Chronic Fructose Exposure

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/01/health/opinion-regulate-sugar-alcohol/

In October 2011, Denmark chose to tax foods high in saturated fat, despite the fact that most medical professionals no longer believe that fat is the primary culprit. But now, the country is considering taxing sugar as well — a more plausible and defensible step. Indeed, rather than focusing on fat and salt — the current dietary 'bogeymen' of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the European Food Safety Authority — we believe that attention should be turned to 'added sugar', defined as any sweetener containing the molecule fructose that is added to food in processing.

...

No ordinary commodity
In 2003, social psychologist Thomas Babor and his colleagues published a landmark book called Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, in which they established four criteria, now largely accepted by the public-health community, that justify the regulation of alcohol — unavoidability (or pervasiveness throughout society), toxicity, potential for abuse and negative impact on society2. Sugar meets the same criteria, and we believe that it similarly warrants some form of societal intervention.

First, consider unavoidability. Evolutionarily, sugar was available to our ancestors as fruit for only a few months a year (at harvest time), or as honey, which was guarded by bees. But in recent years, sugar has been added to nearly all processed foods, limiting consumer choice3. Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy. In many parts of the world, people are consuming an average of more than 500 calories per day from added sugar alone (see 'The global sugar glut').

...

Now, let's consider toxicity. A growing body of epidemiological and mechanistic evidence argues that excessive sugar consumption affects human health beyond simply adding calories4. Importantly, sugar induces all of the diseases associated with metabolic syndrome1, 5. This includes: hypertension (fructose increases uric acid, which raises blood pressure); high triglycerides and insulin resistance through synthesis of fat in the liver; diabetes from increased liver glucose production combined with insulin resistance; and the ageing process, caused by damage to lipids, proteins and DNA through non-enzymatic binding of fructose to these molecules. It can also be argued that fructose exerts toxic effects on the liver that are similar to those of alcohol1. This is no surprise, because alcohol is derived from the fermentation of sugar. Some early studies have also linked sugar consumption to human cancer and cognitive decline.

Sugar also has clear potential for abuse. Like tobacco and alcohol, it acts on the brain to encourage subsequent intake. There are now numerous studies examining the dependence-producing properties of sugar in humans6. Specifically, sugar dampens the suppression of the hormone ghrelin, which signals hunger to the brain. It also interferes with the normal transport and signalling of the hormone leptin, which helps to produce the feeling of satiety. And it reduces dopamine signalling in the brain's reward centre, thereby decreasing the pleasure derived from food and compelling the individual to consume more1, 6.

Finally, consider the negative effects of sugar on society. Passive smoking and drink-driving fatalities provided strong arguments for tobacco and alcohol control, respectively. The long-term economic, health-care and human costs of metabolic syndrome place sugar overconsumption in the same category7. The United States spends $65 billion in lost productivity and $150 billion on health-care resources annually for morbidities associated with metabolic syndrome. Seventy-five per cent of all US health-care dollars are now spent on treating these diseases and their resultant disabilities. Because about 25% of military applicants are now rejected for obesity-related reasons, the past three US surgeons general and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have declared obesity a “threat to national security”.

...

Consequently, we propose adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars. This would include sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal. Already, Canada and some European countries impose small additional taxes on some sweetened foods. The United States is currently considering a penny-per-ounce soda tax (about 34 cents per litre), which would raise the price of a can by 10–12 cents. Currently, a US citizen consumes an average of 216 litres of soda per year, of which 58% contains sugar. Taxing at a penny an ounce could provide annual revenue in excess of $45 per capita (roughly $14 billion per year); however, this would be unlikely to reduce total consumption. Statistical modelling suggests that the price would have to double to significantly reduce soda consumption — so a $1 can should cost $2 (ref. 10).

Other successful tobacco- and alcohol-control strategies limit availability, such as reducing the hours that retailers are open, controlling the location and density of retail markets and limiting who can legally purchase the products2, 9. A reasonable parallel for sugar would tighten licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars that sell sugary products in schools and workplaces. Many schools have removed unhealthy fizzy drinks and candy from vending machines, but often replaced them with juice and sports drinks, which also contain added sugar.

Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar, particularly soda.

...

Ultimately, food producers and distributors must reduce the amount of sugar added to foods. But sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change. Although one institution alone can't turn this juggernaut around, the US Food and Drug Administration could “set the table” for change8. To start, it should consider removing fructose from the Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) list, which allows food manufacturers to add unlimited amounts to any food.

This seems entirely reasonable to me, even though I can't judge some of the more complicated health claims. 600+ added sugar calories per day in the US, and that's in the average diet. Much of this kind of legislation is silly but this seems sensible.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why against it? A tax on added sugar and stricter rules for school vending machines. Big deal.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's just dumb. Its nanny-state stuff. A better solution would be better and more accurate health classes. Instead of memorizing body parts in grade school, maybe kids should be taught the fundamentals of a healthy diet. The Food Pyramid is a pretty sad and insufficient level of instruction.

I doubt health classes are effective (I think the article said they weren't though I didn't quote that bit). And they are much more nanny state than a tax.

I don't think the justification is even about looking after individuals--the billions in health care and the army rejections seem like enough.

[Strike For The South]

regulate it now or pay for it later

Granted I'm a guy who wants health care from the gummint

[CountArach]

It's just dumb. Its nanny-state stuff. A better solution would be better and more accurate health classes. Instead of memorizing body parts in grade school, maybe kids should be taught the fundamentals of a healthy diet. The Food Pyramid is a pretty sad and insufficient level of instruction.
You can't have a double standard of teaching them a healthy diet while simultaneously making readily and cheaply available junk food that goes against everything you just taught them. It makes no sense.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You can't have a double standard of teaching them a healthy diet while simultaneously making readily and cheaply available junk food that goes against everything you just taught them. It makes no sense.
:inquisitive:
It's called freedom.

CR

[CountArach]

:inquisitive:
It's called freedom.

CR
So we should allow children who don't know any better to continue to eat foods that are doing them harm for a vague notion of what constitutes freedom? By the exact same argument we could do away with a legal drinking age.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

:inquisitive:
It's called freedom.

CR

Err, we're talking about public schools for children CR. Where they have to ask permission to go to the bathroom and get sent to detention if they don't.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So we should allow children who don't know any better to continue to eat foods that are doing them harm for a vague notion of what constitutes freedom? By the exact same argument we could do away with a legal drinking age.

Ah, it seems we might not be on the same page regarding the plan of action we're each talking about. The article mentions changing federal regulations and adding taxes. If public schools decide not to sell high-sugar food for lunch or in snack machines that's fine by me.

CR

[CountArach]

Ah, it seems we might not be on the same page regarding the plan of action we're each talking about. The article mentions changing federal regulations and adding taxes. If public schools decide not to sell high-sugar food for lunch or in snack machines that's fine by me.

CR
Alright I understand and that sounds more in line with what I thought you'd be saying. I disagree in regards to the taxation and federal regulation, but I don't think that is an immense shock to either of us.

[Montmorency]

Excessive cigarette and alcohol taxes are just as dumb--they harm the industry and hurt the consumers who are going to buy the stuff anyway just so that self-righteous types can feel better about themselves.

Tax revenue. I hear there's a hole in the UK's coffers because people are smoking and drinking much less.

[CountArach]

Rather, I think its just feel-good-measures gone horribly, horribly wrong. The cigarette companies don't suffer for this, because we're going to buy our damned smokes anyway. It just hurts people who smoke. Aren't all the freaking public smoking laws enough? Aargh. Gah.
As an asthmatic who struggles to breath if I so much as walk past someone smoking, no they aren't enough.

Excessive cigarette and alcohol taxes are just as dumb--they harm the industry and hurt the consumers who are going to buy the stuff anyway just so that self-righteous types can feel better about themselves.

The industry might care, but you're probably still going to buy the products that get price-jacked. The only person that gets hurt by measures like these are the consumers.
Can you please reconcile these two statements?

[naut]

If the kiddies want cake, give them cake.


Ah, it seems we might not be on the same page regarding the plan of action we're each talking about. The article mentions changing federal regulations and adding taxes. If public schools decide not to sell high-sugar food for lunch or in snack machines that's fine by me.
Aye.

[gaelic cowboy]

Since the price of sugars fats an salts is relitively low taxing the consumer wont stop manufacturers using same, and since the largest ammounts are used in cheaper foodstuffs it will inevitably fall on the poorer members of society.

Adding tax to the cake mix (pun intended) will not reduce the level of sugar in food unless we put it back down the line onto the producer.

Like charging for excess baggage the manufacturer then has a choice to use sugar, fat and salt in there products or not.

By forcing the producer to pay more for sending it out the door the price will inevitably rise or the producer will reduce his sugar use.(in theory)


Personaly I would prefer setting actual amounts of sugars, salts etc in foodstuff rather than taxing them.

Were just allowing manufacturers to just pay a tax and bung in a much as they like, the profit motive will encourage them to find methods that allow them to afford the tax through lower production cost.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is an issue that should be solved through social awareness, not taxation. Such taxation schemes disproportionately hurt the poor.

[gaelic cowboy]

This is an issue that should be solved through social awareness, not taxation. Such taxation schemes disproportionately hurt the poor.

To create the social awarness you will have to spend money on various programmes in school and in society at large to get the message out.

Unfortunately in most countries these will be immediately attacked as evidence of "Big Guvmint go mad" the temptation will be to row back eventually and lose the gains.

Setting actual targets for producers to fulfill will be more likely to sort this problem.

[Andres]

If there exists public healthcare and everybody can benefit from it regardless of lifestyle, then it seems pretty normal to me that living unhealthy is taxed.

Indeed, living unhealthy and then let society pay for your treatments is pretty selfish. Taxing sounds perfectly reasonable.

However, if there doesn't exist something like public healthcare worthy of the name public healthcare, then why taxing? If everybody pays for his own healthcare, then the guy eating 10 hamburgers a day and smoking 2 packs a day, will have to pay a lot more for his personal healthcare (or he'll die young) and, assuming public healthcare is non existant, he'll pay for it himself. So the healthy guy doesn't feel any negative consequences of his neighbours' unhealthy lifestyle.

How good is your public healthcare? If you tax the unhealthy lifestyle, then you need to get better public healthcare in return. If there's no such thing as public healthcare, then why should you have to pay taxes on a unhealthy lifestyle, since you'll take care yourself of the funding of the treatment your lifestyle will one day force you to get.

[PanzerJaeger]

To create the social awarness you will have to spend money on various programmes in school and in society at large to get the message out.

Unfortunately in most countries these will be immediately attacked as evidence of "Big Guvmint go mad" the temptation will be to row back eventually and lose the gains.

Not at all. America was very successful in greatly reducing smoking habits through public awareness campaigns - many of them privately funded. Today, those who choose to smoke are educated as to the risks. Taxes and fees, whether on manufacturers or consumers, have had more questionable results.

Today, most parents don't know the extent of health issues associated with sugar intake. Educate them, and most will act in the best interests of their children.


