[Melting_Harps]

> I'd bet a dollar per gram additive sugar tax in excess of 5g would immediately flatten the chronic disease curve. Maybe double that if it's marketed towards kids. There are a lot of problems besides sugar/HFCS but it's easily towards the top of the list.

It doesn't, it doesn't even discourage the purchases unless (perhaps?) universally adopted: Boulder, CO has had a sugar tax for a while now, and all it does is punish not curtail the consumer: often the poorer ones most as it accounts for a larger part of their income/wages. If they are so motivated they continue to buy said sugary drink at an inflated price with no benefit, or simply go 6 miles out of town and purchase in bulk if they are committed to said behaviour. I've seen it all too often,and have even managed to 'hack' the system by buying things that contain sugar but somehow flew under the radar (San Peligrino fruit flavored sodas).

It's all just window dressing and shows just how poorly educated the average consumer is in measuring the necessary caloric intake relative to their lifestyle(s), but perhaps more importantly how food has been weaponized, mainly in the US, which has a direct correlation to type 2 diabetes being so prevalent in the first place.

It's hard to blame either or entirely, but I'd saw its a 30:70 with the former and latter respectively.

The truth is I stopped drinking soda after peaking in my early 20s to late teens, I still have a relatively fast metabolism and an active lifestyle to supplement it, but the feeling you get from the sugar high of continued use has gone from energizing back then to feeling ill for hours now.

I occasionally drink soda with specific meals, often for nostalgia to this day, but its hardly a daily or even weekly thing for me anymore.

Ultimately, if your reasoning/logic were true we would see a dramatic drop in fast food consumption due to the higher prices but that simply isn't the case and corps in the fast food industry are reporting record profits YoY in this market despite the increase in price.

I see food the same way I see drugs at this point, both in excess or when misused can be incredibly dangerous, the best a Society can do is to safely regulate and educate it's populace in the pros/cons usage of both: nothing will stop a person from seeking or abusing either if they so desire. And its is a larger loss in agency for said Society to pretend it can as it often leads to draconian measures with no meaningful or effective outcome (eg sugar tax).

In fact having worked in all aspects of the food industry from farm to table for a significant portion of my life, restaurant culture and the art of cuisine/gastronomy wouldn't even be a thing if it weren't for the debauchery and the unruly excess of the clientele who were ready and willing to drop up to a day's wage on a meal(s) and accompanying alcohol were it not for the 'uninhibited decadence'a of the consumer.

[adamc]

I would expect it to work badly whenever a person could easily cross a boundary. In larger cities -- say, New York -- it would suffer similar, but fewer, problems simply because the average effort of getting outside the city would be higher.

You see this between states when tax regimes differ. Sure, those who live near the border "cheat". But most people live far enough away that they are affected by the tax.

There is lots of counter-evidence to your propositions, notably involving the effect of raising prices on cigarettes, which does discourage smoking.

[taeric]

I'm curious if you have data showing this? Last I heard, which a quick google seems to back up, is that Seattle's similar tax had modest benefits. (https://sph.washington.edu/news-events/sph-blog/sugar-sweete...) Took a brief look to see if there were strong challenges to this, but I didn't find anything.

[Melting_Harps]

> I'm curious if you have data showing this?

Regarding the sugar tax? Only empirical/anecdotal, I'm afraid: the fact is, as mentioned in my statement and in a response below, is that it's a geographical based tax, which while annoying can be trivially circumvented. (And even then black-markets emerge to meet that demand, or better known as System-D.)

A better analysis would be the effects of better health and the decrease in tobacco smokers in younger generations over the last decades, which is mainly a product of discretion. I can assure you having lived with a pack a day people no amount of advertising, gross tumor pictures on the side of the box, high costs/taxes came close to people just realizing it's a horrible thing to do to your health.

Arguably this led to the mass vaping trend, and a myriad of other ailments associated to that, but still what remains is that tax while a deterrent is no match for proper market-product-fit--how ever dangerous, or stupid one may think said behavour is.

> There is lots of counter-evidence to your propositions, notably involving the effect of raising prices on cigarettes, which does discourage smoking.

Here is the thing, I spent a lot of time in Europe where smoking is still incredibly prevalent and culturally relevant and the taxes are still incredibly high, the result: people just buy loose tobacco and roll it themselves to bypass the higher tax on pre-roll stuff offered every where.

The ancillary products sold in 'head-shops' become a niche market unto themselves for these people and divert that tax money into another sector, proving that while markets have many flaws they tend to be effective at navigating any and all legislative hurdles even in an incredibly highly regulated market-place.

I think this specific matter seems to be a bigger issue with people who feel the need to judge or deem people's actions 'right or wrong' based on their own subjective values when it comes to personal body autonomy, and think they know better and want to deter them in any way possible which I think this is ultimately what this is about: not Society's health.

If that were the case, I think resources are better utilized in helping people address the MASSIVE mental health crisis in the US.