Drug addict zombie communities

[Altai]

I want to start this topic after I read a news about a murdered scientist who had succesfully worked on cancer treatment. I am going to share diabolical plans of drug and food companies under this topic. Feel free to participate.

First, I want to start with the harms of fructose syrup. Its a simple sugar syrup used in many ready made foods. Its present naturally in some foods and not harmful when consumed in small quantities but its quite harmful when its used intensively, as its done by many food companies for being soo cheap and easy to obtain. High amount of fructose cause many diseases, especially cancer. Stay away and keep your children away, children have the greatest potential of being victim of these evil companies because of their great desire against the sugary things. These companies have strong lobbying activities in many countries together drug companies. So one makes you sick and other one promise to threat, to form a vicious circle. They makes you zombies struggling with diseases by spending great time who is deprived of thinking-questioning abilities. 


To be continued ...

Edited November 21, 2016 by Altai

[Guest]

Agreed.  People who think child abuse is horrific when it manifests as a good spanking think nothing of keeping a fridge stocked with Coke, and giving their kids unfettered access to it.

[betsy]

There are so many things that are harmful to us.....but can we just pinpoint to one? Can we conclusively say it's what actually gave cancer?  I don't think so.  Moderation, is the key. 

 

Look at eggs and fat.  It's now proven that they don't really cause high cholesterol!  In fact, going low-fat is even more harmful to us. 

What's bad are those breakfast cereals we feed kids everyday!  It all depends on the industry and lobby groups. Everyone's playing with science nowadays.  Just like they play with saying it's mankind who's responsible for climate change, as an example  It's just another big industry.

How can anyone believe what is being said?

 

 

I hope we don't force people to not eat, or use certain products.....since we have no business dictating to people how they should live, or raise their kids.

Edited November 23, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

Forcing, no.  Taxing, sure.  We tax other things that can do us harm, like Tobacco, Alcohol and Gasoline.  It won't bother me if they tax sugar too.  It would be nice if they put the proceeds towards health care to help all those kids with type 2 diabetes.

[Bryan]

16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

 It won't bother me if they tax sugar too. It would be nice if they put the proceeds towards health care to help all those kids with type 2 diabetes.

The problem with that is public policy is usually far behind the current science. We'll get taxed for things that we're being TOLD are bad, whether they actually are or not. It will quickly become an excuse to raise revenue, rather than an attempt to help anyone.

[betsy]

On 11/23/2016 at 8:48 AM, bcsapper said:

Forcing, no.  Taxing, sure.  We tax other things that can do us harm, like Tobacco, Alcohol and Gasoline.  It won't bother me if they tax sugar too.  It would be nice if they put the proceeds towards health care to help all those kids with type 2 diabetes.

It bothers me though that people like me, who monitors and consumes moderately, are penalized for it along with the culprits!

 

I understand you mean well.  But we have to be careful.

 

Furthermore, if we're going to tax items that do us harm.......

 

....we should tax everything that is claimed to be bad for us.  You can't just pick and choose which ones to tax!

 

Cell phone use is  bad for us, as an example.   Not only does it cause accidents, but it's also causes brain cancer.   BBQ equipments , cured meats, and all processed foods like hot dogs, kraft cheeses and dinners, and that practically includes almost all convenient foods (from frozen to refrigerated)!

So is tv, computer,  or any technology that help promote obesity (and type 2 diabetes).   They should install a meter that ticks like a taxi meter - charging us as we use the cell phone, tv, ipad etc.., 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

10 hours ago, Bryan said:

The problem with that is public policy is usually far behind the current science.

 

So true.

Just like eggs and homo milk, as examples!  For the longest time I can remember, people were so cautious with eating eggs (some even eat only egg whites) because they say it causes high cholesterol! 

 

  Then it was the fat!  People got into low-fat.  You see all these Lite products with scary chemicals in lieu of fat!  It's hard to find yogurt that isn't low in fat!  Now, science says.....it's lack of consuming fat that causes obesity!   They say homo milk is the best way to drink milk!

Edited November 24, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

On 11/23/2016 at 8:48 AM, bcsapper said:

Forcing, no.  Taxing, sure.  We tax other things that can do us harm, like Tobacco, Alcohol and Gasoline.  It won't bother me if they tax sugar too.  It would be nice if they put the proceeds towards health care to help all those kids with type 2 diabetes.

 

It's lack of physical activity, along with modern technology (that inhibit physical activities)....and fastfood stuffs.....they all contribute to obesity and related problems.

 

If you're really serious about improving the health of the youngsters, we should start by petitioning to eliminate school buses in areas within walking distance to schools.  Get those kids walking!  It'd be great if parents will walk them to school - everybody gets a workout!

If we're going to tax food - tax all "convenience" foods that have harmful chemicals, and all fastfood outlets like Tim Hortons!  Their donuts alone, are killers!  McDonalds, Pizza outlets etc., 

Edited November 24, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

@Bryan and @betsy. All good points, and if we could actually tax everything that was bad for us, based on a sliding scale of how bad it was, I'd be all in favour. 

