[nibs]

It would be easier to make people give up most of their rights and freedoms than it would be to make them stop eating bad food that will make them an expensive burden to the healthcare system. The only solution is to regulate and tax the way cigarettes are. All that Pepsi goes to fund all that diabetes and heart disease. Everyone, including the highly competent managers and researchers at Pepsi, knows it is bad for you. That does not mean no one should work for Philip Morris - it just means there are probably more virtuous ways to spend your time. Ultimately, society will give the people what they want, so we should tax the bad wants.

[Tempest1981]

> there are probably more virtuous ways to spend your time

You reminded me of this phrase:

"Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?"

(Steve Jobs' pitch to Pepsi exec John Sculley)

[Spooky23]

I never understood why it's ok to tax alcohol, and keep the price of sucrose high for Cuban-American farmers, but anti-freedom to tax it's cousin fructose.

[TillE]

The left criticism of sugar taxes is simply that it's a regressive tax, which disproportionately harms poor people. Forcing only certain people to reduce their sugar consumption like this is a bit repulsive.

A lot of policies would make more sense if we had radically different systems in place to mitigate their side effects, but we simply don't. Until then, things like the trans fat ban are solid, fair policies.