Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Given the number of morbidly obese people around, perhaps they do...

I agree. And even a lot of non-obese individuals aren't anywhere near what I would call healthy, which is why I vote for the mandated daily run.

In fact, we could really start making inroads if we made junk food of all stripes contraband.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Given the number of morbidly obese people around, perhaps they do...

I agree. And even a lot of non-obese individuals aren't anywhere near what I would call healthy, which is why I vote for the mandated daily run.

In fact, we could really start making inroads if we made junk food of all stripes contraband.

At least then if people wanted junk food they would have to make a run to the black market

While we're on the subject of supersizing, can someone explain to people how to resize an image so that it doesn't destroy the entire page view?

 djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

Maybe because they don't want their country filled with fat, toothless blobs?

Look on the bright side, you have no NHS to speak of, so it's not costing US tax $'s to treat the fatties

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It would make more sense to simply ban drinks with a higher than a certain percentage content of sugar, or above a certain calorific value per litre.

And with food servings limit each portion to 300-500 kCal and shame these fatties who then have to buy 6 servings of nachos instead of a single "coronary size" bucket to get the same amount of food.

Thats a actually how this how thing got started. A movie chain wasnt selling enough popcorn or sodas, So they hired someone to figure out why. He found out that people felt shame in buying or refilling. So he said to make bigger sizes with slight price increases to people.

 Seaward wrote:

Exactly. Letting you get fat is exactly the same as letting you get behind the wheel loaded and potentially kill some folks, which is why these half-measures in New York aren't nearly enough.

Both permissions consume healthcare resources.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Look on the bright side, you have no NHS to speak of, so it's not costing US tax $'s to treat the fatties

No, it does cost tax money to treat people who don't have their own insurance.

I'd prefer insurance premiums/emergency care maximums for people in certain obesity brackets to government mandated food options.

Prevention is better than cure. And why would you want to put more money into the pockets of insurance companies? :S

Why not just put a sin tax on junk food, like there is on alcohol and tobacco products? Lards get to get as fat as they desire, and the taxes will hopefully cover for when they have their inevitable quadruple bypass/adult onset diabehtus.

And I don't know too much about US education requirements, but up here in Canada (at least in Alberta), we're required to take phys-ed until at least grade 10. I know I was also required to take a life skills course (Career And Life Management was what they called it at my highschool), they could take the time to make sure people knew basic, healthy personal cooking in a class like that instead of wasting time ranting about how bad drugs are (let's face it, by time you hit highschool, anti-drug education already has done its job or has failed).

 Fafnir wrote:
Why not just put a sin tax on junk food, like there is on alcohol and tobacco products? Lards get to get as fat as they desire, and the taxes will hopefully cover for when they have their inevitable quadruple bypass/adult onset diabehtus.

And I don't know too much about US education requirements, but up here in Canada (at least in Alberta), we're required to take phys-ed until at least grade 10. I know I was also required to take a life skills course (Career And Life Management was what they called it at my highschool), they could take the time to make sure people knew basic, healthy personal cooking in a class like that instead of wasting time ranting about how bad drugs are (let's face it, by time you hit highschool, anti-drug education already has done its job or has failed).

I have a better idea. WHY DOESN"T THE GOVERNMENT JUST LEAVE PEOPLE THE HELL ALONE?

Because people apparently can't look after something as simple as what they shove into their faces

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Why not just put a sin tax on junk food, like there is on alcohol and tobacco products? Lards get to get as fat as they desire, and the taxes will hopefully cover for when they have their inevitable quadruple bypass/adult onset diabehtus.

And I don't know too much about US education requirements, but up here in Canada (at least in Alberta), we're required to take phys-ed until at least grade 10. I know I was also required to take a life skills course (Career And Life Management was what they called it at my highschool), they could take the time to make sure people knew basic, healthy personal cooking in a class like that instead of wasting time ranting about how bad drugs are (let's face it, by time you hit highschool, anti-drug education already has done its job or has failed).

I have a better idea. WHY DOESN"T THE GOVERNMENT JUST LEAVE PEOPLE THE HELL ALONE?

Because when a lard begins to keel over and needs medical attention, the money used to pay for their procedures comes out of my taxes, and those of everyone else.

Seems like a silly rule to me.

My philosophy has always been that if someone’s actions can potentially directly impact others, then it’s right for the powers that be to intervene. So for example I fully support laws against drunk driving as they endanger other people as well as themselves.

But if people want to eat themselves into an early grave, well that’s their problem. The only issue I have is when obese parents raise obese kids (and that’s an increasingly common sight) but I don’t think blanket laws like this are the best way to deal with them. I’d consider charging them directly under child abuse laws.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Why not just put a sin tax on junk food, like there is on alcohol and tobacco products? Lards get to get as fat as they desire, and the taxes will hopefully cover for when they have their inevitable quadruple bypass/adult onset diabehtus.