That said, sugar, especially in its over processed forms, is getting up there with tobacco in terms of a public health crisis.  I'd love to see the makers of soft drinks sued for billions the way tobacco companies have been.  Until then though, any method of reducing the impact of poison produced and sold to a thick as a plank public for the purpose of maximizing profits at the expence of public (even if they are as dense as lead) health is okay by me.  

I would actually make it a criminal offence to give Coke or Pepsi to a kid, akin to giving them cigarettes or booze, but that's just me.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

@Bryan and @betsy. All good points, and if we could actually tax everything that was bad for us, based on a sliding scale of how bad it was, I'd be all in favour. 

That said, sugar, especially in its over processed forms, is getting up there with tobacco in terms of a public health crisis.  I'd love to see the makers of soft drinks sued for billions the way tobacco companies have been.  Until then though, any method of reducing the impact of poison produced and sold to a thick as a plank public for the purpose of maximizing profits at the expence of public (even if they are as dense as lead) health is okay by me.  

I would actually make it a criminal offence to give Coke or Pepsi to a kid, akin to giving them cigarettes or booze, but that's just me.

So, why are they still allowed to sell all these stuffs that's killing us? 

 

Look at the liberals and all their injection sites!  Maybe, let's just have the government cook for us and feed us all?  Everything cooked and ready to eat, delivered to us?  They can feed us anything they say is okay and good for us.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

So, why are they still allowed to sell all these stuffs that's killing us? 

 

 

I have no idea.  Maybe they don't like us.

[OftenWrong]

On 2016-11-24 at 2:47 PM, bcsapper said:

I would actually make it a criminal offence to give Coke or Pepsi to a kid, akin to giving them cigarettes or booze, but that's just me.

I had coke and pepsi given to me all the time when I was a kid, plus candies, cookies, ice cream, and chips. And look at me, I'm fine.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I had coke and pepsi given to me all the time when I was a kid, plus candies, cookies, ice cream, and chips. And look at me, I'm fine.

Mmm...   I still would. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[Bonam]

On 11/24/2016 at 11:47 AM, bcsapper said:

I would actually make it a criminal offence to give Coke or Pepsi to a kid, akin to giving them cigarettes or booze, but that's just me.

Yes, let's jail anyone who dares to not eat the government-approved diet. Go down that path and before you know it your meal for each day will be prescribed by some bureaucrat on the other side of the continent. Freedom is more important than reducing the harm that stupid people can do to themselves.

[Altai]

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I had coke and pepsi given to me all the time when I was a kid, plus candies, cookies, ice cream, and chips. And look at me, I'm fine.

You will live 5 years less  and 5 years is fairly a long time 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Altai

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Mmm...   I still would. 

I know, because you want to incarcerate my mom and dad! 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Bonam said:

Yes, let's jail anyone who dares to not eat the government-approved diet. Go down that path and before you know it your meal for each day will be prescribed by some bureaucrat on the other side of the continent. Freedom is more important than reducing the harm that stupid people can do to themselves.

We jail people for other forms of child abuse.  Once they reach the age of consent, killing themselves is an option, of course.

[The_Squid]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

We jail people for other forms of child abuse.  Once they reach the age of consent, killing themselves is an option, of course.

Takes too much enforcement and court time.

Tax the crap out of it and make it less of a problem.

[Bryan]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

Takes too much enforcement and court time.

Tax the crap out of it and make it less of a problem.

We need less taxes all around, not more.

[The_Squid]

3 minutes ago, Bryan said:

We need less taxes all around, not more.

 Nothing wrong with extra taxes on unhealthy food.  The health costs of obesity and trying to curb unhealthy behaviour is good reason for extra taxes.  Plus, they're entirely voluntary. 

[Bryan]

6 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

 Nothing wrong with extra taxes on unhealthy food.  The health costs of obesity and trying to curb unhealthy behaviour is good reason for extra taxes.  Plus, they're entirely voluntary. 

There IS something wrong -- you're putting the government in charge of deciding what "unhealthy" means. 

[The_Squid]

Just now, Bryan said:

There IS something wrong -- you're putting the government in charge of deciding what "unhealthy" means. 

It's pretty much empirical evidence that can determine that.

Science proves smoking is unhealthy.  Do you dispute that?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bryan said:

There IS something wrong -- you're putting the government in charge of deciding what "unhealthy" means. 

They could ask scientists. Or my wife. She knows. 

[Bryan]

26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They could ask scientists. Or my wife. She knows. 

The same scientists who have been wrong almost every time with regards to nutrition? That's my concern. If we were listening to them, things like eggs would have been banned or heavily taxed. We think we know sugar is bad now. We were really sure about cholesterol and fat before. Turns out scientists find what they are paid to find.

I hear you on the wife though. You should definitely listen to her.

[The_Squid]

8 minutes ago, Bryan said:

The same scientists who have been wrong almost every time with regards to nutrition? That's my concern. If we were listening to them, things like eggs would have been banned or heavily taxed. We think we know sugar is bad now. We were really sure about cholesterol and fat before. Turns out scientists find what they are paid to find.

I hear you on the wife though. You should definitely listen to her.

Comparing pop to eggs is just plain silly.  No one is suggesting taxing actual food that isn't sugary and processed.