[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Why would we want to rules peoples lives that way???
From cradle to grave?
If I want to smoke, I smoke. If I want to eat sweet, I eat sweet. If I want to be salty, I'm salty

Go ahead. Just pay your stupid tax for what you are going to cost the healthcare system, and away you go.

I pay for my healthcare... as do you. I also pay for more stuff I do not use.
Also, if you can give me proof that all the tax $$ on cigarettes are used to keep all our healthcare costs down, you have a case.
If you can't, and even 1 dime goes to anything else than healthcare, your argument is bullshit.

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Why would we want to rules peoples lives that way???
From cradle to grave?
If I want to smoke, I smoke. If I want to eat sweet, I eat sweet. If I want to be salty, I'm salty

Go ahead. Just pay your stupid tax for what you are going to cost the healthcare system, and away you go.

Here's a post from a topic I started back in 2008 " Junkfood will become the new tobacco"


alana
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile Send private message

Give good reputation point to alana0 rep pointsGive bad reputation point to alana
Posts: 72
New postPosted: 2008-05-02, 09:55:38 Report this post Reply with quote

Going after 'fat' people will be the next campaign to follow the war against smoking. The lobby groups have to keep coming up with new ways to hang onto their power and their publicly funded, cushy positions.
Their propaganda strategy come straight out of 'Mein Kampf".
It is not possible for anyone to not know that being overweight is unhealthy, or what makes them overweight. So, in my humble opinion, they should live the lifestyles they want. It's nobody else's business.
Yeah, I know! "People who live unhealthy lifestyles are a drain on the health care system".
So what? Will it come to where a person will have to fill out a form explaining how healthily he lives before he can get medical care?
The health care system is for everybody, regardless; everybody does foolish and dangerous things sometimes, that's what makes life worth living.
I wish the health police would leave people the hell alone and get a life of their own!

Then of course there are the topic discussions we had here from 2009 on banning soda pop & sugars as they are unhealthy. of course 'unhealthy' is a subjective term. What 'you' deem as unhealthy may apply to yourself & many others but what about people such as myself who have always partaken in copious amounts of sugar & sweets with no ill effects? Why should we be penalized because assholes won't control their intake of foods & eats that are detrimental to their own well being?

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Actually, there is a fair amount of peer-reviewed research that shows that cigarette taxes did help in reducing smoking:

It's nice to say, but can you offer up any of those papers?

Had you clicked either of the links in my post, you would have seen plenty.

I can lead you to water, but you've got to drink all by yourself.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Taxation isn't the answer or the "silver bullet" because if it was, booze sales would be on the decline. Instead, we're hitting all-time highs in areas like Ontario. Drinking is still very socially acceptable.

I never said that taxes were - and if you had read my entire post, you'd know that.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Education combined with by-laws and taxation have lead to the decline in smoking.

If you didn't bother to read my entire post, that's your mistake, not mine.

[andyt]

Yogi Yogi:

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Why would we want to rules peoples lives that way???
From cradle to grave?
If I want to smoke, I smoke. If I want to eat sweet, I eat sweet. If I want to be salty, I'm salty

Go ahead. Just pay your stupid tax for what you are going to cost the healthcare system, and away you go.

Here's a post from a topic I started back in 2008 " Junkfood will become the new tobacco"


alana
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile Send private message

Give good reputation point to alana0 rep pointsGive bad reputation point to alana
Posts: 72
New postPosted: 2008-05-02, 09:55:38 Report this post Reply with quote

Going after 'fat' people will be the next campaign to follow the war against smoking. The lobby groups have to keep coming up with new ways to hang onto their power and their publicly funded, cushy positions.
Their propaganda strategy come straight out of 'Mein Kampf".
It is not possible for anyone to not know that being overweight is unhealthy, or what makes them overweight. So, in my humble opinion, they should live the lifestyles they want. It's nobody else's business.
Yeah, I know! "People who live unhealthy lifestyles are a drain on the health care system".
So what? Will it come to where a person will have to fill out a form explaining how healthily he lives before he can get medical care?
The health care system is for everybody, regardless; everybody does foolish and dangerous things sometimes, that's what makes life worth living.
I wish the health police would leave people the hell alone and get a life of their own!

Then of course there are the topic discussions we had here from 2009 on banning soda pop & sugars as they are unhealthy. of course 'unhealthy' is a subjective term. What 'you' deem as unhealthy may apply to yourself & many others but what about people such as myself who have always partaken in copious amounts of sugar & sweets with no ill effects? Why should we be penalized because assholes won't control their intake of foods & eats that are detrimental to their own well being?

