Sugar tax: Doctors call for sweet drink levy

[Socialist Tera]

The Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges, representing bodies including the Royal Australian College of GPs, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, has developed a six-point obesity action plan to tackle what it calls the most pressing public health issue.

Professor Nick Talley, head of the Committee of the Presidents of Medical Colleges, said urgent definitive action was needed.

"We need leadership, not just telling people to lose weight," he said.

"With smoking and tobacco control, we took risks and it had a dramatic effect."

He said obesity was a "real disease, not simply a lifestyle choice".

The group's six point plan includes:

Reclassifying obesity as a chronic disease
Introducing a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages
Advocating for better options for treating obesity including more cost effective medications and better access to bariatric surgery
Targeted training for all medical and health professionals to ensure a focus on nutrition, physical activity and obesity prevention and management
Lead by example in encouraging healthy food choices
Expand prenatal and early childhood obesity prevention strategies
Medical groups said they would lead by example by encouraging medical colleges, hospitals, universities and health services to offer healthier food choices to staff and limiting access to sugar-sweetened beverages.

Royal Australian College of GPs president Dr Bastian Seidel said the medical profession needed to lead the way on healthy eating.

"We need to live by the advice that we are giving to our patients," he said.

Sources:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-29/c ... ng/8056856
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-11/d ... ty/8012626

What is your opinion on tax sugar drinks nation states? I think it is not needed. People can make their own choices in society, obesity is linked to poverty in the first world not unhealthy soft drinks. I know it is stupid I call for body autonomy being a communist. I think choice is important when picking your diet.
My sources on poverty and obesity:
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and- ... o-obesity/
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and- ... r-obesity/
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/

[Rahul Raghuraman]

I am pro sugar tax

Lots of obesity problems derive from an unhealthy diet, including sodas, including not-so-diet soda.

My nation does have a 5% extra tax on the sale of all soda, energy drinks, etc.

[Socialist Tera]

I am pro sugar tax

Lots of obesity problems derive from an unhealthy diet, including sodas, including not-so-diet soda.

My nation does have a 5% extra tax on the sale of all soda, energy drinks, etc.

5% is not enough to make a noticeable dip in consumption. You would have to put in absorbent taxes. e.g. 60%

[Dumb Ideologies]

I think it's somewhat reasonable for the state to make it more difficult and expensive for people to make persistently unhealthy decisions.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

No sugar tax. It is regressive, punishes the consumer and hurts industry and will lead to loss of economic growth and loss of jobs.

[Community Values]

We wouldn't be required to have a healthy society if we didn't have to pay for people's health.

just sayin'

[Socialist Tera]

We wouldn't be required to have a healthy society if we didn't have to pay for people's health.

just sayin'

That's a little bit of a loaded answer. We aren't discussing whether health should be public or private.

I think it's somewhat reasonable for the state to make it more difficult and expensive for people to make persistently unhealthy decisions.

The question is though, how far do we let them before it becomes an invasion of privacy and your own right to your body? I drink like 4 bottles of soft drink a weeb and I'm not fat.

[Rahul Raghuraman]

I am pro sugar tax

Lots of obesity problems derive from an unhealthy diet, including sodas, including not-so-diet soda.

My nation does have a 5% extra tax on the sale of all soda, energy drinks, etc.

5% is not enough to make a noticeable dip in consumption. You would have to put in absorbent taxes. e.g. 60%

I agree, but a Sugary Drink Tax increase bill and the Fountain Program bill is on the floor. They will raise the soda tax to 50% and start a program to put water fountains at most city and town intersections. The Fountain Program will install between 10 and 20 million water fountains by July 2017.

[Community Values]

We wouldn't be required to have a healthy society if we didn't have to pay for people's health.

just sayin'

That's a little bit of a loaded answer. We aren't discussing whether health should be public or private.

I think it's somewhat reasonable for the state to make it more difficult and expensive for people to make persistently unhealthy decisions.

The question is though, how far do we let them before it becomes an invasion of privacy and your own right to your body? I drink like 4 bottles of soft drink a weeb and I'm not fat.

The only reason we would need a sugar tax, to encourage health, is if we want to bring the price of healthcare down.

Either way though, this law would not be good for the poor.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I just fucking kicked booze and now you're tryna take my rootbeer? Screw you guys, let me have this vice

[Saiwania]

I'm in favor because it is more or less common sense in terms of policy. Nobody has to buy items containing sugars but slightly higher prices for sweets might provide the incentive for some people to consider healthier alternatives. It is high time that the sugar/corn syrup subsidies go away.

[Dushan]

Yup. But instead higher Tax on Industrial Sugar than Consumer End Products. They put way too much Sugar those Days in Products who aren't needing it really.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'm in favor because it is more or less common sense in terms of policy. Nobody has to buy items containing sugars but slightly higher prices for sweets might provide the incentive for some people to consider healthier alternatives. It is high time that the sugar/corn syrup subsidies go away.

Oh no, I work hard to eat garbage. Do you know how many addictions I've substituted for sugar? I'm drawing a line

[The Blaatschapen]

The only things in life that are certain are death and taxes. And with this proposal, we're combining the two.

