|
tobacco v. fat
|
View this Thread in Original format
| daffodil |
I had this discussion with my dad the other day and wanted to hear other opinions. My dad is, and has been a smoker for decades and has a tendency to be unintelligent about tobacco stuff (he used to argue with me that evidence claiming smoking caused lung cancer was inconclusive and no on could really prove it did), which is tragic because he's otherwise a brilliant man. Anyway, I dismissed his argument initially out of habit but I've been thinking about it for a few days and am starting to think it has some validity. Here it is:
The American government, and many local and state governments, have taken staunch anti-tobacco stances. Probably the most common tobacco "penalty" is heavy taxes on tobacco products in the name of deterring people from starting to use tobacco and also to fund anti-tobacco education andincreased health care costs incurred by smokers. The essence of these regulations and policies is that the government has deemed tobacco harmful (and not wrongly), and decided they will protect Americans from tobacco.
DISCLAIMER: I am not looking for a discussion on whether the government should protect citizen from tobacco. For the sake of this argument, please consider the above paragraph true, regardless of how you feel. If you cannot reconcile yourself to this, please substitute "thing" everywhere you see "tobacco." On to the part I find interesting...
So if the government considers it necessary to protect its citizens from tobacco and impose heavy taxes on tobacco products to finance education programs for a healthier lifestyle and cover healthcare costs of tobacco users, shouldn't the same policies apply to unhealthy, fatty foods?
Obesity and obesity related diseases are racking up enormous huge healthcare costs. Diabetes, heart disease and many cancers are just a few diseases that can be avoided through a healthy diet. None are entirely avoidable, but diet plays a huge role in preventing or inducing virtually all chronic diseases.
Like tobacco, eating fatty foods is a choice that leads to poor health. Unlike tobacco, the only measures taken to encourage a healthy diet are educational and are not financed by those who consume high-fat foods on a regular basis, i.e. the one who need it.
So if we're trying to create a healthier population by discouraging unhealthy choices such as alcohol and tobacco through taxes, should high-fat foods be added to the list?
EDIT: This is from a Chicago Sun-Times article: "Obesity has become a national epidemic that rivals smoking as a cause of death, disability and soaring medical bills. To change our fat culture, obesity experts are pushing a broad range of controversial measures--including higher taxes on junk food, daily gym classes in schools and a ban on TV food ads directed at kids." |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by daffodil
I had this discussion with my dad the other day and wanted to hear other opinions. My dad is, and has been a smoker for decades and has a tendency to be unintelligent about tobacco stuff (he used to argue with me that evidence claiming smoking caused lung cancer was inconclusive and no on could really prove it did), which is tragic because he's otherwise a brilliant man. Anyway, I dismissed his argument initially out of habit but I've been thinking about it for a few days and am starting to think it has some validity. Here it is:
The American government, and many local and state governments, have taken staunch anti-tobacco stances. Probably the most common tobacco "penalty" is heavy taxes on tobacco products in the name of deterring people from starting to use tobacco and also to fund anti-tobacco education andincreased health care costs incurred by smokers. The essence of these regulations and policies is that the government has deemed tobacco harmful (and not wrongly), and decided they will protect Americans from tobacco.
DISCLAIMER: I am not looking for a discussion on whether the government should protect citizen from tobacco. For the sake of this argument, please consider the above paragraph true, regardless of how you feel. If you cannot reconcile yourself to this, please substitute "thing" everywhere you see "tobacco." On to the part I find interesting...
So if the government considers it necessary to protect its citizens from tobacco and impose heavy taxes on tobacco products to finance education programs for a healthier lifestyle and cover healthcare costs of tobacco users, shouldn't the same policies apply to unhealthy, fatty foods?
Obesity and obesity related diseases are racking up enormous huge healthcare costs. Diabetes, heart disease and many cancers are just a few diseases that can be avoided through a healthy diet. None are entirely avoidable, but diet plays a huge role in preventing or inducing virtually all chronic diseases.
Like tobacco, eating fatty foods is a choice that leads to poor health. Unlike tobacco, the only measures taken to encourage a healthy diet are educational and are not financed by those who consume high-fat foods on a regular basis, i.e. the one who need it.
So if we're trying to create a healthier population by discouraging unhealthy choices such as alcohol and tobacco through taxes, should high-fat foods be added to the list?
EDIT: This is from a Chicago Sun-Times article: "Obesity has become a national epidemic that rivals smoking as a cause of death, disability and soaring medical bills. To change our fat culture, obesity experts are pushing a broad range of controversial measures--including higher taxes on junk food, daily gym classes in schools and a ban on TV food ads directed at kids." |
To quote a favorite movie (see if you can guess it) "Who's done more research than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say its harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke." |
|
|
| Arbiter |
The extent to which a "fatty" diet contributes to obesity is highly questionable. Pre-agriculture humans obtained a far higher number of their calories from fat than modern humans, yet did not have any problems with obesity.
Ultimately, I think physical activity, and to a lesser extent genetics, are far stronger contributory factors towards obesity than diet.
That said, I don't think the government should play any role in protecting people from themselves be it tobacco, alcohol, or what have you. If a person injures themselves due to their own negligence, or contracts a condition that can be conclusively tied to use of tobacco or an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle, that person simply should not receive public funds to help pay the medical bills related to those conditions.
I don't smoke, but I, for one, am getting really sick of these anti-tobacco commercials. Why can't we, as a society, keep our noses out of each others' business? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The extent to which a "fatty" diet contributes to obesity is highly questionable. Pre-agriculture humans obtained a far higher number of their calories from fat than modern humans, yet did not have any problems with obesity.
