Is it right that some states determine which foods are taxed based on their nutrional value?

Question

Should the government be in the business of financially punishing people for eating unhealthy foods? if your answer is no, then why aren't more people outraged, if your answer is yes, then where do you draw the line, should the government ban junk foods all togeather, should they make it a crime to smoke, should they make it mandatory they people get a physical exam every year, etc.

Answer 1

Well, junk food *does* lead to loads of health conditions. Isn't it kind of the same as taxing booze or cigarettes? I smoked for a LONG time, trust me - when you smoke, they *are* a necessity, and by definition, an alcoholic thinks booze is a necessity.

I don't agree *banning* junk foods - but taxing them? Certainly. You don't *need* them to live. Aren't they more of a luxury item?

It might make healthy food prices more comparable, leading to a healthier population which in itself would help with our health care problems.

Answer 2

This question is a difficult one to answer, this is the best that I can do...

Each state has the right to make laws anyway that they want, and it is the Supreme Court's job to decide which laws are acceptable or not. It really is hard to decide where a line should be drawn, but I personally think that people's individual health is that person's problem, yes obesity is a major problem in the US, but the government should not tell it's citizens how and what to eat.

Answer 3

Can they legally do it? Yes.

Should they? No. I think the government needs to stop playing babysitter and nanny and hall monitor and stop trying to tell people how to live their lives and what they can put in their bodies.

If someone hurts someone else, that's a crime and should be punished. If someone chooses to be stupid and get fat, or sick, or take drugs, that's their choice.