And I don't know too much about US education requirements, but up here in Canada (at least in Alberta), we're required to take phys-ed until at least grade 10. I know I was also required to take a life skills course (Career And Life Management was what they called it at my highschool), they could take the time to make sure people knew basic, healthy personal cooking in a class like that instead of wasting time ranting about how bad drugs are (let's face it, by time you hit highschool, anti-drug education already has done its job or has failed).

I have a better idea. WHY DOESN"T THE GOVERNMENT JUST LEAVE PEOPLE THE HELL ALONE?

Because when a lard begins to keel over and needs medical attention, the money used to pay for their procedures comes out of my taxes, and those of everyone else.

So therefore the Nanny State has complete control over people's lives? Orwell would be proud.

Stalin didn't need the gulags, just health insurance control.

 Frazzled wrote:

So therefore the Nanny State has complete control over people's lives? Orwell would be proud.

What part of a tax equates to complete control?

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

So therefore the Nanny State has complete control over people's lives? Orwell would be proud.

What part of a tax equates to complete control?

The actual regulation prohibited large cups IIRC, but I'll bite, what do you think the taxes are for?

Your original response was to my suggestion to just put a tax on soft drinks and other junk food. That's what my follow-up was based on.

I have no issue with people buying and consuming such products, regardless of the portion size, so long as they are aware of the effects of it.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

Who is the government to tell me how much beer I'm allowed to drink before driving a car, riding a bike, or walking in public?

Drinking 30oz sodas is only hazardous to your personal health, and only if other conditions are met.

30oz of beer can not only hurt you but also everyone around you when you get into a car.

To me... the next Civil Rights battle is sexual orientation... but... this isn't the thread for that.

 whembly wrote:
To me... the next Civil Rights battle is sexual orientation

You mean mandating what positions you can do it in?

 Fafnir wrote:
Why not just put a sin tax on junk food, like there is on alcohol and tobacco products? Lards get to get as fat as they desire, and the taxes will hopefully cover for when they have their inevitable quadruple bypass/adult onset diabehtus.

And I don't know too much about US education requirements, but up here in Canada (at least in Alberta), we're required to take phys-ed until at least grade 10. I know I was also required to take a life skills course (Career And Life Management was what they called it at my highschool), they could take the time to make sure people knew basic, healthy personal cooking in a class like that instead of wasting time ranting about how bad drugs are (let's face it, by time you hit highschool, anti-drug education already has done its job or has failed).

The problem likee said earlier. Is parents not willing or able to teach their kids good eating habits. It get generational. Like Me. Im working hard at loosing weight. It takes quite a bit to loose years of ingrained eating habits. Another problem is, even at 20, im still subjected to the food my family eats. Because I cannot pay for my own groceries and my familiy refuses to listen to eating right(seriously, my family considers Coliflower with cheese sauce healthy.) im restricted to what they eat.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
To me... the next Civil Rights battle is sexual orientation

You mean mandating what positions you can do it in?

O.o

Um...

I...

er...

Well...

In some states, it's illegal to copulate in non-missionary "orientation".

 Grey Templar wrote:

Drinking 30oz sodas is only hazardous to your personal health, and only if other conditions are met.

30oz of beer can not only hurt you but also everyone around you when you get into a car.

Obesity is hazardous to all*, as it increases the cost of healthcare. So, much as drinking 30oz of beer is hazardous when certain conditions are met, so is drinking 30oz of soda.



*Except the people on the track.

I would say it is a burden, not a hazard. I don't think anybody has died because of the additional tax burden obesity causes.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Prevention is better than cure. And why would you want to put more money into the pockets of insurance companies? :S

Because it is currently illegal to charge someone who is morbidly obese more in insurance. It's considered discrimination. Thus we all pay more (well, those of us Stateside).

If it costs you more to be obese, isn't that an incentive to be thin?



(As a sidenote, a Sin Tax on nutrition poor food is also discriminatory, as most food stuffs that are nutrition poor are also cheap, and thus consumed more often by people of lower economic standing. Sticky situation, that.)

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say it is a burden, not a hazard. I don't think anybody has died because of the additional tax burden obesity causes.

It isn't a matter of tax burden. Unhealthy people consume healthcare resources, be they publicly or privately funded.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Because it is currently illegal to charge someone who is morbidly obese more in insurance. It's considered discrimination. Thus we all pay more (well, those of us Stateside).

You kind of missed what I was saying - why put money into the hands of insurance companies when you can help prevent people getting ill through being morbidly obese?

 gunslingerpro wrote:


Because it is currently illegal to charge someone who is morbidly obese more in insurance. It's considered discrimination. Thus we all pay more (well, those of us Stateside).

Which (barring the rare biological disorders) is ridiculous.