Hey, isn’t it time we regulate sugar like alcohol or tobacco?

posted at 9:52 pm on February 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

Per Coulter’s piece, I take it this is the conservative position now, yes? If we let the state require militia-age males to carry rifles, there’s really no reason we shouldn’t encourage it to intervene further in shaping people’s diets by making pixy stix cost 10 dollars. As long as it’s local government that’s doing the regulating and not the feds, go nuts.

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it’s unavoidable, there’s potential for abuse, it’s toxic, and it negatively impacts society. They write that sugar is added to so many processed foods that it’s everywhere, and people eat up to 500 calories per day in added sugar alone. Sugar acts on the same areas of the brain as alcohol and tobacco to encourage subsequent intake, they wrote, and it’s toxic because research shows that sugar increases disease risk from factors other than added calories, such as when it disrupts metabolism…

“We are now seeing the toxic downside,” co-author and sugar researcher Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the UCSF Center for Obesity Assessment, Study, and Treatment, told WebMD. “There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient.”…

“I don’t think people have any idea how many calories they take in when they take in soft drinks – particularly because they are consumed in such large quantities,” Nestle said. She thinks regulation could eventually be possible, since many local governments are already enacting policies to curb sugar in schools or tax sodas.

One of the co-authors has an op-ed at CNN making her case. She doesn’t want prohibition — imagine trying to enforce an outright ban on sugar — but rather “gentle ‘supply side’ controls, such as taxing products, setting age limits and promoting healthier versions of the product.” You would think that in an information age, as TVs and cell phones become ubiquitous even among the lower classes, nanny impulses would be channeled more frequently into public education campaigns than into regulation. Doesn’t feel that way, though, does it? You get the calorie counts on fast-food menus now, but you also get moronic attempts to ban Happy Meals in San Francisco. Maybe one begets the other — i.e. precisely because it’s easier to put the word out about food and nutrition, the nanny-minded become more aware of the dangers of certain substances and feel obliged to press harder for regulation. Or maybe it’s a simple matter of health warnings being drowned out by an expanding galaxy of ads for the dangerous products. I don’t quite buy that theory, though: Cigarettes haven’t enjoyed ubiquitous advertising and the actual packs have carried warnings for nearly 50 years, but somehow even that degree of informed consent is lately being deemed insufficient, thus requiring actual photos of people with tracheotomies on the packs — even though virtually everyone above grade school levels knows that smokes are a cancer risk. The more access to information you have, the dumber you supposedly are, and therefore the more your choices have to be made for you by your superiors. Isn’t the future glorious?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

It’s gonna happen.

Jim-Rose on February 1, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Three cheers for regulated sugar intake!

Punchenko on February 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it’s unavoidable, there’s potential for abuse, it’s toxic, and it negatively impacts society.

That pretty much describes liberalism, can we regulate that too?

squint on February 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I agree that sugar is toxic, as are other refined carbs. i am able to avoid them when I want to though.

juliesa on February 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

“In American, first you get the sugar. Then you get the power. Then you get the women.”
-Homer Simpson in his best Ricardo Montaban accent.

Flange on February 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Big Sugar.

Oh honey, honey.

Notorious GOP on February 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Mandate exercise!!!
or pay the fine…

Cheers.

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM

If we let the state require militia-age males to carry rifles, there’s really no reason we shouldn’t encourage it to intervene further in shaping people’s diets by making pixy stix cost 10 dollars. As long as it’s local government that’s doing the regulating and not the feds, go nuts.

Where in the US Constitution do you find the authority of the US Government to prevent any of the sovereign States from regulating sugar like tobacco?

JohnGalt23 on February 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I can feel myself getting triggered merely by the subject matter.
I’ll go back to the 3 cheers thread.
*$%^&$#! nanny-staters!!!*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

don’t these idiots realize the more they negatively promote things, the more i want to do them, just to annoy them?

Daveyardbird on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I guess diabetics are just effed.