Setting actual targets for producers to fulfill will be more likely to sort this problem.

Or they will simply push higher prices on to the consumer as is common when new fees are levied by the government for whatever reason.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's just dumb. Its nanny-state stuff. A better solution would be better and more accurate health classes. Instead of memorizing body parts in grade school, maybe kids should be taught the fundamentals of a healthy diet. The Food Pyramid is a pretty sad and insufficient level of instruction.

It's a public health issue, that makes it the concern of the government, ergo you regulate.

It's a simple sum, and one that every Western country outside the US does regularly without issue.

The US also produces some wierd food, from orange "chedder" cheese to "fruit cups". Fruit Juice is on the list as having added sugar there, but fruit juices are already mostly sugar.

I'm not against outright bans, generally speaking, but in some cases the problem is so severe that you need draconian corrective action - and diet is a worse problem in the US than any other developed country.

[gaelic cowboy]

Andres if you take a Darwinian view of this you problem then you will not solve it EVER.

Even people who think there are engaging in healthy eating are actually ingesting far too much sugars, fats an salts etc.

The profit motive to use them is too high so you need to curb it somehow, limits on amounts put in food seems fairer to me.

Initially the poor would suffer due to higher production costs but the motive of manufacturers to reduce there own costs while not incurring sanctions would eventually bring back down the cost for healthier alternatives.

[gaelic cowboy]

Or they will simply push higher prices on to the consumer as is common when new fees are levied by the government for whatever reason.


Possibly

but we know for sure that poor people only buy what eat cos they can afford it, the reason there is cos sugar an salt are cheap and help bulk up the foods.

producers must be incentivised to reduce there reliance on these particular ingredients, eventually the costs would come down as manufacturers compete for the poor mans belly.

At least thats the theory anyway


Of course it could all backfire with higher costs but thats hardly worse than the status quo.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Simply placing a heavier tax on sugary/unhealthy foods is unlikely to actually change peoples eating habits, and just like the taxes on cigarettes, will end up placing an unfair burden on poorer people (since they tend to have less healthy lifestyles).

If you make unhealthy foods more expensive the people that already eat them will continue to do so, they will just eat less of them. Which isn't really a healthier option. We always talk about obesity but I remember reading somewhere (sorry for being vague) that the number of children in the UK being treated for malnutrition and even diseases like scurvy is skyrocketing.

Why? IMO it is because eating habits are something that are very hard to change. People that are used to junk food will crave it. Junk food is so easy to prepare and people tend to have busier lifestyles these days. Plus the fact that cooking skills haven't been passed down to the current parenting generation. Not to mention that its much easier to go to the supermarket and do one big shopping trip and store lots of junk away in the freezer than it is to make daily trips to the local fruit & veg store/butcher/fishmonger (and such places often don't exist in many towns).

We have a whole culture that makes eating unhealthy 100x easier than eating healthy. Heavier tax isn't going to change that and it would be a really unfair burden to put on people at a time like this.

Now of course I know something still needs to be done because it is a real problem. I'm not sure I have any good suggestions but providing healthier school meals seems like it would be a good start. Lunch is one of the two big meals a day so that would mean that right away all children would be getting 50% healthy meals five days out of every seven.

[Sarmatian]

Would be nice if some of that extra revenue from taxing sugar would go to subsidizing healthier food.

[CountArach]

Would be nice if some of that extra revenue from taxing sugar would go to subsidizing healthier food.
That would be ideal. If you raise taxes on these foods and then spend the revenue on awareness campaigns then the problem will slowly solve itself.

Are we going to argue semantics or are we going to argue my point that these measures are vindictive and counter-productive?
The problem with the comparison you are drawing (cigarettes) is that cigarettes are actually addictive, whereas fast food (as an example, and except in extreme cases) is not. Taxation here acts as more of a disincentive for continuing eating habits than it does in continuing to smoke because there is no addictive element. If you show people that they can save money and eat healthier at the same time, without a great deal of effort in terms of cooking or buying different products, then the higher taxation has done its job. A far more apt comparison would be starting smoking and eating junk food, where the disincentivising aspect of higher taxation on cigarettes can more fully come into effect. Of course cigarettes have other social issues in terms of beginning so any comparison there is tenuous at best, but the point stands.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not at all. America was very successful in greatly reducing smoking habits through public awareness campaigns - many of them privately funded. Today, those who choose to smoke are educated as to the risks. Taxes and fees, whether on manufacturers or consumers, have had more questionable results.

Today, most parents don't know the extent of health issues associated with sugar intake. Educate them, and most will act in the best interests of their children.





One thing that struck me is it was probably easier to educate people to the danger of smoking as they could just push the idea of quitting to increase lifespan.

But unhealthy eating is more complicated and requires a broader approach than simply quiting etc.

There can be more factors in the calculation and as a result more outcomes, you might not be obese but you could be eating unhealthily just the same.

Since we are the majority of us separated from the means of producing our own food we rely on the manufacturer to a massive degree, unfortunately thats where the problems starts. We both of us have different motives I want cheap food to eat but the manufacturer want to sell more produce, sugar and salt reduce cost and increase sales.

We have to be seen as serious that we want less of this stuff in our food, they wont change the recipe until we force them too.

[Kagemusha]

We already have a makeisvero aka "sweet´s tax". It started last year and is pointed towards, sweet´s, chocolate, ice cream and soda´s. Its too early to say what the effect will be, but if it has negative impact for consumption of sugary products, thats just fine.

[Strike For The South]

bad food is cheap and most Americans don't know what real food is.

Portion size is another problem

[gaelic cowboy]

bad food is cheap and most Americans don't know what real food is.

Portion size is another problem

When I holidayed in America a while back I nearly died from the hunger the food really put me off the place.

It was the same idea of meat and two veg just like home so it was, but it was all just far too sweet or too fatty or too big to be honest.



Once some lunatic got me to try a Country Fried Steak in Iowa I still wake at night from the horror of that plate.


I started in Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota and lastly back through Minnesota an Wisconsin, I figure I got a good picture of the culinary delights of the American heartland

If that was any indication of the nation as a whole then the heart and belly size are in serious danger in the US of A.

You know things are bad when your food is considered fattening by people who eat breakfast rolls and swamp pints.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Simply placing a heavier tax on sugary/unhealthy foods is unlikely to actually change peoples eating habits, and just like the taxes on cigarettes, will end up placing an unfair burden on poorer people (since they tend to have less healthy lifestyles).

If you make unhealthy foods more expensive the people that already eat them will continue to do so, they will just eat less of them.

That's not remotely unfair. And you know...people eating less unhealthy food...eating too much is what leads to health problems...


And ideally, the producers drop the sugar content to lower their prices back to normal.

With sugary food, the level of sweetness that tastes good depends on what you are accustomed too. Possibly it would even taste just as good once we got used to the lower level...

[rory_20_uk]

There are other sweeteners that can be used instead of fructose, most have different advantages and disadvantages. Usually ta disadvantage is cost, but an initial cross subsidy would help nudge this change along.

~:smoking:

[Kagemusha]

I have been using Stevia for couple years now and it can completely replace sugar as added sweetener for example to Tea of Cacao the thing is that one has to be careful as it is 300 times sweeter then sugar. But if i remember correctly Stevia is not sold all around the world as in some countries it has been hard to get approval from the health officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

[rory_20_uk]

The access is improving. I got some yesterday as it happens as I thought I'd give it a try.

At the moment it is frankly too expensive for what it is - most of the time I'll just go without sugar altogether. But as a concept to replace sugar in pre-prepared foodstuffs / sweets it seems very positive.

Long term risks aren't known? Well, we know the long term risks of sugar, and they are pretty lethal.

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

bad food is cheap and most Americans don't know what real food is.

Portion size is another problemThank God we have you to set us straight.....


Inform people, don't regulate it. And let local school districts decide for themselves what food they offer their children. It's none of our business. Let's remember that it was government meddling (corn subsidies) that we have to thank for the copious amounts of sweeteners (HFCS) in American food today. Let's not compound that error.

[rvg]

...Inform people, don't regulate it. And let local school districts decide for themselves what food they offer their children. It's none of our business. Let's remember that it was government meddling (corn subsidies) that we have to thank for the copious amounts of sweeteners (HFCS) in American food today. Let's not compound that error.

Couldn't agree more. We need neither lunch police nor Lard Czar.

[Kagemusha]

The access is improving. I got some yesterday as it happens as I thought I'd give it a try.

At the moment it is frankly too expensive for what it is - most of the time I'll just go without sugar altogether. But as a concept to replace sugar in pre-prepared foodstuffs / sweets it seems very positive.

Long term risks aren't known? Well, we know the long term risks of sugar, and they are pretty lethal.

~:smoking:

It has been used to large extent in Japan for more then 40 years without discovering pretty much anything.The thing with Stevia is that it doesnt have the calory input anywhere near sugar.Its composition is entirely different.

[gaelic cowboy]

It has been used to large extent in Japan for more then 40 years without discovering pretty much anything.The thing with Stevia is that it doesnt have the calory input anywhere near sugar.Its composition is entirely different.


Your brain is not fooled by artificial sweetners or special low fat alternatives, you will merely end up eating something else through a craving or the body will slip into starvation mode and retain calories.

your better off actually actually eating that piece of normal fattening cake (just not a massive pile of it or everyday obviously).

[Kagemusha]

Your brain is not fooled by artificial sweetners or special low fat alternatives, you will merely end up eating something else through a craving or the body will slip into starvation mode and retain calories.

your better off actually actually eating that piece of normal fattening cake (just not a massive pile of it or everyday obviously).

Stevia is not artificial sweetener.Read the wiki link. Its natural product just as sugar, just lot more sweeter.

[drone]

I'd love to see a good set of statistics on just how much the cost of cigarettes is impacted by the taxes. I'd be willing to wager a pack of Newports that more than half of what I pay for a pack is taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States

According to wiki, the federal excise tax is $1.01 per pack. Oregon adds $1.18 per pack, not including sales tax or local taxes.


Although some believe that taxes constitute a disproportionate percentage of the retail price of cigarettes, data show that while the price of cigarettes has continuously increased since 1965, the percentage of that price going towards taxes is now half of what it was then. While tobacco companies complain about the $1.01 cigarette tax, Phillip Morris, Reynolds American, and Lorillard have all increased their prices by almost $1.00 per pack on their own. Phillip Morris currently lists all taxes, including federal, state, local, and sales taxes, as 56.6% of the total cost of a pack of cigarettes

[gaelic cowboy]

Stevia is not artificial sweetener.Read the wiki link. Its natural product just as sugar, just lot more sweeter.

As long as the brain knows the difference it wont matter and the brain is very very clever at figuring out it has been fooled with sugar substitute's.

Part of the reason many diet product's fail is the brain knows there is no sugar in it, even though sometimes it taste's to the tongue effectively sweeter.

If the product taste's sweeter but then the body does not get a big dose of sugar it will look for alternative sources.



