Even the dessert-first supporters concede that dessert is unhealthy, as seen in their recent posts. To be more specific, simple sugars (and hence dessert) contribute to both heart disease and tooth decay.
Let me refute the opposing claims:
dessert is great to eat first because I wouldn't be hungry for it after I finished the actual meal
This is actually an excellent argument for making eating dessert first illegal. If you eat dessert first, you are likely to eat more of it because you are hungrier. Since dessert is unhealthy, it is obviously preferable to eat less of it for health reasons.
Everyone has a sweet tooth every now and then
Everyone has the urge to strangle annoying people now and then, yet this is no excuse for legalizing strangulation. Occasional urges should not be permitted to influence legislation.
there have been results from studies showing that there are individuals in the world that need more sugar in their system than others...and what better way to get sugar into their system than dessert?
What better way to get sugar into their system? Complex carbohydrates, that's how! The digestive system metabolizes complex carbohydrates like whole grains by breaking them down into simple sugars. This is a gradual process that releases a slow, steady stream of blood sugar over time. Dessert, on the other hand, is made of simple sugars. Simple sugars hit the blood stream right away, causing a sharp spike of too much blood sugar, followed by a crash with not enough blood sugar to supply energy. Complex carbohydrates are much better at maintaining a constant, healthy level of blood sugar than dessert is.
think of dessert as a part of completing someone's meal. There could have been some fruit or carbohydrates within bread that could give a person's comeplete meal
A complete diet is one that meets the caloric needs of the individual, while also maintaining a healthy profile of nutrients like amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. Of these requirements, that only one that sugar could possibly contribute to is raw caloric intake, since sugar has no nutrients whatsoever. Since I have previously shown why complex carbs are superior to sugar as a source of calories, there is no way in which sugar positively contributes to a meal. The only way that dessert can be said to "complete" a meal is the way that a bullet "completed" Archduke Franz Ferdinand's life.
I have clearly established that dessert is harmful to the individual, and that not eating dessert first can reduce the amount of dessert consumed, thereby mitigating the health risk to a degree.
Next I shall demonstrate the dessert consumption has a negative effect on society as a whole, not just the individual, and that the government is therefore justified in regulating it.
Dessert has earlier been demonstrated to contribute to unhealthy conditions like heart disease and tooth decay. These conditions are expensive to treat. In any society where medical care is paid for by anyone other than the individual, that imposes a cost on others. If healthcare is socialized, this burden is imposed on the taxpayers. If healthcare is paid for by private insurance, the cost is paid by everyone else on the insurance plan in the form of higher premiums. Since this is a negative effect imposed on others, it is an area which falls under government jurisdiction.
Moreover, we have ample precedent for government intervention in forms of hedonistic self-destruction that impose a burden on other in the form of smoking regulations. Many governments of all sizes (and indeed, many private property owners as well) have regulated smoking on the grounds that it has a negative impact on others, even if that impact is indirect and less severe than the negative impact on the individual making bad health choices.
Since eating dessert first is bad for both the person eating it and for innocent bystanders who are forced to contribute to someone else's dental bills, the government can and should intervene to make eating dessert first illegal. There is even precedent to support it.