Nobody has talked about banning pop only adding a 20% tax on it. The horror.

I don't get the freakout on this. Are y'all such sugar junkies that this is going to cost you serious coin? Just how much sugar/pop do you consume that this would make a serious difference to your life?

It's the same bullshit argument about gun control. "I won't kill anybody with my 50 cal machine gun, so I should be able to own one without restriction, even if there's all sorts of numbnuts out there who will." Or the most delusional one "I'm such an ace driver I can do 200kph thru traffic and not cause and accident. Why should I have to restrict my driving because others can't handle speed." And so on. "I'm perfect, so I should be able to do what I want with no cost, even if the same thing caused all kinds of harm to society in general."

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

andyt andyt:

Why would we want to rules peoples lives that way???
From cradle to grave?
If I want to smoke, I smoke. If I want to eat sweet, I eat sweet. If I want to be salty, I'm salty

Go ahead. Just pay your stupid tax for what you are going to cost the healthcare system, and away you go.

Here's a post from a topic I started back in 2008 " Junkfood will become the new tobacco"


alana
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile Send private message

Give good reputation point to alana0 rep pointsGive bad reputation point to alana
Posts: 72
New postPosted: 2008-05-02, 09:55:38 Report this post Reply with quote

Going after 'fat' people will be the next campaign to follow the war against smoking. The lobby groups have to keep coming up with new ways to hang onto their power and their publicly funded, cushy positions.
Their propaganda strategy come straight out of 'Mein Kampf".
It is not possible for anyone to not know that being overweight is unhealthy, or what makes them overweight. So, in my humble opinion, they should live the lifestyles they want. It's nobody else's business.
Yeah, I know! "People who live unhealthy lifestyles are a drain on the health care system".
So what? Will it come to where a person will have to fill out a form explaining how healthily he lives before he can get medical care?
The health care system is for everybody, regardless; everybody does foolish and dangerous things sometimes, that's what makes life worth living.
I wish the health police would leave people the hell alone and get a life of their own!

Then of course there are the topic discussions we had here from 2009 on banning soda pop & sugars as they are unhealthy. of course 'unhealthy' is a subjective term. What 'you' deem as unhealthy may apply to yourself & many others but what about people such as myself who have always partaken in copious amounts of sugar & sweets with no ill effects? Why should we be penalized because assholes won't control their intake of foods & eats that are detrimental to their own well being?[/quote]

Nobody has talked about banning pop only adding a 20% tax on it. The horror.

I don't get the freakout on this. Are y'all such sugar junkies that this is going to cost you serious coin? Just how much sugar/pop do you consume that this would make a serious difference to your life?

It's the same bullshit argument about gun control. "I won't kill anybody with my 50 cal machine gun, so I should be able to own one without restriction, even if there's all sorts of numbnuts out there who will." Or the most delusional one "I'm such an ace driver I can do 200kph thru traffic and not cause and accident. Why should I have to restrict my driving because others can't handle speed." And so on. "I'm perfect, so I should be able to do what I want with no cost, even if the same thing caused all kinds of harm to society in general."[/quote]

And I have no doubts at all that if a 20% tax was to be added to everything that YOU consume or think is ok that you would just go right along with it smilin all the way! That being the case then there ain't no way me or anyone else could logically be against any taxes for any reason. Bring 'em on!

[Winnipegger]

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio pushed a ban on large soda drinks in 2014. He wanted to ban drinks more than 16 ounces (0.5 litres). The court killed it.

My house doesn't have an air conditioner. Winnipeg only gets hot enough to need it 2 weeks per year. I buy slurpees instead. Some people in Winnipeg buy them all year, I only do when it's hot. I kept a "movie" cup, it has a character from a movie that was current at that time. When it's cold it shows one character, it changes to another when it's room temperature. Refills cost less than buying a new cup. It's 1.3 litre. New movie cups are smaller, but still 32 oz (946 ml).

[martin14]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35593007


It's the sugar you never see.


It's been very interesting to watch Slovakia and the other V4 countries.

As they develop and modernize, they have been exposed to Western processed foods,
and Western ways of processing food.
And the result is, they are getting as fat as the West, which was definitely not the
case when I first visited.


Yes it's a UK thing, but I'll bet the numbers are the same in Canada.

$1:

There are "shocking" amounts of sugar in some hot drinks sold in High Street cafes, a campaign group has warned.

Action on Sugar analysed 131 hot drinks and found a third contained at least as much sugar as a can of Pepsi or Coca-Cola, which contains nine teaspoons.

The charity said in some of the worst cases the drinks contained 20 or more teaspoons of sugar.

Coffee shop chains Starbucks and Costa said they were committed to reducing sugar content in their drinks.