What’s that? Your blood sugars dropping? You need some highly sweetened juice or candy to keep you from slipping into a coma?

Pony up, buddy.

There ain’t no free rides…

catmman on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Uncle Sugar ain’t so sugary no more./

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Of course all the butterbutts will be lining up to preach to the rest of how badly we are screwing up our lives with sugar.

Mooch….I’m looking at you.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I just don’t trust the feds on diet. Their war on fat, especially saturated fat, was misguided and harmful. It helped put people on the path to using more sugar and flour instead of fat, and the carbs are even worse. The gov should just stay out of it.

juliesa on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Can we regulate, then, how much sugar you can buy with food stamps of is that racist?

ORconservative on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Where in the US Constitution do you find the authority of the US Government to prevent any of the sovereign States from regulating sugar like tobacco?

Are you being sarcastic? Where did I say that I did?

Allahpundit on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM

or not of..
Too much sugar.

ORconservative on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Sugar Cain.

9-9-9

Or is that…
Sugar Daddy??

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

How does one become a sugar researcher?

vcferlita on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Welp, better add growing sugar cane to the prepper list.

LoganSix on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I can’t wait until the government makes us all healthier. I’m sure we’ll have a government “minder” to dole us out a bit ‘o sugar while jazzin’ up our Joe at the Starbizzucks…..

now that’s the epitome of “caring.”

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Hells yeah! Then onto hamburger, bacon and cream!

carbon_footprint on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Mooch….I’m looking at you.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Panoramic look.
Strain on the neck :)

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol

Yep, every night I dive into the sugar bowl to get buzzed. I’ll be eating sugar on the Saturday night open thread.

Whoo Hoo!

JPeterman on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

“Pot for everyone!” says the Paultard.

Sugar on the other hand…

catmman on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

They can start with Bloomberg. No more fruit or desert for the Nanny Pig. He can then explain where he got that belly from.

pat on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

WAIT! I saw this movie already!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120373/

I’m thinking the sequel won’t live up to the original. (And that’s a pretty low bar to set…)

makattak on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Do-gooders are worse than evil because they never rest. These pains in the butt just never stop.

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Mooch….I’m looking at you.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Panoramic look.
Strain on the neck :)

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Butt…
Good exercise..

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

it’s pretty silly to equate sugar to tobacco and alcohol. tobacco and alcohol are VERY dangerous, addictive, and many people (conservatives and liberals alike) underestimate how bad these things are. however, sugar? sure it has the potential to be dangerous but it’s MUCH, MUCH safer than tobacco or alcohol.

Sachiko on February 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

The government does not have a great track records as far as food goes.
Hey, animals fats are bad!
Eat more vegetable oils!
Wait, vegetable oils are bad! Eggs bad! Eggs good!

Human beings have subsisted for thousands of years on meat. Eat meat! Moderation in all other types of food.

carbon_footprint on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Chocolate rebellion.

Women of the world unite.

antipc on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

I”m surprised you didn’t pick up on the violent video games tax being proposed by a state legislator. It goes hand-in-hand with this.

An Oklahoma lawmaker is proposing a tax on violent video games to fight childhood obesity and school bullying.

And surprise, it’s a Democrat!!!

ButterflyDragon on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

So I’m guessing this “research” was funded with taxpayer dollars to provide an ” expert” basis for Moochl’s revenge on America ?

burrata on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

It’s certainly more harmful.

Random on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

“Pot for everyone!” says the Paultard.

Sugar on the other hand…

catmman on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

There we go. Someone else who hates paul more than actually liking someone else.

Notorious GOP on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Oh brother. Is this another Michelle Obama thing?

SoulGlo on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Are you being sarcastic? Where did I say that I did?

Allahpundit on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Quite the opposite. In fact, given a reading of the plain text of your statement, I think you agree with me… there is no such authority. Only the wisdom of the electorate of the States stands between us and the brown-shirted SugarStaffel.

Just like there is no such authority to stop MA from imposing health care mandates, other than the wisdom of their own voters, which apparently has been found wanting.

