The new “supply side” economics
I’ve said it before. And I’m sticking to it. There should be a “sin tax” on sugar. And believe it or not, a major scientific journal agrees with me.
Last month, there was a great article in the journal Nature that called for the government to step in and regulate sugar as a health hazard. I agree with many of the strategies they suggested. But I don’t think they went far enough.
If you ask me, it’s time for all-out prohibition of sugar. Of course, that didn’t work for alcohol so I doubt it would work for sugar. But what has worked for alcohol and illicit drugs is strict regulation. And since sugar is a much bigger problem than either of those, I am all for regulation.
Maybe we need zoning ordinances to control the number of fast-food joints and convenience stores in low-income communities. And especially around schools. A “Snickers-free” school zone.
Now, before you think I’m getting too “big-brotherly,” hear me out…
I’ve heard the argument that what you eat and drink is the last bastion of personal responsibility. But the fact is, not enough people are taking that responsibility seriously. And our health care system is about to collapse (figuratively and literally) under the weight of this epidemic.
So this article suggests some “supply side” strategies to limit the intake of sugar. Things like increased sales tax, controlling distribution, and age limits on who can buy it.
We do these things for every other addictive substance. Why not sugar?
The debate is sure to rage on. And I’d love to know where you stand. Visit my Facebook page and share your thoughts on regulating sugar.