After researching smoking taxation and alcohol taxation- both behaviours that increase the burden on our hospital and health systems- I was thinking perhaps we should impose a tax on processed foods over a certain % of fat.
It would work similarly to income tax- the first 12% of fat is tax free, the next 10 is taxed at a low rate, then the next 10 grams is taxed at a medium rate etc.
Ideas?
Since Dec I have lost nearly 10Kg by replacing carbohydrates in my diet with other stuff like protein and fat, would hate to be paying extra tax in order to get healthy and lose weight!
I'd hate to confuse losing weight with getting healthy.
having one or 2 beers is not as bad as eating like a fatty
Yet you pay as much tax as a degenerate alcoholic - probably more as beer is taxed higher than wine in a cheap goon.
Yep so this is a terrible idea because it would result in taxing healthy but high fat foods like avocados, raw nuts and oily fish like sardines, mackerel and trout.
Yay for ketogenic diets!
What a clown - its not just the fat, its the SUGARS that can be the real issue here. Taxing FAT is just so 1960's (as ancient and irrelevant as President Clnton)
If you really had researched stuff you should know that.
Pardon the aggressive start to this reply but all you are doing is just masking the REAL problem here and perpetuating the lies and misconceptions the food manufacturers are doing with the ban FAT ignoring the SUGARS.
Research some more.
High levels of saturated fat is unhealthy and can contribute to obesity. So can overconsumption of sugars. And salt. And other carbohydrates, like bread, rice, etc. It's not just one thing.
Consuming fat in moderation is not a bad thing. Neither is a little sugar. Without one clear source for the obesity problem, it can be incredibly be difficult to impose a fair 'fat tax'.
Taxing FAT is just so 1960's (as ancient and irrelevant as President Clnton)
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, never mind the fact that the dates are completely off.
The OP didnt say saturated fat, he said fat.
My response was to his thesis that taxing excess fat in processed foods is the solution, I was therefore saying excess sugar in processed foods is an issue that cant be fixed by taxing FAT.
Consuming fat in moderation is not a bad thing. Neither is a little sugar.
absolutely no debate here, but that wasnt was being proposed.
Re 1960's - thats when the NO FAT game really started, and so did the real obesity crisis. A hasbeen concept just like President Clinton is a hasbeen president. Sorry if this was a little obscure pun on the posters name.
Actually, I would argue that high levels of saturated fat is not unhealthy but that the three main factors for heart disease are:
1. High levels of sugar, including wheat/rice (but they're clearly not as bad as table sugar).
2. Trans fats (hydrogenated vegetable oils), which is found in most canola oils, sunflower oils and some other vegetable oils, not saturated fats.
3. Stress.
These three things will cause oxidation and lead to blocked arteries. Statistically speaking, there is no link between high intake of saturated fat and heart disease, but plenty of links between the three above factors and heart disease.
Maybe an income tax equivalent on BMI - first 24% is free, then it goes up incrementally?
Good luck taxing a a NFL linebacker… BMI is flawed. Some people with heavy weights can be all muscle, zero fat.
How are you going to deal with different races?
When I was younger and moderately fit, I had 12% fat
My work mate now, is an extreme athlete, - rowing/bike riding etc but is big by nature has 18% fat…. I would of thought he'd be below 10%
Easy, we'll call everyone the same and anyone who disagrees with us racist.
As proven by the amount of people that still smoke and drink, taxes do not work.
I think we should be spending money on why people are overeating/not exercising enough and try and fix those problems.
If the government was really worried about the amount of money that was being spent on smokers in the health care system they would outright ban them. Instead they know that they make a lot more money from the tax campared to what they spend especially considering that, in general, most smokers die younger and while there is an outlay for healthcare due to smoking related illnesses, they save more money by not having to pay for pensions.
Whilst I agree with your point that we should be placing a greater focus on overeating and lack of exercise, there's a few points you mention that I disagree with.
As proven by the amount of people that still smoke and drink, taxes do not work.
Actual scientific studies here have shown that not only has rates of smoking decreased over the past decade, that tax and price policies specifically have had a fair effect as shown here.
I also know quite a few people who have felt it necessary to quit smoking simply because it is costing them too much money, not because they KNOW it's bad for their health.
If the government was really worried about the amount of money that was being spent on smokers in the health care system they would outright ban them
With people no longer being allowed to smoke indoors or in public places, the government is slowly clamping down on them. They know they can't ban them outright because there would be a huge outcry, but gradually it'll get there. There's a fine balance between allowing people choice and forcing people to do what is necessary.
most smokers die younger and while there is an outlay for healthcare due to smoking related illnesses, they save more money by not having to pay for pensions.
