• iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    18 days ago

    Why is it in our interest to pay for food that causes obesity and health issues?

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        I would buy it literally never, because I already never buy it, because I know it makes me fat and depressed.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        17 days ago

        I would spend very little of it on candy and soda, but not every person makes the same choices

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          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.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            17 days ago

            It wouldn’t interfere in your choices because you didn’t buy those things

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          17 days ago

          So you agree that there is some amount of acceptable spending on sweets.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            17 days ago

            If I’m paying for it, I have the right to vote for this law. It affects me

    • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      17 days ago

      If the concern was really about health, they’d be regulating maximum sugar % in all sodas and candies, not banning them to the poor.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        17 days ago

        And if the concern was about people’s health, Trump wouldn’t have put RFK Jr into that job.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        17 days ago

        If you want to buy sugar on your own dime, you can hurt your own health. But why should the government pay for it?

        • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          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

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            17 days ago

            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

            • DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              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?

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 days ago

          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?

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            17 days ago

            The line should be drawn on the category of candy and soda. I’m not saying ban all sugar

    • Archangel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      18 days ago

      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”?

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 days ago

      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?

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        17 days ago

        Unlike means testing, it will cost nothing. You just update the list of what is covered. Then it’s forever banned from food stamps

    • pulido@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      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.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.