Sweet, sweet sucrose-injected, fructose-laced damnation awaits us all, at least according to a recent article in Nature magazine. Three researchers in California have produced a report that shows the toxic danger of sugar, eventually going on to suggest that it should be regulated by federal governments as a controlled substance.
I would like to sidestep all the typical (though entirely valid) nanny-state-run-amok critiques. If you want those, please feel free to type the word sugar into news.google.com, where you will get a small mountain of such attacks, peppered liberally (oh, I love a good double entendre!) with articles espousing that the federal government should regulate everything, down to bowel movements.
The main method of regulation being proposed to control sugar mania is taxation. If we have to pay more for sugary things, then we will have less of them, right?
Have you ever talked to a smoker about the price of cigarettes? I used to work with a guy who told me that, back in the late 1970s, he swore up and down that he would quit smoking if the price of a pack of cigarettes went over 50 cents. Well, I can tell you that, as of at least 2006, he was still smoking Marlboros.
The same follows for liquor. Constantly upping the sin tax on Canadian Club and Bud Light will never, ever get people to cut back on consumption. They will simply grumble about the price and take money from other parts of their budget in order to get the thing they really, really want.
So, with these examples in mind, can anyone realistically believe that charging more for Dr. Pepper will result in people drinking less of it? Never. All that will happen is that the government will get more money to waste, and everyone else will get more diabetes.