…what? Is there any actual evidence backing this point? And unless they have not stated in their will or have no will at all, pensions will be directed to the person's dependents, spouse or whoever they choose.
Per capita numbers of people smoking and drinking are going down. Think of it as a long and lengthy cause worth fighting through decent policy.
my daughters are in primary school.
it's disturbing to see students with breasts in primary school - mainly because they are boys.
when I went to school there was maybe 1 or 2 "larger" children in the class. but now….
How much has higher taxation impacted consumption of alcohol and smoking, compared to the awareness campaigns of the consequences of excess consumption?
I kinda feel education/awareness is a better way to go, rather than punishment, but it's not really socially acceptable to target obesity in the same way the alcohol fuelled violence or cancers from smoking campaigns have. Could you imagine the uproar if the government used graphic images to educate about the consequences of obesity?
Then there's the other end to consider - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/expert-backs-graphic-a…
Parents not taking a proper role.
The stay at home parent doesn't need to stand behind a stove all day… make some effort with your child.
When I coached kids soccer, I took them all to Krispy Kreme for a reward… they didn't like it, wouldn't finish.
These were normal hyperactive kids, they just weren't use to heavy sugar
Avocado, Nuts & Coconuts would be taxed. :)
And we would all eat Fat-free stuff full of sweeteners and sugar.
No, thank you.
They're not processed foods, so not taxed
All fats? What about good fats? I eat a reasonably high fat diet but I'm by no means anywhere near overweight.
I eat avocados, whole nuts, quality cheeses and dairy, olive oil, fatty fish like salmon, etc. Those are wholesome, healthy foods high in fat - but good fats (possibly excluding the cheese lol).
Dietary fat isn't always the issue. Confectionery often has very low (or no) fat, but is high in calories from sugar. People don't just become fat from eating foods containing fats. It's a little more complex than that.
Taxing people by their BMI would also be flawed and inappropriate, but possibly a sliiiightly better idea than taxing certain foods based on their components.
It's also very possible for someone to eat all 'healthy' foods but eating far too much of it. Portion control is a massive issue that we all have a rather warped sense of.
I remember once people thought it was okay to eat fats to your hearts content as long as they were unsaturated (ie the fatty acid chains have at least 1 carcon to carbon double bond). And then people discovered that unsaturated fats from vegetable sources (eg canola) are inflammatory, and only unsaturated Omega-6 fats (found in certain fish, double bond at the 6th carbon in the fatty acid chain) are beneficial because they produce less inflammatory precursors when metabolized compared to other unsaturated fats.
First fats, then we tax the sugar!
I know i didn't go into detail very much, so yes saturated fats and the bad ones would be targeted, as well as simple sugars later on.
Also the arguments for why people still smoke/drink alcohol. I was hoping to lead the argument towards compensating the health system for these behaviours- not necessarily stopping them.
But then you are taxing people that might occasionally like a treat that in no way impacts their health or the health system. Why should I pay more just because others may not be able to control what they eat.
I beg to differ taxing Fats then later Taxing Sugar is arse about.
Sugar affects insulin, which when it gets out of balance drives desire for more sugar to offset insulin and cycle goes on.
Soft drinks are high in sugars, likewise so is OJ and other drinks, where many think they are being healthy as they are "natural", whereas they are in effect processed foods. If someone is thirsty water will do just fine, and energy neutral. But Fruit is healthy therefore OK, NOT.
Some reading might help.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/nothing-sweet-about-th…
But who says saturated fats are the problem. There's much research suggesting that the only really bad fat is the trans fats (most canola oil and sunflower oil contains trans fat) and that we should be sticking to saturated fat and other good oils such as olive oil, rice bran oil, grapeseed oil, coconut oil, etc.
Even if you don't agree, you can see that if you try to limit any tax to certain 'unhealthy' fats, you'll end up with a debate, and may end up taxing good fats.
I read this as taxing fat people - I lol'd
Wouldn't be a bad idea for public transport.
I'm tired of being squished like a bug against the walls of trains or buses because these enormous people hop on and decide to sit next to me, taking not only the space of their seat, but half of mine too.
I was holding onto a pole in a train not long ago during peak hour, and got bumped right off it by the rather gigantic arse of a woman standing next to me.
(sad stories of a 43kg female)
I know how you feel….. lucky enough if they just sit quietly next to you, but if they are the active type - constantly moving e.g looking for something in their bag, checking their wallet.
I'm worried I'll get ofd the tram/train as 2D human.
don't get me started. I'm 185cms 87kgs. I fit in to a Qld train seat nicely. room on each side. then some "larger" person decides to "squeeze" in next to me. I'm squashed. I dislike it.
