Sugar is both legal to possess and readily available at very low cost. No one needs to rob people to afford it.
Rats prefer both sucrose (table sugar) and saccharine (artificial sweetener) over cocaine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/
Here is a review article discussing in more detail relevant literature on evidence for/against sugar addiction: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174153/ Certainly questions remain, but I think it's pretty clear sugar and cocaine are not actually in the same stratosphere here.
There's no doubt that there are dimensions along which sugar and cocaine are different, but your conclusion is unsubstantiated, IMO. The paper's conclusion is much more restrained:
> Given the lack of evidence supporting it, we argue against a premature incorporation of sugar addiction into the scientific literature and public policy recommendations.
Lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. Most of the arguments the review makes are that a mechanistic link between sugar/fat consumption and addictice eating behavior has not been substantiated by the literature. The review does not argue that such a link is impossible or improbable, nor does it argue that addictive eating behavior is in a different stratosphere from addictive drug use behavior.
I imagine you must be a major supporter of strict gun control. Right?