//Health, Freedom and Sugar

Health, Freedom and Sugar

Oh, there Sugar, unhealthy Sugar.
You are my candy girl
and you got me wanting you.

(Sugar, Sugar  – The Archies)

Is a risk-free life possible? If it were possible – which it certainly isn’t – would it even be advisable or desirable? Should people be allowed to skydive, ski, box, play rugby, ride motorcycles, climb Himalayan mountains or sail around the world in a yacht by themselves?

Should people be allowed to smoke or drink alcohol safely and without harming others? Should people be allowed to eat sugar? Perhaps not say some health experts because too much sugar is (say in a suitably condescending tone) “bad for you and causes all sorts of diseases.” Perhaps we should regulate sugar in a similar way to how we regulate alcohol. If these ‘experts’ had their way you would have to show ID when buying a lollipop! But what’s wrong with that? It’s only for your own good you know.

This is exactly what happens when we let the I know better than you what’s good for you! brigade try to run our lives with authoritarian rules and regulations and complete distrust in our own ability to make decisions about our own health.

Of course people should be educated about health issues and encouraged to live healthily. And if the airlines wanted to charge you a little extra per kg – I wouldn’t argue about that too much as it might act as a deterrent against obesity. But regulate and overtax sugar?

I have been tireless in exposing the I know better than you what’s good for you health experts for what they really are – patronizing authoritarian bullies.  They are relentless in their lobbying for more regulations, more control and coercion of the apparently stupid among us – such as patients and fully qualified doctors who think that homeopathic medicine has a place in the NHS – however it works. First they came for homeopathy, then they came for chocolate, then they came for …

By | 2012-02-13T19:21:19+00:00 February 13th, 2012|Current Affairs|6 Comments

About the Author:


  1. David Eyles February 15, 2012 at 10:32 am

    You are spot on with this one. I think that the alarmism (“eating too much food can kill you”) is linked directly with the authoritarian (“therefore we are going to stop treating you in the NHS because you cost us too much money”) and which is further linked to elements of the medical professions wanting more power for themselves and over the rest of us.

    When the former Chief Medical Alarmist, Liam Donaldson, warned us that we were all going to die with H1N1 bird flu, our government stockpiled huge quantities of Tamiflu at great expense to the taxpayer. It now seems that questions are being asked about the efficacy of Tamiflu and that Roche are being very coy about handing over their trial results.

    The problem with all this is that the medical professions are begining to sound authoritarian and sinister, but there will come a point when they will just become objects of ridicule in the same way as politicians have become. And that is not a good basis for building good doctor/patient relationships founded upon trust.

    • Dr. Kaplan February 15, 2012 at 11:06 am

      Funnily enough, the BMA once voted to ban boxing! I’m not joking. Look here. Those who favour authoritarianism (and don’t enjoy boxing) saw no harm in that. This despite the fact that horse riding is probably more dangerous. So should we ban (alongside NHS homeopathy of course!) horse riding as well? Come to think of it, what use are horses if we cannot ride them, so why don’t we just ban horses?

  2. Peter Kidson February 18, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Once again, this is just one more problem created by the existence of the NHS. Because it is a government-imposed institution that we are all _forced_ to support – as opposed to a voluntary, market one where we _choose_ what to support – this creates and supports the authoritarian attitudes you allude to. Under these conditions, the medical elite are in a sense our prison warders.

    Secondly, don’t just take for granted that taxes propsoed in the name of some or other alleged good, are what they say they are. If they were, there would be compensating tax cuts elsewhere. If not, it is really just another tax grab (like eg with alleged man-made global warming).

    So, are compensating tax _cuts_ to a sugar tax being suggested, or is is just more government greed ?

  3. sarah kay February 21, 2012 at 2:47 am

    If we think it works, it could be enough!

  4. Oliver February 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    I’m fully with you in that everyone has the right to take responsibility for their own life. Sugar is indeed toxic and so is alcohol. But just because some do not know how to eat and drink in moderation, does not justify more big brother state.
    I’m surprised though, as we are generally told how bad fat is and that there should be a fat tax and butter should be outlawed and we should eat 70% carbohydrates. All of which is rubbish.

Comments are closed.