Your final question is improper, and one that smacks of creationist arguments. I'll explain: You ask if it is acceptable for any government to regulate how much fat, sugar, salt, is consumed. This is not the correct question. One may personally buy a gallon of peanut oil and drink it themselves. The government would regulate how much of those things are made available in licensed prepared food sold to the public by commercial interests. You're on the wrong side of Pascal's wager on this one.
Cute belly. Still it's a little weird to stare at your abdomen while I listen to you talk. Why can't we see your face? What if you are blind? I don't get it.
Education can only do so much to help the obesity situation. Many people will ignore or not fully understand the messages about healthy eating, and become overweight anyway. Fatty/salty foods are de-merit goods, with a negative social externality of consumption. The government is definitely justified in taxing it, as it is an equitable source of revenue.
The regulations on cigarettes is there because nicotine is extremely addictive, but with food, people have choices and must carry responsibility for their actions so I think we shouldn't instill regulations for them.
It shouldn't be up to the government to handle any food regulations. It probably should be up to the parents to handle what foods their kids eat at school or at a restaurant.
Obesity leads to diabetes and heart disease which results in hospitalizations. These "obese" patients come into the hospital with a myriad of problems and they get the full service just like anyone else would but the bill is payed for by the government. Some of my hard earned money is going to patients who have destroyed there bodies without regard. I agree, you should be able to do what you like but not at others people's expenses. (lol at the pun i just used)
There are a lot of uneducated people who don't know how to read nutrition labels. I believe it to be a good idea for either the government or some other third party to label food as either healthy or not. The solution to obesity is through education.
Many eat just what they can afford = fat taste enhanced crap. It's also genetically determent what people like on their plate. To some, most vegetables taste awful because of their genes. I think it's like smoking, eating fat foods : a personal bad choice. School meals should be better than home cooking. Porridge is so healthy and so tasty, right !
I think that people should be able to get the nutrition facts if they wish to have them. Though I think that the obesity problem has more to do with things other than food. For example, having so much work, that people just don't feel like or have enough time to get enough exercise.
For example, I have an overweight friend who eats less than I do. However, since I have enough time to exercise, I'm thin and he's obese.
I think something has to be done about obesity because of health care. If you pay into health insurance, as an irresponsible obese person the same amount that a thin healthy person does that is not fair. Maybe do a fitness test who's score will determine how much you have to pay for health insurance. It would give great incentive while maintaining personal freedoms. I think banning or taxing food is unfair, because I'm super skinny and I love cheeseburgers.
We're not even free to be naked, so we are surely not free.
My "solution" would be a personal responsibility clause in healthcare, where the healthcare system will not pay for obesity-related illnesses, except for with minors. Another healthcare clause would prevent parents from making their kids obese (this can be done via periodic checkups). I've seen obese parents with nearly obese children younger than 12, and besides genes, that's only possible via school food and home diet.
Another thing is information. As much as we'd like to think people are well informed about their food and lifestyle choices, many are probably ignorant or self-deluding. So the more and more prevalent information the better. (This is why I like having nutrition information on all packaged food items)
I don't think the government should place any restriction on what we are allowed to eat. However if they want to help out in other ways it might be beneficial. I don't like the idea of a tax, but maybe some positive incentive. (In Canada most foods are exempt from sales tax, but there is tax on snack foods and pop.) Maybe we could have government funded gyms to encourage people to engage in proper fitness. Also: subsidies for healthier foods to make them cheaper and thus more attractive.
You make some very excellent points. However, even in America there is a limited value that healthcare is a right. There are some programs for the very poor, mandatory treatment of deadly injuries, etc. With this basic responsibility of care, we must share costs. A tax like this on sugary drinks and fatty foods not only spreads the cost around but is more equitable. Because the more unhealthy foods you buy the more you pay. This is proper because you will probably need more health care.
i think we should regulate food to the point that its not poisonous pretty much... after that, we should be able to eat whatever we want. i mean, go ahead and do harm to yourself for enjoyment. it should only be illegal when you start doing harm to yourself just to do harm to yourself. its like if you drive. by doing so youre increasing your chance of dying by a good amount. but your not doing it for the possible harm. its only illegal if you purposely drive off a cliff.
Perhaps the taxes should still be levied against the fastfood industry for "fair market" purposes. Fastfood is extremely cheap and therefore attracts the poor on a regular basis. It's not just about the lazy people who perhaps cannot control the urge to eat fastfood. That being the case, taxing fastfood to make it more expensive does nothing to help the poor. If taxes are to be levied against the fastfood industry, the poor should receive supplements (paid by those taxes) for food purchasing.
Basically you are suggesting we should take at gunpoint money from everyone but the poor in order to fund their food purchases, because easy and convenient access to inexpensive food isn't good enough. Gosh, expensive cars seem to be better than cheap cars, so the poor tend to gravitate toward cars with worse safety ratings! Should we try to rig tax laws to negate the effects of economic reality in this case too?
I don't recall saying anything about guns. Infact, the tax on the food would be what pays for the food subsidies. I thought that was clearly stated. It's similar to tarrifs to help higher production cost, American made products compete against low-cost foreign workers. Thanks for playing.
So the tax is optional? (snicker) Thats where guns come in. Also, wouldn't taxing the food make the food more expensive, and thus not subject to taxation?
Yes, it is optional. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't get the disgusting food. So, once again, no guns. I think my orignial posting was pretty straight-forward. I would much rather regulate the process of fastfood, which would raise the cost of production, which would eventually be passed along to consumers. I was just showing the problem with a "sin" tax on fastfood.
ABC you have to realize that governments consider it their duty to rule over the people. They consider you their slave. They have to keep that slave healthy so he or she can effectively work and produce labor for their fiat economy - labor which they will then tax. With government, every aspect of lawmaking, in the end, is about the creation of revenue.
Fuck any government that thinks we are their property.
Education solves most problems, a long with a healthy economy. Education should come out first in a real free society so that any unhealthy choices that are available to the public will have less of a impact because of education. Its like for example, if heroin was made legal tomorrow, id still wont do it, because its a stupid decision regardless of its legality. Education and teaching the importance of a healthy lifestyle at an early age will help people.
Laws don't fix anything. We are living beings with free, independently functioning minds (at least we are supposed to be), and we need better education. We need to teach children the risks and dangers of such bad things as fast food all the time.
So you figure indoctrination is how you should get your way rather than laws? You might not realize it, but you are probably thinking "If people were not so ignorant, if they were better educated and knew what *I* know, they would do what I want!" While I am all for better education and freedom of information, citing poor education as the cause of behavior you don't approve of is demeaning to those who might simply choose to behave that way.
@Phage0070 Well, I'm not really talking about indoctrination-style education (as I see it). See, in my opinion - that form of education isn't right either. I feel that education should be helpful, open to debate, and not be all about forcing one to conform to a certain idea. Rather, the education system should present the pure facts to children and adults, and then allow them to decide. Most people don't understand what saturated fat really is! I'm certainly not the picture of perfect health.
Personally i dont think it should be regulated (eating habits anyway) but when it comes to an "obesity epidemic" i dont think that it should be considered a disease, and it shouldn't be taken care of by the government (for instance, if you gain a certain amount of weight you are disabled) I think that this is not a disability or a disease, because it is controllable with a bit of common sense and education. And i know people say it is glandular and such, but no... stop eating and you lose weight
I don't think much of government attempting to dictate what should and should not be cultural values. However, I understand that to some extent our government necesssarily must act as a parent; for example, without laws enforcement against killing, I imagine murder rates would sky rocket. Of course, most of us would prefer not to be killed and would not like to take up the burden of protecting ourselves.
This is where, I opine, governmental laws are at their best, when they are a reflection of cultural values rather than the dictator of them. However, this still leaves us with the problem of obesity and the subsequent health risks and medical costs which follow, on both an individual and a national level. con'tSo the question as I see it is: how do we bridge the gap between the freedom of the individual and the health of the nation? If the answer is to "subsidize", then subsidize what?
If all branches of the media are to be trusted, we can see that most people do not desire to be unhealthy and fat. These monies should be concentrated on education, but I also believe that these funds would serve the individual best in combating this crisis if it afforded easy accessibility to gym memberships and nutritious foods.
It wouldn't hurt to start regulating commercial ads that proclaim quick results with minimal effort. People are so easily duped, due in part to the lacking in education that I, and you, mentioned already. Of course, if this were done, another aspect of the economy would be in jeopardy.
Everyone wants to be better than they are. If nobody was obese the next "crisis" would be the massive wave of people who cannot live up to their sports performance expectation, or the distressing trend of people who don't *care* to participate in sports! Taking people's money at gunpoint (as all taxes are) isn't at all justified to give fat people gym memberships and balanced meals. It isn't freedom, it isn't justice, and it isn't right.
@Phage0070 , You seem to be under the wrong impression of what taxes are in modernity. Tax payers are citizens of our nation. This system belongs as much to them as anyone else. And, as such, the system should benefit those on need of assistance. This is a crisis, and not just a crisis of will. Unhealthy citizens make up an unhealthy society. So, the benefit of such measures is a benefit for all. As for your analysis of human behavior, I have no comment, as it does not pertain to my comments.
So your argument is that taxes need to benefit those in need of assistance, and the assistance they require is for their will to be contravened. And/or, that it is the role of the government to shape its citizens into what it views as healthy or strong in order to increase its own power. I would hate to Godwin this thread, but that isn't freedom as I see it.
I want the government to regulate what I eat. I know I eat to much, but when mealtime comes around, I can't help myself. I don't want to control what others eat, though.
So you want to be a slave? You want some other entity to force you to be better than you can be yourself? You want all this at the point of a gun? Personally, if I was fat and made thin and fit through force I wouldn't consider it an accomplishment. I would consider it oppression.