Sure this stevia could be a panacea but unless it has actual sugar in it I would not be convinced.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Inform people, don't regulate it. And let local school districts decide for themselves what food they offer their children. It's none of our business. Let's remember that it was government meddling (corn subsidies) that we have to thank for the copious amounts of sweeteners (HFCS) in American food today. Let's not compound that error.I have a few complaints about this. Despite the problems that current corn subidies present, the alternative policies from before the 1970s were worse. Subsidies for corn allows for US farmers to stay in the game, which means our population is not dependent on foreign food despite the fact that food is cheaper when produced elseware. That problem has been around since at least the 1800s if I remember correctly but has now been resolved and has in turn maintained an entire culture of agriculture which also helps support technological progress in the field. Midwest universities generally have very good agricultural programs again, if I remember correctly. Thus I feel these subsidies are needed and a net positive to Americans. The issue of sweeteners is only a problem for the lazy. I go out every week shopping on a budget and I take pride in the fact that as long as I can find time to cook, I don't need to eat unhealthy items. Potatoes, fruits and vegetables are not as prohibitively expensive as people claim, the food prep time is where people fall apart and cave into convenience foods.Therefore, education is not a solution since you can't educate someone to not be lazy, at least for non children. You must put up some sort of artificial incentive to get people back to eating proper foods again. Forcing health school lunches imo is more justifiable on other grounds, so I will leave that be.

[Ironside]

As long as the brain knows the difference it wont matter and the brain is very very clever at figuring out it has been fooled with sugar substitute's.

Part of the reason many diet product's fail is the brain knows there is no sugar in it, even though sometimes it taste's to the tongue effectively sweeter.

If the product taste's sweeter but then the body does not get a big dose of sugar it will look for alternative sources.

Sure this stevia could be a panacea but unless it has actual sugar in it I would not be convinced.

It's very nice that the body doesn't really need sugar then don't you think? Sugar wasn't common until it started to be refined (seventeenth century, iirc).


I'd love to see a good set of statistics on just how much the cost of cigarettes is impacted by the taxes. I'd be willing to wager a pack of Newports that more than half of what I pay for a pack is taxes.

If the prices would double, would you consider reducing the amount you smoke?
I'm mostly curious here on why some people suddenly insists that prices has no influence on buying habits.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree about the smoking taxes...but sugar seems different here. Maybe not.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Why? It can be argued fairly straightforwardly that by smoking you are actively putting other people's health at risk, so it is entirely fair for the state to dissuade people from smoking and getting their nicotine fix in some other way. We arrive at the taxes through process of elimination: you don't want to ban it outright, but pushing prices up tends to work rather well because the value of the smoke is nowhere near what it is being pushed at -- not even to the addict.

Now let me try and make the same argument for sugar. Ehrm... doesn't seem possible ?

Meanwhile if the real issue is just being ill informed, then that is solved much more effectively through food-ed, just like the issue of teenage pregnancy and STDs is tackled best by sex-ed and specifically the bit about contraceptives & rubbers.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You really don't want to go the "putting other peoples health at risk" route though. And it's quite absurd for smoking--don't hang around smokers if you worry about second hand smoke. And it's the smokers choice to smoke if they want to.

The thing about sugar has to do with the public funds in health care. Not a factor for smoking since they die before collecting much social security.

I don't get what you are basing the stuff about education on. Why would you imagine it would be effective for sugar? Is there any evidence of it being effective? The article said it wasn't.

I'd be interested to taste half-sugar coke. I think with sugar whether something tastes too sweet or not sweet enough depends on what you are used too. Quite possibly if we all drank half-sugar coke we'd prefer it to the current coke.

[drone]

I'd be interested to taste half-sugar coke. I think with sugar whether something tastes too sweet or not sweet enough depends on what you are used too. Quite possibly if we all drank half-sugar coke we'd prefer it to the current coke.
Costco sells imported Mexican CocaCola, which has regular sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. You can definitely tell the difference in sweetness, they have kicked it up with the HFCS. The regular sugar Coke is a mellower flavor as well, when I go back to HFCS Coke it has a chemical taste to it. They could probably reduce the HFCS needed in the current recipe (and thereby reduce the calories), but I'm sure marketing has told them to make it as sweet as possible for the kids.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You really don't want to go the "putting other peoples health at risk" route though. And it's quite absurd for smoking--don't hang around smokers if you worry about second hand smoke. And it's the smokers choice to smoke if they want to.

What route do you want to go, though? I mean, really, the “societal cost” is irrelevant when comparing smoke with sugar. Like for like. People who die of lung cancer first tend to cost you a lot of treatment, too. Not to mention that the second hand smoke thing might actually cost, too.

Ask Rory or Count Arach about how relevant the “avoid the smokers” argument is. Not at all would be my guess. Yes it's the smokers choice to smoke on the platform before the train. It's not actually the non-smokers choice among the waiting crowd to inhale the dispersed smoke, though. Similar thing for workplaces, streets...

Yes I agree there's a balance to be struck, etc, and the rest of it.

But that's not the point. The point is that any argument you care to make about why the state should get in on the sugar regulation act can be made about smoking, too. Hence my question: why do you support the regulating & taxation for sugar but not for smokes?


I don't get what you are basing the stuff about education on. Why would you imagine it would be effective for sugar?
Just a what-if, but good to know ill informed people aren't the problem then. That should make things easier, as the first step is always to get the word out so to speak.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Costco sells imported Mexican CocaCola, which has regular sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. You can definitely tell the difference in sweetness, they have kicked it up with the HFCS. The regular sugar Coke is a mellower flavor as well, when I go back to HFCS Coke it has a chemical taste to it. They could probably reduce the HFCS needed in the current recipe (and thereby reduce the calories), but I'm sure marketing has told them to make it as sweet as possible for the kids.

I feel like with a bit of tax they would just lower the sugar content...and it would taste just as good or better. Win win.


What route do you want to go, though? I mean, really, the “societal cost” is irrelevant when comparing smoke with sugar. Like for like. People who die of lung cancer first tend to cost you a lot of treatment, too. Not to mention that the second hand smoke thing might actually cost, too.

They don't collect much social security though. IIRC smokers put more in then they take out. If they did have significant costs the taxes would be justified.


Ask Rory or Count Arach about how relevant the “avoid the smokers” argument is. Not at all would be my guess. Yes it's the smokers choice to smoke on the platform before the train. It's not actually the non-smokers choice among the waiting crowd to inhale the dispersed smoke, though. Similar thing for workplaces, streets...

Yes I agree there's a balance to be struck, etc, and the rest of it.

I'm really skeptical that a few minutes of second hand smoke does diddly. Or any outside smoking. We know it slightly increases the risks for spouses and workplaces, and I could believe bars too. But at a certain point it is just people on a good old fashioned crusade. There is even "third hand smoking" they say.

Perfume and deodorant odors give some people headaches and migraines. You can get sick from touching door handles. We can't each have our own bubble in public places.


The point is that any argument you care to make about why the state should get in on the sugar regulation act can be made about smoking, too. Hence my question: why do you support the regulating & taxation for sugar but not for smokes?

I think libertarian/paternalism type arguments are very tricky and you shouldn't worry too much about contradicting yourself because of some principle you were working off of. Mainly I think the attacks on smoking are a wussy crusade by people who just can't stand the idea that other people smoke. While with sugar there is the public health cost and I do believe the food would taste as good or better to us with less added sugar.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm really skeptical that a few minutes of second hand smoke does diddly. Or any outside smoking. We know it slightly increases the risks for spouses and workplaces, and I could believe bars too. But at a certain point it is just people on a good old fashioned crusade. There is even "third hand smoking" they say.

Perfume and deodorant odors give some people headaches and migraines. You can get sick from touching door handles. We can't each have our own bubble in public places. Oh, I quite agree there. That was never contested.



I think libertarian/paternalism type arguments are very tricky and you shouldn't worry too much about contradicting yourself because of some principle you were working off of. Mainly I think the attacks on smoking are a wussy crusade by people who just can't stand the idea that other people smoke. While with sugar there is the public health cost and I do believe the food would taste as good or better to us with less added sugar.

Okay, that's fair enough.

[Xiahou]

The thing about sugar has to do with the public funds in health care. Not a factor for smoking since they die before collecting much social security.That's nonsense. How many life-long smokers are now on Medicare and toting around oxygen tanks to treat their emphysema? What are the treatment costs of lung cancer?

Arguing that sugar needs regulated because of public health costs, but smoking is just a personal choice is ridiculous.


I'd be interested to taste half-sugar coke. I think with sugar whether something tastes too sweet or not sweet enough depends on what you are used too. Quite possibly if we all drank half-sugar coke we'd prefer it to the current coke. I think a half-sugar coke would be half-empty. :smiley: Seriously, sugar is one of the main ingredients- take it out and there isn't much left. You're better off just drinking half as much..... maybe we could pass a law mandating that.....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's nonsense. How many life-long smokers are now on Medicare and toting around oxygen tanks to treat their emphysema? What are the treatment costs of lung cancer?

Arguing that sugar needs regulated because of public health costs, but smoking is just a personal choice is ridiculous.

Read em and weep!


Abstract:
Our paper is an examination of the Social Security cost of smoking from an individual point of view. It is well known that smokers have a shorter life expectancy than nonsmokers. This means that by smoking they are giving up potential Social Security benefits. We estimate this cost and consider the effects on the system as a whole. We use mortality ratios, which relate the annual death probabilities of smokers and nonsmokers, and the percentage of smokers in each age group to break down the life tables for men and women born in 1920 into the approximate life tables for smokers and nonsmokers. We then calculate expected Social Security taxes and benefits for each group, using median earnings as a base. We find that smoking costs men about $20,000 and women about $10,000 in expected net benefits. The implication of this for the system as a whole is that the prevalence of smoking has a direct effect on the financial viability of the system; every decrease in the number of smokers in society increases the system's liability. Changes in smoking behavior should be recognized as affecting the system.



Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.

We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs - one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.

Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.


If there was a net cost, the taxes on the cigarettes should only be enough to match up to that cost. Why should we have "sin taxes"?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That Mexican Coke is addictive.

[Tuuvi]

That Mexican Coke is addictive.

But doesn't it make you feel kinda guilty knowing you're responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Mexican children?

[a completely inoffensive name]

But doesn't it make you feel kinda guilty knowing you're responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Mexican children?

Not if from a utilitarian position I can successfully argue that more pleasure was derived from the coke than if the kids were not killed.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's very nice that the body doesn't really need sugar then don't you think? Sugar wasn't common until it started to be refined (seventeenth century, iirc).

We have always eaten sugar we just didnt realise it was there as a part of other foodstuffs such as fruits etc etc.

[Kagemusha]

We have always eaten sugar we just didnt realise it was there as a part of other foodstuffs such as fruits etc etc.

And we have always eaten fruits? Are you trying to say that we are not anymore talking about fructose like OP or Carbohydrates in general?

[gaelic cowboy]

And we have always eaten fruits? Are you trying to say that we are not anymore talking about fructose like OP or Carbohydrates in general?

Your missing the point frutose is a type of sugar just because the majority of sugar today is refined does not mean refined sugar is somehow new to our bodies.

