Some people were upset about smoking begin restricted... Non-smokers were pretty pleased as were most smokers who want to quit (a large proportion), even full-time smokers I've spoken to are happy that it has reduced the amount the smoke and generally improved public spaces.

 

The aim was to improve the health of the nation and to allow non-smokers not to have to breathe second hand smoke.

 

Given the high obesity rate in the US (and many other countries), is it not time for the government to make fast food the next target?

 

*Warning labels on Fast food (Crappy foods cause heart disease etc) similar to cigarette packets could be a start.

*Changes to food supplied in school canteens,

*education of parents to help them stop child obesity (and there own obesity!),

*compulsory nutrition and cooking classes in schools including demonstrations on what happens to the body of the obese.

*Stricter Guidelines and then Large fines for fast food companies (and food manufacturers) that do not meet a minimum nutritional standard in their food.

 

People KNOW that smoking is unhealthy, some will still do it. It seems completely understated in comparison just how unhealthy fast food is, people should still have the choice to eat it, but more in your face education to get through to people.

Tags: fast, food, smoking

Views: 312

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If being unhealthy and dependent on something gives you a greater sense of well being then I suppose you should keep smoking, if you kicked the habit entirely (ie. no longer had an aching need to smoke, and when you smoke you feel good because you feed the craving) then you might feel that the sense of well being is actually just a relief from the craving, who knows everyone is different. My suggestion is that the majority of people (Which includes non-smokers, people trying to quit, people who want to smoke less) see the positive outcomes of the ban.

 

The quote you have above is an illustration of a health related policy implemented by the government that was beneficial to the majority, the existence of that statement in my argument is not really essential as problems with obesity speak for themselves, but i believe it is relevant information that demonstrates similar policies could work in the future.

The idea that government can or should dictate the food choices of adults is just scary.I'm dreading the day I am refused service at an icecream shop because the LAW says I'm too fat! I agree with the poster who said that the only legitimate function of government should be to protect the rights of individuals from those who would usurp them. We are already suffering from a plethora of laws whose futility would seem to have been proven by the dismal failure of prohibition!

"refused service at an icecream shop because the LAW says I'm too fat"

I've already explicitly stated that that is not my angle here at all. Higher taxes on junk food, to subsidize and encourage people to buy healthier foods. yes, prohibition failed, why would i be suggesting that? but tax on alcohol exists in almost every country.

If we can only get a truly universal tax paid health care system, we can then feel properly righteous about outlawing smoking, drinking, sky-diving, sunbathing, skiing, polo playing, running with scissors, and all similar such anti-social risky activities.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service