I usually look for a normal size person and sit next to them. even if there are vacant double seats.
I never used to mind it in winter if they were clean & warm! ;)
LOL yes, they are good in the winter. Walking radiators.
Eat something
NVM
I went out for a pub meal the other week, on a nearby table, there was papa bear, mumma bear, daughter bear (tweens) and a son bear, all eating deep fried calamari and chips. The son was just eating chips, nothing else. I can see why theyre so big at that young age.
The Children are burdened with the bad eating habits of their parents. So sad.
Maybe we just tax stupid ideas.
Please make your chq payable to the ATO.
OP should really just set up a regular direct deposit… :p
If you think 'processed foods' are a burden on our healthcare system, you're in for a baaad time.
Don't think taxing is as clear cut as smoking, and somewhat alcohol.
There is no amount of smoking that is good for you, so taxing that is fairly straightforward. Alcohol is a bit more iffy because in moderation it is fine, and can actually be beneficial (I'm not a fan of large taxes on alcohol anyway, look at many European countries with smaller taxes on alcohol- they focus on education and ensuring people understand that drinking in excess is bad for you. They don't need the government slapping them down)
Saturated fats, sugars and others meanwhile are on the even slipperier scale, in that it varies widely according to each person, their size, diet, physical activity, genetics, and a bunch of other factors. If you take the eating programs of professional athletes in isolation, and apply them to a regular person, you would say that is crazy amounts of excess. But for athletes it is fine- why? Because they do the necessary activity to burn it off.
It's pretty simple really- there's no need for these fad diets or instant-fix remedies. Energy intake must be exceeded by energy expended for you to lose weight (unless you do have specific health reasons complicating things- which most DON'T have). Proper education on this, and having people get off their lazy asses and doing something about it is what is needed.
Also, just as a sidenote: just because you are stick thin does not mean you are healthy, nor are you unhealthy if you are a bit larger than that. People need to take responsibility of their OWN health as opposed to comparing it to whatever societies 'average' of what the healthy look should be. You should know if you are healthy or not after you walk up a long flight of stairs or when you chase your kids around in the backyard.
TL;DR Energy In:Energy Expended. You eat like crap and don't exercise = fatty. You eat like crap and exercise plenty = not bad. You eat healthy and exercise = you beaut.
wat about if I eat healthy but don't exercise?
Then you're up for the good ol' genetic lottery!
ITT: Dietary ignorance
Fat isn't the problem…
Seriously, If you haven't seen these before I highly recommend watching them all the way through.
The Bitter Truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
and he did a complementary lecture late last year.
Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y
Any party which wishes to introduce such a tax is surely headed for electoral annihilation, seriously.
While I agree with you, you need to ask yourself one thing… Would a politician see this as negative publicity for themself? I find it a resounding yes, they would be mocked and therefore we will never see this.
Pity stupidity can't be taxed. That kinda covers everything..! ;-)
Stupidity already taxed heavily.
* Tobacco excise
* Many and varied gambling taxes
* Alcohol excise
This already exists, fresh fruit and vegetables are GST free.
The government doesn't tax cigarettes and alcohol to discourage people from consuming them. They know that putting a tax on these items have very minimal effect as the demand is inelastic, it's a great way for our government to make tax revenue without a big dead weight loss. Policy such as banning smoking within public transport is much more effective compared to tax. Smokers actually pay a crap load of tax, so they actually provide a lot of the funding for public hospitals enough to pay your and their own bills.
They should be taxing calorie density per container. For example a 220g Cabury milk chocolate block is 1330 KCAL with whopping 144g of sugar eating unprocessed food that would equal 15 eggs, 2 kg of broccoli or 1 KG of fatty chicken! Eating that much would make you puke, but eating process food, people (mainly fat guys and girls) could easily down that much in a day and still feel hungry.
Loosing weight is all about hunger satiety, good fats, fibre and lots lots of protein can make a meal feels that you actually ate something.
This is the only real way to address the issue. Simply add a tax to processed foods which can be classified as junk food, food with no real nourishment, but high in added sugar and saturated fat.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-11/denmark-to-scrap-world…
Fat tax in theory is a great idea though. Implementation is difficult as Denmark has proven. What I would do is make sports and make fitness memberships/lessons/courses tax deductible.
Fat tax?
I was hoping that would be applied to transport, specifically flying.
Why should my plane ticket @60kg and 35kg baggage cost me more than the 100kg+ obese dude with 20kg.
Its unfair I tells ya.
That's different because it ends up with discrimination. A woman would pay less than a man. Someone with lots of muscles would pay more than someone who didn't work out.
