I want you to consider what you would do if you had $300 per month to buy food. How often would you use any of that money to buy soda and candy? Would you do it on a regular? Or would you do it just for special occasions to lift your spirits when things were bad?
This isn’t about health this is about punishing the poor for being poor.
I was very poor for two or three years in my early 20s. I was maniacally disciplined in only buying healthy, affordable food, no alcohol, no junk food, no sweets. Brown rice, beans, fish off the boat (a fishing fleet operated from our city’s harbor), tofu, miso, green veg. So I stayed healthy. If I had received any assistance, interference in my choices wouldn’t have helped. But the purpose of the interference isn’t to help, it’s to disempower, infantilize and humiliate.
It is their own dime. The government is everybody, and it’s here to serve. Somehow they got in your head that they aren’t entitled to that, but they are.
Just kill that market. They basically make money off creating a health epidemic in the first place, at what point will we say maybe greed shouldn’t be more important than our health? Remember who was lobbying fat is bad?
You do realize that banning candy and soda is not going to ban sugar. Sugar is a staple product and will always be available on food stamps. Soda is just a processed item, same as candy. In exactly the same way as Dinty Moore canned stew and Campbell’s soups. Should those be banned too? How about bread? It’s a carb and it’s processed. Let’s make the poor people make their own bread cause fuck them for being poor.
Why do you consider what someone else eats to be a matter of “your interest”, at all?
Do you think your boss…who pays your salary…should be allowed to dictate what you spend it on? Is it in “their interest” to make sure you’re spending their money on “the right things”?
Do you think your boss…who pays your salary…should be allowed to dictate what you spend it on?
Historically, that was a thing until very recently. Henry Ford used to send inspectors into people’s homes to snoop on them, not only food and alcohol, but what language they spoke in the home. Thank the unions for that bullshit having been stopped.
If that’s your stance you might wanna leave the low hanging fruit where it is and pick something that actually matters. Just my two cents. Like defense spending.
They also got a cease fire for the shipping lanes in the Red Sea and that required extensive bombing. You have to agree that a certain budget is required
What if it’s not happening that much and this is just a shoe horn to get legislation to destroy benefits? What if most states already remove some purchases from the EBT/food stamp total?
It’s like drug testing for welfare. It’s sounds like a good idea until you realize it costs millions, produces almost no results and the government performing said drug tests can’t be bothered to not do it in s corrupt way?
as someone else pointed out a specific example that comes up regularly (this is apparently already how it works): 1 particular brand of peanut butter was available, but their lite version wasn’t… with a cart full of groceries, figuring out exactly what gets paid for with what or what needs to be put back isn’t a fast process… this takes not only the persons time, but the cashiers time and everyone behind them in the queue
these are things we call negative externalities: costs forced to other places in the system without being accounted for in price
there are many, many, MANY more costs associated with any government program and intervention but this specific example would cost the country as a whole far more than the occasional unhealthy snack
that’s not how any of this works… UPC codes (barcodes) only have the category as broad as “Food, Beverages & Tobacco”, brand names, product names, etc
you have to maintain some database of UPC numbers to categories, which is how things like variants of peanut butter slip through… and good luck if you want to buy some smaller brand that isn’t on the governments radar
Because giving more people reasons to enjoy life benefits us all. Also, fuck rich people. We should all be clamoring to take as much from them as possible to improve the lives of those who have less.
You can drink soda and eat candy without becoming obese or having health issues as a result.
No food individually “causes” obesity and health issues. Overuse of some foods can. If we want people to be healthier, maybe we should offer free accessible cooking classes, or (gasp) not put people in the position where they have to work so much to pay the bills they don’t have time to prepare healthy food.
All this does is punish people who are already in shit circumstances. Maybe they want a treat for their kid, maybe they want to have a fun movie night, maybe it’s none of your business?
Why is it in our interest to pay for food that causes obesity and health issues?
I want you to consider what you would do if you had $300 per month to buy food. How often would you use any of that money to buy soda and candy? Would you do it on a regular? Or would you do it just for special occasions to lift your spirits when things were bad?
This isn’t about health this is about punishing the poor for being poor.
I would buy it literally never, because I already never buy it, because I know it makes me fat and depressed.
I would spend very little of it on candy and soda, but not every person makes the same choices
I was very poor for two or three years in my early 20s. I was maniacally disciplined in only buying healthy, affordable food, no alcohol, no junk food, no sweets. Brown rice, beans, fish off the boat (a fishing fleet operated from our city’s harbor), tofu, miso, green veg. So I stayed healthy. If I had received any assistance, interference in my choices wouldn’t have helped. But the purpose of the interference isn’t to help, it’s to disempower, infantilize and humiliate.
It wouldn’t interfere in your choices because you didn’t buy those things
That doesn’t give anyone the right to choose for them.