The drinks assessed included flavoured coffees such as mochas and lattes, hot fruit drinks and hot chocolates from coffee shops and fast food chains.

The charity found that 98% of the drinks tested would receive a red nutritional value label for high sugar content.

Starbucks' venti Grape with Chai, Orange and Cinnamon Hot Mulled Fruit was found to have the highest sugar content, with 25 teaspoons of sugar per serving, the campaign group said.

Costa's massimo eat-in Chai Latte was found to contain 20 teaspoons of sugar and Starbucks' venti White Chocolate Mocha with Whipped Cream was found to have 18.

KFC's mocha and Starbucks' Signature Hot Chocolate both had 15 teaspoons of sugar per serving while Caffe Nero's drink-in Caramelatte had 13.

You're not supposed to have more than 9 teaspoons of sugar per day.

[andyt]

Yogi Yogi:

And I have no doubts at all that if a 20% tax was to be added to everything that YOU consume or think is ok that you would just go right along with it smilin all the way! That being the case then there ain't no way me or anyone else could logically be against any taxes for any reason. Bring 'em on!

Everything you consume is sugar? Just how bad is your addiction?

[Lemmy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I kept a "movie" cup, it has a character from a movie that was current at that time. It's 1.3 litre. New movie cups are smaller, but still 32 oz (946 ml).

I keep one of them on my fishing boat. Leaning over the gunwale to piss is way too dangerous.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

It's the sugar you never see.

It's been very interesting to watch Slovakia and the other V4 countries.

As they develop and modernize, they have been exposed to Western processed foods,
and Western ways of processing food.
And the result is, they are getting as fat as the West, which was definitely not the
case when I first visited.

Yes it's a UK thing, but I'll bet the numbers are the same in Canada.

$1:

There are "shocking" amounts of sugar in some hot drinks sold in High Street cafes, a campaign group has warned.

Action on Sugar analysed 131 hot drinks and found a third contained at least as much sugar as a can of Pepsi or Coca-Cola, which contains nine teaspoons.

The charity said in some of the worst cases the drinks contained 20 or more teaspoons of sugar.

Coffee shop chains Starbucks and Costa said they were committed to reducing sugar content in their drinks.

The drinks assessed included flavoured coffees such as mochas and lattes, hot fruit drinks and hot chocolates from coffee shops and fast food chains.

The charity found that 98% of the drinks tested would receive a red nutritional value label for high sugar content.

Starbucks' venti Grape with Chai, Orange and Cinnamon Hot Mulled Fruit was found to have the highest sugar content, with 25 teaspoons of sugar per serving, the campaign group said.

Costa's massimo eat-in Chai Latte was found to contain 20 teaspoons of sugar and Starbucks' venti White Chocolate Mocha with Whipped Cream was found to have 18.

KFC's mocha and Starbucks' Signature Hot Chocolate both had 15 teaspoons of sugar per serving while Caffe Nero's drink-in Caramelatte had 13.

You're not supposed to have more than 9 teaspoons of sugar per day.

The same thing is happening in China as they 'Westernize'. Too many studies are saying the effects that sugar has not only on the body, but on the brain, that these effects shouldn't be ignored.

Developmental problems caused by malnutrition in kids is becoming a big problem.
Cheap carbs and high fructose corn syrup actually lead to malnutrition.

Instead of a tax on sugar and cheap carbs, how about ending the farming subsidies that make them so cheap to produce?

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

how about ending the farming subsidies that make them so cheap to produce?

That's what economists have been saying since forever.

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

how about ending the farming subsidies that make them so cheap to produce?

That's what economists have been saying since forever.

No one listens to Economists, just like no one listens to their IT guy.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Instead of a tax on sugar and cheap carbs, how about ending the farming subsidies that make them so cheap to produce?

Except we don't, the states does. Good luck with fighting that lobby. So we have to tax. If the tax brings in enough, we could subsidize fruit and veg, preferably our own industry instead of California.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

roblem.
Instead of a tax on sugar and cheap carbs, how about ending the farming subsidies that make them so cheap to produce?

You would have to do it world wide, and too many vested interests.

Not going to happen.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Instead of a tax on sugar and cheap carbs, how about ending the farming subsidies that make them so cheap to produce?

Except we don't, the states does. Good luck with fighting that lobby. So we have to tax. If the tax brings in enough, we could subsidize fruit and veg, preferably our own industry instead of California.

Sure. Or the politicians simply give themselves a raise, or subsidize the CEO's of big companies who don't need it.

Where do the taxes on cigarettes go now again? Fuel taxes are not making the roads better here either...