If we mess around and eat prepared foods which do not have sugars in them but instead use a substitute your brain is not fooled into thinking it got some sugar.

Sugar substitutes dont work they never have, we just end up seeking the sugar hit elsewhere.

[Kagemusha]

Your missing the point frutose is a type of sugar just because the majority of sugar today is refined does not mean refined sugar is somehow new to our bodies.

If we mess around and eat prepared foods which do not have sugars in them but instead use a substitute your brain is not fooled into thinking it got some sugar.

Sugar substitutes dont work they never have, we just end up seeking the sugar hit elsewhere.

You are missing the point that we have absolutely no need for fructose. We need some amount of carbohydrates to keep on rolling, but fructose is not in any way vital to our survival. The sugar hit you are talking about is only needed if you are addicted to fructose like many people these days are.

[gaelic cowboy]

You are missing the point that we have absolutely no need for fructose. We need some amount of carbohydrates to keep on rolling, but fructose is not in any way vital to our survival. The sugar hit you are talking about is only needed if you are addicted to fructose like many people these days are.

I think your msitaking HFCS with Fructose the former is a conbination of glucose and frutose, HFCS may be bad for us but thats merely because of the level of dosage.

Even hunter gathers would have consumed what is effectively HFCS if the ate some berries with a bit of grain.


I was trying to make the point obviously poorly earlier that removal of sugar from food does not work.

Now if were talking dosage thats different, on that point we agree we do eat too much sugar.

[Kagemusha]

I think your msitaking HFCS with Fructose the former is a conbination of glucose and frutose, HFCS may be bad for us but thats merely because of the level of dosage.

Even hunter gathers would have consumed what is effectively HFCS if the ate some berries with a bit of grain.

Aand that has nothing to do with sugar rush.We are talking now about candy,chocolate and soda´s.There is nothing that forces us to have such stuff in our diet or added sugar in it.

[gaelic cowboy]

Aand that has nothing to do with sugar rush.We are talking now about candy,chocolate and soda´s.There is nothing that forces us to have such stuff in our diet or added sugar in it.

No were talking about all foods Kage, the ammount of what we might consider "good food" with high levels of sugars in them is astonishing.

Effectively we rely on someone else to feed us and because the various sugars, salts and fats are cheap they bulk up foods nicely, this helps manufacturers reduce there production costs and increase there sales volumes which increases profit.

We then get these arguements that we should remove or replace sugar altogether, basically I believe it's not a good idea instead we should force the manufacturers to reduce the levels.

Replacement or removal wont work we wont be fooled by it, only reduction will hopefully work as we become used to lower levels of sugars. Admittedly there is a possibility people would probably compensate by eating more food at first but thats easier solved with less addivtive sugar in it.

Plus since this is about poor people they wont be able to increase there eating by much more in order to eat so they get less sugar by default.

[Kagemusha]

No were talking about all foods Kage, the ammount of what we might consider "good food" with high levels of sugars in them is astonishing.

Effectively we rely on someone else to feed us and because the various sugars, salts and fats are cheap they bulk up foods nicely, this helps manufacturers reduce there production costs and increase there sales volumes which increases profit.

We then get these arguements that we should remove or replace sugar altogether, basically I believe it's not a good idea instead we should force the manufacturers to reduce the levels.

Replacement or removal wont work we wont be fooled by it, only reduction will hopefully work as we become used to lower levels of sugars. Admittedly there is a possibility people would probably compensate by eating more food at first but thats easier solved with less addivtive sugar in it.

Plus since this is about poor people they wont be able to increase there eating by much more in order to eat so they get less sugar by default.

Some of us eat prepared meals.Some of us cook our own food. If you depend upon processed crap.Its your own choice.:yes:

[rory_20_uk]

Seeing as how the cost per head in America for Healthcare is arguably greater than the cost per head for the NHS (even allowing for the fact it does not cover everyone) cutting down on this would reduce the costs down the line from such illnesses as metabolic syndrome and diabetes.

~:smoking:

[Ironside]

We have always eaten sugar we just didnt realise it was there as a part of other foodstuffs such as fruits etc etc.

You know why you need to brush your teeth every day? Because someone invented refined sugar that you could put in foodstuffs.

Sugar is a tiny bit more common today.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seeing as how the cost per head in America for Healthcare is arguably greater than the cost per head for the NHS (even allowing for the fact it does not cover everyone) cutting down on this would reduce the costs down the line from such illnesses as metabolic syndrome and diabetes.

~:smoking:

16% of GDP and rising, vs 8% of GDP and not really rising.

[Papewaio]

Our brains need some sugar to function. However I do not know of any hunter gatherers who just ate fruit all year round.

I wonder how many apples you'd have to eat to get the same sugar load as a can of soda?

[Tellos Athenaios]

I wonder how many apples you'd have to eat to get the same sugar load as a can of soda?

Not that many seeing as how most races are selected for sugar content... one apple a day might keep the doctor at bay but it will no longer save you from the dentist.

[Subotan]

Looks like it's time to unleash some Economics 101 on y'all.

*Cracks fingers*

The key concept here is one of externality. An externality is a cost/benefit incurred by an third party to an economic transaction. So, a positive externality (or public good - I'll explain why in a second) might be a well-educated workforce, as even if you're a idiot dirtfaming peasant, your standard of living will be higher if everybody else is more productive - without paying a single cent towards their education. Conversely, a negative externality is something like pollution - when you drive your car, you don't pay for the costs that your pollution has upon asthmatics,the environment etc.

Now, the crucial insight is that externalities are a sign of market failure. They are where the free market breaks down in terms of achieving economic efficiency, because in a free market, positive externalities are always undersupplied by the market, and negative externalities are always oversupplied. This is why the government provides things like education, street lighting and policing - because the full benefits of these "public goods" are felt by people who don't use these services, allowing them to free-ride in free markets.


I'm really skeptical that a few minutes of second hand smoke does diddly.
Cool story bro.


If there was a net cost, the taxes on the cigarettes should only be enough to match up to that cost. Why should we have "sin taxes"?
Because cigarettes have negative externalities. Without sin taxes, the consumption of cigarettes would be much greater than it is, and the healthcare costs of dealing with it would be an unfair burden upon non-smokers. By slapping on a sin tax, you internalise the externality, and make the smoker pay for his/her healthcare.


If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.
Wow, this is terrible economics. Savings aren't the same as economic efficiency. There are so many variables that are changing here (E.g. the amount of money spent on ciggies, the reallocation of hospital resources away from smokers, the end of public health campaigns, the end of second hand smoke deaths etc. etc.) that it's impossible to just say Money In One Particular Budget Saved = More Desirable Social Outcome.


Potatoes, fruits and vegetables are not as prohibitively expensive as people claim, the food prep time is where people fall apart and cave into convenience foods.
Actually, the desperately poor in many Western societies often have no choice but to go for the highest calorie to dollar foodstuffs available just in order to avoid malnourishments. As it happens, fast food is the best way to do this.


Simply placing a heavier tax on sugary/unhealthy foods is unlikely to actually change peoples eating habits, and just like the taxes on cigarettes, will end up placing an unfair burden on poorer people (since they tend to have less healthy lifestyles).

Both of these are true, to some extent. Demand for drugs like cigarettes and sugar is inelastic (They are addictive after all duh), meaning demand does not change that much proportionally to price changes. And yes, taxes like these are quite regressive.


This is an issue that should be solved through social awareness, not taxation. Such taxation schemes disproportionately hurt the poor.

Social awareness doesn't do jack****. You have to incentivize people to do stuff, and you can only do that with money or hostages.


I think libertarian/paternalism type arguments are very tricky and you shouldn't worry too much about contradicting yourself because of some principle you were working off of. Mainly I think the attacks on smoking are a wussy crusade by people who just can't stand the idea that other people smoke. While with sugar there is the public health cost and I do believe the food would taste as good or better to us with less added sugar.



People who deliberately cough to make a point when passing smokers enrage me far more than actual smokers do.

[Papewaio]

Did we include the opportunity cost of someone dieng before their time. Particularly in societies that pay for education and welfare they have invested in their people and should expect a reciprical arrangement.

Purposely dimishing ones productivity by self harm should be paid back to the state that invested in you.

Take an economic microcosm of the military. If they've invested time and money in your ability they have an interest in you keeping in sufficient health for your task for the duration of your tenure. Self harm to dimish ones ability most probably invokes all sorts of disciplinary actions. What happens if you get sun burnt in the military?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

???

Education is a gift, a mandatory one at that.

That's a creepy vision of the state. Too distinct from the people.

Let's keep it to the big ticket health items regarding major health issues. Tax X if it really costs us a tremendous amount, otherwise not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually, the desperately poor in many Western societies often have no choice but to go for the highest calorie to dollar foodstuffs available just in order to avoid malnourishments. As it happens, fast food is the best way to do this.

Really? The desperately poor should have food stamps. Woah, just looked up how much in food stamps you get in the middle of this post. That is not enough to feed someone if I am reading this correctly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Fast food doesn't make you magically obese. You still have to eat too much of it.

I doubt it beats peanut butter on calories to dollar ratio by a wide degree anyway...that's what, 700 calories a dollar?

[rory_20_uk]

Unless obesity, diabetes etc can be viewed a pursuit of happiness, avoiding this would be helping people achieve happiness. The money that it costs everyone indirectly again would limit their ability to pursue happiness.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

The oppression is the effect of such people on others, and how their selfishness impacts on others. This should not be supported by any free thinking person - only those blinkered by the dogma that the desires of the individual override the rights of others.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

First off, the concept that America is a land of equals is patently untrue. And as to whose opinion is more important unless you are advocating a luddite approach to knowledge which the Khmer Rouge would be proud of generally experts are considered to have a greater importance with their opinions. Can you find any experts who think that obesity isn't a problem in the USA?
The cost of the American health system speaks for itself, and although inefficient is also boosted by the costs of chronic illnesses. Here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00708.x/full) the costs were $403.1 billion in 2006. Even if we massively reduce that for errors that would overestimate that is vast. What sums of money could do to help others I don't feel needs spelling out.

I would say that your viewpoint is positively dangerous and will lead to a continuance and indeed increase of the vast rates of mortality and morbidity that the USA is seeing at the moment.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

What? Of course you shouldn't drive fast, in fact you should be punished for driving at all.

Drivers, and especially fast drivers, infringe the freedom of walkers all the time, if I walk over a street without waiting for some green light they will even kill me.
In fact I've been walking over green lights and almost got killed doing so. It's a proven fact that speeding is responsible for a large amount of accidents that kill people.

There's no reason to get anywhere fast in an age where you can just as well send an e-mail, and you're sitting on your lazy bum anyway! :furious3:

As for smoking and freedom, did you enjoy your first cigarette or did the real "enjoyment" only start after the addiction kicked in?
IMO a person addicted to cigarettes isn't free, an addiction means the mind is a slave to a substance and thinks it cannot live without it.
To say smoking is a sign of enjoying freedom thus, is a fallacy.
Unless one really just smokes at the occasional party every two weeks.

