Listen to the arsehole who spouts his puritanical propaganda on the BBC:
…We don’t need them to survive, they’re just water and sugar and calories. Let’s put a tax on those to try and encourage people to drink more healthy drinks.
Fuck me rigid. Professor Terence Stephenson, my life, my diet and my health is my concern. And, no, my choice to drink a Pepsi with my packed lunch is not going to give me cancer or cause a “ballooning waistline” and even if it did, that is up to me, not you. We do not need a tax to encourage people to drink carrot juice or whatever, because – and this is a very simple principle, that even you should be able to grasp it; my diet, my body and my health is my business and none of yours.
Put a tax on this stuff and when we do the baccy run to Calais, we will be stocking up on Pepsi as well. So fuck you, you nasty puritan shitbag.
Actually, Coke rots your teeth & tastes VILE.
If you are terminally stuopid enough to drink it, that’s your problem, however, isn’t it?
Given that I take a moderation in all things approach, any likelihood of it doing me harm is non-existent. Besides, I like the taste. Taste being a personal thing, of course.
The radio was in danger of being flung through the kitchen window when I heard this yesterday. The ignorance of these people is staggering.
1. Calories are calories no matter which food you consume or what you drink.
2. All carbohydrates are sugars and the body breaks them down to either use or store as energy. I’d like one of these morons to try a carbohydrate free diet and see how long they survive without major organ failure.
3. I agree with you LR, what I eat,drink and/or smoke is my business and nobody else’s.
It’s about time doctors returned to tending the sick and leave the well alone.
XX 1. Calories are calories no matter which food you consume or what you drink. XX
Not entirely the full story.
Calories, yes, BUT eating a bowl of Tuna, or….(Oh NOOOOO “Lentils”!!) measured to have the same calorific value as a liter of coke, will BURN OFF calories in the mere DIGESTION. Coke will not. It goes into the blood stream as pure sugar, and is then stored.
AND, what are “stored simple carbohydrates”?
YEESSS!
FAT!
Same as the Carbohydrates obtained from, oats, will NOT have the same “end calorific value” as the same amount of carbohydrate obtained from pure sugar, or a pound of Nutty.
Everything we eat is ultimately converted into glucose that sits in our bloodstream. Some people do hard, manual, labour and a quick hit of sugar helps give them the energy they need to get through the day. The rise of the services industries in the UK does mean there are fewer such manual jobs around these days, but their number is not yet zero.
Coloured sugar-water drinks have been around for well over a century, yet this alleged “obesity epidemic” (which is an oxymoron given that obesity isn’t contagious), has not. Ergo, it’s not the coloured sugar-water drinks that are causing it. It’s most likely to be the lifestyle changes we’ve seen since the rise of the (sedentary) service industries and the dramatic fall in primary and secondary industries here in the UK. The correct solution is better education and encouragement – but not nagging or nannying – to do more physical exercise to counter the effects of basically sitting on your arse for eight hours every working day.
Taxing high-calorie foods is a tax on poor people as they tend to be the ones doing those manual, often menial, energy-consuming, and *badly paid* jobs in the first place.
Mmmhmm. Saw this on the news yesterday.
When he said “Let’s put a tax on those to try and encourage people to drink more healthy drinks.” my bullshit detector kicked in and it was instantly translated.
Thus I heard “Let’s put a tax on everything people like so we can grab a shitload of cash.“
Hi Longrider
To start with, that is a most excellent rant!
However, I have a question.
Would you – hypothetically speaking of course given your comment on moderation – having damaged your health by eating, smoking and drinking whatever you want to whatever degree you like, then expect healthcare provided by the state to cover any complications arising from obesity, respiratory problems and the like?
Surely given the huge cost of treating these self-inflicted health problems, which are close to if not already at epidemic levels, we have to look at some preventative measures as opposed to just continue solely with expensive reactive treatments?
If a small tax rise on these ‘fatty’ food stuffs leads to a reduction in obesity and related illnesses, as increases in duty have led to a decrease in smoking related diseases, surely that benefits everyone as the money saved in healthcare provision can be allocated elsewhere, potentially helping those who get sick despite leading a wholesome life of moderation.
RP
Given that I’ve paid for it several times over and that smokers and drinkers are already heavily taxed, yes, I would expect the state to keep its end of the bargain. That’s what universal healthcare means.
I wonder what the fuck nuts who come up with this stuff propose to do about fruit juice. I just went to the fridge and checked: My apple juice has as much “natural” sugar [my quotes] in it as a can of full fat coke.
Or is this just about bashing a globally successful company more than it is about health?
“ … increases in duty have led to a decrease in smoking related diseases …”
Have they? Have they really? Because I thought that lung cancer rates were now, in our largely non-smoking population, at an all-time high, as was heart disease – with fewer deaths due to better medication and diagnosis, but a higher overall incidence of the illness in the first place, and childhood asthma rates on a sharp upward curve, exactly correlating, coincidentally, to the reduced amount of environmental tobacco smoke.
In fact, I immediately thought that the reason that they are now casting about trying to find another cause of cancer (soft drinks being just the most recent – there are, of course, other candidates in the offing) was precisely because if they didn’t, and cancer cases continued increasing at the rate that they now are, then someone, somewhere down the line might just rumble that maybe – just maybe – the link between tobacco smoke and cancer wasn’t anywhere near as solid and “overwhelmingly proven” as it had been made out to be. Far better to distract the public with another Big Health Threat than to let history take its course and, inevitably, reveal the Big Lie.