A few years ago, while I was standing in the street with a cigarette (I still used to smoke, I was dressed) and a bottle of Diet drink, someone came up to me and said: Be careful.
It's worse than anything.
When I saw that he was pointing to Diet Sprite and not the burning cigarette, I asked in astonishment what he meant, and he explained in a sentence that has since become a motto in my life: that the body does not know how to break down these substances, and everything remains inside.
Needless to say, I, the conservative injecting myself with contempt in the face of any health or environmental statement, took this silly sentence as a great prey.
What exactly is "do not know how to disassemble"?
And what's left inside?
And how is it that I'm not filled to the brim with a sprite that spills out of my ears because it fails to fall apart?
And another priest.
I took a lot of pleasure from that dialogue on my way to shattering threatening progressive trends.
I have since grown up, and I am already ready to accept the presence of studies that show possible damages of sugar substitutes to the human body.
This of course does not prevent me from continuing to consume the Zero drink that I am used to, and that I love.
I know it's a bad habit because of the addictive element inherent in it and it may also be harmful to health, but it's a drink that gives me the comfort of a sweet taste and at the same time saves me from addiction to the real thing, because if I needed a drink containing these amounts of sugar - I would have long ago .
This is exactly the situation with diet drinks: there is talk around them, backed up by some studies, of possible health damage, but they contain 0 calories per 100 ml of drink and they are still the pleasant and healthy substitute for the harmful and terrible sugar about which there is no debate at all.
And the unbelievable fact that the Ministry of Finance has included in the sugary drinks tax that it also imposes on diet drinks - is no less than terrifying in my eyes.
How can beverages whose health damage, even if it exists, is controversial and not proven enough - line up with blatantly harmful items and serious illnesses like sugar in large quantities?
Because they bear the same name?
Because they are manufactured by the same manufacturer?
The answer is yes and yes.
Because when the hand is light on the trigger of regulation, the sovereign indulges in his power and simply does what he wants.
Government intervention in the life of the individual and especially in the commercial market should be minimal to nil, and even when it is done, it should be in restrained reverence and out of great anxiety.
Market freedom is the Holy of Holies.
One can also argue about the very imposition of the educational tax on sugar (I surrender in advance in this matter. The harms of sugar, as stated, are not subject to any dispute or doubt), but why also diet drinks?
When the finance people are asked to explain this folly, they are talking about the damage that will be proven or about education for the proper consumption of drinks and the transition from sweet taste to water.
Both the first and second reasons, which sound logical at first hearing, are shocking and put the whole installation into a problematic context that has too much education and supervision and a governmental hand in the life of the individual, and too little democracy and values of freedom.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
