Anyway, I've always been a proponent of the nutritional opinion that if something isn't good for you, then we should simply stop selling it and go with a viable alternative. The article basically points out that the FDA still doesn't have a stance on artificial sweeteners. Today marks the 40th anniversary of banning cyclamate. It also tells how a coal-tar additive researcher discovered saccharin in 1879 (Falhberg) by licking it off his hands... Whoa! The FDA failed to ban saccharin in 1977, even though personally I can contest that I am one of those "few" people who cannot process phenylalanine, so I'm stuck with aspertame and sucralose and honestly I really dig those yellow packets or simply the real thing.
Just for your information, when I drink anything with phenylalanine in it, my body gets abnormally hot and my arms and hands break out in this sort of a rash like my skin is on fire. After about a minute or two it dies down, but the effect lingers until I piss it away later.
So back to my beef. If sugar is so horrible for us -- so says the fear-mongers -- why don't we simply stop selling products with sugar in them and replace them with artificial sweeteners? If it tastes the same (which it doesn't, but still) and we can export sugar to the rest of the world while making our own country healthy, then why the fuck not?
Well, because government needs to tax it, that's why. If we made sugar illegal, like say pot, then we would have to spend one million dollars throwing fat little Sammy in the slammer for sucking a lolli-pop. instead, we can tax the shit out of fat people who can't control what they eat or God forbid get a sweet tooth. Would the local mom and pop bakeries change their "evil" ways and go artificial on their cakes and donuts? Sure, if you knocked the price of splenda down from $4.16/lb [ source ] to the buck or so I pay for a 5lb bag of the real stuff.
But why would the makers of such products want to drop their prices? Because they would get a bazillion companies buying their product as the main ingredient in their finished goods, that's why. It makes wonderful economic sense for an entity like Krispy Kreme to partner with the makers of Splenda to make 'diet donuts.' It's the best of both worlds! It's chocolate and peanut butter, man!! Eat a fucking dozen donuts and shit them all back out later without gaining a pound. It's a diabetic's dream come true!! Talk about a paradigm shift...
It won't happen, though. Even with California [and the fruits, nuts and flakes who live there] still in the process of banning trans-fats they aren't going after the real sources of obesity and pollution or any other world-changing problem. They simply want to tax whatever moves and subsidize whatever doesn't. That's the epitome of government for you and it is why conservatives don't like big government. The only thing that a "sin tax" on fat people is going to do is make the government obese.
And while we're at it, has anybody done a study on what happens when you go without sugar? I don't think that there is one due to the fact that going without sugar causes you to go into a medical condition called hypoglycemia. For one, you black out. Two, your endocrine system uses your blood to rob sugar from every other system in your body, like your bones, and when it can't find any more, you die a miserable death.
So much like the argument that we must combat our ability to exhale, drink soda pop and fart (all of which contain carbon dioxide [CO2] the alleged "green house gas") by slapping a carbon tax on it, the argument that we must combat our sweet tooth by condemning sugar and slapping a "sin tax" on it makes just about as much sense. No, actually, it doesn't make any damn sense at all, and the people pushing this nonsense need to be kicked in the head with a steel-toe size twelve boot!
Personally, I'd like to see cows like my sister-in-law storm the White House in revolt when they try to ban sugar or worse tax the yum nummy pasteries that she gratuitously rams down her pie hole. If you thought the run of the bulls was bad, you should try to put the groceries away when she's home. Like Larry the Cable guy mentions, I had to hire a rodeo clown just to distract her! God forbid Obama takes away her Dunkin' Donuts... The secret service will have to taze her to bring her down. She'll look like that big alien monster on Star Wars Episode II that charged Boba Fett for Christ's sake! I know, it's just way too damn funny not to laugh, but it's a sad truth.
I guess my point here is that the more the hoax of global warming gets exposed by "real science," not that bullshit that bloc has been pedaling lately, the more and more other left-wing hoaxes are going to be exposed for the crock of shit that they are. Like pursuing Bush over torture with a "special prosecutor," all that the left is doing is embarrassing themselves by exposing other fabrications in light of the facts and the parties that perpetuate them -- who could have stayed under the radar of scrutiny had they not hyped up their bullshit so hard -- and the resulting paradigm shift will leave the left so immensely unpopular that they'll be ran out of government on a rail. To me, that seems like justice for being so stupidly self-defeating. Now let me stand back as you usher yourself off the public stage... Left.
Good riddance!