Well, yeah. I'm not perfect. I know I'm not perfect. For instance, I would jay-walk more often if jay-walking were legal, and if I hadn't been taught the dangers of jay-walking. But I'm no slave to authority. I break laws I don't don't agree with. I smoke weed on a weekly basis, I've vandalized and stolen things.
Food regulation is something I want the government to do FOR ME, because it's to difficult to do it alone. I could pave my own streets, too, but that's their job.
Maybe governments should subsidize healthy foods as well as tax unhealthy food so that the average price of food does not go up increasing the cost of living. Also maybe there should be a high body fat tax as well as a low body fact tax rebate to discourage overeating in general. Eating disorders can be a symptom of depression, so mental health education could help as well as nutritional education.
You said it yourself, 'education'. It's hard to sum up in 500 characters but education affects so many changes in a person that as a whole they are less likely to over indulge, I believe. Like many things, and put in simple terms, it's the difference between use and abuse.
Off topic, your accent is fascinating, do I detect a hint of a Scottish brogue?
@danielcomments I do not think the fact that some people do not know how to handle freedom justifies taking it away from everyone. Instead of curbing freedom, we should focus on educating people, including how to cook quick, cheap. tasty and healthy meals.
Note I'm from New Zealand - we have subsidized health-care (suck it!)
Hmm... What's the problem, essentially?
Is the problem the burden on the public healthcare system imposed by the obese and overweight?
An idea worth kicking around would be that instead of taxation, regulation, or legislation, we could simply stop subsidizing healthcare for the kinds of self-inflicted health issues that are overburdening healthcare.
It's not something I want to champion just yet... it's just an idea... 1/2
@UbiquitousChe Unrealistic... Obese people do not necessarily have bad eating habits. Some have dieted excessively when young, and might eat healthily now, but they will never be slim. Some have a genetic predisposition to gain weight. It's a slippery slope. Do we withhold medical care from those who used to smoke? Do we withhold it from those who ski or participate in other sports? Sports injuries are a large part of the medical cost... I can think of so many reasons this would not work...
Now that you point out the bleeding obvious, I can see that it's bleeding obvious.
Hmm... Still thinking, though. The only thing I can think of that would even begin to justify this level of interference in people's free choices would be the burden on healthcare. It's still not a good enough reason to regulate at the level you're discussing in my books.
Yet if the burden is real, we *do* have to do something about it. I just can't think of anything else right now.
@Phage0070 I'm not so sure I'd go that far either. I do think that America is nuts in that it's deciding to support an additional layer of managerial overhead to their healthcare in the form of insurance companies. Seriously: WTF? I can't think of a more inefficient way of doing things.
That aside - I do think public healthcare is a good thing for everybody. Its in the interest of the poor because they'll be unhealthy without it. And its in the interest of the rich, because the poor... 1/2
@UbiquitousChe ... not only constitute the long tail of the markets upon which the rich depend - they also consist of the unskilled workforce that supplies the labor upon which the rich also depend.
If anyone loses out from public healthcare it's the middle class - but even then, I'm in the middle class, and I like the security of having some backup.
Normally I'm in favor of smaller government, but subsidized healthcare is an exception.
Its about lethal doses of a substance.. How many people die from the lethal effects of mercury, as opposed to those who die from the lethal effects of sugar and fat? There are even plenty of regulated substances which are essential in low doses but will kill you in high doses.
Companies do not have the freedom to sell dangerous levels of a substance in food. Especially in a society with socialised medicine, prevention is better than cure.
Glad to see you making videos again ABC. I am all for complete freedom for people to choose what to put into their own bodies whenever they want including food bad for them, alcohol, and drugs. As long as people don't infringe upon or harm others what they do to their own bodies is their own business.
On a personal note though, I choose not to over eat or often indulge in unhealthy food because the thought that people are starving all over the world while I eat bothers me to much.
I believe in some but not much regulation to protect the consumer:
Words should have specific meanings and definitions.
Nutrition facts should be readly avaliable and easy to access even for fransised based restraunts.
Packaged foods that are proven not to be 'healthy' should not be subsidized.
Primary schools should only provide fresh and healthy foods an no soda. High schools are a different story, more choices but with information avaliable.
@RosieDesire I agree, but what do nutritional facts mean to those who do not understand. A lot of people think it's just about calories, when it's not. A lot of food is touted as healthy when it's not, and the nutritional facts on the package still make it seem the healthy choice. How can anyone make an informed choice when they're not informed...
@Atheistblindchick I completely agree with you. If you are not educated in the subject, you can't make an educated choice. And that is a problem outside of food regulation. For instance, I would like our school system to actually teach stuff that all children will use no matter what career choice or non-career choice they make. Health education (not just physical ed), Personal Budgeting (not just economics), Critical thinking education (not just memorization). etc.
The way I understand things there is no freedom in food decisions, since big food corporations control already most of the production. For example, 45 year ago I would have had the chance to decide which grain of corn I would like my tortillas to be -I am mexican. Today I have no access to the almost 90 different kinds of corn mon santo has the patent for. Money controls my meals already, no matter what the government says. Fresh or processed, its pretty much the same
I think there's a difference between taxing something and making it illegal to get. If someone eats unhealthy foods every day, paying the tax every time, and their dietary habits lead to health problems later on, if they can't afford the medical bills and the cost is passed on to the tax payers, then their bad decisions won't be a drain on the system because they already paid into it. It would help to re-label the tax an "advance on future medical bills."
Keep in mind we subsidize to make it cheap in the first place, and you're advocating taxing it to make it more expensive. Also keep in mind that "unhealthy" is relative and definitely not restricted to fast food, time to tax anything with fat, salt, sugar or any partially hydrogenated fill in the blank? Should we start taxing people that use a salt shaker or wants dressing on their salads?
I would support restrictions on the production of unhealthy food, not on the amount produced but on the amount of sugars, salts, and fats added to foods. And lowering the subsidies of these base crops/livestock while raising subsidies for healthier ones. Just raising taxes on unhealthy food will be more harmful if you don't give an alternative that is as affordable, or at least just about as affordable.
Sorry, but I personally would have to disagree unless you want to start taxing most of a grocery store or want to take away salt shakers or tax people that want dressing on their salads. Personal health is a choice, the only thing you can seriously do is be educated on the matter and decide for yourself, I'd also say get rid of subsidies on crops in general which would accomplish most of what you want without a lot of the song and dance.
@garith21 Sorry, I should have been clearer. When I said 'support restrictions on production of unhealthy food', I meant processed food, made at the factory and then sent out in convenient little wrappers. I'm not talking about taxing anything, in fact I'm suggesting a way to NOT tax the people! Putting restrictions on how much crap a company can stuff into the food produced at their factory has NOTHING to do with taxes. And it has NOTHING to do with the condiments people pour on their plate.
@kitsunegames The main problem I have is taxing the poor people's main food source, cheap processed food, without giving them some equally cheap but healthier alternative it'll only make it harder for them to get food thanks to artificially raising their main food's prices. An education will not make good food more affordable!
Getting rid of subsidies altogether will not help anyone, it will only drive the prices of food up, once again making it harder for the poor to obtain food.
"An education will not make good food more affordable!"
Actually if it involves cooking skills and basic nutrition it will, forcing companies to meet other standards often raises prices as well, not some magic "make a rule and it'll fix it's self without consequences".
Getting rid of the subsidies will make the "unhealthy food" less plentiful and the "healthy food" more competitive
Why? It's not like such foods are being forced down the consumer's mouths and in some cases dressing or your own condiments can be just as harmful as any processed/prepackaged food. If you're really worried about "affordability" cooking fresh is often better value and healthier so why attack the companies that know that people buy their products for taste and not health?
@garith21 If getting rid of the subsidies would make the healthy food more competitive by becoming more affordable, well then I'm fine with that. But if that's not what you mean by competitive, then I'm afraid we'd be talking about poor families who are already struggling to get food, starving. And I am not OK with that at all.
more people buying standard non processed goods would increase and reduce risk of growers if the artificial cost of current processed foods rises to what it's real value is. Most of the reason we subsidize in the first place is to reduce risk to the growers, and ironically sometimes to not grow at all, yes we actually pay some farmers to grow less than they're capable of
If at that point it's not affordable for the average house hold then you should consider subsidization rather than a constant fear of what might happen even though many things can happen since it's a complex matter and not a simple one. making it so we just subsidize both sides back and forth in a rather humorous and nonsensical
It is not what they are eating that is the problem for most people, it is the amount that they eat. Take it from a man that, a mere year ago, was 247 pounds at 5 foot 8 inches. I was round - I held it fairly well, but I was still fat. I've lost 86 pounds since then and am now a slim 161 pounds. And I did it by cutting down on the eating. Calories is the key - eating too many will add weight and eating fewer than you need will chop off the weight.
It does not matter what you eat generally (unless you are concerned about nutrition). If you do not overeat your caloric requirement, you cannot gain weight, whether you eat chocolate bars, carrot sticks or pizza. Overeating is the problem. Burgers are not magic foods that instantly add pounds. They need to be overeaten to have that effect. Many have the impression that the sugar or the fat or whatever is the cause - these are high in calories and most overindulge, packing on the pounds.
To that end, controlling ones calories and cutting back on the overall intake will shave off the weight. I lost mine doing just that - take your weight, multiply it by the support calories per pound (14 for males and 12 for females) and you have your requirement. Eat under that and lose - eat over that and gain. Simple math, but it works. I eat pizza and burgers and bacon and all manner of things (including veggies). I lose weight because I am not stuffing myself at every meal with it.
I agree people should take more responcibility, but allowing the government to take part in it will only make it seemed forced, oppressive if you will, and won't help anybody.