[Vladimir]

Since we're on a healthcare kick:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402344/

The only way to eliminate the high cost of health care.

[Subotan]

Eh, we've already established that smokers cost less than non-smokers.

Cool story, bro.

No, we haven't.

A meta-study of various papers looking at the costs of smoking in the United States:

With one exception, the studies find the annual medical costs of smoking to constitute approximately 6-8% of American personal health expenditures. The exception, a recent study, found much larger attributable expenditures. The lower estimates may reflect the limitation of analysis to costs associated with the principal smoking-related diseases. The higher estimate derives from analysis of smoking-attributable differ ences in all medical costs. However, the finding from the most recent study, also considering all medical costs, fell in the 6-8% range.
Conclusions:The medical costs of smoking in the United States equal, and may well exceed, the commonly referenced figure of 6-8%.

Medical Costs of Smoking in the United States: Estimates, Their Validity, and Their Implications

Kenneth E. Warner, Thomas A. Hodgson and Caitlin E. Carroll
Tobacco Control , Vol. 8, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 290-300


And if you're talking about Sasaki's study that he linked - using it say that "money was saved - ergo economically better outcome" is the worst economics I've ever heard.


The cumulative impact of excess medical care required by smokers at all ages while alive outweighs shorter life expectancy, and smokers incur higher expenditures for medical care over their lifetimes than never-smokers. This accords with the findings by Manning et al. (1989) of positive lifetime medical care costs per pack of cigarettes, but disagrees with the results found by Leu and Schaub (1983, 1985) for Swiss males. The contradictory conclusions of the analyses are undoubtedly due to a large difference in the amount of medical care used by smokers relative to neversmokers in the United States and Swiss data. Excess expenditures increase with the amount smoked among males and females so that life- time medical costs of male heavy smokers are 47 percent higher than for IIO Smoking and Medical Expenditures
neversmokers when discounted at 3 percent. Each year more than one million young people start to smoke and add an extra $9 to $10 billion (in 1990 dollars discounted at 3 percent) to the nation's health care bill over their lifetimes.

Cigarette Smoking and Lifetime Medical Expenditures

Thomas A. Hodgson

The Milbank Quarterly , Vol. 70, No. 1 (1992), pp. 81-125




???

Education is a gift, a mandatory one at that.
LOL

Education is investment, not a gift.


That's a creepy vision of the state. Too distinct from the people.
???


Let's keep it to the big ticket health items regarding major health issues. Tax X if it really costs us a tremendous amount, otherwise not.
Smoking and obesity cost us a tremendous amount.



I suggest you look into the definitions of obesity. Much of the rise in obesity is due to a change in the definition of obese. Many people are clinically obese, but are not actually obese. It's a problem, but the solution is to limit free will? How in the world is that more justifiable than letting people make their own choices? By your logic I shouldn't smoke, drive fast, spend too much time playing video games, or go swimming if I've eaten in the last 30 minutes--and I should be punished monetarily or legally for doing those things. How do you not see a problem here?

No, it's not that at all. It's that you should be prepared to pay the real cost of those activities to society when making the choice as to do them or not.


To call it a system is to give it too much credit. The simple fact is that healthcare is expensive, and the better you do at it the more expensive it gets because people live longer and develop new problems. There is no way to make a healthcare system cheap and fair, because there will always be unforseen and expensive problems that arise form people having a little thing called free will. Should we add a tax for people who have shown they are more injury prone, as well? Or should we take it further, and do major analysis of everyone's habits at some point in their life and charge them accordingly? This is such a slippery slope, how do you not get it? I think you have the blinders on here, not I.
Ideally, yes. However, we can't observe that, so we have to distribute the costs throughout the population paying for medical services equally.


There is no way to make a healthcare system cheap and fair, because there will always be unforseen and expensive problems
Yes there is - the British NHS is a single payer public provider, and it is the most efficient and best value service in the OECD.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As for smoking and freedom, did you enjoy your first cigarette or did the real "enjoyment" only start after the addiction kicked in?
IMO a person addicted to cigarettes isn't free, an addiction means the mind is a slave to a substance and thinks it cannot live without it.
To say smoking is a sign of enjoying freedom thus, is a fallacy.
Unless one really just smokes at the occasional party every two weeks.

Being allowed to take up an addictive habit is most certainly a sign of freedom.


G-cube has it exactly right.


LOL

Education is investment, not a gift.


That's a creepy vision of the state. Too distinct from the people.
???

Where do you live, north korea? In America we have government "of the people, by the people, for the people". The idea of the people saying to the people "You don't want to do this, but we bought you when we invested in your education" is silly.

It's not an economics question. We aren't trying to maximize economic efficiency. It's a question of justice. And the fact is that cigarette taxes don't have anything to do currently with recouping the extra money smokers cost us through the government spending, because they cost less than nonsmokers on health care and social security.

If you start talking about loss of work productivity you're a fascist.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Heck, I still think there are reasons for the added sugar tax that make sense. Especially the drop in sugar=no change in taste idea. But I can see why libertarians knee jerk reject any interference now. "Ideally" taxing injury prone people? Stay in your own country!

Unfortunately those ideas are getting more popular in the US. It shows how un-liberal the liberals really are.

[Subotan]

Where do you live, north korea? In America we have government "of the people, by the people, for the people". The idea of the people saying to the people "You don't want to do this, but we bought you when we invested in your education" is silly.
Why do you think discussion of education in the public sphere isn't about "How nice can we make learning for children?" but "Our children are failing at maths and hard subjects, and they need to do be better educated in order to compete"? For the vast majority of students, education is not a gift, it's capital investment by the state, and it's naive to think of it as anything else but such.


It's not an economics question. We aren't trying to maximize economic efficiency. It's a question of justice.
Of course it's an economics question. How could it be anything other than an economics question? We're talking about the economic effects of a tax on cigarettes and added sugar. On the contrary, it has nothing to do with justice.


And the fact is that cigarette taxes don't have anything to do currently with recouping the extra money smokers cost us through the government spending, because they cost less than nonsmokers on health care and social security.

I disproved this both with the studies I linked, as well as pointing out that saving money != economic efficiency.


If you start talking about loss of work productivity you're a fascist.
Initial reaction:

https://i.imgur.com/V2lrb.gif

Measured reaction:

First of all, that's not fascism. Fascism is the political manifestation of ultra-nationalism. Secondly - productivity is probably the single most important variable in determining the wealth of nations. The differences in output and living standards between an economy that is twice as productive as another in every respect are enormous. For example, Italy enjoyed almost no growth in labour productivity over the past decade - it also enjoyed the third lowest growth rate in the world, after Haiti and Zimbabwe.


"Ideally" taxing injury prone people? Stay in your own country!

Ideally, health care wouldn't have a lot of the problems that makes it difficult to run as a free market. For one, there are very perverse incentives - doctors get paid for keeping you in hospital, rather than making you better. Besides, the basic principle I described is a foundation of the current American system, and the only thing preventing its implementation is the fact that accident-proneness is unobservable. Insurance works on the basis of calculating risk, and since people who smoke/ride motorbikes/swallow swords are riskier to insure they are charged more by insurers to cover the cost of any healthcare to treat any potential accidents. Were accident-proneness observable, it would be considered to be in exactly the same category as those I just mentioned.


Unfortunately those ideas are getting more popular in the US. It shows how un-liberal the liberals really are.

Lol. The ideas I'm talking about are essential in order to ensure efficient operation of the free market. Libertarianism in the RON PAUL 2012 REVOLUSHUN sense really breaks down when it comes to externalities, as they complete excise them from consideration.


Look, every single argument in this thread for these kinds of taxes has the same basic line of logic: This habit is dangerous, dumb, or may have abstract consequences for the society at large, so the government is allowed to regulate against it.
These are not abstract consequences. They are identifiable, quantifiable costs that the rest of society has to bear.


Step outside your bubbles for a moment and think about how you would be feeling if this kind of logic was applied to one of your guilty pleasures.

It is. Alcohol is taxed quite heavily over here (But still not enough to stop the real cost of alcohol falling by over half in real terms over the past thirty years in the UK - and a subsequent rise in liver disease).


But the point is freedom, and the fact that the US Government, in theory, is not supposed to be doing this sort of thing in the first place. The entire constitution would shudder at the thought if it was capable of thinking. All the way from the persuit of happiness to the right to privacy gets violated if you continue along this line of thought. And you know it will. When has the government not taken a mile, when given an inch? This is not a precedent you want to set.
Freedom? Shouldn't individuals who don't smoke, who don't overindulge on sugar, who don't drink have the freedom to spend their money on things to ensure their happiness?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why do you think discussion of education in the public sphere isn't about "How nice can we make learning for children?" but "Our children are failing at maths and hard subjects, and they need to do be better educated in order to compete"? For the vast majority of students, education is not a gift, it's capital investment by the state, and it's naive to think of it as anything else but such.

The "state"? Again, we are not a dictatorship. It's only an investment metaphorically. There can be no demand like Pape suggested, "We invested in your education, that gives us the right to such and such". We provide education and hope for the best.


Of course it's an economics question. How could it be anything other than an economics question? We're talking about the economic effects of a tax on cigarettes and added sugar. On the contrary, it has nothing to do with justice.

Well, I wondered where you went terribly off track...

Finding that something is economically efficient does nothing. You have to take the next step, and that involves talking about justice in this case. It would be economically efficient to pull the plug on people rather than try any expensive treatment...


I disproved this both with the studies I linked, as well as pointing out that saving money != economic efficiency.

You didn't...those were about something else. It's about money paid to the government vs money paid out by the government.



Measured reaction:

First of all, that's not fascism. Fascism is the political manifestation of ultra-nationalism. Secondly - productivity is probably the single most important variable in determining the wealth of nations. The differences in output and living standards between an economy that is twice as productive as another in every respect are enormous. For example, Italy enjoyed almost no growth in labour productivity over the past decade - it also enjoyed the third lowest growth rate in the world, after Haiti and Zimbabwe.

Fascist has been a general slur for decades :beam:

So what about productivity? A six day workweek would probably be more productive.



Ideally, health care wouldn't have a lot of the problems that makes it difficult to run as a free market. For one, there are very perverse incentives - doctors get paid for keeping you in hospital, rather than making you better. Besides, the basic principle I described is a foundation of the current American system, and the only thing preventing its implementation is the fact that accident-proneness is unobservable. Insurance works on the basis of calculating risk, and since people who smoke/ride motorbikes/swallow swords are riskier to insure they are charged more by insurers to cover the cost of any healthcare to treat any potential accidents. Were accident-proneness observable, it would be considered to be in exactly the same category as those I just mentioned.

Yesss, if only we had cameras everywhere and a super computer that could decide just how much to charge everyone! Go rock climbing, get automatically taxed!



Freedom? Shouldn't individuals who don't smoke, who don't overindulge on sugar, who don't drink have the freedom to spend their money on things to ensure their happiness?