With food, men ALREADY pay more for food, and someone who worked out already pays more for protein etc.
But that is irrelevant, someone who weighs more, regardless of whether they are fat or muscly will cause the plane to use more fuel.
If I weigh 60kg and I have 60kg of baggage and I'm only allowed 35kg, then I will be charged excess.
On the other hand, someone who weighs 120kg and has a 30kg suitcase can get on perfectly fine despite weighing more.
Maybe we should have a system where the amount of luggage you are allowed to take depends on how much you weigh.
That's what I reckon as well. You should buy how many kilos you want to take on your trip including body weight and your seat can come in different widths with smaller been cheaper. But if you buy a seat to narrow for your body you get charged the proper sized seat at a premium price. Like carry on is now done. Will never happen and if it does I'm going to be in the higher price category but at least it's a more fairer user pays system.
Also it could be seen as discrimination on Race - illegal
No judgements here but
Those of NE and SE Asian build are smaller body frames, than those of European and African build
Plus if its on weight of person, then you can have a plane full of screaming kids… Dread that thought.
a 200cm person weighing in at 100Kg weight for size isnt obese… And that's what the thread is about.
Small people who make generic complaints against big people do so without any empathy or understanding. I am 6 foot 2 inches (187cm) and I can assure you that flying is a nightmare as the seats are made for people much shorter (as are those in cars and cinemas). The shape cause me to hunch which aggravates my back issues. My back issues in turn were caused and exacerbated because everyone looks at the big guy and expects him to lift everything that is heavy. If airlines start charging by the weight of their passengers then by god they had better provide big seats for the greater weight and smaller seats for the lesser weights. On top of all this your complaints are inane and egocentric. My son is wheelchair bound. His chair weighs 120kgs. When we travel he doesn't pay extra for the weight of his chair. My larger bones and muscle are as important to me as his wheelchair is to him. Part of being a community is accepting that differences exist. If you don't suggest my size indicates a waste of space I won't claim you have a chip on your shoulder.
Well, judging by the responses to your post, it seems common sense on Ozbargain has a way of making the "perfect people" here a little quiet. Congrats Sir, congrats to you! :)
Being a big guy sounds like its a pretty big burden. :)
Even if airlines did this, do you seriously believe that the price of your ticket would drop much? They would find a way to make even more money out of this price structure.
No reputable airline would be stupid enough to implement such a system, it would be a PR disaster, and would result in a lot of customers flying elsewhere. I would personally pay extra not to fly with such an airline.
Fuel is only ONE factor, when it comes to the cost of airline tickets.. fuel prices are just an excuse to increase the cost of tickets half the time..
Some people are just thinking about this the wrong way, but most not. As said previously, a fat tax is absolutely pointless, but hey, lets show society we're "trying" to discourage people from eating unhealthy food/ smoking cigarettes by taxing them. In reality, we're just making a bucket-load worth of money, to fuel more pointless schemes (well, many are pointless)
The government needs to fix more, instead of building new shit. 5 Years spent on the gold coast -Broadbeach building some (profanity) tram. Business decreased to all stores around the area, traffic clogged up, it's a ripple affect. But hey, we're paying workers to build a tram, even though we could've spent 1/10th of the money fixing the current public transport system, and maybe adding an extra lane (or whatever) to the gold coast highway/ surfers paradise/ southport area.
It's the same with pharmaceuticals, though. Lots will desensitize you, actually make things worse, but people think they need to take more. Because the government condones them.
Alcohol, nicotine and caffeine should be enough of a pointer. Alco, causing lots of deaths, severely damaging people's health, nicotine, causing lung cancer. Both poison. Both very addictive. It's all a trick. Then the illegal drugs that actually help countless things, marijuana, no attributed deaths, can (and will) replace a shit load of pharmaceuticals, because it just fixes a huge range of problems. And kills no one. Ever
But hey, maybe i'm the one who's deluded. I should just do what society tells me, even if it goes right against my morals, and logic. And i have pretty good firm logic, too.
I went off topic, but basically, people need to learn themselves what's killing them. We have the power, through media, but doing so would lose a lot of companies a lot of money, if people stopped getting cola, nicotine, alco, etc (or cut down a lot)
I think there should be a junk food tax.
Working in the health industry and as a tax payer, seeing obese people use $1000 worth of insulin (Type 2 diabetes) a month (medicare funded) and eat Twisties as they talk to me pisses me off. Why should I have to pay for their ignorance.
Junk food is much more hard to define than actual fat. One man's junk food is another man's only sustenance.
Actually junk food is one of the easier things to define. It is simply anything that provides no real nourishment, while being high in sugar and fat.