If I’m paying for it, I have the right to vote for this law. It affects me
So you agree that there is some amount of acceptable spending on sweets.
As long as it’s from your own pocket
If the concern was really about health, they’d be regulating maximum sugar % in all sodas and candies, not banning them to the poor.
And if the concern was about people’s health, Trump wouldn’t have put RFK Jr into that job.
If you want to buy sugar on your own dime, you can hurt your own health. But why should the government pay for it?
It is their own dime. The government is everybody, and it’s here to serve. Somehow they got in your head that they aren’t entitled to that, but they are.
Edit: had/head
No, public and private funds are different things
Why should the government regulate how people eat based on their income?
It’s not based on income. It’s based on whether the government is paying for it or the person is paying out of their own pocket.
Similarly, school meals should be healthy and not include sweets and soda
Just kill that market. They basically make money off creating a health epidemic in the first place, at what point will we say maybe greed shouldn’t be more important than our health? Remember who was lobbying fat is bad?
You do realize that banning candy and soda is not going to ban sugar. Sugar is a staple product and will always be available on food stamps. Soda is just a processed item, same as candy. In exactly the same way as Dinty Moore canned stew and Campbell’s soups. Should those be banned too? How about bread? It’s a carb and it’s processed. Let’s make the poor people make their own bread cause fuck them for being poor.
Where should the line be drawn?
The line should be drawn on the category of candy and soda. I’m not saying ban all sugar
Why do you consider what someone else eats to be a matter of “your interest”, at all?
Do you think your boss…who pays your salary…should be allowed to dictate what you spend it on? Is it in “their interest” to make sure you’re spending their money on “the right things”?
Historically, that was a thing until very recently. Henry Ford used to send inspectors into people’s homes to snoop on them, not only food and alcohol, but what language they spoke in the home. Thank the unions for that bullshit having been stopped.
If I’m paying for it, it’s my interest. If it’s your personal decision, then do what you want
If that’s your stance you might wanna leave the low hanging fruit where it is and pick something that actually matters. Just my two cents. Like defense spending.
Defense spending is the most important function of government. Without it we can’t help Ukraine
Aged like milk.
Trump administration is selling its first package to Ukraine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/01/trump-administration-readies-first-sale-of-military-equipment-to-ukraine
What percentage of our defense budget is 50m?
They also got a cease fire for the shipping lanes in the Red Sea and that required extensive bombing. You have to agree that a certain budget is required
What if it’s not happening that much and this is just a shoe horn to get legislation to destroy benefits? What if most states already remove some purchases from the EBT/food stamp total?
It’s like drug testing for welfare. It’s sounds like a good idea until you realize it costs millions, produces almost no results and the government performing said drug tests can’t be bothered to not do it in s corrupt way?
Unlike means testing, it will cost nothing. You just update the list of what is covered. Then it’s forever banned from food stamps
as someone else pointed out a specific example that comes up regularly (this is apparently already how it works): 1 particular brand of peanut butter was available, but their lite version wasn’t… with a cart full of groceries, figuring out exactly what gets paid for with what or what needs to be put back isn’t a fast process… this takes not only the persons time, but the cashiers time and everyone behind them in the queue
these are things we call negative externalities: costs forced to other places in the system without being accounted for in price
there are many, many, MANY more costs associated with any government program and intervention but this specific example would cost the country as a whole far more than the occasional unhealthy snack
But it’s not lite peanut butter. It’s all items that are marked candy and soda. That’s a clear category
that’s not how any of this works… UPC codes (barcodes) only have the category as broad as “Food, Beverages & Tobacco”, brand names, product names, etc
you have to maintain some database of UPC numbers to categories, which is how things like variants of peanut butter slip through… and good luck if you want to buy some smaller brand that isn’t on the governments radar
Because giving more people reasons to enjoy life benefits us all. Also, fuck rich people. We should all be clamoring to take as much from them as possible to improve the lives of those who have less.
You can drink soda and eat candy without becoming obese or having health issues as a result.
Then start with ag subsidies. But that’s if you’re serious about fixing the problem and don’t just want to punish poor people for being poor.
Fuck ag subsidies and fuck tariffs
But mostly fuck poor people. Since that’s the most immediate priority.
No food individually “causes” obesity and health issues. Overuse of some foods can. If we want people to be healthier, maybe we should offer free accessible cooking classes, or (gasp) not put people in the position where they have to work so much to pay the bills they don’t have time to prepare healthy food.
All this does is punish people who are already in shit circumstances. Maybe they want a treat for their kid, maybe they want to have a fun movie night, maybe it’s none of your business?
Sugar causes obesity and health issues. There’s no recommended daily intake for sugar because it’s not required by the body.
Yeah its not like our bodies need sugars for so much critical functionality that we evolved a reward system for eating it /s
Bodies get enough sugars from complex carbs. We don’t need simple sugars to live