Taking away the producers freedom to hide information about his product isn't a bad thing. Shouting the risks of your action in your ear is not the same as prohibiting you from taking the action. (unless you want to not hear the risks)
@jesokingcryst How is posting a caloric count shouring the risks in someone's ear? It isn't, because this information does not mean much to most. Helping people make better choices through education is a better solution
@Atheistblindchick than don't say it in such a way that makes posting a caloric count sound bad. It's not THE solution but it can help and can't hurt the customer (much).
@Widgetas telling people how much calories is in something is not educating them. Telling them what a healthy diet should consist of is. People don't know what the better choices are. So they drink diet sodas and eat nutrition bars, thinking this is healthier...Caloric intake is just one aspect of a diet, there is so much more to it.
Raising taxes will do nothing, since the cost of healthy food is so high. It'd only increase food costs for the poorest.
@Atheistblindchick - That wasn't my point. I was responding to your phrase "...as if people don't already know." which would imply that they *have* been educated that fast food is bad.
There are bits & pieces in primary school and proper diet etc is covered in secondary schools - but even with education it still appears that people are not eating properly. As such I don't see a problem with taxation on bad food.
Cigarettes are 'bad' - there is high tax. Is this encroaching on smoker's freedom?
I'm just listening to something on the radio - can you buy unpasteurized milk in Scotland? In most places in North America, either you can't or you have to go through a lot of trouble to get it.
when someone is depressed (whether clinically or not), they may decide they want to die. The reason we don't let them kill themselves is because, if they live, they would probably be happy they didn't kill themselves!
For the same reason, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to cook, and would rather go to McD's everyday, they might be happier later if we stop them from doing so now. I can see the argument both ways...but to a Christian it's no issue: God owns our bodies, not us.
Suicide's a choice that is chosen for the intent of death. Fast food is a choice people choose for the intent to eat, banning/restricting this is the equivalent of banning people from working hazardous jobs or any job with any hazardous potential from any common day event because it could kill them.
Secondly even if we assumed "god owns our bodies" that's a non issue since we're discussing freedoms and basic human rights. Is your freedom to do anything a "non issue" because "god owns our bodies".
Thirdly I think if it's a rational decision (not emotional) to commit suicide people should be allowed to, many people dieing from incurable diseases where they lose their mental faculties, are in constant pain and/or deteriorate should have the option.
@RobertBorgersen I disagree with you on all issues. Suicide is the ultimate form of exercising freedom.
I think that this attitude towards people who might be lazy (although this is an assumption, you don't know they have other reasons) is quite patronizing. Is the state a parent? Unless they're under 18, they should be able to make their own decisions, not have a "parent" tell them what to do.
I agree with your assessment, but I would take it even further. I get very perturbed by vegetarian assumptions that they should be able to restrict the consumption of meats. I don't like the fact that certain animal products, or certain meats, can't be sold simply because they are seen as unusual or disgusting even though other cultures have been consuming them for hundreds or thousands of years.
@Atheistblindchick I recently took up making my own Natto. I find the smell to be rather mild, vaguely reminiscent of carob. I guess it's like Durian, if people don't naturally like the smell they have a violent reaction against it. There's very little middle ground.
I have had vegetarians accuse me of cannibalism. One flew into a rage when I suggested that carrots were a life form too.
I think the right to choose your own sustenance has to be THE fundamental right.
I gotta disagree about the moderation part. I come from a family where my mother's side, & my mother in particular, has struggled to maintain her ideal weight. She never eats fast or junk food, exercises constantly (6 days gym, 4 days horse riding, & bikes/skis several times a week), & she is constantly putting on weight with the slightest bit of extra calories. Meanwhile my dad hasn't exercised since he was in school, eats HORRIBLE, & NEVER puts on a pound...ever.
And while I growing up I was skinny as rail because of my mother's perfect eating habits the next generation of kids from my mothers side are showing the results of our fast food culture. It is not showing on those who got my dad's genes but it is of great concern to see this new generation being pudgy @ so young an age. Moderation doesn't do if for some; the high caloric base of our nation's food is detrimental to some.
We subsidize the hell out of food that is bad for us. Sugar, corn, beef (to a lesser extent) are all subsidized, making them cheap. That combined with spike in blood sugar, which is like heroin to some people, has lead to a serious issue with those living on tight budgets. Its no coincidence that our poorest people are our fattest. Good, healthy food cost money; fast, corn syrup infused food is cheap.
End subsidies or tax the worst foods to offset the imbalance
Lastly, it is near impossible to argue about freedom & government intervention in your food choices. The big picture of how the various foods got to your supermarket or restaurant @ their particular prices is so bogged down in government intervention already that calculating the true cost of food is more art then science. Hence your "freedom" of choice has already been tainted; a sin tax on bad food is just one more knot in that tangled mess.
@Hopeful71 No problem, you've made some good points. I agree that some people are genetically predisposed to gain weight, and this will have an even greater effect if those people diet a lot, which makes the body more efficient in storing fats.
I agree that subsidies on corn etc should be stopped. However, for a lot of people fast food is a necessary evil, since healthy food is so expensive, so taxing is not a solution. Subsidize fruit and veggies, and we might have a start.
Well, most people should know that it's primarily determined by your genes, so technically her "ideal weight" is what her genes dictate, not something like BMI where body builders and many stars are considered obese. Diets help a lot in controlling weight, but your weight isn't always a direct measure of health, there are in fact many obese and overweight people that are healthier than skinny or "normal" weighted people.
I think that *all* restaurants and all markets should be required to provide nutrition facts for all foods they sell, but I don't think that government should tax or outlaw the consumption or sale of any food.
I were just typing my response at the end of your video, and the new youtube "feature" (lots and lots of sarcasm) automatically played the next video in my play list, ending up in my comment being erased.
My comment was basically this: Good video, keep up the good work, people should be free to screw themselves over however much they want, be it with food, drugs, or whatever. If doesn't directly harm another, like eating someone's heart to gain their power, of course.
I think the best solution to most of our problems is to measure humanities carbon footprint, and issue "rights to pollute", in equal share, to each person which could be traded in a free market. This will redress most of the externalities that unfairly impoverish so many today. It will also leave everyone more aware of the real costs associated with what they consume. It addresses obesity because the healthiest foods have the smallest carbon footprints. It would encourage eating locally.
You can get fruit and veg at fast foods, so you can eat healthy even at Mickey D's. Posting calories is good - some seemingly diet friendly things can really have a lot of calories, like some salad dressings - although posting should only be required for larger chain restaurants, since the lab analysis would be expensive for small operations.
An irony here in the United States is the "healthy" foods tend to be more expensive. In order to "balance" this, of course, the government is opting to make the "unhealthy" foods more expensive than the "healthy" foods. This will have the result of tripling the food budgets of some of the people who can barely make it as it is on the "bad" foods, and increase hunger in our country. It's all just bad policy ... {Sighs}
Think? No.Thinking has never made anyone lose weight. You get up, and you exercise, and you suffer.
The only thing thinking can do, is possibly make the environment more conducive to the aforementioned solution. Pain and suffering. Running and jogging, weightlifting.
One unfortunate truth of this world is that some people have to suffer more than others to achieve the same results. Many are dismissive of this fact, I'm prejudiced to believe they are in the lower-pain-cost category.
If the people who believe that obesity causes early death are right, then the obese cost much less than those who grow old and get lingering diseases. I weigh 340 pounds and, you know what? I don't go eat fast food every day. I don't go eat fast food every week. And I don't eat 12 chickens a day or live on snickers bars. Am I completely healthy? No. But no one is. I don't think the government or anyone else should be able to dictate my priorities to me.
I believe part of our problem has to do with age and that "low fat" and "no fat" foods are pushed as being healthy. These foods replace natural fat with extra sugar and HFC. I tried low fat diets when I was younger and lost weight. Now the only way I can lose/maintain weight is to eat food that is as close to natural as possible (not processed), avoiding HFC and high amounts of sugar. I think the government would restrict choice which will make the ability to manage weight harder.
i heard sweden banned trans fats. i think if healthcare was truly socialized, like fire departments and cops, where all citizens can get free and total healthcare, then maybe the government wouldhave legitamacy in regulating foods. But, if its like it is now, i think its shaky ground.
on the plus side, high taxes on bad foods will make the richer class die faster, maybe this is how the revolution will win .
I agree ABC (as I agree with you on virtually everything). The constant (and sadly, successful) push for more and more central control over our lives can only end badly. It simply won't work--despite the urges of people who wish to "make things better." Anyone who doesn't see that is clearly shortsighted. Does it take a blind chick to provide vision for the sighted ?! :)
my solution isssss that we need to fix our numbers first. BMI is fucking false and i cant remember how many times i hear someone is obese when they look normal to me, maybe just higher muscle structure. someone may be happy as fuck being fat, hell even back in the day if u were fat u had some big pockets. now its converting, from rich people now have a great diet. fuck that, lets talk about something more important, like why ppl are getting years of jail for harming urself. fucking stupiddd
Carbs and eating are addictive. It is difficult to keep an eye on. Fast food has a ton of carbs and understanding the quantity. Addictions tend to eliminate the the free choice we have. Awareness (like calorie levels) and health risks are needed, otherwise in your ignorance vs advertising you may very well under estimate the risks. If advertising, ignorance and addiction are disproportionate to awareness then freedom is not really there. I am for the Obama food initiative to regain freedom
I don't think the government should do anything to restrict what people choose to eat; or even make it harder to obtain such things that would cause things such as obesity. But because obese people have greater health risks, I do think that insurance companies need to raise their rates, just as they do for smokers. They are adults making these decisions and should be treated as such.
@Beauwrath However, obesity in children is the fault of the parents. This is, in my opinion, a form of child abuse. Parent's are risking their child's health because they are too lazy to regulate their diet. This is especially more important in current times when a less active lifestyle prevails.