I approve

[Socialist Tera]

I'm in favor because it is more or less common sense in terms of policy. Nobody has to buy items containing sugars but slightly higher prices for sweets might provide the incentive for some people to consider healthier alternatives. It is high time that the sugar/corn syrup subsidies go away.

Oh no, I work hard to eat garbage. Do you know how many addictions I've substituted for sugar? I'm drawing a line

Same. I replaced Snus with Gum and alcohol with cheap Coke rip offs.

[Purpelia]

No, there should bloody well not be a luxury tax on the people. Tax the rich that can afford to lose millions without noticing. Don't tax the poor out of the few pleasures they can afford.

[Cetacea]

The question is though, how far do we let them before it becomes an invasion of privacy and your own right to your body? I drink like 4 bottles of soft drink a weeb and I'm not fat.

I don't have cirrhosis of liver yet I fully support the 38% tax on alcohol which is justified directly by its impact on health detriments

as such I have no problem with introducing a sugar tax with the same justification

however I'd much prefer an incentive system that rewarded people for consuming more fruit and veg, but I'm not sure how that would wok...

[Nocturnalis]

What the hell is it with folk trying to get obesity classified as a disease?

[Minarchismusland]

So whoever eats sweet food moderately will be affected by those who don't? Because I'm a chocolate lover while besides that I don't really like other sweet things and am practically a skeleton, so I wouldn't like being affected by those who can't control themselves.

EDIT: Just saw this is for drinks (I don't like soda), but my point should still apply.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

We wouldn't be required to have a healthy society if we didn't have to pay for people's health.

just sayin'

Unless you're killing them you pay for it eventually.

What the hell is it with folk trying to get obesity classified as a disease?

Medicalization might succeed where demonization has failed, I dunno.

[Minarchismusland]

Not really my opinion but a thought of mine on controlling alcohol/tobacco/unhealthy food is: let people do whatever they want with their bodies, but don't allow them to treat whatever problems the usage of those can cause freely by a public healthcare system. Less demand aka less taxes, and perhaps this would make people think a bit more before doing anything unhealthy with themselves, differently from just saying "drugs are bad, but we're still going to take care of you even if you use them, eh buddy?"

There are some problems with that kind of decision. People with enough money to pay for private healthcare shouldn't really care, the chances of some people not caring and continuing using drugs/other unhealthy things and then facing the consequences later and dying, etc.

[Galloism]

Not really my opinion but a thought of mine on controlling alcohol/tobacco/unhealthy food is: let people do whatever they want with their bodies, but don't allow them to treat whatever problems the usage of those can cause freely by a public healthcare system. Less demand aka less taxes, and perhaps this would make people think a bit more before doing anything unhealthy with themselves, differently from just saying "drugs are bad, but we're still going to take care of you even if you use them, eh buddy?"

There are some problems with that kind of decision. People with enough money to pay for private healthcare shouldn't really care, the chances of some people not caring and continuing using drugs/other unhealthy things and then facing the consequences later and dying, etc.

I guarantee you most people don't think 40 years ahead when deciding whether or not to have that soda.

[The Blaatschapen]

Not really my opinion but a thought of mine on controlling alcohol/tobacco/unhealthy food is: let people do whatever they want with their bodies, but don't allow them to treat whatever problems the usage of those can cause freely by a public healthcare system. Less demand aka less taxes, and perhaps this would make people think a bit more before doing anything unhealthy with themselves, differently from just saying "drugs are bad, but we're still going to take care of you even if you use them, eh buddy?"

There are some problems with that kind of decision. People with enough money to pay for private healthcare shouldn't really care, the chances of some people not caring and continuing using drugs/other unhealthy things and then facing the consequences later and dying, etc.

I guarantee you most people don't think 40 years ahead when deciding whether or not to have that soda.

Soda is like sex in that regard.

[Minarchismusland]

Not really my opinion but a thought of mine on controlling alcohol/tobacco/unhealthy food is: let people do whatever they want with their bodies, but don't allow them to treat whatever problems the usage of those can cause freely by a public healthcare system. Less demand aka less taxes, and perhaps this would make people think a bit more before doing anything unhealthy with themselves, differently from just saying "drugs are bad, but we're still going to take care of you even if you use them, eh buddy?"

There are some problems with that kind of decision. People with enough money to pay for private healthcare shouldn't really care, the chances of some people not caring and continuing using drugs/other unhealthy things and then facing the consequences later and dying, etc.

I guarantee you most people don't think 40 years ahead when deciding whether or not to have that soda.

Which is the problem with that idea. Maybe a few years of people dying from not caring later the population in general would start to take care of themselves more, but I don't think making a ton of people die so the others learn the lesson is very moral.

[Galloism]

I guarantee you most people don't think 40 years ahead when deciding whether or not to have that soda.

Which is the problem with that idea. Maybe a few years of people dying from not caring later the population in general would start to take care of themselves, but I don't think making a ton of people die so the others learn the lesson isn't very moral.

I doubt they would actually learn the lesson anyway.