The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Free Markets hard at work

This distinction exist solely because of Government regulation. Such distinction is also against libertarian ideas.



You accept crack as illegal, but with high fructose syrup you going all "pry from my cold dead hands"? I hope you can see inconsistency?

I do not accept your assessment, because you failed to demonstrate it as such.

I actually don't accept crack as illegal, im just pointing out the difference you asked for. I think we should make it all legal, tax it and use the money saved from the "war on drugs" and the extra taxes to open some rehab centers to help the people who want to get better. The rest of the added savings and/or revenue can help with the deficit.

However, today, crack is illegal and sugar is not. So if you did contaminate the water, you'd likely and up in jail. If not Guantanamo as a terrorist.

Sugar is a necessity for your body, just like other nutrients. I won't dispute that we intake to much, but you can't just ban sugar altogether. Bloomberg is trying something here in NYC, with Soda. So far a Judge shot him down but he is appealing. To be honest I have had very dark thoughts about the mayor since he started this soda ban. You don't have the right to force you views on me, no matter what. End of story.

Whos dodging now?

In all seriousness, instead of descending into all sorts of rhetoric why dont you explain how your proposal is different than the Drug War.

Drug War proponents used empirical data to show that drugs can have a negative macro effect. However, at this point only hard core right wing neocons still really think it was a good idea. And all the govt agencies and private prisons that receive funding in its prosecution, of course.

How is your solution different? Or is it actually not?

If you sell product for consumption that on the spot kills people that consume it, should you be held responsible? What if you put warning label on it?

If you sell product for consumption that gives people that consume it cancer, should you be held responsible? What if you put warning label on it?

If you sell product for consumption that gives people that consume it diabetes, should you be held responsible? What if you put warning label on it?

You havent addressed the question or how you would accomplish your goals.

Your post just now asks rhetorical questions. They are much to vague. There is a lot of gray area there.

Plus in the context of this discussion, you seem to be using "gives" in place of "increases the risk of over an extremely long period of time, particularly in cases of gross over consumption". Which is not the same as "gives"

You have however, as noted, gotten some agreement on the presence of a "problem" as such. What you have yet to address is the solution. The existence of "a" problem does not thereby justify any conceivable solution.

1. Yes, unless there's a label that says Ingestion/Use will result in immediate death. If someone still buys and uses it, well they're a fucking moron we are better off without.

2. Yes, unless there is a label. Then if you use this product and get sick and die, its YOURE OWN FAULT!

3. Yes, unless there's a label. Then it's each individuals.choice to consume.

You can't take away choice from people Sini. You can't force your views on them. You could be 100% logically correct, and if I want to still drink a soda, you had no right to stop me. NONE.

Stubs, what happens when your right to grow obese from drinking gallons of soda infringes on my right not to pay for your healthcare costs through taxes?

Also what about my right to not pay for subsidies to corn so you could gorge yourself to death on cheap high fructose corn syrup?

My answer have not satisfied you before, and set you off on a ideological grandstanding ...

Empirically.

Is X produces greater good? If I can reasonably measure, add up all costs then it should be possible to determine if it should be encouraged or discouraged.

This isn't a novel concept - we have plenty of sin taxes already. Only they are often misapplied on ideological or religious grounds.

Think of liberalism, throw away all dogma and "shoulds" and replace it with "Does it really work" and you can see where I am coming from.

What are effects and costs of subsidizing high fructose corn syrup? Should we end this subsidy and even add tax after balancing the book on it?