Anyone who would fuss about it doesn't respect their fellow citizens. If you offer to buy dinner for a group of your friends you don't insist that your fat friend eats a tiny serving.

I still see the sugar tax as more anti-corporate than anti-consumer...similar to the transfat ban.

[Veho Nex]

So what about productivity? A six day workweek would probably be more productive.



Heathen, keep your treasonous thoughts away from such a sacred holiday such as the weekend.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My experience is that freedom tends to be inefficient in most cases. But a tax on snickers doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.

[Vladimir]

My experience is that freedom tends to be inefficient in most cases. But a tax on snickers doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.

First they came for the Oreos, and I did not speak out. Then they came for the sodas, yet I did not speak out. Then they came for my Red Bull, and there was no one left to speak for me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

First they came for the Oreos, and I did not speak out. Then they came for the sodas, yet I did not speak out. Then they came for my Red Bull, and there was no one left to speak for me.

I approve. :D

[Montmorency]

I don't know of any studies on the subject, but presumably there would be diminishing returns (and eventually negative ones) on productivity as "rest periods" are curtailed.

[Papewaio]

World War II the sleeping lion was the US and its economic capacity. The Imperial Japanese got a heck of a surprise when ships that should have been laid up for months were back in production in weeks. It certainly caught them out in the Battle of Midway. Germany couldn't stop the massive flow of cargo transports pouring equipment into UK and Russia. The whole lend lease arrangement relied on a powerhouse economy.

Cold War was won based on economic clout. He who could produce the most nukes and keep a viable economy. The engine room of a superpower is its economic ability. This is based on all it's resources: material, oil, manufacturing base, energy output and most importantly human resources.

Now in the time of knowledge economy and predator drones well educated and motivated workforce is key to a great economy.

People hate to see taxes pissed up against a wall, spent on political buy outs and nonsense. Why should taxes spent on education not be required like all other taxes to show value. Why would you not have a broad education including hard skills such as maths and science? Why in this day and age when the economy requires well educated and well rounded education would you ignore this source of power?

Education is a gift for the individual. It is a precious one. It is not without cost nor value. So like any investment the investors are keen to see it put to best use. Be that sports, singing, philosophy, science, economics or computing.

The future of ones security is linked to economic ability which is directly linked with the knowledge of its citizens. Democracies and Republics work best when they are transparent and accountable with voters who are engaged and knowledgable. For the modern security of a modern state you need a well armed militia. Not just armed with firearms, but with the knowledge to create and change with a complex world. Armed wih knowledge to create the economic base that ultimately brings about all the choices and freedoms that one wants to choose. Choices require responsibility in adults. Choices also require people to have the ability to make it happen.

So don't ask what you can be taught by your country, ask what you can teach it.

[Strike For The South]

These taxes should be taken on a case by case basis but I am not entirely opposed to them. One only needs to look at the diabetes and obesity statistics to see somethings amiss. Of course it has to do with more than sugar and adding a sales tax probably will do nothing more than ruffle some conservative feathers as the government could never get the tax high enough to change buying habits. It really is a moot point, used only for garnering political capitial

So now I'm just here for the Saski-Subotan pissing contest

[drone]

Instead of taxing the consumer, how about getting rid of the corn subsidy that makes HFCS so cheap in the first place?

[Vladimir]

Instead of taxing the consumer, how about getting rid of the corn subsidy that makes HFCS so cheap in the first place?

I think you're missing the point. More government control, not less, is the current fashion. :toff:

[drone]

I think you're missing the point. More government control, not less, is the current fashion. :toff:
Well, I've never been fashionable. ~D

Just seems kinda strange to take tax revenue, give it to Big Corn so they can produce low-cost fructose, and then raise the price of that same fructose with another tax. Why, the next thing you know we will have to give Big Corn even more money, to drop prices even lower so they can stay competitive and not lose profits.

While we are at it, we could drop the sugar tariffs. The Midwest needs to start growing something else for a change. I propose barley.

[Vladimir]

Barley, hops, and wheat is all a country really needs. Maybe sugar too. Corn is for Southerners.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, I've never been fashionable. ~D

Just seems kinda strange to take tax revenue, give it to Big Corn so they can produce low-cost fructose, and then raise the price of that same fructose with another tax. Why, the next thing you know we will have to give Big Corn even more money, to drop prices even lower so they can stay competitive and not lose profits.

While we are at it, we could drop the sugar tariffs. The Midwest needs to start growing something else for a change. I propose barley.

I already made a post explaining why I think such corn subsidies make the country better off than not, but I guess no one read it the first time around. So, I will try again.

The corn subsidies provide americans not just with really cheap candy, which it does well, but also with reduced prices for almost all goods except for organic products and raw fruits and vegetables. HFCS are not just a sweetener, but also a preservative. Adding HFSC to breads and grain based products is very common because of the ability of such products to last much longer the shelves and in your kitchen. This reduces waste and spoiled/moldy bread which helps with over using the land that the grains are grown on. The excess corn that is created due to these corn subsidies also provide lots and lots of filler for cow or chicken feed, which makes the price of beef and chicken (which since FDR is practically considered a staple food) much less than if the excess corn was not there. This again, is a win-win for americans, since it allows for a more varied diet and reduces the impact on their pocket books.

Consider before we had such subsides, back in the early 1970s when the US Dept. of Agriculture was not handing out subsidies to farmers. A website (http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodfaq5.html) I found through Google tells me that a McDonald's hamburger back in 1974 cost 30 cents. Using a random inflation calculator that 30 cents in 1974 was said to be equivalent to $1.37 in 2010 dollars. Now I can look at the dollar menu of my local McDonald's and get a double cheeseburger for 37 cents less than it would cost a single hamburger if there was no corn subsidies to provide cheap meal for cattle. This is ultimately good for the consumer. Food is something that an industrialized country should not have to worry about, let alone a superpower of the world.

Another point is that without such subsidies, the United States would not be the agricultural powerhouse that it is today. The entire plains states and some midwest states would be radically different and much, much emptier if we did not subsidize corn or some type of grain/staple crop. Today, due to the large agricultural system we have the United States is able to be a net exporter and not a net importer of foodstuffs which is good considering that whenever you have a nation of 312 million dependent on some other country in order to be fed, you are going to have a massive problem with leverage and diplomatic disputes could cause tremendous suffering and economic depression. These subsidies keep america strong in a very direct and positive way. We can feed ourselves and we can feed others as well. We do not need to rely on third world countries whose workers harvest for 14 hours straight for pennies to provide what we need to survive. Now, to be fair, someone will bring up a sarcastic remark about illegal immigrants working for extremely cheap wages as well and I think that is unfortunate, but not as terrible as if we outsourced our food to other places.

Some else to consider is that the agricultural system that is sustained by subsidies has maintained America's agricultural culture and has allowed for american research and development in the field of agriculture to be stronger than it would be if there was a depletion of farms in the US rather than an excess of them. Without such farms sustained by all the subsidies, we would find many of the inner states to be devoid of people as they would undoubtedly flock to the suburbs or to the cities looking for work. As such, many states would be a whole lot worse off than they are now. Imagine Iowa without any corn fields. What would be left after the fallout?

My last point that I can think of I guess, is that no matter what you subsidize, you will more than likely end up in the same situation that we have today with HFSC. By generating a large artificial supply of any crop that has starches in it, someone will find a way to break it down into sugars to be put into food. The supply must be met with demand, and HFSC was created in order to generate more demand for this crop that has been produced so abundantly since the subsidies began.


I will say though, that I agree about ending the sugar tariffs and we should also end our embargo with cuba in order to open up the market to Cuban cane sugar. If cane sugar became cheaper than HFCS, than we would see a reduction in the need for HFCS and thus we could in theory be able to reduce the subsidies by a reasonable amount to compensate and reduce the excess supply a little bit. We would still have cheaper food than from cutting off the subsidy entirely and we would be saving government money by being able to cut down on the amount of corn supply that our culture currently demands.

[Vladimir]

While subsidies have benefits, they have downsides as well. We don't need it, especially, like you implied, it makes for cheap candy. And dollar menus are just a hook to get people to come in and spend money on other items.

[a completely inoffensive name]

While subsidies have benefits, they have downsides as well. We don't need it, especially, like you implied, it makes for cheap candy. And dollar menus are just a hook to get people to come in and spend money on other items.

Did you really comprehend what I said, or did you just skim and regurgitate your point?

[Vladimir]

Did you really comprehend what I said, or did you just skim and regurgitate your point?

I'm saying your point isn't new. You're just regurgitating the statements of others.

[Papewaio]

I thought one of the corner stones of the USA was the freedom of choice not having your choices for free.

Another one was that the USA operates a user pays system not a welfare state.

If you expect people to choose and pay for what they use then it is only logical to expect that a government will want to be paid for services rendered. The opposite that is being touted is a welfare state with no acknowledgement of reciprocity.

In the end of the day people pay taxes that are used to benefit society. Society divides those taxes up as best it can. If you want waste in the system then make all these benefits entitlements. If you want vacuous education that focuses on rights and not responsibilities make education an entitlement with no expectations of benefit to the individuals, the tax payers who pay for it or to the wider society who support the tax payers.

Education should be accessible and free to all right up to and including university. But that does not mean society should expect its investments to bear no fruits.

Likewise with healthcare it should be free. But the pool of money is best focused on helping unfortunates, vaccinations and children. It is poorly used when some unemployed father of eight cuts his hand open in a bar fight. We don't have unlimited taxes, unlimited government funds, unlimited money for education, welfare or education.

Societies should do as much as possible to allow opportunity for all to have a chance and a choice. Those opportunities come with a cost for society and the individual making that choice. An independent individual can choose and pay their own way, a dependent one can choose and be payed for by others. Ultimately though most successful relations rely on some form of long term reciprocity. So a society that invests in its dependents to make them independents and ultimately intradependents will in the long term be far better off. After all it will be a society with long term vision and prospects.

The other form of society which educates but does not increase people's independence, a society that expects all to go their own way and not pay their way. Well that's parasitical not symbiotic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm saying your point isn't new. You're just regurgitating the statements of others.That's funny considering everyone seems to be talking about healthcare and choice, two terms I don't recall using in my arguments.Also funny how you seem to know the arguments but continue to make blanket, ignorant statements of "We don't need more candy bars." When one of my points is that along with candy bars, we get more bread, meat and soup as well which is overall beneficial to everyone.

[drone]

Corn is being misused for all kinds of things. Cow feed, ethanol fuel, HFCS, etc. It has become square peg that the agriculture industry insists on pounding into the many round holes. Subsidies will probably never be eliminated, modern industrialized nations that wish to remain food-sufficient will need them in some manner. But corn is the worst way to go about it.

Bringing up cheap McDonalds food in this thread does your argument no good, fast food is part of the problem. ~;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Corn is being misused for all kinds of things. Cow feed, ethanol fuel, HFCS, etc. It has become square peg that the agriculture industry insists on pounding into the many round holes. Subsidies will probably never be eliminated, modern industrialized nations that wish to remain food-sufficient will need them in some manner. But corn is the worst way to go about it.Bringing up cheap McDonalds food in this thread does your argument no good, fast food is part of the problem. ~;)Because all meat is from fast food right? You are purposely evading. Food of all kinds is cheaper and more prevalent, not just candy bars and fast food. The mcdonalds was just an example how much cheaper meat is nowadays. Your arguments amount to "it's bad and people buy bad food because of it." When that is rediculous.

