(05-24-2019, 10:14 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(05-24-2019, 09:34 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: Glad you love the idea of having your freedom taken away.

I'll be coming to take your wife in a couple hours.

Yes, that's an absurd jump - but it is a slippery slope.

I think my freedom has already been taken away.  Obese people inflict huge costs on society.   And that means they inflict costs on me.  For example, if insurers have to cover pre-existing conditions, what effect do you think that has on health insurance rates?   That's just one example.  If I have to pay the bills for their health problems, shouldn't I have be able to tell them they have to cut their bad habits?

I agree with your premise, in a way, because the same sort of scheme was used to discourage smoking. However, the rise in cigarette prices was coupled with an intensive public education campaign about the health hazards of tobacco. Additionally, a large percentage of tobacco use (before vaping) was conveyed via cigarettes which enabled a sharply focused campaign. 

Sugar, on the other hand, is conveyed in hundreds of different ways. If the government is in the business of regulating sugar intake, then everything from M&Ms to ice cream to Oreo cookies should be taxed heavily as well. If not, it is a punitive measure unfairly aimed at beverage producers and not the myriad other purveyors of sugar.

---