Hi folks …

Before we begin, allow me to extend the usual, but still heartfelt and earnest 'thank you' to chissler, judges, readers, and most of all my esteemed opponent vkey08 for engaging me in the undertaking of this worthy intellectual duel.

The topic for this debate is "The Government should implement a 'health tax' or ban on unhealthy foods to promote better lifestyles among its' citizens” and I will be arguing the "Pro" position.

---

So I'm looking at this debate topic yesterday when it was first posted, and I don't mind telling you that a massive eye-roll took place when my eyes first laid upon it … 'Oh this is just great!' I mumbled to myself, all I got to do is convince a bunch of fiercely independent ATSers that we need MORE taxes and MORE government/ptb/NWO intervention!

Yet ...

Once I have laid all the facts before you, deconstructed the false premises upon which any contrary course of action would be founded, highlighted existing structure and legality, considered the alternatives, it will become abundantly clear that for all possible reasons that matter to a society, the government should tax and regulate unhealthy consumption.

Fact is, not only do all governments already do this, but they do it precisely because it is one of their primary raisons d'être!

Furthermore I will show beyond a doubt that such "pay for play" taxation is not only the fairest and most equitable of all, but will in fact inevitably lead to LESS taxation, LESS government, and a healthier population.

I will expound upon these fundamental elements as we delve deeper into this debate. For now and for the purposes of this opening post, I will say the following and urge you to keep it in mind as this debate unfolds …

My opponent CANNOT make her case on ideological, philosophical, or moral principle!

Principle is black and white, one either argues for or against it … does one believe the necessity of government or does one wish for anarchy. Social contracts either apply or they do not!

Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed. 1

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible. 3

In response to my socratic question you said:

I do not and never will advocate for any item deemed as illegal to be allowed in the hands of anyone, minor or not.

Aaaaaaaaand you just conceded half the debate!

For you just acknowledged that the government has the right to ban substances or behavior based on what is proven to be unhealthy and/or detrimental to a society.

And rightfully so … as I said in my opening post, intelligent people can disagree on degree, thresholds if you will, but the inherent right, nay duty, of a peoples' government is to ban and/or control dangerous/unhealthy substances.

Though it doesn't bode well for your position in this debate, I for one am glad we can find mutual agreement on this fundamental point.

Now that that's behind us, allow me to address the following comments:

Take for instance some of these proposals as they were defeated, one, here in New York even had the "fat tax" levied on Whole Milk, and by default baby formula, which by it's very nature NEEDS to have some level of fat in it for the child to grow and develop.

Ok.

In the end t boils down to a situation to where the research is simply not there to support the claims that taxing sugared and fatty foods will do anything to curb obesity in the United States

I wholeheartedly agree!

Do we really need to single out sugar as the all encompassing evil to society? I think not.

No we don't … I believe you are misunderstanding the debate.

I never suggested that either milk or sugar should be either banned or taxed, and the debate topic is "The Government should implement a 'health tax' or ban on unhealthy foods to promote better lifestyles among its' citizens.” not POTENTIALLY unhealthy where the health benefit/harm is mixed or inconclusive.

You are taking hypothetical substances that at least at the moment do not fall under the "sin tax" category. I am happy at a later point in this debate to address the aforementioned scientific thresholds for implementing a sin tax, but the point is … does the government have the right to implement such sin tax where the consensus has already been established.

The simple answer is yes.

The perfect example of this of course is tobacco. No one to my knowledge has any evidence that the benefits of tobacco outweigh the health risks. Thus the government rightfully controls and taxes (heavily I might add) tobacco consumption.

Listen, as a smoker for the last twenty years I don't much like it on a personal finance level, but on a societal level I both understand it and agree with it.

Another obvious and more foodie example would be alcohol which is also heavily taxed.

Sumptuary taxes are ostensibly used for reducing transactions involving something that the society considers unwanted, and is thus a kind of sumptuary law. Sin tax is used for taxes on activities that are considered socially proscribed. Common targets of sumptuary taxes are alcohol and tobacco, gambling, and vehicles emitting excessive pollutants. Sumptuary tax on sugar and soft drinks has also been suggested. Some jurisdictions have also levied taxes on illegal drugs such as cocaine and marijuana.1

Aspartame being a synthetic sugar substitute that has none of the nutritional value of naturally occurring sugar.

Sweeteners with aspartame is already banned in japan and in some other countries after a study about its harmful effects conducted in Italy concluded that in fact aspartame is not good for our health, that it could cause cancer and other serious diseases. The research studies was done by Fondazione Ramazzini in 2005.

There has been debates regarding this matter and the bad effects of aspartame to the human body. Debates continue, and there will always be discussions about this matter for as long as aspartame continue to exist in the market. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) has confirmed its dangerous effects however did not totally banned its usage, however, they have issued a report stating that the limit of 40 mg for every kg of body weight should be observed when using aspartame.

The fast-food restaurant ban, passed unanimously by the city council, is intended to entice healthier restaurants into the low-income area of south Los Angeles

Denmark became the first country to introduce laws strictly regulating the sale of many foods containing trans fats in March 2003, a move which effectively bans partially hydrogenated oils.

Take it through it's logical steps. We tax certain FOODS to attempt to keep people from buying them and steer them twords "healthier" forms of sustenance. The initial tax doesn't work, so we tax higher and higher until these foods carry a stigma worse than smoking ever could.

Finally, my opponent will no doubt try to put forth the slippery slope fallacy, in the hope of tugging at your conspiratorial strings … "What's next?" she will say with great ignominy and outrage, and something cute and cuddly that the government will tax next will be exampled.

Except that ...

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible. *

Phil Handler, then president of the National Academy of Sciences, testified in Congress to the same effect in 1980. ''What right,'' Handler asked, ''has the federal government to propose that the American people conduct a vast nutritional experiment, with themselves as subjects, on the strength of so very little evidence that it will do them any good?''