I agree, which is why I was trying to point out that the authors were using this BS idea of "behavioral/psychological toxicity" to try to explain why sugar wasn't really the same kind of thing as cocaine or other addictive drugs.
I'm annoyed that they shied away from this equivalence, but not because I want people to treat sugar like it's an addictive drug... I want people to recognize that being addicted to something (like sugar or cocaine or alcohol or coffee) is not the great evil it's made out to be, and to realize that our drug laws are completely incoherent. The authors use weasel words to avoid equating sugar and cocaine because then people would wonder why one is legal/normalized and the other is illegal/stigmatized. They have to find some way to maintain the distinction.
I'm annoyed that they shied away from this equivalence, but not because I want people to treat sugar like it's an addictive drug... I want people to recognize that being addicted to something (like sugar or cocaine or alcohol or coffee) is not the great evil it's made out to be, and to realize that our drug laws are completely incoherent. The authors use weasel words to avoid equating sugar and cocaine because then people would wonder why one is legal/normalized and the other is illegal/stigmatized. They have to find some way to maintain the distinction.