Gov. Patterson Proposes Obesity Tax

[track2004]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1734601' date='Dec 23 2008, 11:15 PM']It is an interesting fact, though, how many liberals have no problem with government stepping in regulating, taxing or banning things deemed unhealthy or unsafe - tobacco products, fatty foods, sugary soft drinks, etc., or enforcing helmet, seatbelt, or gun safety lock laws - yet if anyone dare suggests that the government say anything concerning unhealthy practices like sodomy or promiscuous sex, they howl.
As witnessed by the spread of AIDS and other vds, these practices are not safe or healthy on a purely physical level, yet it is politically taboo to so much as utter a word against them.

And I really don't think there's any coherent argument to be made that engaging in sodomistic practices is any more of a sacrosanct right than enjoying a cigar or a big greasy cheeseburger.[/quote]

Sorry I haven't replied, there was going home for Christmas and then sleeping until school started again.

I'm generally for gov't taxing of tobacco, liquor, and some food stuffs, and I'm generally for helmet, seat belt and gun laws. The thing about sex laws is that actually enfocing them would be [i]awkward[/i]. The conservatives have brought abstinence only sex-ed to the schools and I have to say I disagree with the message they are sending the kids, but sex-ed is good and it should be regulated by the gov't, maybe not national but probably not by district either (I'm voting statewide regulations).

Proper sex-ed would present a non-biased, scientifically-backed education on sexual practices. It would say that being promiscuous sex is unhealthy. It would say that sex with random or lots of partners puts you at high risk for STIs and HIV. It would say that some sex is more likely to cause injury (like anal sex). It would say that condoms help but aren't perfect. It would say that, while it would be better to wait for a long term committed monogamous relationship to have sex, that people have sex before that happens and that there are risks and consequences. It would [i]actually[i/] teach kids about sex and everything that goes with it.

Taxing sex is crazy. Heavily taxing condoms or birth control may do something, but I'm not sure which way it would fall. Maybe we heavily tax Marvin Gaye albums, roses, silk sheets and candles???