I mean that’s the classic slippery slope fallacy you’re employing here. The answer is, sometimes it’s a more clear cut situation and other times it isn’t.
But just because the next rung down your logical ladder is more of a gray area than smoking does not mean that smoking is now also as much of a gray area. That’s not how this works.
This is the same style of argument people make when debating against gay marriage. Well if gay people can get married does that mean people can marry dogs now? Why not? Where do we draw the line?
But this isn’t clear cut; I tend to hear that smokers are a net plus for a country’s finances because of the taxes on cigarettes and due to dying younger, before costlier chronic disease treatments and social care are required.
So yes, you should be asking where to draw the line.
That’s not been the argument where I live for a generation ban, because smoking in public is already banned - so the argument is all about the health of the people who can no longer buy cigarettes.
Where I live (the US), smoking in most public places is already banned unless you’re outdoors and far from the entrance to act building. Any additional ban would apply almost exclusively to people who smoke alone or in the presence of other smokers.
Cool so when do we start banning junk food? This isn’t a slippery slope argument. I’m using the same logic you’re using against tobacco, except sugar kills more people than tobacco does.
Obesity is also more complicated than just sugar. I can only go by personal anecdote here but I struggle with weight issues despite not eating much junk or overly processed food. A sugar tax would affect actual foods but not be sufficient nor even useful toward improving health
You will get by just fine without sugar in your diet. I didn’t say we should ban food, I said we should ban sugar. You’re struggling to show me why it’s so different from tobacco.
The only real differences are 1) everyone loves sugar, so they’ll make up a reason for the double standard and 2) public consumption doesn’t immediately hurt other people. But then I never said I was opposed to banning smoking in public so that’s actually irrelevant.
No, I’m clearly stating that taxing sugar is neither clear cut nor is it sufficient to be in any way useful.
– plenty of beneficial foods have sugar, and plenty of harmful foods do not
– there’s lots of food with negative nutritional value but it’s not just sugar nor can it be clearly distinguished from other foods
— obesity is more a matter of habits and quantity than one ingredient .
Yeah it’s satisfying to demonize the hypothetical person who drinks two liter bottles of soda every day but that’s like cutting social programs because “welfare queens” or building a wall because “anchor babies”, or police needing military gear because “gangs”, or election results needing to be overturned because “fraud”. What they all have in common is they’re a target for outrage but not real or not significant.
I’d be all for a sugar tax if I thought it could be well defined or make a difference, especially if it could make a difference for me. However of all the people I know or have met struggling with weight issues, I don’t recall any being that hypothetical sugar queen, any with any significant sweets habit that would be affected, any that could in any way be changed with this approach
Your intake of sugarparticipation in extreme sports absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.
It’s not as if there’s some natural law obligating you to pay for anyone else’s health issues. Your government is responsible for externalizing that private cost onto you and others, effectively subsidizing risk-taking and irresponsibility. If you don’t like it, insist that people pay for their own health care and insurance at market rates, without subsidies.
Slippery slope arguments are usually fallacious, but I don’t think this one is. A slippery slope argument is valid when thing A actually does enable thing B. Banning something because it’s unhealthy does, in fact, enable further bans on other things by normalizing the notion that something being enticing but unhealthy is a sufficient reason to ban it.
Just look at all the things that have been criminalized at some point on the principle that they’re dangerous to the people who use them, or just that they’re vaguely bad for you. Cannabis, pornography, sex toys, gambling, even raw milk! And look at the specific things we know are next because they’re already being taxed in some jurisdictions. Tobacco is actually a great example because it’s going through the transition right now from being heavily taxed to being banned outright.
I mean that’s the classic slippery slope fallacy you’re employing here. The answer is, sometimes it’s a more clear cut situation and other times it isn’t.
But just because the next rung down your logical ladder is more of a gray area than smoking does not mean that smoking is now also as much of a gray area. That’s not how this works.
This is the same style of argument people make when debating against gay marriage. Well if gay people can get married does that mean people can marry dogs now? Why not? Where do we draw the line?
But this isn’t clear cut; I tend to hear that smokers are a net plus for a country’s finances because of the taxes on cigarettes and due to dying younger, before costlier chronic disease treatments and social care are required.
So yes, you should be asking where to draw the line.
A lot of the reasoning for banning smoking is second hand smoke. So far we’re drawing the line at when your bad havit affects someone else
That’s not been the argument where I live for a generation ban, because smoking in public is already banned - so the argument is all about the health of the people who can no longer buy cigarettes.
Where I live (the US), smoking in most public places is already banned unless you’re outdoors and far from the entrance to act building. Any additional ban would apply almost exclusively to people who smoke alone or in the presence of other smokers.
Cool so when do we start banning junk food? This isn’t a slippery slope argument. I’m using the same logic you’re using against tobacco, except sugar kills more people than tobacco does.
My intake of sugar has no affect on anyone else.
Food is a necessity: smoking is not
Obesity is also more complicated than just sugar. I can only go by personal anecdote here but I struggle with weight issues despite not eating much junk or overly processed food. A sugar tax would affect actual foods but not be sufficient nor even useful toward improving health
Your intake of sugar absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.
Sugar doesn’t just cause obesity, it also causes all kinds of cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9775518/
And sugar is not a necessity. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/
You will get by just fine without sugar in your diet. I didn’t say we should ban food, I said we should ban sugar. You’re struggling to show me why it’s so different from tobacco.
The only real differences are 1) everyone loves sugar, so they’ll make up a reason for the double standard and 2) public consumption doesn’t immediately hurt other people. But then I never said I was opposed to banning smoking in public so that’s actually irrelevant.
No, I’m clearly stating that taxing sugar is neither clear cut nor is it sufficient to be in any way useful.
– plenty of beneficial foods have sugar, and plenty of harmful foods do not
– there’s lots of food with negative nutritional value but it’s not just sugar nor can it be clearly distinguished from other foods
— obesity is more a matter of habits and quantity than one ingredient .
Yeah it’s satisfying to demonize the hypothetical person who drinks two liter bottles of soda every day but that’s like cutting social programs because “welfare queens” or building a wall because “anchor babies”, or police needing military gear because “gangs”, or election results needing to be overturned because “fraud”. What they all have in common is they’re a target for outrage but not real or not significant.
I’d be all for a sugar tax if I thought it could be well defined or make a difference, especially if it could make a difference for me. However of all the people I know or have met struggling with weight issues, I don’t recall any being that hypothetical sugar queen, any with any significant sweets habit that would be affected, any that could in any way be changed with this approach
It’s not as if there’s some natural law obligating you to pay for anyone else’s health issues. Your government is responsible for externalizing that private cost onto you and others, effectively subsidizing risk-taking and irresponsibility. If you don’t like it, insist that people pay for their own health care and insurance at market rates, without subsidies.
Slippery slope arguments are usually fallacious, but I don’t think this one is. A slippery slope argument is valid when thing A actually does enable thing B. Banning something because it’s unhealthy does, in fact, enable further bans on other things by normalizing the notion that something being enticing but unhealthy is a sufficient reason to ban it.
Just look at all the things that have been criminalized at some point on the principle that they’re dangerous to the people who use them, or just that they’re vaguely bad for you. Cannabis, pornography, sex toys, gambling, even raw milk! And look at the specific things we know are next because they’re already being taxed in some jurisdictions. Tobacco is actually a great example because it’s going through the transition right now from being heavily taxed to being banned outright.