My solution is, if I ever start getting the tiniest bit fat, I'm making an immediate lifestyle change. I'll go see a nutritionist, become a vegetarian, and start working out.
Eventually, a solution will be found. We have our solution for too much sex; our solution for too much eating should be right around the corner.
@Eldxale42 Theres a solution for to much sex? now that should be outlawed :) But on topic, the education really needs to include all the fad diets, and what you can do to influence you metabolism. If they go and ban fast food ads, then they should ban the diet ads as well. As for the not paying taxes some others have mentioned, some of us can shop on military bases and indian lands and not pay taxes.
On the one hand, of course we shouldn't automatically tax any and all behavior that might some day end up burdening society. On the other hand, we don't have a problem with taxing certain "luxuries" like tobacco or alcohol, in part because we want to discourage their (ab-)use.
The problem with foodstuffs is that they are so heavily subsidized that cost of food is insignificant for most of us. It wouldn't be so crazy to me to see an extra general tax on foods, if only to offset those subsidies.
@megamarsvin The thing is, whenever I'm in the US, I'm amazed how expensive vegetables and fruit are and how cheap processed food is. Perhaps that is a big part of the problem...
@Atheistblindchick That's absolutely true. If we stopped subsidizing mass production of things like high fructose corn syrup that could go a long way towards fixing the problem, but these industries are incredibly entrenched.
In any case penalizing overweight people is obviously the wrong solution. Did you see David Cameron's recent statement that doctors should start referring to obese people as "fat" again to motivate them to lose weight? The PM of Great Britain ladies and gentlemen.
The truth is, the US actually pours massive subsidies into their agriculture: a lot of it to corn, which ends up as high fructose corn syrup. If you really dont want to put a tax on food, then you shouldnt subsidize it on the other end. Then again, fruit and vegetables are dirt cheap in Australia, and our obesity is almost as bad. But it just goes to show that the government already controls a large part of the cost for food, so a tax on unhealthy food isnt that unrealistic.
I think we ought to take a subjective view to this.While freedom to pick and choose what we are allowed to consume sounds good in theory,I think that there are many who are ignorant to the facts on nutrition?I think we should seek to educate people on what effects substances have on the body while giving them the freedom to choose.
Hmm thats a hard one, should government be "big brother" I mean I have seen what high fat food does to people. Some people see food as a comfort and when they want comfort they pick a candy bar and not a carrot. For some a pix-stick is as bad as crack, but there are also people who have control or are on the slim side...I mean should the thin be punished to help protect the fat? I'm undecided.
@RavenBlaze "I mean should the thin be punished to help protect the fat?" The thin make as many unhealthy choices as the fat. They too compromise their health, do you know how many sports injuries there are a year? Should the sedentary be punished to protect the active? Just some food for thought...
@Atheistblindchick very true... but do you think if people are given full freedom, should they also retain the right to sue an organization for the harmful affects of their product (even if it is common knowledge that the over use or over consumption of that product is harmful)?
I believe at some point in the 90's someone tried to sue McDonalds for "making them fat" even though it has been known for decades that the food is bad for you.
If people are paying for their own healthcare, then people should be allowed to do whatever they want. In my country, taxes pay pay for universal healthcare. Therefore, engaging in behaviours that can lead people to require more from the healthcare system (smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods) SHOULD be taxed more. That way people ARE paying for their own bad decisions, even though it's not "directly". Also, you overestimate most people's intelligence re: calories & fat.
@TheLizardLass What if their priorities do not match yours? They might not value being a certain weight as much as the joy from eating certain foods
There are many behaviours that result in people requiring more from the healthcare system, such as driving (even safely), working a lot, all sports, even hiking etc etc. Would you tax those people more too, or just the people who engage in obviously "bad" behaviours?
@sapperbloggs It is indeed a complicated issue, and no matter what solution (if any) is found, there are gonna be a lot of unhappy people.
However my issue with banning ... Anything that can only harm the user... Is that it's a slippery slope. Removing freedoms, no matter how good the intentions behind it are, is still removing freedoms.
Sure freedom but what about the known cost to society of obesity ? Their irresponsibility and lazy ass won't take action then maybe someone else should.
@mcgaugh57 So, are you willing to legislate any type of behaviour that society may see as harmful to yourself? We're not talking about harming others, just yourself. Should we stop providing health care to those whose conditions are a result of bad behaviour? Does economic cost outweigh personal freedom?
@Atheistblindchick You're right that education is needed. But if saving lives and saving society millions that could go elsewhere yes regulate. Really no different then wearing a helmet or seatbelts it will save lives and improve their lives.
@Atheistblindchick --- "Should we stop providing health care to those whose conditions are a result of bad behaviour?"
Personally, I say yes. I also think that people who don't wear bike helmets or seatbelts should be denied publicly funded medical attention if they're involved in a crash. Have all the "personal freedom" you want, but be prepared to take some responsibility, and bloody well live with (or die from) the consequences.
I don't think peoples' right to be fat, gluttonous pigs should be curtailed directly; I prefer the techniques of making being so more difficult, from taxes to health warnings, to social stigma are far, far more preferable to any kind of ban or prohibition.
@BionicDance Taxation is just another form of penalizing people for making a choice the legislators deem unhealthy. Making alternatives more appealing and less expensive might be a better alternative... And what about those who make the same unhealthy choices but are genetically not inclined to gain weight?
@Atheistblindchick Well, my point was that I prefer penalizing to outright banning gluttony. I'm not sure that you really can make alternatives more appealing because you're fighting against several millennia of evolution; that's where these preferences for sweets and fat come from.
As to those not inclined to gain weight, they're still making unhealthy choices; obesity is not the only consequence of eating these kinds of foods.
If I were a person making a profit from selling unhealthy food, I would probably lobby the government to ban it. That would make my profits skyrocket. Just ask the drug cartels! ;-)
Your final question is improper, and one that smacks of creationist arguments. I'll explain: You ask if it is acceptable for any government to regulate how much fat, sugar, salt, is consumed. This is not the correct question. One may personally buy a gallon of peanut oil and drink it themselves. The government would regulate how much of those things are made available in licensed prepared food sold to the public by commercial interests. You're on the wrong side of Pascal's wager on this one.
pinkymixology 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Cute belly. Still it's a little weird to stare at your abdomen while I listen to you talk. Why can't we see your face? What if you are blind? I don't get it.
zacthebold 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I agree. Those laws and taxes are wrong. state shouldn't mother people, responsible fast food can be fine and i do this.
gejost 3 months ago
Education can only do so much to help the obesity situation. Many people will ignore or not fully understand the messages about healthy eating, and become overweight anyway. Fatty/salty foods are de-merit goods, with a negative social externality of consumption. The government is definitely justified in taxing it, as it is an equitable source of revenue.
th3manonthem00n 5 months ago
Her body language seems like it should've been learned visually. Either way, she has a sexy way about her.
fsmdidit 5 months ago
The regulations on cigarettes is there because nicotine is extremely addictive, but with food, people have choices and must carry responsibility for their actions so I think we shouldn't instill regulations for them.
mousaey 10 months ago
It shouldn't be up to the government to handle any food regulations. It probably should be up to the parents to handle what foods their kids eat at school or at a restaurant.
jambowowow 1 year ago
Obesity leads to diabetes and heart disease which results in hospitalizations. These "obese" patients come into the hospital with a myriad of problems and they get the full service just like anyone else would but the bill is payed for by the government. Some of my hard earned money is going to patients who have destroyed there bodies without regard. I agree, you should be able to do what you like but not at others people's expenses. (lol at the pun i just used)
MagicalHobo1001 1 year ago
Comment removed
MagicalHobo1001 1 year ago
There are a lot of uneducated people who don't know how to read nutrition labels. I believe it to be a good idea for either the government or some other third party to label food as either healthy or not. The solution to obesity is through education.
MagicalHobo1001 1 year ago
looks its the fake blind person
KIMBOSLICE66666 1 year ago
@KIMBOSLICE66666 Why would you assume I'm not blind?
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick cause your not..show your face fake..
KIMBOSLICE66666 1 year ago
@KIMBOSLICE66666 I don't show my face because I'm blind, you idiot. If you need proof, watch my video on the subject.
watch?v=pntGp00HHr8
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
Atheistblindchick has the best stomach on youtube. :D
ChillingWithZombies 1 year ago
Many eat just what they can afford = fat taste enhanced crap. It's also genetically determent what people like on their plate. To some, most vegetables taste awful because of their genes. I think it's like smoking, eating fat foods : a personal bad choice. School meals should be better than home cooking. Porridge is so healthy and so tasty, right !
isleofyew1 1 year ago
Why are you showing your tummy instead of your face?
vfIskullangel 1 year ago
I think that people should be able to get the nutrition facts if they wish to have them. Though I think that the obesity problem has more to do with things other than food. For example, having so much work, that people just don't feel like or have enough time to get enough exercise.
For example, I have an overweight friend who eats less than I do. However, since I have enough time to exercise, I'm thin and he's obese.
spartacandream 1 year ago
I think something has to be done about obesity because of health care. If you pay into health insurance, as an irresponsible obese person the same amount that a thin healthy person does that is not fair. Maybe do a fitness test who's score will determine how much you have to pay for health insurance. It would give great incentive while maintaining personal freedoms. I think banning or taxing food is unfair, because I'm super skinny and I love cheeseburgers.
heatmourning33 1 year ago
We're not even free to be naked, so we are surely not free.
My "solution" would be a personal responsibility clause in healthcare, where the healthcare system will not pay for obesity-related illnesses, except for with minors. Another healthcare clause would prevent parents from making their kids obese (this can be done via periodic checkups). I've seen obese parents with nearly obese children younger than 12, and besides genes, that's only possible via school food and home diet.