[Subotan]

The "state"? Again, we are not a dictatorship. It's only an investment metaphorically. There can be no demand like Pape suggested, "We invested in your education, that gives us the right to such and such". We provide education and hope for the best.
It's more than a metaphorical investment. Curriculums and syllabuses are designed so as to prepare young people for the workforce. Nobody is saying "You did well in maths, so you have to do CompSci", but it's naive to think that education is just a gift from the state.


Finding that something is economically efficient does nothing. You have to take the next step, and that involves talking about justice in this case. It would be economically efficient to pull the plug on people rather than try any expensive treatment...
Well, doctors have to make economic decisions like that in hospitals - do they spend resources on trying to keep the patient in a vegetative state alive, or do they help other patients? But that's beside the point - most economic problems (including this one) don't involve ethical dilemmas such as euthanasia. It's worth noting though that economics usually ranks outcome in a utilitarian way (as utility can be quantified easily using money).


You didn't...those were about something else. It's about money paid to the government vs money paid out by the government.
That's only because of the healthcare system in place in the United States i.e. free treatment after 65. In terms of healthcare costs as a whole, smokers substantially increase the burden, raising the insurance premiums for non-smokers.

To critique the individual studies - the first one must have been commissioned by The Department for Redundant Tautologies. If smokers die earlier, they will draw out smaller pensions. In other news, bears spending time in the woods poop there more often. The other study has been countered by the meta-study I linked. Specifically, resources that are currently being spent on smokers would instead be spent on caring for other patients with other diseases. Saying that smoking is beneficial because it lowers healthcare costs is like saying flu does - technically, yes, but the facts are that it A. it diverts funds from other diseases and B. it still causes


Fascist has been a general slur for decades :beam:
Point taken ;)


So what about productivity? A six day workweek would probably be more productive.
This is really debatable. Productivity is output per hour, and countries with wildly different work-leisure ratios have completely uncorrelated productivity scores.


Yesss, if only we had cameras everywhere and a super computer that could decide just how much to charge everyone! Go rock climbing, get automatically taxed!

Observable doesn't mean cameras, but provable. So, for example, having a degree is something which is observable (and part of the reason why universities are now considered to be essential for a middle-class job - not because the skills gained there are always essential for your job, but that having a degree is proof to employers that you are smarter than people who haven't gone to university because they're not smart enough), whilst being accident prone is not.

You do get charged if you go rock climbing, it's called sales tax :beam:


Anyone who would fuss about it doesn't respect their fellow citizens. If you offer to buy dinner for a group of your friends you don't insist that your fat friend eats a tiny serving.
That's not an appropriate analogy, and you seem to have been missing my point the whole way through this discussion.

Smoking has external costs that are not incurred by either the buyer or seller of tobacco. These include, but are not limited to, increased aggregate healthcare costs, pollution, lower work productivity, illness from second hand smoke etc. These externalities are effects that are generated by consumption/production of the good, yet have no impact upon either party in the trade. There are no buyers or sellers for these effects, hence their production goes completely unhindered in a free market, despite making life worse off for a substantial number of people who have no say in the production of these effects. They can be solved by these individuals who are affected paying the industry to restrict production/consumption (which doesn't make sense in this context, as smoking is not an inherent right), or granting the individuals the right to demand payment from firms/smokers to enjoy the right to smoke. This latter outcome is what the tax is. It is forcing smokers and tobacco companies to take into account the full cost to society of their actions. It is not banning smoking, or saying that it's morally wrong.

An equivalent, if crude analogy, would be that friend paying his or her friends for the right to indulge in his or her baked beans and eggs addiction at that dinner before embarking on a ten hour car ride. His fart gas would be nasty, but there would be a point where everyone would sell out and put up with ten hours of fart gas in exchange for cash. Alternatively, if that price is too high for the farter, then he or she would choose not to eat beans and eggs.

[drone]

Because all meat is from fast food right? You are purposely evading. Food of all kinds is cheaper and more prevalent, not just candy bars and fast food. The mcdonalds was just an example how much cheaper meat is nowadays. Your arguments amount to "it's bad and people buy bad food because of it." When that is rediculous.
I'm not evading anything, I merely pointed out that using the cost a vaguely meat-like product from McDonalds is a bad example to use in a thread like this. Apart from the health costs of fast food, live cattle prices are actually at record highs right now.

Using corn as cattle feed is generally considered a bad thing, it's not digested properly. Most good beef cattle is grass-fed, if I remember correctly corn is used mainly on dairy cattle.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's more than a metaphorical investment. Curriculums and syllabuses are designed so as to prepare young people for the workforce. Nobody is saying "You did well in maths, so you have to do CompSci", but it's naive to think that education is just a gift from the state.

That's right, but where were talking about whether it was a gift from the state, not whether it was just a gift. A cynic would say that no gift is just a gift.

Well, doctors have to make economic decisions like that in hospitals - do they spend resources on trying to keep the patient in a vegetative state alive, or do they help other patients? But that's beside the point - most economic problems (including this one) don't involve ethical dilemmas such as euthanasia. It's worth noting though that economics usually ranks outcome in a utilitarian way (as utility can be quantified easily using money).

Exactly the problem.


That's only because of the healthcare system in place in the United States i.e. free treatment after 65. In terms of healthcare costs as a whole, smokers substantially increase the burden, raising the insurance premiums for non-smokers.

Ah, I'm only interested in the US here.



That's not an appropriate analogy, and you seem to have been missing my point the whole way through this discussion.

Smoking has external costs that are not incurred by either the buyer or seller of tobacco. These include, but are not limited to, increased aggregate healthcare costs, pollution, lower work productivity, illness from second hand smoke etc. These externalities are effects that are generated by consumption/production of the good, yet have no impact upon either party in the trade. There are no buyers or sellers for these effects, hence their production goes completely unhindered in a free market, despite making life worse off for a substantial number of people who have no say in the production of these effects. They can be solved by these individuals who are affected paying the industry to restrict production/consumption (which doesn't make sense in this context, as smoking is not an inherent right), or granting the individuals the right to demand payment from firms/smokers to enjoy the right to smoke. This latter outcome is what the tax is. It is forcing smokers and tobacco companies to take into account the full cost to society of their actions. It is not banning smoking, or saying that it's morally wrong.

An equivalent, if crude analogy, would be that friend paying his or her friends for the right to indulge in his or her baked beans and eggs addiction at that dinner before embarking on a ten hour car ride. His fart gas would be nasty, but there would be a point where everyone would sell out and put up with ten hours of fart gas in exchange for cash. Alternatively, if that price is too high for the farter, then he or she would choose not to eat beans and eggs.

They should either put up with it, or he shouldn't eat them, or they shouldn't be friends.

The external costs are only an issue if you start from certain assumptions--the utilitarian, economic efficiency assumptions. I still can't see why you start there.

From a moral standpoint it only makes sense to me in certain circumstances. It makes perfect sense to have a tax on gasoline to pay for road repair, for example. The people who use the roads pay for the roads, and there's a clear cut cause and effect. Having high taxes on smoking to try and get people to quit and then spending it on something else is entirely different. I don't have any sympathy for petty account keeping about hours lost on smoke breaks etc either.

The sugar tax I have trouble making up my mind about for various reasons. But it seems to me that it's quite possible for someone to eat a fairly sugary diet without having health problems--simply by watching how much they eat and getting exercised. They shouldn't be penalized.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not evading anything, I merely pointed out that using the cost a vaguely meat-like product from McDonalds is a bad example to use in a thread like this. Apart from the health costs of fast food, live cattle prices are actually at record highs right now.

I see, I see. My apologies. I believe the higher cattle prices comes from the increased cost of a barrel of oil, which doesn't have much to do with corn subsidies. Also, demand for meat has risen a lot since the 1970s.



Using corn as cattle feed is generally considered a bad thing, it's not digested properly. Most good beef cattle is grass-fed, if I remember correctly corn is used mainly on dairy cattle.

Now this is a really good point. Cows really cant handle the corn in their diets. However, to me this only says that corn is not the optimal crop we should be subsidizing. If we subsidize some other crop that is healthier for cows and still has starches to be broken into sugars, that would be a better plan.

[gaelic cowboy]

I see, I see. My apologies. I believe the higher cattle prices comes from the increased cost of a barrel of oil, which doesn't have much to do with corn subsidies. Also, demand for meat has risen a lot since the 1970s.

Whenever oil goes up the price per kilo goes up naturally cos your inputs are obviously dearer.

Water, meal, diesel, electricity, vet bills and AI costs it all goes into the mix of the price of your steak.




Now this is a really good point. Cows really cant handle the corn in their diets. However, to me this only says that corn is not the optimal crop we should be subsidizing. If we subsidize some other crop that is healthier for cows and still has starches to be broken into sugars, that would be a better plan.

Grass is cheap in temperate areas with the right management you can get two possibly three crops of the stuff for winter and still have some for eating beforehand.

The corn fed stuff requires a few things which skew it's production, it's mainly shed based the corn requires input of diesel to successful grow and process, you need a lot of water and electricity and lastly your vet bill increase.

You avoid high cost here by offloading your enviromental costs downstream both litterally and figuratively(ie slurry), you need high volume to reduce you cost and you need cheap corn.

For a long time cereals did not really keep pace with there inputs and this probably kept corn fed beef low, however thats ending now as beef is a good price and replacement animals are following upwards.

Incidently that 1970s hamburger is dearer because today agriculture has developed better animals that fatten quicker and also shed production is on a much bigger scale today reducing your input cost.(as long as your output is not too heavily regulated)

Ireland uses a grass based system which is cheap and we manage to supply all of europe with mcdonalds burgers

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I have to face facts. I don't care if people smoke. But we clearly have an obesity problem. Let's throw the kitchen sink at it and repeal the sin taxes later when we can afford to think about such things. The cig taxes were fine for a while too. So let's triple the price of coke by taxing the added sugar and see what happens.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have to face facts. I don't care if people smoke. But we clearly have an obesity problem. Let's throw the kitchen sink at it and repeal the sin taxes later when we can afford to think about such things. The cig taxes were fine for a while too. So let's triple the price of coke by taxing the added sugar and see what happens.

I was walking home from work yesterday and decided to get a bottle of 500ml coke and a chocolate bar for later. (twas a cadbury double decker if you must know)

Anyway while watching telly I spotted that the bottle of coke as 26.5g of sugar per 250ml serving meaning the full bottle has 53g of sugar in total.

In case you wondering 25g would be about six teaspoons of sugar so a full 500ml bottle has twelve.

No wonder diabetes is on the rise.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Very few people give their children cigarettes and they have very limited exposure to them. Thus the cigarette sin taxes are largely aimed at adults. But parents feed their kids sweets constantly, and school bans of vending machines etc will only have limited effect. Thus the need for a tax on added sugar.