JohnGalt23 on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Sugar makes me feel like crap. I moderate myself, voluntarily.

carbon_footprint on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

It’s not the sugar that is the problem, look at the amount of corn syrup being used.

reddevil on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

As long as it’s local government that’s doing the regulating and not the feds, go nuts.

Sure. Look at San Francisco’s crazy ban on Happy Meals.

The answer here is competition fixes a lot of potential problems with bad policies. Cities and states compete with each other for residents and business; the crazier their laws and micromanaging their bans are, the more people will vote with their feet—and those left behind will eventually get sick and tired of the exodus enough to repeal the odious laws.

Federal government has no such competition (much higher barrier to crossing national borders), which is why it had to be bound to few and enumerated powers, not indefinite, numerous, and general police power that states had since the beginning.

novakyu on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM

When they make sugar illegal, only the fat people will have sugar.

SlaveDog on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM

So we have to deregulate pot,
and regulate sugar.
Right ??????

burrata on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Mooch….I’m looking at you.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Yes, and if you told her to haul azz she’d have to make two trips.

antipc on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Sugar makes me feel like crap. I moderate myself, voluntarily.

carbon_footprint on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

It is certainly the number one cause of almost every disease in the western world.

cynccook on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Buy this or go to jail
Buy this and go to jail

Masih ad-Dajjal on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

This is where social conservatives, all of sudden, in a brief moment of clarity, discover the virtue of libertarian thinking. Alas, it doesn’t last long.

Cafeteria conservatives.

keep the change on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

heh slavedog….does that mean that we need to lick ‘em to get a fix??////

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Quite the opposite. In fact, given a reading of the plain text of your statement, I think you agree with me… there is no such authority. Only the wisdom of the electorate of the States stands between us and the brown-shirted SugarStaffel.

Of course the states can do it. My point is, conservatives should oppose it. That was the flaw in Coulter’s piece — she’s basically arguing that because RomneyCare is legal, it’s also salutary or at least harmless. Tain’t so.

Allahpundit on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Does this mean our melting bunny video will need a disclaimer??
Or is it a sugarfree chocolate Bunny that give you gas?

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM

When they make sugar illegal, only the fat people will have sugar.

SlaveDog on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM

LOL They can have my sugar when they pry it from my fat, dead hand.

cynccook on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM

It’s not the sugar that is the problem, look at the amount of corn syrup being used.

reddevil on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Hey now, better watch what you say. Corn syrup is good, and if you dont think so Big Corn will adjust that thinking for you.

Wish it wasnt such a pain to find a coke with real sugar in it.

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I can see it now. Candy bars with pictures of toothless rednecks.

saspepper on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

too bad they don’t make Chevy Volts outta sugar, they’d sell like hotcakes.…..er, no pun intended.

OT: only 603 volts sold in January. via drudge.

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Let’s only regulate beet sugar, the coward of sugars, that hides behind cane sugar! Or is it the other way around?

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

sugar control; it means holding the lollipop with two hands…

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

there’s really no reason we shouldn’t encourage it to intervene further in shaping people’s diets by making pixy stix cost 10 dollars.

Interestingly enough, due to protectionist sugar tarrifs Americans pay much more $$$ for a pound of sugar than most other people of the world – a clear explanation of this policy is provided in Sowell’s Basic Economics, if memory serves (it might’ve been a PJ O’Rourke tome, tho).

Sadly, Coulter doesn’t seem to be defending much of anything particularly conservative anymore.

King B on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

And surprise, it’s a Democrat!!!

ButterflyDragon on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Yeah, that’s the least surprising thing about that.

squint on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

BREAKING NEWS:

Robert Lustig found unresponsive in diabetic coma…

Seriously though, all of this started back in the late 1980s and early 1990s when they began making it illegal to smoke cigarettes in public spaces. Once they established the idea that, “It’s bad for you so we need to keep it out of the public square!” it was only a matter of time before they moved on to other things. They already had the template to work off of.

