Thursday, February 2, 2012

Study Declares Sugar “Should Be Regulated as Strictly as Alcohol” for Our Own Good

Michelle Obama needs to stop trying to control my individuality with her healthy food kick.

It all seemed harmless enough in the beginning. But that changed quickly, as evidenced by how she bullied privately-owned restaurants like Olive Garden into cutting their calorie count. And now she’s apparently trying to set the stage to socialize sugar altogether.

Live Science released a story yesterday claiming that: “Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).”

Think that Michelle Obama isn’t involved with that? Even when universities get government grants all the time for studies exactly like that one? Under corrupt administrations like the one her hubby runs, fund-recipients are essentially paid to agree with the government. Or else.

Besides, the researchers’ answer to the supposed problem fits far too nicely into President Obama’s grand scheme of bribing and taxing the American people into miserable servitude. The UCSF study concludes that the best way to combat the ravages of sugar consumption is to tax sugary foods and drinks, ban sales of such edible materials in or near schools, and set age limits on any such purchases regardless.

Because it’s that unhealthy, they say, especially when over two-thirds of the nation is overweight or obese.

First of all, the definition of “overweight” is exceedingly misleading, considering that, at 5’2 ½ and 127 lbs, I’m considered just barely within the “healthy” range. That’s quite possibly because of the extra – genetically decided – junk in my trunk, but how many other women are considered overweight because of the same “issue?” America does, after all, have significant black and Hispanic populations, not to mention that not every white woman has a naturally flat backside.

But even if the clinical/political definition wasn’t seriously skewed, it is not now nor should it ever be the government’s responsibility to decide what I can and cannot eat. Saying otherwise is both dangerously intrusive and overwhelmingly insulting.

It says that I am not an individual with individual needs and wants, and an individual ability to make my own choices and live with the consequences. It also says that government has the right to decide what I do. And what next will it say that about? What I’m allowed to think? Who I’m allowed to worship?

Sadly, it’s been trying to do both for a while now.

But just because Michelle Obama, her horrible husband, and the rest of the Nanny State government and its cronies want my individuality, they have no right to it and they can’t have it… no matter how they couch it in concern for the general welfare.

No comments:

Post a Comment