Sugar should be labeled a controlled substance
When I was running for governor on the Green Party ticket, I advocated for a number of quality of life improvements.
One of those improvements was to place a dollar tax on every stick of chewing gum. Then cut the idiotic spitting of that disgusting glob on subway platforms and sidewalks. See if we could remove the stupid look from the faces of the half-wits who are constantly chewing gum.
Other measures I would have enacted included: stopping baseball players from speaking so much and to stop calling New York “the Empire State,” as I didn’t want to be emperor, I wanted to be governor. (Little did I know that people who were supplying Gov. Spitzer’s girls were known as “The Emperor’s Club”).
I also advocated imposing the death penalty on graffiti artists (i.e. graph idiots) and on politicians who take money from corporations and tell lies.
Another item on my platform was to make sugar a controlled substance.
Now I am no lightweight when it comes to eating sugar, due to a very loving relationship with carbohydrates, particularly the potato and that “staff of life” bread.
These items have a close relationship to sugar and I think they actually become sugar at one point. So what was the point of making it a controlled substance?
Americans consume about 140 pounds. of sugar in one form or another every year. Suppose that some enterprising mayor secured 140-lb. bags and filled them with sugar and placed said bag in front of a food stamp recipient and instructed them to feed one of their children the contents of the bags before a year has elapsed. I’m sure that those parents would think again about the benefits of consuming sugar.
Mayor Bloomberg says sugar in soft drinks is a significant factor in childhood obesity and that our government is contributing to the problem by allowing people to use food stamps to purchase said poison. He says we should put a stop to that and only allow that which is nutritious to be doled out in vending machines. I say, if the vending of sugar products is allowed, then why not other addictive items such as beer, gin, cigarettes and glue for sniffing?
When I was a child in Ireland, the St. Vincent DePaul Society gave us poverty families a docket, which allowed us about a dollar’s worth of food every month. It helped to get that bit of food and sometimes there was a penny or two left over. That wouldn’t be enough to pay for anything and when we asked for some sweets, the righteous Catholic women who owned the shop erupted into a rage about charity cases who were lucky to get a loaf of bread for nothing. Of course we were ordered off the premises as these good Christians pocketed the pennies of the poor.
So I have mixed feelings about sweet things. But I maintain that sugar is not by any stretch of the imagination a food item. It rots teeth, helps cause diabetes and can turn ice cream into a danger to life and limb.
Still, should the government stick its nose into this controversy? If the government giveth, the government can taketh away. If it taketh away though, then it should offer alternatives such as reduced fat milk and real fruit juices.
By the way, all of the excess sugar should be donated to the Tea Party to help eliminate the sourness of their souls and to see what a sweet and wonderful place America is.n
Check out more musings from Malachy McCourt at malachymccourt.com.
Trackback from your site.