Dack Thrombosis on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Tobacco, check.
Incandescent light bulbs, check.
Medical services, check.
Now sugar….
Man oh man, am I going to make a killing in the black market. Thank you my supposed betters, you had made the rest of my days very lucrative.

RMOccidental on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

They’ll make a fortune off of Michael Moore alone. Throw Rosie ODonnell in and its a gold mine.

ldbgcoleman on February 1, 2012 at 10:11 PM

heh slavedog….does that mean that we need to lick ‘em to get a fix??////

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

That conjures some disturbing mental images.

SlaveDog on February 1, 2012 at 10:11 PM

My point is, conservatives should oppose it. That was the flaw in Coulter’s piece — she’s basically arguing that because RomneyCare is legal, it’s also salutary or at least harmless. Tain’t so.

Allahpundit on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM

It’s a relief when you just tell us what we should do. Thanks!

cynccook on February 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Let’s apply ““gentle ‘supply side’ controls” to liberals!

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM

A sugar link

Flange on February 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Right after we regulate oxygen in both of its addictive and harmful forms, H2O and O2. It’ll make you dizzy and take frequent trips to the bathroom. It’s a menace.

ray on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

but, but it’s for your own good. :)

chemman on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

From my cold, rotten teeth!

RedNewEnglander on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

OT: only 603 volts sold in January. via drudge.

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

603 Volts????….. shocking
/

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

sugar control; it means holding the lollipop with two hands…

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Oh man, leave Bill Clinton out of this pleeeese !!

burrata on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I rather doubt its going to happen, simply because sugar is INDEED addictive. Heck, sugar played a not-so-small factor in the lead-up to the American Revolution. Americans kinda, had such an intense sweet tooth that a sugar tax that seemed reasonable in Britain was a whole lot worse here.

Think of it like this, what would happen if the senate tried to ban, caffeine.

Mmmm… oh this is such a therapeutic mental image. You should really give it a try!

WolvenOne on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of sugar?

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Sugar.

zmdavid on February 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Of course the states can do it. My point is, conservatives should oppose it. That was the flaw in Coulter’s piece — she’s basically arguing that because RomneyCare is legal, it’s also salutary or at least harmless. Tain’t so.

Allahpundit on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM

And this is where you run into politics being the art of the possible.

Romney faced a very real political problem in MA. The voters there were clamoring for health care reform, and they had the Democratic legislature to make it happen. Romney, as governor, has to make something happen, or that legislature is going to make it happen without him.

Of course a mandate is bad policy. But no matter how conservative Romney is (and he’s not particularly), he’s going to be stuck with either supporting something bad, or fruitlessly opposing something worse.

The point of opposing ObamaCare, I thought, was not because of the idea of a mandate. I thought it was because the whole pursuit was an inexcusable over-extension of Federal power, regardless of the mandate. Are we now willing to say that, absent the mandate, ObamaCare would have been just fine?

JohnGalt23 on February 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

sugar control; it means holding the lollipop with two hands…

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

“Sugar is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” — Milton S. Hershey

cynccook on February 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

It’s only permissible because sugar is WHITE!

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Do-gooders are worse than evil because they never rest. These pains in the butt just never stop.

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
C.S. Lewis God in the Dock

makattak on February 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

This is stupid and anyone who supports it is also stupid.

SansJeux on February 1, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Free saccharine for the poor!

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:16 PM

-What are you in for, man?

“I was caught selling meth. You?”

-Serving Nutrasweet to a minor.”

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 10:16 PM

didn’t Roosevelt say that we have the freedom from want?

I’m pro-choice on chocolate….

it should be a right, so pay up bizzitches./

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM

sugar control; it means holding the lollipop with two hands…

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
The world will never know….
As Govermnent regulated the amount of carbs per individual…
I guess a ThinkTank with lots of members and wet tongues can solve this equation…..together…..

