Quote:
Originally Posted by NopeNopeNopeNope
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I am conflicted on this. Obviously I want everyone to get healthier, and it will save money on healthcare by making it more difficult to have an unhealthy lifestyle on the taxpayer dollar
But
It’s another slippery slope issue. Soda and candy are not poison. Poison is poison. Cigarettes are poison. Candy still has some nutritional value, it is edible
Do we stop there? So cake is still ok? Pie is ok? Or are those next? Junk food addicts are just going to keep switching to the next delicious junky non-banned thing
What about ranch dressing? Pretty unhealthy, should we make the poor eat dry salads or use vinaigrette only? What about juice? Usually not made with real fruit and loaded with sugar, why not ban it? Why not ban granulated sugar itself? That will prevent the poor from being able to as easily bake unhealthy things
I am all for getting America healthy. Just not sure trying to ban only a tiny section of foods for the poor is the way
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] |
I don't really like Keynesian bullcrap but subsidizing farms is important as a national security issue. If that means allowing snacky bullshit which sells at a higher volume and greater profit than healthy options, it's whatever.