Soft drinks are a prime example. They are simply water with sugar added.
high in sugar and fat
Might want to re-think your softdrinks - no fat there
You did say sugar AND fat
Hard for people to get rid of all that fat = bad, programming
My bad, meant to say and/or.
They were trying to establish a star system for junk food but was dismissed by the liberal gov.
I hate to use the slippery slope argument here, I know it is a logical fallacy, but it is something we have to take into consideration.
If we do begin taxing things that are "bad" for us, that will eventually lead to a taxation on everything.
Maybe we should tax TVs? If people buy less TVs, they might go outside and exercise more?
Maybe we should tax cars? If we tax cars more, people will be inclined to use public transport or to walk, ride their bike…etc.
This will just lead to an eventual taxing of everything because the same argument can be made, "we're going to tax X because X is bad for you."
Smoking and alcohol are very different. With smoking, there are conclusive studies to say that smoking will lead to things such as lung cancer, so it is fully fair that a tax be implemented there to cover their health care costs later on…etc. Same goes with alcohol and liver failure.
The same level of correlation does not exist between fatty foods and being fat. I myself eat a lot of fatty foods, including McDonalds once or twice a week, but I'm a healthy weight, 180cm male, 77kg. I'm sure I'm not the only one though, there are many, many people who eat "bad" foods on a regular basis and don't get "fat".
Difference is, most processed foods don't NEED all the extra sugar they add. So a tax might help reduced all the un-needed sugar that has crept into our food system
lol this is a degenerate idea based on an ill researched premise. Not only will it be knocked down on OzB, it'll be knocked down in parliament.
Oh, do you have a Phd in food and dietary research? If so by all means, feel free to educate us.
If we have a fat tax, maybe we should have the following taxes too:
- Salt Tax
- Cholesterol Tax
- Sugar Tax
- Caffeine Tax
- "Anything that you shouldn't be eating too much" TAX.
Everything eaten in moderation is good for you believe it or not.
I do love that everybody thinks Fat is bad, and they choose to eat Fat Free Yogurt, but when I look at it, then sugar count is through the roof. FAIL.
Agreed. Self-awareness and education (on nutrition) + effort (decision-making/food choice/lifestyle considerations) is part of the moderation formula.
I have a feeling my comment may be negged but self-comforting lies and ignorance are going to lead to a crisis one way or another. To shift any blame on a food-item or food-group for one's health is avoiding personal responsibility. Taxing is therefore gratuitous. The government need not have to intervene to circumvent one person's poor dietary choice/consumption, and have the remainder of society affected.
Umm avocados?
Your an idiot! Thats all I have to say, Taxing food, what next, taxing you to use a toilet
Look at it like an automatic stabilizer. When the use of one drops, so does the other (no pun intended).
We already have one. GST is charged on processed/prepared foods. Fresh food is GST-free.
For now. Libs no doubt would love to change that
Foods containing fat are not causing obesity. Eating too much food is causing obesity.
If they taxed processed foods that the dietary guidelines considered snacks, then used that money to subsidise fruit, vegetables and meat. You wouldn't hear any complaints from me.
I think having a tax on processed foods with with high artificial sugar would be more realistic
I am saddened to see that most people here are pro-nanny state 'collectivists'. I don't want public servants controlling my life and circumscribing my choices in life. I believe the Nazis were the first government to support public health campaigns (eg anti-cigarette smoking). This is understandable, like all totalitarians they believe the individual is not important and has to subordinate him/herself to the leviathan state.
The state doesn't have a right to meddle in peoples's lives like this, telling them what they can and cannot eat. In the old days people believe in individual responsibility, but now people want to relinquish that and let the state look after them, and make all of their decisions for them. That's what the nanny state is, mothering of its its residents and preventing them from becoming mature, independent, responsible actors. In the nanny state, people remain children their entire lives.
Things that are potentially harmful should be freely available, alcohol, cigarettes, salty foods, fatty foods, salty foods, hashish, opiates, LSD, etc. People should be free to make mistakes, to make bad decisions. Hopefully, they will become wiser after making these mistakes, but sometimes they won't. If people die as a result of overconsumption of alcohol, cocaine, whatever, that is their choice and their responsibility, not the state's. This is libertarianism, the opposite of collectivism.
Anyway, outlawing or massively taxing fatty foods won't stop obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food, getting more energy than your body needs. One could even get fat on a diet consisting solely on rice, assuming you could force yourself to eat large amounts of such a bland food. People these days even deny responsibility for their obesity, say that it is their genetics, even though these cretins have never studied biology and don't know what a nucleotide is. They probably don't even realize that when they are eating food, they are eating 'genes'… The only way to get people to change is to make they realize they have some degree of free will and thus are able to choose to live differently. The prevailing ideology in our society is the opposite: people have no freedom, they are simply the products of their biology and their society. Taxing and prohibiting harmful substances just perpetuates this disempowering ideology.