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM

An Oklahoma lawmaker is proposing a tax on violent video games to fight childhood obesity and school bullying.

And surprise, it’s a Democrat!!!

ButterflyDragon on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

So that is why those guys were bullies when I went to elementary school in the late 50′s and early 60′s. D*mn violent video games warp everybody that comes into contact with them.
/s

chemman on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 PM

i’m an equal opportunity sugar lover….brown or white…makes no difference./

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 PM

You can turn sugar into ethanol and go for a sweet, sweet drive!

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Let’s apply ““gentle ‘supply side’ controls” to liberals!

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Drop the “gentle”, and you’ve got my vote.

squint on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 PM

This is the brain child of the great progressive Cass Sunstein.

“Nudge”

These people are nut jobs. Air will be regulated and soon we’ll be regulated and taxed for breathing…

katy on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Chocolate rebellion.

Women of the world unite.

antipc on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

“women” ???

Touch chocolate, and the South will rise again! At least … about a quarter acre of it …

Axe on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM

We should do the opposite: allow people freedom with alcohol and tobacco, as with sugar.

All those things are bad for you. Fine, we know it, and we know the risks.

The sweetest thing is Freedom.

Tzetzes on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM

It is certainly the number one cause of almost every disease in the western world.

cynccook on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Yep, sugar induced malaria, bubonic plague, leprosy, pneumonia, influenza, lyme disease, tularemia, anthrax, chickenpox, chlamydia, cholera, diptheria and the common cold. Yep demon sugar.

Oldnuke on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Sugar.

zmdavid on February 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Just outlaw Firearms, rename it Bureau of Explosives, Alcohol, Sugar and Tobacco, and you got an agency named BEAST!

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

It’d sure be nice if we had a small-government candidate that wasn’t a magnet for f**knuts.

MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I suddenly find myself desiring a glazed donut and I don’t even like them.

obladioblada on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

that’s sweet, Igor..er, not what I meant/

ted c on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Yep, sugar induced malaria, bubonic plague, leprosy, pneumonia, influenza, lyme disease, tularemia, anthrax, chickenpox, chlamydia, cholera, diptheria and the common cold. Yep demon sugar.

Oldnuke on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM

How many deadly diseases were spread by “Hello, Sugar!”?

Igor R. on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Funny, I was just thinking that entitlement programs were addictive and that people would NEVER vote against them despite the long term damage it will do to them. Kinda like cigarettes, sugar, alcohol. We need a societal intervention… For our own good.

Brad on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I guess if you’re willing to define certain forms of the most essential nonmineral nutrient a human being needs to continue functioning as “toxic,” then sure, sugar is toxic.

Also, you have to be willing to regulate how much food a person eats, because regulating sugar amounts makes no difference if a person can just eat more food. The body naturally hungers for a certain amount of sugar and if you try to deprive it, it will just hunger for more. (That’s why, for example, people who drink diet soda don’t lose weight and sometimes actually gain weight if they aren’t otherwise serious dieters.)

I suppose you could just rely on people to exercise their judgment, however, and use discretion to decide how much food to eat. Oh, wait, in that case…

HitNRun on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

So we have to deregulate pot,
and regulate sugar.
Right ??????
burrata on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Hang, yeah.
Don’t you remember the train crew that got so strung-out on sugar, they ran their engines past a STOP signal and into the path of an Amtrak train at Chase, MD?
January 4, 1987 that was. All because of sugar.

listens2glenn on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Yep, sugar induced malaria, bubonic plague, leprosy, pneumonia, influenza, lyme disease, tularemia, anthrax, chickenpox, chlamydia, cholera, diptheria and the common cold. Yep demon sugar.

Oldnuke on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Read this book, it will change your life, man.

cynccook on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Well they will have to regulate it when the only way to get it from a state store and the sugar lines. You are only rationed to get your 2 cups a day and wait 6 hours to get it and be happy with it. If not off to the re-education center.

Regulated and rationed state sugar makes the soylent green go down better.

tjexcite on February 1, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4