" In a study of 548 children over a 19 month period the likelihood of obesity increased 1.6 times for every additional soft drink consumed per day.[27]" etc

Yes yes ideally parents would be good parents, but they need a wake up call right now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ridiculous. Its denying someone a pleasurable activity that puts only THEMSELVES at risk. If the justification is that the state has to pay for your sins, then its an inadequate one. Especially in a society where law is based on precedent.

Of course, the crux is choice. If you implement a state healthcare system, then punish people for doing things that are not cost-effective SIMPLY because they are not cost-effective (which is the excuse we're using in this case to impose our views on others, right?) WITHOUT allowing them to opt out, then it is opressive and a slippery slope and should not be supported by any free thinking person.

Yeah.... we have exactly that here.

We tax smokes and booze, and everybody gets healthcare without going bankrupt. The NHS is not a mythical temple of Asclepios, but it works whether you are rich or poor - the evidence of this is in the relatively low levels of private health insurrence in the UK.

In the US, if you're poor - you don't get proper healthcare, you litterally have charities set up for Third World Africa working the US Rust Belt to provide free consultations, it was on the news hear the other night

There was an army doctor, he saw a roofer with a hernia, the roofer said, "I can't go to the emergancy room, they'll give me a bill, I can't pay".
The doctor said, "you'll go septic, then you'll probably die."
His wife said, "I'm scared."
He went to the Emergancy Room, they told him the operation would cost $20,000 dollars, that's twice what he makes in ayear, so he went home.

Just so we're clear on the mental image - this was a middle aged "WASP".

Over here, that guy would go to the doctor, get the hernia looked at, get the operation, stay in hospital until recovered and go home. End of story, he'd also get sick leave from his job for that, provided he wasn't cash in hand.

So: UK = Sorted vs US = still sick, probably die early and in great pain.

What use is your "Freedom" there?

The "State" is just the organ of the body politic that keeps the pwer on, the water flowing and the roads clear - it should also provide healthcare for citizens, because sick people can't work and can't pay taxes, so they are a social and financial burdan on the "state" and therefore on YOU.

[Vladimir]

Bla bla bla US healthcare sucks and all the poor people are going to die horrible deaths...

Emergency room treatment is free. Or at least in states like Arizona. They can't refuse treatment and many people, mostly illegal immigrants, just skip out on the bill. That's why the state attempted to sue the federal government.

Care to tell me how much it would cost to insure 300 million people?

[rory_20_uk]

Preventative medicine is a hell of a lot cheaper than merely treating emergencies. That principle is how every other country on the planet has lower medical costs as a percentage of GDP.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

Preventative medicine is a hell of a lot cheaper than merely treating emergencies. That principle is how every other country on the planet has lower medical costs as a percentage of GDP.

~:smoking:

Preventive care is good but I'd like to see the numbers on it. I suspect it's less a structural problem and more of a personal problem. People can choose to eat better and exercise but many people choose not to do so.

It may be an American cultural thing, but I blame English food. I can't sympathize.

[Strike For The South]

I would have a hard time beleiving the English excersise much more than us.

[rory_20_uk]

No. We treat early diabetes with metformin. We treat high blood pressure with ace inhibitors. We treat high cholesterol with statins.

You ignore it for a few years, then treat the heart attacks, cut off the limbs and acutely treat the kidney failure.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

I would have a hard time beleiving the English excersise much more than us.

Food, English food. "Southern" food is probably the most classically English and it's horrible.

Now Tex-Mex is a separate category and it's awesome.

[Strike For The South]

I like sheppards pie

I also like a good fry up after some road work.

When else can you have eggs AND tomatoes


No. We treat early diabetes with metformin. We treat high blood pressure with ace inhibitors. We treat high cholesterol with statins.

You ignore it for a few years, then treat the heart attacks, cut off the limbs and acutely treat the kidney failure.



That's becuase people wait till the last minute becuase they don't have health insurance and when the big ER bill comes it gets dumped on the taxpayer anyway

We are doing it wrong

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Emergency room treatment is free. Or at least in states like Arizona. They can't refuse treatment and many people, mostly illegal immigrants, just skip out on the bill. That's why the state attempted to sue the federal government.

Care to tell me how much it would cost to insure 300 million people?

Not much, if they're all one pool. The bigger the pool in an insurrance policy, the lower cost per-capita. We also have a less litigacious medical culture because doctors are seen as public servants and don't charge you for their time. You can litterally go and just have a moan at the doctor, walk out with some general health advice and that's it.

Also, your ER's aren't free, they just don't pay and eventually declare bankruptcy - here they pay before they even get sick.


Preventive care is good but I'd like to see the numbers on it. I suspect it's less a structural problem and more of a personal problem. People can choose to eat better and exercise but many people choose not to do so.

It may be an American cultural thing, but I blame English food. I can't sympathize.

American food is not like English food, American "chedder" is orange for Pete's sake, and bendy!

So far as "Classical" English food goes, it's not processed, it's cooked from base ingredients, has less sugar and less salt.

As far as numbers, you sepnd 16% of GDP on healthcare, we spend 8.5%, and we treat everyone - including the American women who come over here to have their babies.


I would have a hard time beleiving the English excersise much more than us.

Well, a friend of mine went to Atlanta for a month and she said what she DID notice was that you people seem to drive everywhere, where I never used any form of transport other than my feet when I lived in a city of 120,000 people.


Food, English food. "Southern" food is probably the most classically English and it's horrible.

It so isn't. For starters, we eat less, and probably less half-raw red meat.


That's becuase people wait till the last minute becuase they don't have health insurance and when the big ER bill comes it gets dumped on the taxpayer anyway

We are doing it wrong

And there you go.

+1 cookie.

Now go to Law School and sue the Federal Government for the right to healthcare.

[rory_20_uk]

OK... so:

No free ambulances
No free immunisations
No free treatment for heart attacks etc.

The whole point is savings are made by preventing bad outcomes. You can't have people opting out and then expecting free emergency treatment when things go wrong. That is a large part of the mess the USA is in at the moment.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

No, I'm saying those that are out are... out: one can not pick and choose. So, it's not enforced on you, but if you need an ambulance that's £500 a pop and emergency treatment will be hundreds or even thousands. When one gets old it'll get really expensive for treatment. You can't opt-in right after you think you'll get more out of it than you would be putting in.

Freedom is also includes the freedom to die from disease, to be undiagnosed, and to be free from help and support. I'm fine with choice. As long as people are OK with living with the consequences of that choice.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I'm saying those that are out are... out: one can not pick and choose. So, it's not enforced on you, but if you need an ambulance that's £500 a pop and emergency treatment will be hundreds or even thousands. When one gets old it'll get really expensive for treatment. You can't opt-in right after you think you'll get more out of it than you would be putting in.

Freedom is also includes the freedom to die from disease, to be undiagnosed, and to be free from help and support. I'm fine with choice. As long as people are OK with living with the consequences of that choice.

~:smoking:

Right, this is the system we have in the UK. You can go private and pay, or you can go public, but if you go public you have to go by public rules.

Even then, we fit gastric bands for obese people who ate so many pies they'll choke on their own tounge.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree that the NHS covers a lot of things that it should not but it is getting better IVF is still an area that I think should be paid for by oneself. I think that there should be more account taken to other activities that patients undertake before accessing treatment - basically, if you've clearly been a major cause of the problem and have taken no steps to help, you go down the list for treatment.

I refer anyone privately who asks without a second thought - it's their money. The specialist they see will of course be responsible for the decisions that they make.

Gastric bands for fatties should not be required - but doing so is cheaper than these disgusting creatures cost if they are allowed to continue to gain weight. Of course, some manage to pile in the calories with one in place.

I think that GC would want a more extreme version of this where persons do not pay taxes towards a National Health Service and therefore would have no entitlement whatsoever to any treatment.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

Medicare is open to all in Aus.

Private health is encouraged by stick and carrot. The carrot is 30% rebate for private health. The stick is another 1% rise in taxes if you are earning above the threshold but have no private health. The other stick is for every year after thirty that you don't have private health the premiums rise 1%.

There is also various items that allow medical expenses to be capped if you are poor.

[rory_20_uk]

Medicare is open to all in Aus.

Private health is encouraged by stick and carrot. The carrot is 30% rebate for private health. The stick is another 1% rise in taxes if you are earning above the threshold but have no private health. The other stick is for every year after thirty that you don't have private health the premiums rise 1%.

There is also various items that allow medical expenses to be capped if you are poor.

That is a really good idea. Politically impossible in the UK, of course. The way the NHS was started was a massive mistake. By creating an absolute - no private involvement - it is incredibly difficult to have a hybrid system.

Previously I have thought that a system where things are much more transparent - you see one's GP and get the options for what is 100% paid for, what is subsidised and what is 100% private - and make one's choice in the same adult, informed way that sees me drive a Ford Focus, not a BMW M5. The phrase "life is cheap" is of course completely wrong. Death is cheap, life is increasingly expensive, and there comes a point when some people are probably too poor to live on the state's ticket.

The Australian system seems more finesse on this which I think is even better, and I think that both could be done together.

This reinforces my belief that there are things from around the world that the UK could learn from. Perhaps the powers that be do long for a situation where such things would not mean they would be voted out at the next election.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

Sensible people look at other working systems.

Unfortunately politicians look at such as opportunity for a junket.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Medicare is open to all in Aus.

Private health is encouraged by stick and carrot. The carrot is 30% rebate for private health. The stick is another 1% rise in taxes if you are earning above the threshold but have no private health. The other stick is for every year after thirty that you don't have private health the premiums rise 1%.

There is also various items that allow medical expenses to be capped if you are poor.

How is this "30 years" counted? If it's from 18 that means your premiums start rising at age 48, about the time your health starts to slide.

That doesn't seem very fair, is it capped or does it keep rising until you die?

[catheres]

Let's get back to the topic. According to the most article I've read. fructose (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx) is deadlier than sugar. It is linked to lots of health problems according to those health experts and they have evidence.

[Major Robert Dump]

The biggest two threats of fructose is:
1) out of control corn subsidies that make our agricultural heirarchy retarded
2) thread necromancy

Just kidding. Welcome to the backroom. I assume the NRA nutters brought you here for the gun thread.

[rory_20_uk]

Let's get back to the topic. According to the most article I've read. fructose (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx) is deadlier than sugar. It is linked to lots of health problems according to those health experts and they have evidence.

Fructose is a sugar.
Sucrose is 50% fructose.
Deadlier is not a helpful term.
Evidence is best shared.

Welcome to the Backroom, fresh fish.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

How is this "30 years" counted? If it's from 18 that means your premiums start rising at age 48, about the time your health starts to slide.

That doesn't seem very fair, is it capped or does it keep rising until you die?

Sorry about the late reply.

Increase starts at age 30.

Each 365 days you are without cover it increases by 2% a year to a maximum of 70%. If you hold private health for ten years the percentage increase gets reset to zero.