TheLonelyImmortal 1 year ago
Another thing is information. As much as we'd like to think people are well informed about their food and lifestyle choices, many are probably ignorant or self-deluding. So the more and more prevalent information the better. (This is why I like having nutrition information on all packaged food items)
Stephen5000 1 year ago
I don't think the government should place any restriction on what we are allowed to eat. However if they want to help out in other ways it might be beneficial. I don't like the idea of a tax, but maybe some positive incentive. (In Canada most foods are exempt from sales tax, but there is tax on snack foods and pop.) Maybe we could have government funded gyms to encourage people to engage in proper fitness. Also: subsidies for healthier foods to make them cheaper and thus more attractive.
Stephen5000 1 year ago
Hi.
You make some very excellent points. However, even in America there is a limited value that healthcare is a right. There are some programs for the very poor, mandatory treatment of deadly injuries, etc. With this basic responsibility of care, we must share costs. A tax like this on sugary drinks and fatty foods not only spreads the cost around but is more equitable. Because the more unhealthy foods you buy the more you pay. This is proper because you will probably need more health care.
ugfabian 1 year ago
i think we should regulate food to the point that its not poisonous pretty much... after that, we should be able to eat whatever we want. i mean, go ahead and do harm to yourself for enjoyment. it should only be illegal when you start doing harm to yourself just to do harm to yourself. its like if you drive. by doing so youre increasing your chance of dying by a good amount. but your not doing it for the possible harm. its only illegal if you purposely drive off a cliff.
Benlucky13 1 year ago
Perhaps the taxes should still be levied against the fastfood industry for "fair market" purposes. Fastfood is extremely cheap and therefore attracts the poor on a regular basis. It's not just about the lazy people who perhaps cannot control the urge to eat fastfood. That being the case, taxing fastfood to make it more expensive does nothing to help the poor. If taxes are to be levied against the fastfood industry, the poor should receive supplements (paid by those taxes) for food purchasing.
Onodera1980 1 year ago
@Onodera1980
Basically you are suggesting we should take at gunpoint money from everyone but the poor in order to fund their food purchases, because easy and convenient access to inexpensive food isn't good enough. Gosh, expensive cars seem to be better than cheap cars, so the poor tend to gravitate toward cars with worse safety ratings! Should we try to rig tax laws to negate the effects of economic reality in this case too?
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Phage0070
I don't recall saying anything about guns. Infact, the tax on the food would be what pays for the food subsidies. I thought that was clearly stated. It's similar to tarrifs to help higher production cost, American made products compete against low-cost foreign workers. Thanks for playing.
Onodera1980 1 year ago
@Onodera1980
So the tax is optional? (snicker) Thats where guns come in. Also, wouldn't taxing the food make the food more expensive, and thus not subject to taxation?
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Phage0070
Yes, it is optional. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't get the disgusting food. So, once again, no guns. I think my orignial posting was pretty straight-forward. I would much rather regulate the process of fastfood, which would raise the cost of production, which would eventually be passed along to consumers. I was just showing the problem with a "sin" tax on fastfood.
Onodera1980 1 year ago
@Onodera1980
So what happens if the producers don't want to pay the tax, hmm?
Phage0070 1 year ago
ABC you have to realize that governments consider it their duty to rule over the people. They consider you their slave. They have to keep that slave healthy so he or she can effectively work and produce labor for their fiat economy - labor which they will then tax. With government, every aspect of lawmaking, in the end, is about the creation of revenue.
Fuck any government that thinks we are their property.
Liberty or Death!
citizen762 1 year ago
Education solves most problems, a long with a healthy economy. Education should come out first in a real free society so that any unhealthy choices that are available to the public will have less of a impact because of education. Its like for example, if heroin was made legal tomorrow, id still wont do it, because its a stupid decision regardless of its legality. Education and teaching the importance of a healthy lifestyle at an early age will help people.
adafuns 1 year ago
Laws don't fix anything. We are living beings with free, independently functioning minds (at least we are supposed to be), and we need better education. We need to teach children the risks and dangers of such bad things as fast food all the time.
VideoGuyNC 1 year ago
@VideoGuyNC
So you figure indoctrination is how you should get your way rather than laws? You might not realize it, but you are probably thinking "If people were not so ignorant, if they were better educated and knew what *I* know, they would do what I want!" While I am all for better education and freedom of information, citing poor education as the cause of behavior you don't approve of is demeaning to those who might simply choose to behave that way.
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Phage0070 Well, I'm not really talking about indoctrination-style education (as I see it). See, in my opinion - that form of education isn't right either. I feel that education should be helpful, open to debate, and not be all about forcing one to conform to a certain idea. Rather, the education system should present the pure facts to children and adults, and then allow them to decide. Most people don't understand what saturated fat really is! I'm certainly not the picture of perfect health.
VideoGuyNC 1 year ago
Personally i dont think it should be regulated (eating habits anyway) but when it comes to an "obesity epidemic" i dont think that it should be considered a disease, and it shouldn't be taken care of by the government (for instance, if you gain a certain amount of weight you are disabled) I think that this is not a disability or a disease, because it is controllable with a bit of common sense and education. And i know people say it is glandular and such, but no... stop eating and you lose weight
ninjabob42 1 year ago
I don't think much of government attempting to dictate what should and should not be cultural values. However, I understand that to some extent our government necesssarily must act as a parent; for example, without laws enforcement against killing, I imagine murder rates would sky rocket. Of course, most of us would prefer not to be killed and would not like to take up the burden of protecting ourselves.
freetaught 1 year ago
This is where, I opine, governmental laws are at their best, when they are a reflection of cultural values rather than the dictator of them. However, this still leaves us with the problem of obesity and the subsequent health risks and medical costs which follow, on both an individual and a national level. con'tSo the question as I see it is: how do we bridge the gap between the freedom of the individual and the health of the nation? If the answer is to "subsidize", then subsidize what?
freetaught 1 year ago
If all branches of the media are to be trusted, we can see that most people do not desire to be unhealthy and fat. These monies should be concentrated on education, but I also believe that these funds would serve the individual best in combating this crisis if it afforded easy accessibility to gym memberships and nutritious foods.
freetaught 1 year ago
It wouldn't hurt to start regulating commercial ads that proclaim quick results with minimal effort. People are so easily duped, due in part to the lacking in education that I, and you, mentioned already. Of course, if this were done, another aspect of the economy would be in jeopardy.
freetaught 1 year ago
@freetaught
Everyone wants to be better than they are. If nobody was obese the next "crisis" would be the massive wave of people who cannot live up to their sports performance expectation, or the distressing trend of people who don't *care* to participate in sports! Taking people's money at gunpoint (as all taxes are) isn't at all justified to give fat people gym memberships and balanced meals. It isn't freedom, it isn't justice, and it isn't right.
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Phage0070 , You seem to be under the wrong impression of what taxes are in modernity. Tax payers are citizens of our nation. This system belongs as much to them as anyone else. And, as such, the system should benefit those on need of assistance. This is a crisis, and not just a crisis of will. Unhealthy citizens make up an unhealthy society. So, the benefit of such measures is a benefit for all. As for your analysis of human behavior, I have no comment, as it does not pertain to my comments.
freetaught 1 year ago
@freetaught
So your argument is that taxes need to benefit those in need of assistance, and the assistance they require is for their will to be contravened. And/or, that it is the role of the government to shape its citizens into what it views as healthy or strong in order to increase its own power. I would hate to Godwin this thread, but that isn't freedom as I see it.
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Phage0070 I think you need to go back and re-read my comments, because I don't think you understood one bit of them.
freetaught 1 year ago
I want the government to regulate what I eat. I know I eat to much, but when mealtime comes around, I can't help myself. I don't want to control what others eat, though.
secular555 1 year ago
@secular555
So you want to be a slave? You want some other entity to force you to be better than you can be yourself? You want all this at the point of a gun? Personally, if I was fat and made thin and fit through force I wouldn't consider it an accomplishment. I would consider it oppression.
Phage0070 1 year ago
@Phage0070
Well, yeah. I'm not perfect. I know I'm not perfect. For instance, I would jay-walk more often if jay-walking were legal, and if I hadn't been taught the dangers of jay-walking. But I'm no slave to authority. I break laws I don't don't agree with. I smoke weed on a weekly basis, I've vandalized and stolen things.
Food regulation is something I want the government to do FOR ME, because it's to difficult to do it alone. I could pave my own streets, too, but that's their job.
secular555 1 year ago
Can we eat politicians?
DesdinovaImaginos 1 year ago
@DesdinovaImaginos
No, I am pretty sure they are toxic.
Phage0070 1 year ago
Maybe governments should subsidize healthy foods as well as tax unhealthy food so that the average price of food does not go up increasing the cost of living. Also maybe there should be a high body fat tax as well as a low body fact tax rebate to discourage overeating in general. Eating disorders can be a symptom of depression, so mental health education could help as well as nutritional education.
bizzee1 1 year ago
kids eat a lot of fast food without knowing the side effects.
styrofoamheart 1 year ago
I'm glad you haven't eaten too much junk and ruined your tummy.
216trixie 1 year ago
Theres alot of audio static. Please try to rectify your recordings.
zawam 1 year ago
You said it yourself, 'education'. It's hard to sum up in 500 characters but education affects so many changes in a person that as a whole they are less likely to over indulge, I believe. Like many things, and put in simple terms, it's the difference between use and abuse.
Off topic, your accent is fascinating, do I detect a hint of a Scottish brogue?
fishypaw 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok so we have the right to do whatever we want with our body...so should we stop people from committing suicide?
101011001 1 year ago
@danielcomments I do not think the fact that some people do not know how to handle freedom justifies taking it away from everyone. Instead of curbing freedom, we should focus on educating people, including how to cook quick, cheap. tasty and healthy meals.
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
Note I'm from New Zealand - we have subsidized health-care (suck it!)
