Harsh Penalties introduced in Japan for being Overweight

[hailtotheking]

I see knee-jerk reaction to government interventions all the time, and in many cases people are right to fight them because the intervention in question in usually ill-informed and mis-directed (with a tinge of alterial money-making hidden motives). But in this case i do feel government intervention is necessary.

One of the points of having a democratic government is to try and ensure a fair society. One form of that is having measures in place to stop selfish people getting doing whatever they want when it detrimentally impacts on everyone else. People getting fat and placing chronic financial and resource pressures on a public health service, and therefore imposing higher taxes and detracting from the quality of service for everyone else, is such an example, and therefore governemnt intervention is justified.

We have all seen how poorly governments judge what a 'good diet' is, so instead of letting them get draconian on what foods we can and cant have, its surely better to let people decide what foods they want but impose the penalties at the point where they let themselves get in a state (i.e fat) that costs everyone else money.

I.e going out and buying a doughnut does not impact everyone else, but taking up NHS resources and money for metabolic disease medications, coronary bypasses and gastric band surgery does impact other people that need NHS resources (who did not self-impose their illness).

If health services were all privatised then ironically people getting fat would not make much of an impact on everyone else, but i love the fact we have the NHS and i would not want the health sector to be fully privatised.

I dont think people realise just how bad the obesity issue is in the US and UK - if trends continue at the current rate, over half of the population will be severely overweight and / or obese in about 5 years.

This problem is fast becoming a major threat to health all over the world, and if it was a virus or plague spreading at the same rate you would see emergency disease control measures (e.g using military-enforced quarantines, forced vaccinations, etc.) being imposed by now.

People have been told to eat less and move more for the last decade, but its not in our nature to do that, so stronger measures are warranted.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

I.e going out and buying a doughnut does not impact everyone else, but taking up NHS resources and money for metabolic disease medications, coronary bypasses and gastric band surgery does impact other people that need MHS resources (who did not self-impose their illness).

That's the problem with this way of thinking right there! Who is going to be the arbiter of what constitutes self-inflicted? Are we going to draw the line at diet? What about people who lead a high-stress life-style (by choice), which can also contribute to heart disease, etc.?

What about people that need treatment/medication for illness and injury brought on by indulging in hazardous sports? Couldn't someone needing extensive treatments for injuries caused in RTAs be accused of self-inflicting their injuries by careless driving: not paying attention, driving while intoxicated (booze /drugs), tired, stressed, etc?

Is this a 'can of worms' that everyone really wants opening?!!!