Some think that heavy-handed governmental taxation is the only way to compel healthier eating. In my opinion,
makes rational sense, its actual effectiveness is questionable. Those
thatCorrect pronoun usage
show examples
argue in favour of these
can point to a logical chain of suppositions. Though
on unhealthy foods are rare ,there is the occasional mandated price hike for sugary drinks and fast food ,smoking is an instructive corollary. Several decades after research showed that smoking causes cancer ,governments are able to push through legislation to tax cigarettes heavily. The result was that those already addicted to smoking continued to smoke but many
did not pick up the habit
with. Proponents argue
would
be the case when it comes to foods known to cause cardiovascular disease ,diabetes and cancer
would eat them despite higher prices but the next generation would become more health conscious and that would
trickle down to their children . Though the above
argumentsFix the agreement mistake
show examples
is well reasoned,
will stay buy luxuries. There is
evidence for
dating back centuries. After the war of independence from Britain, the newly formed United
statesCapitalize word
show examples
instituted direly needed
on luxuries
includedWrong verb form
show examples
whiskey and chocolate .the
of the
was to raise money ,not to lower consumption of those products. The unpopular acts were internally vindicated when
continued to buy luxuries along the same growth trend ,enabling them to increase the national budget. Even though cutting down on purely pleasurable products makes dis disinterested sense,
are more swayed by instant gratification
thatCorrect word choice
show examples
cold calculation . In conclusion,
on unhealthy foods would not be an effective measure against their consumption.
governments should invest more in healthy school lunches and
makingWrong verb form
show examples
healthy products more widely available to attack the problem at its root source.