Originally posted by Darth Jello
someone mentioned aspartame so if it were to expand to diet sweetners, what i meant was not taxing sucralose but taxing the other products since they taste worse and have more proven negative health effects.
Which is the one that caused cancer in lab rats? Sweet N' Low?
I'd just make the argument that marijuana is illegal but corn syrup isn't, /shrug
dental bills alone should be enough to prove the harm principal there
not to mention another "100,000,000 Guinea Pigs" scenario with the introduction of GMO corn. Not that I'm opposed to the principal, just the lack of choice/transparency.
I just really don't see taxes as an effective way to curb behaviour. Am I wrong here? the best evidence I've seen is that prohibition may in fact increase usage, though I guess smoking is on the downfall, though that is with more than just tax laws.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
There should be a bracket system-Raw Sugar or Sucralose-no tax
Refined Sugar or Aspartame-2 cents
Corn Syrup or Saccharine-4 centsAdd 3 cent tax to any of the previous products if they weren't harvested, manufactured, and packaged in the US
I've heard Splenda has it's negatives too, something to do with vision. Could be just a BS rumour.
Originally posted by inimalist
do taxes on cigarettes make people smoke less?
Yes. I looked but I couldn't find it on the internets. (Though, I only looked for less than a minute.) But I read it somewhere that the increase in cost caused some people to quit. It was a marginal number, though.
Originally posted by inimalist
does the prohibition of something reduce its use?
It sure does. But it also causes illegal activity around that "something" to skyrocket.
Originally posted by inimalist
such "morality" taxes are useless
Not entirely useless. In fact, they are useful with negatives....or negative with some uses, depending on whether your glass if half full or half empty.
I'm perfectly okay with fatass taxes. 🙂 It WILL improve the health of America....but only marginally. 🙂 Still, I could benefit from the fatass tax. awesome
My roommate is a pharm student that's worked with splenda. The thing with sucralose is that they basically take sucrose (sugar) and replace a hydroxide or two with a couple of chlorine atoms. The effect is that the sugar breaks down in your mouth, so it releases the same flavor as sugar but cannot be absorbed by the bodies of most people and is passed the same way as starches. The health effects that have been noticed is that in a few sensitive people that can absorb small amounts, extremely high doses result in weakened immune system and thymus gland. Extremely high doses also have been shown to negatively effect intestinal flora but not in a significant way. Organisms in the environment can digest sucralose but there have been few if any negative effects shown. These results are based on studies done by a number of national and international organizations since Sucralose' invention in 1976.
Basically it's chemically altered sugar that can't be broken down past the mouth and can rarely be absorbed into the blood stream so you eat it, it tastes sweet, then you poop it out. And by extremely high doses I mean in excess of 18,000 packets for a sensitive person per day.
Edit: 18,000 packets comes to somewhere around a quarter of a pound of sugar.
Originally posted by inimalist
I just really don't see taxes as an effective way to curb behaviour. Am I wrong here? the best evidence I've seen is that prohibition may in fact increase usage, though I guess smoking is on the downfall, though that is with more than just tax laws.
You're right. The "improvement" on behavior is marginal at best. It's still an improvement, but like you said, it's not very effective.
Originally posted by inimalist
do taxes on cigarettes make people smoke less?does the prohibition of something reduce its use?
such "morality" taxes are useless
Originally posted by King Kandy
They are useful because they increase federal revenue... oddly enough if they worked the way you're suggesting then they truly would be useless.
If you want federal revenue? Legalize pot and tax it, and you will get federal revenue.
Sorry for going off topic, but I couldn't resist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you want federal revenue? Legalize pot and tax it, and you will get federal revenue.Sorry for going off topic, but I couldn't resist.
I second this motion.
And we should add an excise tax to sugar sodas, legalize steriods and add a tax to that, legalize shrooms and tax that, etc. Hooray for liberties?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I second this motion.And we should add an excise tax to sugar sodas, legalize steriods and add a tax to that, legalize shrooms and tax that, etc. Hooray for liberties?
Well if you look at societies that either legalize (and heavily tax) things like drugs and prostitution, use of those services goes down due to a lack of alluring stigma. Also it tends to rip the balls out of organized crime because even with the tax, a legitimate, regulated company is gonna charge a lot less for cocaine or a prostitute than a pimp or a columbian drug dealer. Plus you get the peace of mind in knowing that you're not shoving something cut with rat poison in your veins or rolling around with a disease-filled pus bag.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I second this motion.And we should add an excise tax to sugar sodas, legalize steriods and add a tax to that, legalize shrooms and tax that, etc. Hooray for liberties?