...And your point is? Why do you get the impression that we disagree on this? I have already known this for many years.
>> "natural occurring" is in no way sufficient to suggest that a substance is healthy or not
This is not something I claimed at all. It is absurd to extrapolate this from my argument.
If you read closely, it was in the context of it being engineered for a dopamine spike, aka a drug. Maybe the argument could have been better stated by stating that moderate use of sugar typically equates to the same amount that is generally found in a diet consisting of natural, unprocessed and healthy foods.
I didn't think it would be possible to interpret the argument in such a non-nuanced and obtuse way, evidently I'm wrong.
I now realize you don't quite pass the Turing test but honestly it was close, hats off to the programmers.
"In-depth chromatographic analyses of illicit cocaine and its precursor, coca leaves."
At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or just can't handle disagreement.
> And does that invalidate my point that some consumption of sugar is one way to keep the body functioning healthily
That certainly wasn't your claim. The above is a very vague statement that no one would disagree with.
You made the point that sugar is a naturally occurring substance, so I and others pointed out that being "natural occurring" is in no way sufficient to suggest that a substance is healthy or not, especially if the substance is refined (e.g. cyanide, ricin, cocaine, DMT, on and on..)