San Fran Mayor wants to tax pop!

[Tiggerlives]

I'm not joking, exaggerating or using superlatives: sugar is as addictive as cocaine.

Highlights:

-Researchers at Princeton University studying bingeing and dependency in rats have found that when the animals ingest large amounts of sugar, their brains undergo changes similar to the changes in the brains of people who abuse illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin.

-In the animals studied at Princeton, bingeing released a surge of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain. "It's been known that drugs of abuse release or increase the levels of dopamine in that part of the brain," Hoebel said.

-Deprived of their sugar, the rats displayed signs of withdrawal similar to the symptoms seen in people when they stop smoking, drinking alcohol, or using drugs.

There's also this study

Highlights:

-The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction.
reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction.

-Here we report that when rats were allowed to choose mutually-exclusively between water sweetened with saccharin–an intense calorie-free sweetener–and intravenous cocaine–a highly addictive and harmful substance–the large majority of animals (94%) preferred the sweet taste of saccharin.


Translated- 94% of rats, including those ALREADY addicted to cocaine- chose sugar water over cocaine-laced water. 94%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cinder]

I "think" you might be grasping now...I choose to pick real life experience over numerous studies on lab rats. I've been a kid, we've all been a kid. We've all ingested our fair share of sugar, and some of us very well may have been "addicted" to it. But by NO MEANS would I EVER compare sugar to cocaine.

[Tiggerlives]

I dunno, I just go by what the studies are showing. And I know from personal experience, if you stop eating sugar- you don't feel like eating it anymore. If you get back onto it, you crave it like Donald craves speech therapy.

[cinder]

LOL! I can't say I have ever craved sugar. EVER. But I'm abnormal. That's not a secret around these here parts.

[SNJ]

I'll answer you later Tiggerlives on you quoting me, but another for the record....I totallllly dislike sweets + sugary stuff. Meh.

[refurbmike]

This is the thing I don't get, and that has not been answered:

If 'their own ends' winds up actually helping the greater good, who cares?

Why does the 'hidden' intent of the politicians matter if in the end, soda consumption is lowered?

Because it's a dangerous realm to be in.

What happens when the government decides the world would be better if we were all Christian? (I just picked a religion, don't look too deep into that) And thus started taxing other religions? or started taxing Republicans? or started taxing those people who didn't have kids? or started taxing people who don't vote?

All of the above items could be seen as subjective improvements. And I'm willing to bet that there are studies out there that show any one of those items could leave to a better life.

However, it's not the government job to tell us what we can and can't do. It's as plain and simple as that.

[Tiggerlives]

All of the above items could be seen as subjective improvements. And I'm willing to bet that there are studies out there that show any one of those items could leave to a better life

Yes, subjective. Clearly there is enough objective scientific data to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that soda is not good for the human body.

That's where the line should be drawn, in my opinion. How much hard evidence is there to provide a basis for the decision as to what's 'healthy' or not. You know?

There are no studies that I'm aware of stating soda is actually good for the human body. That's pretty concrete, imo.

[club33az]

The data is objective. But the use of it is extremely subjective. And that's the problem I and most people have with it.

[refurbmike]

That's where the line should be drawn, in my opinion. How much hard evidence is there to provide a basis for the decision as to what's 'healthy' or not. You know?

There are no studies that I'm aware of stating soda is actually good for the human body. That's pretty concrete, imo.

So if I can find enough studies that say converting to Religion X is good, because its followers are less stressful, more productive, and less prone to destruction - then we should tax all other religions to drive people in one direction?

[Tiggerlives]

So if I can find enough studies that say converting to Religion X is good, because its followers are less stressful, more productive, and less prone to destruction - then we should tax all other religions to drive people in one direction?

The key is if you can find contradictory studies. If 100 percent of 1,000,001 studies showed that Religion X provided actual (measurable objective) statistical improvement- you'd have a case, right?

Again, as far as I know, there are no scientific studies contradicting the statement: too much soda is bad for the health of the human body. It's an objective fact, no?