Really? It's fairly easy to identify junk food. Dietitians and health nuts aren't rocket scientist.
I don't care about reducing obesity, I want the fat ***** to pay for their own morbidity.
Being fat had to do with both what and how much people it.
Taxes have had a hell of an impact on tobacco usage.
what she is getting at is by stating that your assertion to tax junk food will most likely incur additional fees and costs, as there will undoubtedly be a committee set up to examine the short and long term effects of ____ food products, the content, where and how it is distributed, by whom, their employment make-up to include sex, race, age and insurance benefits, as well as emissions put into the environment from producing the product, let alone how it effects human cells when ingested and how the human body expels this product. so taxing something in this day and age isn't quite as simple as running a bill through the appropriate channels, getting votes, etc. taxing something (anything) now means more government and we have to pay for that "new and needed" office.
no. let people make their own decisions on what to eat. if someone eats nothing but crisco, then chances are better than good that they will soon not be a burden on society with their ill-advised diet.
if a person is deemed healthy, but goes on a binge of eating ice-cream, pies, pizzas and other unhealthy foods, should that person incur an additional tax on top of sales tax to purchase those? because eating that **** consistently without exercising leads to weight gain. but say there is a doctor prescribed diet for someone to gain weight that consists of intaking a large amount of foods that "healthy" people would frown upon. should that person be taxed?
if taxes had such a drastic impact on tobacco use, then by your logic, we'd not see anyone smoking.