Prohibition doesn't work very well; despite being illegal and expensive people still use amphetamines, narcotics, marijuana and so on. People seem to enjoy being addicted to things, and this included food. Our nanny state recenetly added Xanax to its list of Schedule 8 (controlled) substances, and Xanax (a minor, bezodiazepine tranquilizer) is far less harmful in the long term than cigarette smoking, something which doesn't even require a physician's prescription to do.
If you 'nanny staters' really wanted to eliminate vices like alcoholism and obesity, you would be better served by 'banning' the lower class and forcing everyone to be 'middle class'. Middle class people have less obesity, less alcoholism, less drug addiction, less smoking, and are more likely to exercise.
I don't even understand why the state should be intervening in these things. People say obesity and smoking related illnesses cost the state money to treat, but as a poster above mentioned, they shorten one's lifespan and thus the government needs to folk out less for pensions. $17,000/year/person for a full pension, + massively subsidized prescriptions & health care, subsidized housing… alot of people dont realize this, but it is very expensive to run a welfare state, especially when you have a huge number of baby booers about to retire and a shrinking number of younger workers to support them.
The most unhealthy food of them all hasn't even been mentioned yet. Its soy. It contains isoflavones that effect the body in exactly the same way as estrogen. Soy reduces testosterone in males, and causes thryoid enlargement and hypoactivity. Vegetarian mothers (ie high soy eaters) are 5 times as likely to give birth to male children with hypospadias (tiny penis with the urethra opening at the bottom rather than at the tip - not fun at all). Kids fed soy formulas are getting the equivalent of 4 birth control pills worth of estrogen a day. Mwssing with the hormonal systems of unborn and newly born cildren is a really bad idea. http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39253/
Lots of effort writing that one, to push an off topic pro-drug exposition.
Let me guess, 18-21 year old, left wing (is there any other kind?), first year sociology university student who enjoys smoking pot?
Go preach your pro-drug, letting people make their own mistakes etc tripe to parents who have had children die of drug overdoses. Ah perspective, it's a wonderful thing, unfortunately some lefties have quite a narrow one.
He says extols libertarian, excoriates the "nanny state" and quotes from World Net Daily. I doubt he's left wing or is studying any kind of Arts degree. When you do an Arts degree, you learn to read documents critically and understand the cultural context of the author. Have you considered doing an Arts degree? It might come in handy some day!
That's about right, an Arts degree MIGHT come in handy some day. In the same way I MIGHT win Lotto, or I MIGHT get that call from Kate Upton asking me on a date. But mostly, an Arts degree is wishful thinking with an exorbitant price tag.
Hey, I wasn't recommending that you consider it. I was suggesting it to 100nil.
Let me guess, 18-21 year old, left wing (is there any other kind?), first year sociology university student who enjoys smoking pot?
He's not pro drug, learn to read. He simply supports the fact that people will use any substance (legal or not,) regardless of legality. So we should stop treating some peoople as criminals, and legalise because people will do whatever they want anyway.
Go preach your pro-drug, letting people make their own mistakes etc tripe to parents who have had children die of drug overdoses. Ah perspective, it's a wonderful thing, unfortunately some lefties have quite a narrow one.
Maybe if we actually properly educated people on substances, instead of having stupid scare tactics put in place, people wouldn't be scared on getting advice, overdosing because they don't want to get medical help (and possibly get put in jali.)
Negged, for reasons stated above
People should be free to make mistakes, to make bad decisions
Like all arguments we can turn positives into negatives.
How about no taxes on anything and abolish government that way everyone can do what they want and if they make a mistake so be it.
EG Drive too fast crash and pay the price. No ambulance, no medical treatment, no one will care anyway it was your choice. Oh and no airbags in the car as you decided you didnt want them. No registration as thats nanny state intervention, no need for a license to drive, 3 year olds can drive a ferrari if dad has the money…
Problem with nanny state haters is that it always depends on which nanny you are referring to, mine or yours.
And I aint no tree hugging, jackbooted upper middle classer….
Hmmm…let's see what's in your post. You're all for dangerously addictive and damaging drugs, immediately compare government regulation to Naziism and overuse quotation marks. I remember one of your previous posts in which you also declared vaccination to be a scam. Yes. You seem like a sane, rational type of person that we should be listening to. Let me just go and find my tin foil hat…
Your concepts are not too well thought out. Have you given any thought to the safety of the general public? What about the family that gets wiped out by a drunk/high driver? Or the wife that gets stabbed by her husband high on meth? I understand that these things happen now, but don't you think that openly legalising and encouraging these behaviours would exacerbate the situation?