Ultimately, I think physical activity, and to a lesser extent genetics, are far stronger contributory factors towards obesity than diet.
That said, I don't think the government should play any role in protecting people from themselves be it tobacco, alcohol, or what have you. If a person injures themselves due to their own negligence, or contracts a condition that can be conclusively tied to use of tobacco or an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle, that person simply should not receive public funds to help pay the medical bills related to those conditions.
I don't smoke, but I, for one, am getting really sick of these anti-tobacco commercials. Why can't we, as a society, keep our noses out of each others' business? |
Well I agree with you to a certain extent, if people are willing to pay for the damage they do to themselves then the government should not institute any "sin" taxes. However, realistacally speaking, I think that the moral high road would be to institute the tax and let society bear the burden of the health consequences rather than to deny health services to chain smokers who brought it upon themselves.
That being said, going back to the original argument, I think that tobacco and fast food are a completely different set of circumstances for them to bear the same penalties or taxes. For one, I don't think that there is a massive Mcdonald's, KFC, Taco Bell cover up to cloud the effects their products have on consumers. It's pretty much general knowledge that fast food has detrimental effects on the human body, BUT those adverse health effects can be easily avoided through proper exercise and general care for your body. It's a little difficult to jog off the effect a cigarrette has on your lungs.
Secondly, I think the addictive nature of cigarrettes plays a large role in government efforts to regulate its use. True fast food places always try to make their food taste better (although that in itself can be disputed) I'm not so sure Mcdonald's scientists are working around the clock to engineer a cocktail of carcinogens to obtain the perfect blend of taste, effect, and addictiveness.
Lastly, hmmm well I guess I don't have a last argument at the moment. But tobacco companies are downright evil ... I have no problems having the government dig into their corporate profits, and into smokers' wallets to cover medical costs. |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The extent to which a "fatty" diet contributes to obesity is highly questionable. Pre-agriculture humans obtained a far higher number of their calories from fat than modern humans, yet did not have any problems with obesity.
|
preagricultural humans didn't drive their cars to work, watch tv or lounge around all day. they were constantly on the move, hunting down their food. they probably didn't get as many calories as they needed to compensite for their highly active lifestyle because food was harder to come by and the physical workouts on their bodies from just surving and living day to day was much more extreme than the average persons activity on a day to day basis today.
also, the food they ate, (mainly meat and vegetables) didn't have many carbohydrates, which are actually the biggest factor that contributes to the buildup of fat on your body. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
^True, but there's also another aspect of it.
Pre-agricultural humans obviously ate lots of meat and barely any carbohydrates, since most carbohydrates we eat come from what's grown in the ground. The first thing your body burns when exercising is carbohydrates, then it goes to the fat in your system, then finally it works on stored fat. This is similar to Atkins in a way, because since pre-agricultural humans ate few to no carbohydrates, the first thing their body burned was the fat from meat and whatnot. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
well, first of all, i find it hard to believe that the government taxes tobacco b/c they're worried about it harming us from over-use. the government makes a ton of money off of the tobacco industry, that's one of the initial reasons weed became illegal (threat to tobacco industry).
secondly, i personally think the government shouldn't be responsible for what people do to themselves. from the day you start elementary school you study the negative effects of drug use and there's heavy participation in red ribbon week. we're not exactly uninformed here. and like it was said before, i'm pretty sure people aren't expecting to lose weight by eating fast food.
if people KNOW they're harming their bodies, and choose to do it anyway, then they should probably suffer the consequences later in life.
i don't think the government needs to take measures to prevent this.
that kind of ties into my views on abortion, even though that is highly off-topic.
i just don't think the government needs to be in control of what people do to their own bodies. that's just not right. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
well, first of all, i find it hard to believe that the government taxes tobacco b/c they're worried about it harming us from over-use. the government makes a ton of money off of the tobacco industry, that's one of the initial reasons weed became illegal (threat to tobacco industry).
secondly, i personally think the government shouldn't be responsible for what people do to themselves. from the day you start elementary school you study the negative effects of drug use and there's heavy participation in red ribbon week. we're not exactly uninformed here. and like it was said before, i'm pretty sure people aren't expecting to lose weight by eating fast food.
if people KNOW they're harming their bodies, and choose to do it anyway, then they should probably suffer the consequences later in life.
i don't think the government needs to take measures to prevent this.
that kind of ties into my views on abortion, even though that is highly off-topic.
i just don't think the government needs to be in control of what people do to their own bodies. that's just not right. |
Very well, I can agree with your laissez-faire approach except for two points. First, I'm not sure about your theory that the government illegalized weed to protect the tobacco industry. If anything, I'm sure that many in the tobacco industry would secretely LOVE the legalization of weed. I say this because weed is not a substitute for cigarrettes but they seem to be complementary goods. Additionally, the tobacco industry is already in a position to mass produce and market weed cigarrettes since they have the fields, the packaging centers, distribution centers, etc. They would probably double their profits with a whole new market segment to appeal towards with respects to marijuana. The bigger the tobacco industry, the more money the government can tax ... so I'm not sure how far that theory pans out.
Secondly, I'm all for people killing themselves with alcohol, drugs, cigarrettes, etc., if they want to. But in the same regard, don't expect my taxpaying dollars to care for your health care problems that arise out of your decision to abuse your body. That money could instead be spent on poor people who have health problems through no fault of their own. So at any rate, until people are willing to accept the responsibility of their actions, I'm all for a tobacco tax. |
|
|
|
|