Hmm... What's the problem, essentially?
Is the problem the burden on the public healthcare system imposed by the obese and overweight?
An idea worth kicking around would be that instead of taxation, regulation, or legislation, we could simply stop subsidizing healthcare for the kinds of self-inflicted health issues that are overburdening healthcare.
It's not something I want to champion just yet... it's just an idea... 1/2
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@UbiquitousChe ... that I think is worth considering.
Freedom is good - but surely freedom has to encompass accepting the consequences of our own actions.
So if we eat well and responsibly, then get heart disease - fair enough. Subsidize that - I don't really mind, it could've happened to anyone.
But if you allow yourself to become utterly obese - well, it becomes less reasonable to subsidize heart disease then.
Not entirely sure if I like the argument - but it's worth considering. 2/2
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@UbiquitousChe P.S. Originally had this thought with tobacco, but it also applies to this, methinks.
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@UbiquitousChe Unrealistic... Obese people do not necessarily have bad eating habits. Some have dieted excessively when young, and might eat healthily now, but they will never be slim. Some have a genetic predisposition to gain weight. It's a slippery slope. Do we withhold medical care from those who used to smoke? Do we withhold it from those who ski or participate in other sports? Sports injuries are a large part of the medical cost... I can think of so many reasons this would not work...
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick ...
Now that you point out the bleeding obvious, I can see that it's bleeding obvious.
Hmm... Still thinking, though. The only thing I can think of that would even begin to justify this level of interference in people's free choices would be the burden on healthcare. It's still not a good enough reason to regulate at the level you're discussing in my books.
Yet if the burden is real, we *do* have to do something about it. I just can't think of anything else right now.
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@UbiquitousChe
Thats exactly why the United States really shouldn't move over to government-run healthcare; it inevitably leads to loss of freedom.
Phage0070 1 year ago
Comment removed
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
Comment removed
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@Phage0070 I'm not so sure I'd go that far either. I do think that America is nuts in that it's deciding to support an additional layer of managerial overhead to their healthcare in the form of insurance companies. Seriously: WTF? I can't think of a more inefficient way of doing things.
That aside - I do think public healthcare is a good thing for everybody. Its in the interest of the poor because they'll be unhealthy without it. And its in the interest of the rich, because the poor... 1/2
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@UbiquitousChe ... not only constitute the long tail of the markets upon which the rich depend - they also consist of the unskilled workforce that supplies the labor upon which the rich also depend.
If anyone loses out from public healthcare it's the middle class - but even then, I'm in the middle class, and I like the security of having some backup.
Normally I'm in favor of smaller government, but subsidized healthcare is an exception.
2/2
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
Its about lethal doses of a substance.. How many people die from the lethal effects of mercury, as opposed to those who die from the lethal effects of sugar and fat? There are even plenty of regulated substances which are essential in low doses but will kill you in high doses.
Companies do not have the freedom to sell dangerous levels of a substance in food. Especially in a society with socialised medicine, prevention is better than cure.
Saktoth 1 year ago
Glad to see you making videos again ABC. I am all for complete freedom for people to choose what to put into their own bodies whenever they want including food bad for them, alcohol, and drugs. As long as people don't infringe upon or harm others what they do to their own bodies is their own business.
On a personal note though, I choose not to over eat or often indulge in unhealthy food because the thought that people are starving all over the world while I eat bothers me to much.
zenmonk420 1 year ago
I believe in some but not much regulation to protect the consumer:
Words should have specific meanings and definitions.
Nutrition facts should be readly avaliable and easy to access even for fransised based restraunts.
Packaged foods that are proven not to be 'healthy' should not be subsidized.
Primary schools should only provide fresh and healthy foods an no soda. High schools are a different story, more choices but with information avaliable.
But 'unhealthy' food should be available.
RosieDesire 1 year ago
@RosieDesire I agree, but what do nutritional facts mean to those who do not understand. A lot of people think it's just about calories, when it's not. A lot of food is touted as healthy when it's not, and the nutritional facts on the package still make it seem the healthy choice. How can anyone make an informed choice when they're not informed...
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick That's why we need better education (IN ALL COUNTRIES).
VideoGuyNC 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick I completely agree with you. If you are not educated in the subject, you can't make an educated choice. And that is a problem outside of food regulation. For instance, I would like our school system to actually teach stuff that all children will use no matter what career choice or non-career choice they make. Health education (not just physical ed), Personal Budgeting (not just economics), Critical thinking education (not just memorization). etc.
RosieDesire 1 year ago
I kinda like what Terry Pratchett said about freedom:
"No sane mortal is truly free, because true freedom is so terrible that only the mad or the divine can face it with open eyes."
TheAtheistSwede 1 year ago
@TheAtheistSwede Oh, the wise Terry Pratchett. I love him!
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick Yeah, he's wonderful. The whole alzheimer thing is gut wrenching. Such a brilliant mind and it will fade away.
TheAtheistSwede 1 year ago
Hello ahteistblindchik!!
The way I understand things there is no freedom in food decisions, since big food corporations control already most of the production. For example, 45 year ago I would have had the chance to decide which grain of corn I would like my tortillas to be -I am mexican. Today I have no access to the almost 90 different kinds of corn mon santo has the patent for. Money controls my meals already, no matter what the government says. Fresh or processed, its pretty much the same
janover73 1 year ago
I think there's a difference between taxing something and making it illegal to get. If someone eats unhealthy foods every day, paying the tax every time, and their dietary habits lead to health problems later on, if they can't afford the medical bills and the cost is passed on to the tax payers, then their bad decisions won't be a drain on the system because they already paid into it. It would help to re-label the tax an "advance on future medical bills."
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3
Keep in mind we subsidize to make it cheap in the first place, and you're advocating taxing it to make it more expensive. Also keep in mind that "unhealthy" is relative and definitely not restricted to fast food, time to tax anything with fat, salt, sugar or any partially hydrogenated fill in the blank? Should we start taxing people that use a salt shaker or wants dressing on their salads?
garith21 1 year ago
always good to see another video from you chum
NemoUtopian 1 year ago
I would support restrictions on the production of unhealthy food, not on the amount produced but on the amount of sugars, salts, and fats added to foods. And lowering the subsidies of these base crops/livestock while raising subsidies for healthier ones. Just raising taxes on unhealthy food will be more harmful if you don't give an alternative that is as affordable, or at least just about as affordable.
kitsunegames 1 year ago
@kitsunegames
Sorry, but I personally would have to disagree unless you want to start taxing most of a grocery store or want to take away salt shakers or tax people that want dressing on their salads. Personal health is a choice, the only thing you can seriously do is be educated on the matter and decide for yourself, I'd also say get rid of subsidies on crops in general which would accomplish most of what you want without a lot of the song and dance.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Sorry, I should have been clearer. When I said 'support restrictions on production of unhealthy food', I meant processed food, made at the factory and then sent out in convenient little wrappers. I'm not talking about taxing anything, in fact I'm suggesting a way to NOT tax the people! Putting restrictions on how much crap a company can stuff into the food produced at their factory has NOTHING to do with taxes. And it has NOTHING to do with the condiments people pour on their plate.
kitsunegames 1 year ago
@kitsunegames The main problem I have is taxing the poor people's main food source, cheap processed food, without giving them some equally cheap but healthier alternative it'll only make it harder for them to get food thanks to artificially raising their main food's prices. An education will not make good food more affordable!
Getting rid of subsidies altogether will not help anyone, it will only drive the prices of food up, once again making it harder for the poor to obtain food.
kitsunegames 1 year ago
@kitsunegames
"An education will not make good food more affordable!"
Actually if it involves cooking skills and basic nutrition it will, forcing companies to meet other standards often raises prices as well, not some magic "make a rule and it'll fix it's self without consequences".
Getting rid of the subsidies will make the "unhealthy food" less plentiful and the "healthy food" more competitive
garith21 1 year ago
@kitsunegames
Why? It's not like such foods are being forced down the consumer's mouths and in some cases dressing or your own condiments can be just as harmful as any processed/prepackaged food. If you're really worried about "affordability" cooking fresh is often better value and healthier so why attack the companies that know that people buy their products for taste and not health?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 If getting rid of the subsidies would make the healthy food more competitive by becoming more affordable, well then I'm fine with that. But if that's not what you mean by competitive, then I'm afraid we'd be talking about poor families who are already struggling to get food, starving. And I am not OK with that at all.
kitsunegames 1 year ago
@kitsunegames
more people buying standard non processed goods would increase and reduce risk of growers if the artificial cost of current processed foods rises to what it's real value is. Most of the reason we subsidize in the first place is to reduce risk to the growers, and ironically sometimes to not grow at all, yes we actually pay some farmers to grow less than they're capable of
garith21 1 year ago
@kitsunegames
If at that point it's not affordable for the average house hold then you should consider subsidization rather than a constant fear of what might happen even though many things can happen since it's a complex matter and not a simple one. making it so we just subsidize both sides back and forth in a rather humorous and nonsensical
garith21 1 year ago
It is not what they are eating that is the problem for most people, it is the amount that they eat. Take it from a man that, a mere year ago, was 247 pounds at 5 foot 8 inches. I was round - I held it fairly well, but I was still fat. I've lost 86 pounds since then and am now a slim 161 pounds. And I did it by cutting down on the eating. Calories is the key - eating too many will add weight and eating fewer than you need will chop off the weight.
AzmodanKijur 1 year ago
It does not matter what you eat generally (unless you are concerned about nutrition). If you do not overeat your caloric requirement, you cannot gain weight, whether you eat chocolate bars, carrot sticks or pizza. Overeating is the problem. Burgers are not magic foods that instantly add pounds. They need to be overeaten to have that effect. Many have the impression that the sugar or the fat or whatever is the cause - these are high in calories and most overindulge, packing on the pounds.
