Hacker News Reader

Comment by canadian_voter | Hacker News Reader

I'd rather live in a country that provides comprehensive free health care and limits soda consumption, than one that allows me the "freedom" to consume as much sugar as possible and makes me pay for the consequences.

I must be a radical hippie leftist: I think we should tax the sh-t out of refined sugar and subsidize organic vegetable farms.

View on HN

I agree much more with jdam's thoughts - why are we controlling other people with laws. Its sad, ... scary at worse. Is your idea really to start policing people's everyday interactions that we don't support?

Just the judicial and monitoring overhead alone makes this really silly. What do you do to a restaurant that serves unlimited sodas? What resources do you expend to find them and bring them to trial?

why are we controlling other people with laws

Right now the USA is subsidizing the corn industry to the tune of billions of dollars a year. 5-10% of that corn gets turned in to sweeteners.

Why are we taxing honest, hard-working Americans to provide cheap sweeteners for your sugar fix? Why are we subsidizing an industry that has been shown to have negative health effects?

I'm just saying that if you're going to subsidize farmers, you might as well say they have to make healthy food, not poison. :)

That's a very interesting debate to have. FTR: I remember reading somewhere something about a discussion between the USSR and the USA after WWII that went more or less like this: "Better to have a belly full with state jobs than jobless and hungry free men".

You still have the freedom to drink as much as you want in France. This is not about the freedom to drink, this is about fighting obesity.

That is not entirely true. For instance you can't drink in the street or be inebriated in public places.

France also used to serve wine in schools (http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/47/74/06/20160130/ob_1c8cee_...).

Maybe some law makers will come up with the idea to forbid sugary drinks and fast food to less than 18 or 21 years old (like it is for alcohol and cigarettes in some countries).

> For instance you can't drink in the street

Untrue. A few municipalities forbid it, generally in specific places and/or for a specific duration, but the general rule is that it is allowed.

> or be inebriated in public places.

True, but not enforced. Only if you have done something wrong but they can't prove it or they don't want to bother proving it, they will (sometimes) charge you with that.

> > For instance you can't drink in the street

> Untrue. A few municipalities forbid it, generally in specific places and/or for a specific duration, but the general rule is that it is allowed.

My bad then: that's what I remembered from visiting France for some months at time.

Not trying to start a flame war, but to offer a counterpoint: I don't believe that taxes should be used as a means to control people's behavior. If you put huge taxes on products that you deem to be socially unacceptable, you are simply making it harder for lower income families to access them, while wealthier individuals can continue to access them with little to no consequence. Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but this sounds like a classic example of a regressive tax.

And why is it up to us to say that poor people should have limited access to sugary products? Shouldn't that be a personal decision? Feel free to disagree, but I personally believe that if we're going to subsidize the organic industry, we shouldn't simultaneously be punishing people that just want their soda.

I think taxes should be used to control behaviour but the money raised should then go into a Basic Income Scheme.

You surely also would like the state to ban tobacco, alcohol and weed since it also has proven negative consequences? Can't have it both ways.

You can, actually. This isn't about banning sugary drinks. It's about banning a business model that the drafters of the law believe harms the collective health of France. This has more in common with clean air legislation than it has with drug prohibition.

I don't want to live the way the government wants me to.

Is that what you think this it? Do you actually think this is unjust and oppressive? To me it looks like a government doing what it is designed to do: govern. AKA "conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people)."

Perhaps you should describe to me the devastating consequences of this law, so that I may better understand your suffering.

A proper balance is important, though. Let government regulate too much and things will get really bad.

The problem is in defining what would be "too much" (and "too few"). Here, the opinions digress heavily.

Oh, of course. But this is a subject in where nobody gets hurt at all, and may even benefit some people.

I'm not exactly sure this doesn't hurt anyone at all. On the contrary, I believe there is some impact - although it's most likely not any heavy, and benefits to the society in general may[1] easily outweight.

I don't think businesses have those free refills out of pure generousity. There's most certainly some commercial incentive. Removing that must have some impact on businesses.

And it must also impact people who don't have weight or blood sugar issues, and have benefited from free refills. Heck, if I'm a regular at McDonalds, drink to my heart's content and government suddenly says "we forbid you to do that anymore - oh just think of those obese people!" I may be understanding but still I'll be sort of upset.

[1] May or may not. I dunno. Was there a proper scientific research?

I suppose I have to agree with you. You apparently want a nanny state and to tax me to pay for it.

> You apparently want a nanny state and to tax me to pay for it.

What's it with Americans and these expressions. I've heard "nanny state" used 0 times by non-Americans (non-Americans use it only when quoting Americans).

Also, you're making it sound like you're _the only one_ being taxed. He will also be taxed.

I suppose it's an American phrase. Given the way the rest of the world is going it may be an American value, too, though the US itself is moving away from that idea, too.

I'm not going to rehash old arguments about the virtues of fiscal conservatism. Suffice to say, I'm happy if people want to redistribute wealth and intrude on the lives of fellow citizens. I just wish it didn't involve me.

I am not the only one being taxed. But if my income is 5 times the median income, then I'm paying 20X the median taxes. No fun!

When the population is incapable of caring for itself, when do you jump in as state? If the population is harming itself, when do you stop it?

If you see a person is injuring themselves deliberately, will you stop them or do you let this person continue?

Me personally? If I don't know them, I'm not getting involved. This is not theoretical for me. On a couple of occasions I've witnessed people in the process of self harm. It's scary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com