The only valid observation you make is that fat doesn't make you fat. Agreed. OP should have done their homework.
If the government starting taxing stupidity, surely this thread could be used to pay for a new hospital or two…
EDIT: "If the government starting taxing stupidity" should have been "If the government STARTED taxing stupidity"
I think I can hear the tax man at my door. Time to pay up :-P
You don't seem to realise, that the most dangerous and addictive drugs, are the legal ones. Niccotine and alcohol. Look up the deaths in relation to the drug for yourself, don't take my word for it.
You're mis interpreting his posts. He's just open to the fact that regardless of laws put in place, people are going to do what they want. Be it drugs, sex, whatever. Seriously. So we should stop treating them like criminals. Because, as i said before, if the government didn't have these stupid (and sometimes, downright wrong) scare tactics, and propaganda put in place and actually educated people towards moderation, researching etc, we wouldn't have half these problems.
I remember one of your previous posts in which you also declared vaccination to be a scam. Yes. You seem like a sane, rational type of person that we should be listening to. Let me just go and find my tin foil hat…
Actually, he's not far from the truth - http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/09/fda-document-…
Actually, I am completely aware of the gross hypocrisy inherent in legalising nicotine and alcohol while banning other substances (some of which are indeed less harmful). Perhaps the high incidence rates of alcohol and nicotine related deaths have something to do with the easy access to and social acceptance of the drugs. Thought of that?
You're equating incidence rate to danger. That's not the way it works.
I'm most definitely open to the fact that people will do what they want, but Thaal Sinestro has gone right to the extreme - he clearly advocates complete deregulation. No checks, balances or middle ground. While outright banning of everything isn't the way to go, I don't think completely removing safeguards put in place in an attempt to protect people is the way either. It's a complicated issue and I don't believe "Let everyone do what they want" cuts the mustard.
As for the studies you posted, there's a risk/benefit ratio that must be applied to all medicince. How many lives have those vaccines potentially saved? You can't base your opinion on studies without having an idea of the BENEFIT side of the risk/benefit analysis. It's not a particularly balanced approach, otherwise.
Fair enough, we come to agreement on the hypocrisy in legalisation of alcohol and nicotine. My thoughts? The high addiction rates and health consequences are most likely just the government letting substances kill off people, we're already too over-populated as it is, and also, people don't realise what's going on with alcohol or nicotine. Alcohol is an intoxicant, you lose boundaries, have fun, then go back to doing you're thing the next day) The government don't want us experimenting with our consciouness, because then we start to question everything
See, I actually think de regulating is the way to go. Let's say you have a 16 year old kid. He wants to go to a party to drink, he wants you to buy him some alcohol. You say no, he gets upset, you straight up don't let him go to the party. He's angry, what does he do? Stay in his room and not go to the party?
No. He sneaks out, goes anyway. Gets way too drunk, does something stupid. Why? because you said no. He rebels. Just because something's illegal, doesn't mean people won't do it. It just means they have to find atlernate ways, such as going to a dodgy dealer, the pharmaceutical route, etc. You as a society don't want people to experience, so they have to find there own way. Then, there's legality issues. You're turning people into criminals, who shouldn't be criminals.
Obviously in a scenario where everything was legal, you obviously couldn't have some 15 year old kid walk into a chemist to buy opiates. There should still be an age limit. But people shouldn't have to be afraid to ask, just anyone. "What do you think about this drug?" "oh, you know, it can be good in this setting, but also has potential to be abused"
You're equating incidence rate to danger. That's not the way it works.
What do you mean that's not the way it works? The more incidents there is, the more dangerous, in a sense.
As for the studies you posted, there's a risk/benefit ratio that must be applied to all medicince. How many lives have those vaccines potentially saved? You can't base your opinion on studies without having an idea of the BENEFIT side of the risk/benefit analysis. It's not a particularly balanced approach, otherwise.
To an extent, but a quick google - http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/facts.…
60% were from pharmaceuticals. People are going to abuse prescriptions, anyway.
All i'm saying, is that we shouldn't just straight up trust pharmaceuticals, when there are many natural alternatives, that don't kill people. That comes back to the government. They just want to make money, they don't really care about us.
Even the co- founder of alcoholics anonymous supports using LSD for alcoholism. Lots of people got mad when he said that, but why? Because society told you, lsd is bad, dangerious. You're going to go crazy, and jump out of a window if you take acid.
