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.
When I lived next to a bar I saw the downside of smoking bans: loudmouths standing outside at all hours basically shouting about 10 feet from my house, every night of the week. It was nice going to concerts and not coming home smelling like smoke, but it has a downside for those who aren't lucky enough to live in a good neighborhood.
Restrictions on cigs haven't stopped smoking. Mostly there are people addicted to cigs who won't quit smoking and just have that much less money to spare. There have also been a lot of changes in food regulations, diet info, etc, and there have been a few of the things you mentioned. I even read about a school that BANNED bringing homemade lunches and forced kids to eat (and pay for) school lunches that were supposed to be following nutrition guidelines.
Making fast food more expensive, I don't know...but making nutritious food available and affordable would be a positive and non-intrusive way to encourage people to be healthier. For low-income people, healthy food sometimes is not readily available.
I find it hard to understand how providing nutrition education in schools and health warnings on crappy quality foods could be considered oppression, such education provides an ability to make an informed choice about how you eat, and if you choose to eat a "clogger" that's up to you. My point really is that most people don't read the small print on the label... a big label like on cigarettes would make it very easy to identify bad foods, people will still buy them, thats up to them. I used to buy Chicken Kievs from the supermarket... then I read the label... WOW!, thats just one product. how many people read labels, its just a kiev, can't be that unhealthy its not a big mac...
Ultimately if you could eat a "clogger" that tastes how you like, costs the same but isn't as bad for your body why would you choose to eat the unhealthy version? That's my direction with this, its not going to happen overnight, but is making food producers more responsible and informing the public about what they are actually eating and educating people how to eat better a bad thing?
Why would nutrition education and health warnings lead to the banning of foods that cause major health issues unless public opinion is swayed that way on the basis of accurate education?
Cigarettes haven't been banned, but restrictions & taxes have been put on them. Maybe children should be able to buy cigarettes legally in the same way they can buy junk food and be obese by age ten? who decides these things? why age 21 in the US - it was only 16 in the UK until recently? you can drive a car at 16 in the US but apparently aren't mature enough to decide about smoking. addiction to junk food is very similar to addiction to cigarettes, and the health implications are equally dangerous.
I hadn't proposed a ban on anything, companies that fail to meet nutritional standards would be fined (or taxed) which would mean they would have to raise their prices, just like with cigarettes. If junk food was more expensive than healthy food then it would be likely that most people would opt to eat better, and in the same way taxes from cigarettes can be used to fund health care, taxes from junk food could be used to subsidize health food and make it affordable to poorer families.
how do you decide which ideals are worth enforcing and which aren't? I suppose in a democracy it comes down to a majority opinion (or at least in theory), but the problem with a majority is when they are all uneducated and just put an X next to the one fox news told them to... so education is ESSENTIAL for people to make informed decisions.
My point is, unless you go and live on an island somewhere, you can't avoid having ideals imposed upon you, the point is deciding which ideals are ridiculous or unnecessary and which are practical and beneficial to the majority.
My position is that obesity is on the increase (rapidly) and that is not a good thing, especially in children who don't have the opportunity to choose if their parents and schools feed them junk and never teach them any different. it is the governments responsibility to look after the health of citizens. Implementing some of the practical suggestions I listed would prevent obesity, rather than waiting for it to happen and then performing very expensive treatments on the afflicted.
I appreciate there is a whole bunch of replies on here but I retracted "large fines" to call it taxation on foods that don't meet guidelines. it basically has the same financial implications and purpose though.
although the act of smoking is "banned" in many public places, you can still buy cigarettes over a certain age (depending where you live). you could say its pretty close to a ban, maybe thats just a matter of perspective...
I'm not suggesting even going to the level cigarettes are, just better regulated than now.
I will have to express extreme dissatisfaction with our govt. I am ok with warnings being posted on such items like alcohol, tobacco, and foods. I am not cool with punitive tariffs placed on those items. I would appreciate it very much if voters would keep their nose out of my business when my activities affect no one other than my self. Yes, I do blame the voters since we have a representative government. Remember this! People always want laws that restrict the activities of other people. They holler when the restriction affects them selves. We have legislated away too much of our freedom for security already.
Everyone in a nation effects everyone else, its unavoidable. Smoking next to someone might increase there chance of cancer (we can see that directly-ish), having a nation full of obese people who have to claim disability increases the financial burden on social services and hence increase taxes, who need more health care and hence push up everyone's insurance premiums etc.
I have to re-iterate though that at no point have I suggested that you are going to be stopped from eating 20 clog burgers (Would you actually want to inject yourself with trans-fat? maybe if you didn't understand what that would do to your body you might try it, but I'm guessing you are more educated than that), whilst smoking a pack of cigarettes, but that education, clear information and taxation should be targeted at things that are harmful and cause anti-social effects (ever sat on a plane next to someone who is morbidly obese...) to discourage but not prevent people from having them, and to pay for the problems they cause in society and so that it is the people who are at high risk of obesity and associated problems (regular junk food eaters) who are the ones who pay the most tax on said products.
If it is no business but your own how healthy a lifestyle you lead then you should also be able to shoot yourself up with Heroin whenever you like right? But that could be detrimental to society so government banned it... Whereas Obesity is fine?
Believe it or not, I'm very behind choice, I think narcotics should be legalized so that instead of 15 year olds picking up drugs on the street and either poisoning themselves or ruining there lives, they are sold and controlled over the counter, what you buy would be limited, each dose would be clean, there would be warnings on the pack and safety instructions like "drink water", "only take one tablet" etc. Case in point, Amsterdam has pot for sale in cafes - its mainly for the tourists, they're the ones who turn up and get messed up because they don't normally have access to that stuff legally, is Holland a drugs pit failure of a country. NO. The pot is regulated, like alcohol is, and they do just fine.
Will some people abuse the system, YES, people die of alcohol poisoning all the time, what is the difference between that and drugs and obesity aside from obesity taking a bit longer to kill you? Should these things be regulated by someone who is looking out for their constituents health rather than for profits like Drug dealers and/or McDonalds are. YES, I think so.