Everyday Systems

More Big Brother or do some need the extra push?

Seems to me there are still plenty of people drinking and smoking regardless the amount of tax piled on.....

Some might need the push, but does that mean we should all suffer if we want a treat?

I am not in favor of legislating "Good for your body" ANYTHING. I say this as a non-smoker who detests cigarette smoke and does not like to socialize in smoking environments.

The line between that and "Good for your soul" is far far too fuzzy and at some point that gets evil people like me shot.

I think adults should be free to choose their own damn foolishness.

I'm fine with setting a good example. I'm so TOTALLY fine with making whatever rules you want for your own home.

But I get downright cranky about someone else legislating what I get to do in my house or the rules I make for my children.

No. I don't think so. People just expect there to be safety nets for them provided by someone else.

I think I could make a good case for a sugar tax, especially in countries that have a subsidised health-service.

Here in the UK we have taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol, and there seems to be evidence that price is part of the issue with excessive drinking by some people and price/tax increases are being considered.

Sugar is a dangerous substance (diabetes, insulin resistance etc) when used to excess and a tax to reduce its over-use would have a beneficial effect. In Ireland a small tax on plastic bags has had a drastic effect on their misuse and the litter/pollution problem they caused - where would be the harm in a tax on sugar?

Personally, I do wish there had been a Scandinavian-style tax burden on cigarettes here in the UK - who knows - I might have skipped my heart-attack - especially if there'd been a sugar tax as well.

Graham wrote:I think I could make a good case for a sugar tax, especially in countries that have a subsidised health-service.

Not that I'm trying to start a health care debate, but this is the argument AGAINST subsidized health care by many in the US. It's often poo-pooed by proponents, so I find it interesting that someone who does have subsidized health care is at least moderately in favor of legislating health habits even indirectly.

Just re-visiting the wording of the original question "needed or not?" - reminds me that this is, in the end, a political issue.

I am certain that a sugar tax, if sufficiently heavy to significantly reduce children's and adult's consumption, would save lives and reduce disease - but who is to say if that is "needed"?

Not only the food manufacturers but also the medical establishment will make far less money if sugar consumption is seriously dented - so when we ask "is it needed?" then the answer is probably "That depends on who is asking"

My personal preference is to favour the tax and the public benefit.

I think people will always find the money for the things they crave, at the expense of healthier foods, so in the long run it will be harmful to some.

On the other hand we make our own wine for $3 a bottle, and we definitely drink more than we would if we had to pay $10 a bottle at the liquor store. It would be a once a week treat if we couldn't make our own.

I had a friend who was a pack a day smoker and she always said if the price went to a certain amount (I think it was $5 for 25, I'm in Canada and our tobacco/alcohol taxes are higher than a lot of places) she would quit - it hit $5 and she did indeed quit that day and has never smoked again!