People need to wake themselves up, and stop listening to the government. Why believe everything the government says? The internet is free speech. You should own your own body? why can't you take this drug? it's your body, you should be able to do to it what you like, as long as you're not hurting other people.
You make some good points here and your position obviously comes from a place of empathy. I like that attitude and also agree on education and tolerance as a good approach. Like I said before, this is a tough issue that neither you or will have a definite solution to. I just don't think that removing deterrants completely would have the desired effect. I'd hate to live in a world where more people were addicted to heroin, meth etc because it was legal and readily available. Not the best analogy, but I can't help but think of the US gun laws. More guns (due to less control) = more gun crime. Yes, you can still harm/murder someone without a gun, but having one makes it WAY easier. Wouldn't it be the same with controlled substances? Yes, you can hurt yourself or others/OD on heroin now, but wouldn't the incident rate shoot up if it was easily obtainable/not controlled? Would you be happy to let your kid go to that party knowing that they would be shooting up rather than drinking? Anyway, I've contributed to the derailment of this thread enough, so…. don't tax fats.
Thanks man, i appreciate it. I'm looking out for mother earth and the human race, even if it goes against the laws and government. Because (profanity) them, if they don't really care about us. I believe we should be able to put what we want into our body, as long as we don't hurt others.
See, other countries have completely decriminalized, such as portugal, and drug use rates have gone down a little bit. So, the thing is it actually does work, and does have the desired effect :) The government is just too set in it's ways to do anything about it
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/portugal-drug-policy-decri…
You are right, everything would be much more available. But heroin can be bought as prescription in america, people just abuse that instead.
See, the thing is, if people actually want to go into hard drugs (or so they're classified) they'll seek the lengths to find them. If heroin became legal, would YOU go and try it? I most definitely wouldn't, because it doesn't interest me. But atleast if I did it wouldn't be cut with some other shit from a shady as (profanity) dealer supporting his own habit's, and i'd be pretty safe. Think abot it. You've got someone addicting to herion, they're not using it to get high, they're using it so they don't get sick and go into huge withdrawal. It's sad, really. You mentioned the use rate going up if it wasn't controlled, it isn't. It's just underground. Same as alcohol, we prohibited it a while ago, it went underground, everywhere. Pretty funny, actually. There are huge underground drug markets, the government can't control them. It's all online. Look up the silk road, if interested.
Edit: One your gun topic, I agree, but i see guns as a completely different topic to drugs. Guns are used out of fear, for protecting one's home. They're used to kill people, like seriously. You don't buy drugs to kill people. I see them as completely seperate things. People in america are scared, the government have them scared.
These are really good points.
People generally should have the right to produce, sell, buy and enjoy products they want. Having that freedom gives us prosperity.
But people should also have the right to enjoy fresh air, be safe while on the road, and not be at risk of catching dangerous diseases when they visit public places. And so on.
Sometimes government needs to step in and balance these rights with laws or with programmes that wouldn't necessarily be provided by the free market. A great example is the efforts to eradicate smallpox and polio. A little taxation, a little coercion and a lot of clever science put into practice has basically eradicated these massive scourges.
I think the current laws for marijuana and heroin get the balance wrong both in Australia and the US. I think need more freedom to consume the products we want, more regulation to ensure they are safely manufactured, and more programmes to convince vulnerable kids to not spend their teenage years totally stoned.
You kind of miss the real point of a tax such as this.
Its not really aimed at the consumer, its aimed that producer in order lower the un-needed amounts of sugar that is added to processed food. There is simply no reason why almost every single food at a supermarket that is processed has added sugar. We as a society have been hooked on sugary products, simply because sugar was cheap and increases the likely hood that people would buy the product.
You don't understand how much science goes into modern processed food. Companies have got their formulas down to a pat as to what makes their product easier to sell. And that is added sugar, salt and fat.
The obesity problem is not as simple as you make it out to be.
No one is trying to ban fat and sugar. Its simply trying to correct some of the terrible facets of our modern food supply.
If of course you believe that dietary fat is a key contributor to the obesity epidemic (fat you eat is the fat you wear etc). There are similar arguments that could be mounted for a 'sugar' tax or a 'carbohydrate' tax or a 'gluten' tax. The Atkins diet which has a strong following actually recommends that you increase your intake of dietary fat to replace carbohydrates.
I think there is general universal scientific acceptance that both Alcohol and cigarettes are massively bad for us . There is Scientific argument about whether eating dietary fat is a leading cause of all the bad things. If it isn't, then why tax it.
Since Dec I have lost nearly 10Kg by replacing carbohydrates in my diet with other stuff like protein and fat, would hate to be paying extra tax in order to get healthy and lose weight!