It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Look at it this way, Redneck...why should you do the heavy lifting on paying the health costs of an unhealthy society if you treat your own self better? Even if you don't have universal health care...there is still a societal cost, even if it only means you have to work harder to make up for that ill co-worker.
Originally posted by tinfoilman
I don't eat chocolate. So, there's no reason for me to be against the tax right?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by tinfoilman
I'll take a warn for a one-line post this time! *stands up and applauds tinfoilman*
(is my signature a second line? Oh, well, this question is. )
Originally posted by Oldtimer2
Thats kind of a shot in the dark,I eat chocolate all the time and I could hardly be called obese,goes with anything,if you eat 5 lbs of something sure you will get fat,not the substance it's the consumption
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by whoswatchinwho
It's not the chocolates so much as it's the fats. Transfats in particular should be taxed because they contribute directly to bad health. It's part of a high fructose sugar-transfat-salt-msg flavour bomb that's cheap and keeps the folks coming back.
Tax the bad stuff (they add to public health costs anyway), take the tax off the good stuff (especially fitmness programmes).