AzmodanKijur 1 year ago
To that end, controlling ones calories and cutting back on the overall intake will shave off the weight. I lost mine doing just that - take your weight, multiply it by the support calories per pound (14 for males and 12 for females) and you have your requirement. Eat under that and lose - eat over that and gain. Simple math, but it works. I eat pizza and burgers and bacon and all manner of things (including veggies). I lose weight because I am not stuffing myself at every meal with it.
AzmodanKijur 1 year ago
I agree people should take more responcibility, but allowing the government to take part in it will only make it seemed forced, oppressive if you will, and won't help anybody.
DeathsPictures 1 year ago
Taking away the producers freedom to hide information about his product isn't a bad thing. Shouting the risks of your action in your ear is not the same as prohibiting you from taking the action. (unless you want to not hear the risks)
Other than that /agreed
jesokingcryst 1 year ago
@jesokingcryst How is posting a caloric count shouring the risks in someone's ear? It isn't, because this information does not mean much to most. Helping people make better choices through education is a better solution
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick than don't say it in such a way that makes posting a caloric count sound bad. It's not THE solution but it can help and can't hurt the customer (much).
jesokingcryst 1 year ago
I would support higher taxes and restricted advertising, but not bans, on unhealthy food.
Creedonator 1 year ago
hmm? Interesting. I'll let you know what I think as soon as I've finished my KFC.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK *grin* I love KFC...
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
You say both: "Restaurants have been forced to publish calories and salt/fat content etc on their menus... as if people don't already know."
and
"Surely education is better than regulation?"
The problem is - People *already* know that fast food is crap, but they still continue to eat it. And for some people it is their main diet.
As such, I don't see why raising tax on such food can't go hand in hand with even more education (because that has worked to some extent so far).
Widgetas 1 year ago
@Widgetas telling people how much calories is in something is not educating them. Telling them what a healthy diet should consist of is. People don't know what the better choices are. So they drink diet sodas and eat nutrition bars, thinking this is healthier...Caloric intake is just one aspect of a diet, there is so much more to it.
Raising taxes will do nothing, since the cost of healthy food is so high. It'd only increase food costs for the poorest.
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick - That wasn't my point. I was responding to your phrase "...as if people don't already know." which would imply that they *have* been educated that fast food is bad.
There are bits & pieces in primary school and proper diet etc is covered in secondary schools - but even with education it still appears that people are not eating properly. As such I don't see a problem with taxation on bad food.
Cigarettes are 'bad' - there is high tax. Is this encroaching on smoker's freedom?
Widgetas 1 year ago
if i can't eat massive amounts of bacon, whats the point?
you're inspiring BlindChick :)
qdragon1337 1 year ago
@qdragon1337 Exactly!
You're pretty inspiring yourself, Q
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
Yeah like trans fatty oils! The food Nazis are everywhere hunting down restaurants that use trans fats. GIVE ME BACK MY TRANS FATS!!! :-)
KasparHauser4 1 year ago
I'm just listening to something on the radio - can you buy unpasteurized milk in Scotland? In most places in North America, either you can't or you have to go through a lot of trouble to get it.
ripporter 1 year ago
when someone is depressed (whether clinically or not), they may decide they want to die. The reason we don't let them kill themselves is because, if they live, they would probably be happy they didn't kill themselves!
For the same reason, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to cook, and would rather go to McD's everyday, they might be happier later if we stop them from doing so now. I can see the argument both ways...but to a Christian it's no issue: God owns our bodies, not us.
RobertBorgersen 1 year ago
@RobertBorgersen
Suicide's a choice that is chosen for the intent of death. Fast food is a choice people choose for the intent to eat, banning/restricting this is the equivalent of banning people from working hazardous jobs or any job with any hazardous potential from any common day event because it could kill them.
garith21 1 year ago
@RobertBorgersen
Secondly even if we assumed "god owns our bodies" that's a non issue since we're discussing freedoms and basic human rights. Is your freedom to do anything a "non issue" because "god owns our bodies".
Thirdly I think if it's a rational decision (not emotional) to commit suicide people should be allowed to, many people dieing from incurable diseases where they lose their mental faculties, are in constant pain and/or deteriorate should have the option.
garith21 1 year ago
@RobertBorgersen I disagree with you on all issues. Suicide is the ultimate form of exercising freedom.
I think that this attitude towards people who might be lazy (although this is an assumption, you don't know they have other reasons) is quite patronizing. Is the state a parent? Unless they're under 18, they should be able to make their own decisions, not have a "parent" tell them what to do.
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
good to see you again ABC!!
Paxmax 1 year ago
I agree with your assessment, but I would take it even further. I get very perturbed by vegetarian assumptions that they should be able to restrict the consumption of meats. I don't like the fact that certain animal products, or certain meats, can't be sold simply because they are seen as unusual or disgusting even though other cultures have been consuming them for hundreds or thousands of years.
We should even be allowed to eat Natto!!
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 Natto might be one step too far... EWWWW, I mean, just the smell is enough to make me gag...
I was a vegetarian for 10 years, but always saw that as a personal choice, one that I could never make for others.
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick I recently took up making my own Natto. I find the smell to be rather mild, vaguely reminiscent of carob. I guess it's like Durian, if people don't naturally like the smell they have a violent reaction against it. There's very little middle ground.
I have had vegetarians accuse me of cannibalism. One flew into a rage when I suggested that carrots were a life form too.
I think the right to choose your own sustenance has to be THE fundamental right.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
Welcome back ABC.
I gotta disagree about the moderation part. I come from a family where my mother's side, & my mother in particular, has struggled to maintain her ideal weight. She never eats fast or junk food, exercises constantly (6 days gym, 4 days horse riding, & bikes/skis several times a week), & she is constantly putting on weight with the slightest bit of extra calories. Meanwhile my dad hasn't exercised since he was in school, eats HORRIBLE, & NEVER puts on a pound...ever.
cont...
Hopeful71 1 year ago
....cont
And while I growing up I was skinny as rail because of my mother's perfect eating habits the next generation of kids from my mothers side are showing the results of our fast food culture. It is not showing on those who got my dad's genes but it is of great concern to see this new generation being pudgy @ so young an age. Moderation doesn't do if for some; the high caloric base of our nation's food is detrimental to some.
Which leads to my main point;
cont...
Hopeful71 1 year ago
...cont (3rd)
We subsidize the hell out of food that is bad for us. Sugar, corn, beef (to a lesser extent) are all subsidized, making them cheap. That combined with spike in blood sugar, which is like heroin to some people, has lead to a serious issue with those living on tight budgets. Its no coincidence that our poorest people are our fattest. Good, healthy food cost money; fast, corn syrup infused food is cheap.
End subsidies or tax the worst foods to offset the imbalance
cont...
Hopeful71 1 year ago 5
...cont (4th)
Lastly, it is near impossible to argue about freedom & government intervention in your food choices. The big picture of how the various foods got to your supermarket or restaurant @ their particular prices is so bogged down in government intervention already that calculating the true cost of food is more art then science. Hence your "freedom" of choice has already been tainted; a sin tax on bad food is just one more knot in that tangled mess.
(sorry for the lengthy reply)
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 No problem, you've made some good points. I agree that some people are genetically predisposed to gain weight, and this will have an even greater effect if those people diet a lot, which makes the body more efficient in storing fats.
I agree that subsidies on corn etc should be stopped. However, for a lot of people fast food is a necessary evil, since healthy food is so expensive, so taxing is not a solution. Subsidize fruit and veggies, and we might have a start.
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Hopeful71
Well, most people should know that it's primarily determined by your genes, so technically her "ideal weight" is what her genes dictate, not something like BMI where body builders and many stars are considered obese. Diets help a lot in controlling weight, but your weight isn't always a direct measure of health, there are in fact many obese and overweight people that are healthier than skinny or "normal" weighted people.
garith21 1 year ago
Education is the answer.
superfisto 1 year ago
I think that *all* restaurants and all markets should be required to provide nutrition facts for all foods they sell, but I don't think that government should tax or outlaw the consumption or sale of any food.
kinabrew 1 year ago
AAH, what the hell?!
I were just typing my response at the end of your video, and the new youtube "feature" (lots and lots of sarcasm) automatically played the next video in my play list, ending up in my comment being erased.
My comment was basically this: Good video, keep up the good work, people should be free to screw themselves over however much they want, be it with food, drugs, or whatever. If doesn't directly harm another, like eating someone's heart to gain their power, of course.
Denamic 1 year ago
I think the best solution to most of our problems is to measure humanities carbon footprint, and issue "rights to pollute", in equal share, to each person which could be traded in a free market. This will redress most of the externalities that unfairly impoverish so many today. It will also leave everyone more aware of the real costs associated with what they consume. It addresses obesity because the healthiest foods have the smallest carbon footprints. It would encourage eating locally.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
No regulations on foods!
You can get fruit and veg at fast foods, so you can eat healthy even at Mickey D's. Posting calories is good - some seemingly diet friendly things can really have a lot of calories, like some salad dressings - although posting should only be required for larger chain restaurants, since the lab analysis would be expensive for small operations.
ripporter 1 year ago
An irony here in the United States is the "healthy" foods tend to be more expensive. In order to "balance" this, of course, the government is opting to make the "unhealthy" foods more expensive than the "healthy" foods. This will have the result of tripling the food budgets of some of the people who can barely make it as it is on the "bad" foods, and increase hunger in our country. It's all just bad policy ... {Sighs}
LeksServices 1 year ago
Think? No.Thinking has never made anyone lose weight. You get up, and you exercise, and you suffer.
The only thing thinking can do, is possibly make the environment more conducive to the aforementioned solution. Pain and suffering. Running and jogging, weightlifting.
