you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 1 year ago (9 children)

If the concern was really about health, they'd be regulating maximum sugar % in all sodas and candies, not banning them to the poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    If you want to buy sugar on your own dime, you can hurt your own health. But why should the government pay for it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not based on income. It's based on whether the government is paying for it or the person is paying out of their own pocket.

    Similarly, school meals should be healthy and not include sweets and soda

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Just kill that market. They basically make money off creating a health epidemic in the first place, at what point will we say maybe greed shouldn't be more important than our health? Remember who was lobbying fat is bad?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You do realize that banning candy and soda is not going to ban sugar. Sugar is a staple product and will always be available on food stamps. Soda is just a processed item, same as candy. In exactly the same way as Dinty Moore canned stew and Campbell's soups. Should those be banned too? How about bread? It's a carb and it's processed. Let's make the poor people make their own bread cause fuck them for being poor.

    Where should the line be drawn?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment