fees for other things is probably the way I prefer to look at things. But then again, I'm a small government type for the most part.
I think there already taxes on these things. (gas tax/planes tickets and internet fees/taxes) There are certain foods that are clearly going to give the average human a heart attack if you eat them regularly, right? So clearly these foods are harmful, not potentially.
That's true. The point is that once we start taxing everything that may be harmful, where does it all end?
With people regulating the amount of harmful shit they do and/or put into their body because of the financial, as well as physical toll it takes?
I think Mook made a good point. I know it gets bad, and taxing everything harmful is not the answer. But it is an imperfect solution to a serious problem, when not a lot of other solutions have been given.
I find most "where does it all end" type of slippery slope arguments horse shit. If we start outlawing rape, what about people who maybe had bad consensual sex? Should you serve time because you suck at going down on your wife? Where does it end? If we start outlawing robbery, then what happens if you take a pen from the restaurant? Should you get the death penalty? Give me a break. It "ends" where common sense says it should end. We can argue around the edges of common sense, but it ain't that hard. Slippery slope arguments are usually the last resort of people who just don't like something but haven't a good reason to justify it. There is not nor has there ever been an argument that shoes should be taxed because they are dangerous. That's just retarded.