One unfortunate truth of this world is that some people have to suffer more than others to achieve the same results. Many are dismissive of this fact, I'm prejudiced to believe they are in the lower-pain-cost category.
Kreadus005 1 year ago
If the people who believe that obesity causes early death are right, then the obese cost much less than those who grow old and get lingering diseases. I weigh 340 pounds and, you know what? I don't go eat fast food every day. I don't go eat fast food every week. And I don't eat 12 chickens a day or live on snickers bars. Am I completely healthy? No. But no one is. I don't think the government or anyone else should be able to dictate my priorities to me.
albapuella 1 year ago
I believe part of our problem has to do with age and that "low fat" and "no fat" foods are pushed as being healthy. These foods replace natural fat with extra sugar and HFC. I tried low fat diets when I was younger and lost weight. Now the only way I can lose/maintain weight is to eat food that is as close to natural as possible (not processed), avoiding HFC and high amounts of sugar. I think the government would restrict choice which will make the ability to manage weight harder.
amberview30 1 year ago
i heard sweden banned trans fats. i think if healthcare was truly socialized, like fire departments and cops, where all citizens can get free and total healthcare, then maybe the government wouldhave legitamacy in regulating foods. But, if its like it is now, i think its shaky ground.
on the plus side, high taxes on bad foods will make the richer class die faster, maybe this is how the revolution will win .
TheAist 1 year ago
I agree ABC (as I agree with you on virtually everything). The constant (and sadly, successful) push for more and more central control over our lives can only end badly. It simply won't work--despite the urges of people who wish to "make things better." Anyone who doesn't see that is clearly shortsighted. Does it take a blind chick to provide vision for the sighted ?! :)
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
my solution isssss that we need to fix our numbers first. BMI is fucking false and i cant remember how many times i hear someone is obese when they look normal to me, maybe just higher muscle structure. someone may be happy as fuck being fat, hell even back in the day if u were fat u had some big pockets. now its converting, from rich people now have a great diet. fuck that, lets talk about something more important, like why ppl are getting years of jail for harming urself. fucking stupiddd
ryanireland187 1 year ago
Carbs and eating are addictive. It is difficult to keep an eye on. Fast food has a ton of carbs and understanding the quantity. Addictions tend to eliminate the the free choice we have. Awareness (like calorie levels) and health risks are needed, otherwise in your ignorance vs advertising you may very well under estimate the risks. If advertising, ignorance and addiction are disproportionate to awareness then freedom is not really there. I am for the Obama food initiative to regain freedom
anubis2814 1 year ago
I don't think the government should do anything to restrict what people choose to eat; or even make it harder to obtain such things that would cause things such as obesity. But because obese people have greater health risks, I do think that insurance companies need to raise their rates, just as they do for smokers. They are adults making these decisions and should be treated as such.
Beauwrath 1 year ago
@Beauwrath However, obesity in children is the fault of the parents. This is, in my opinion, a form of child abuse. Parent's are risking their child's health because they are too lazy to regulate their diet. This is especially more important in current times when a less active lifestyle prevails.
Beauwrath 1 year ago
I have missed you. You must have been really busy.
amberview30 1 year ago
Hello sexy tummy.
Atheistprimate 1 year ago
I don't care a healthier world is a better world
VulgarityDivine 1 year ago
My solution is, if I ever start getting the tiniest bit fat, I'm making an immediate lifestyle change. I'll go see a nutritionist, become a vegetarian, and start working out.
Eventually, a solution will be found. We have our solution for too much sex; our solution for too much eating should be right around the corner.
Eldxale42 1 year ago
@Eldxale42 Theres a solution for to much sex? now that should be outlawed :) But on topic, the education really needs to include all the fad diets, and what you can do to influence you metabolism. If they go and ban fast food ads, then they should ban the diet ads as well. As for the not paying taxes some others have mentioned, some of us can shop on military bases and indian lands and not pay taxes.
recyard12x 1 year ago
Comment removed
PainAddict666 1 year ago
@PainAddict666 don't forget the accent!
freethinker923 1 year ago
On the one hand, of course we shouldn't automatically tax any and all behavior that might some day end up burdening society. On the other hand, we don't have a problem with taxing certain "luxuries" like tobacco or alcohol, in part because we want to discourage their (ab-)use.
The problem with foodstuffs is that they are so heavily subsidized that cost of food is insignificant for most of us. It wouldn't be so crazy to me to see an extra general tax on foods, if only to offset those subsidies.
megamarsvin 1 year ago
@megamarsvin The thing is, whenever I'm in the US, I'm amazed how expensive vegetables and fruit are and how cheap processed food is. Perhaps that is a big part of the problem...
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago 12
@Atheistblindchick That's absolutely true. If we stopped subsidizing mass production of things like high fructose corn syrup that could go a long way towards fixing the problem, but these industries are incredibly entrenched.
In any case penalizing overweight people is obviously the wrong solution. Did you see David Cameron's recent statement that doctors should start referring to obese people as "fat" again to motivate them to lose weight? The PM of Great Britain ladies and gentlemen.
megamarsvin 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick I would not mind the taxation of bad foods to subsidize expensive veggies.
anubis2814 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick Yeah exactly. Why go to a grocery store and spend more than you want when you can get a a McNugget meal for 5 bucks.
It really does suck because I love fresh fruits and veggies but man they kill my wallet.
fractal420 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick
The truth is, the US actually pours massive subsidies into their agriculture: a lot of it to corn, which ends up as high fructose corn syrup. If you really dont want to put a tax on food, then you shouldnt subsidize it on the other end. Then again, fruit and vegetables are dirt cheap in Australia, and our obesity is almost as bad. But it just goes to show that the government already controls a large part of the cost for food, so a tax on unhealthy food isnt that unrealistic.
Saktoth 1 year ago
I think we ought to take a subjective view to this.While freedom to pick and choose what we are allowed to consume sounds good in theory,I think that there are many who are ignorant to the facts on nutrition?I think we should seek to educate people on what effects substances have on the body while giving them the freedom to choose.
ChanGengYun 1 year ago
Hmm thats a hard one, should government be "big brother" I mean I have seen what high fat food does to people. Some people see food as a comfort and when they want comfort they pick a candy bar and not a carrot. For some a pix-stick is as bad as crack, but there are also people who have control or are on the slim side...I mean should the thin be punished to help protect the fat? I'm undecided.
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
@RavenBlaze "I mean should the thin be punished to help protect the fat?" The thin make as many unhealthy choices as the fat. They too compromise their health, do you know how many sports injuries there are a year? Should the sedentary be punished to protect the active? Just some food for thought...
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick very true... but do you think if people are given full freedom, should they also retain the right to sue an organization for the harmful affects of their product (even if it is common knowledge that the over use or over consumption of that product is harmful)?
I believe at some point in the 90's someone tried to sue McDonalds for "making them fat" even though it has been known for decades that the food is bad for you.
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
If people are paying for their own healthcare, then people should be allowed to do whatever they want. In my country, taxes pay pay for universal healthcare. Therefore, engaging in behaviours that can lead people to require more from the healthcare system (smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods) SHOULD be taxed more. That way people ARE paying for their own bad decisions, even though it's not "directly". Also, you overestimate most people's intelligence re: calories & fat.
TheLizardLass 1 year ago
@TheLizardLass What if their priorities do not match yours? They might not value being a certain weight as much as the joy from eating certain foods
There are many behaviours that result in people requiring more from the healthcare system, such as driving (even safely), working a lot, all sports, even hiking etc etc. Would you tax those people more too, or just the people who engage in obviously "bad" behaviours?
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@sapperbloggs It is indeed a complicated issue, and no matter what solution (if any) is found, there are gonna be a lot of unhappy people.
However my issue with banning ... Anything that can only harm the user... Is that it's a slippery slope. Removing freedoms, no matter how good the intentions behind it are, is still removing freedoms.
jonatcer 1 year ago
Sure freedom but what about the known cost to society of obesity ? Their irresponsibility and lazy ass won't take action then maybe someone else should.
mcgaugh57 1 year ago
@mcgaugh57 So, are you willing to legislate any type of behaviour that society may see as harmful to yourself? We're not talking about harming others, just yourself. Should we stop providing health care to those whose conditions are a result of bad behaviour? Does economic cost outweigh personal freedom?
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick You're right that education is needed. But if saving lives and saving society millions that could go elsewhere yes regulate. Really no different then wearing a helmet or seatbelts it will save lives and improve their lives.
mcgaugh57 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick --- "Should we stop providing health care to those whose conditions are a result of bad behaviour?"
Personally, I say yes. I also think that people who don't wear bike helmets or seatbelts should be denied publicly funded medical attention if they're involved in a crash. Have all the "personal freedom" you want, but be prepared to take some responsibility, and bloody well live with (or die from) the consequences.
TheLizardLass 1 year ago
I don't think peoples' right to be fat, gluttonous pigs should be curtailed directly; I prefer the techniques of making being so more difficult, from taxes to health warnings, to social stigma are far, far more preferable to any kind of ban or prohibition.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance Taxation is just another form of penalizing people for making a choice the legislators deem unhealthy. Making alternatives more appealing and less expensive might be a better alternative... And what about those who make the same unhealthy choices but are genetically not inclined to gain weight?
Atheistblindchick 1 year ago
@Atheistblindchick Well, my point was that I prefer penalizing to outright banning gluttony. I'm not sure that you really can make alternatives more appealing because you're fighting against several millennia of evolution; that's where these preferences for sweets and fat come from.
As to those not inclined to gain weight, they're still making unhealthy choices; obesity is not the only consequence of eating these kinds of foods.
BionicDance 1 year ago
If I were a person making a profit from selling unhealthy food, I would probably lobby the government to ban it. That would make my profits skyrocket. Just ask the drug cartels! ;-)
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago