We didn't say anything when they came for the smokers...

[Kroney]

The answer to that is natural selection.

[BruceVC]

Call me crazy, but people are stupid and sometimes need saving from themselves.

 

Yeah, they don't want it and it may not be right to force the issue.

 

But dammit is humanity stupid.

 

Alcohol, drugs, guns.... seems like humans can't trusted to do the right/smart thing.

 

Its okay Trashman. I know the right thing to do and say. I'll guide you and take that responsibility away from you so you don't need to worry anymore 

[Walsingham]

Certainly. Making people "better" has definitely never had any negative consequences in the past.

 

Safe as an objective leads to walls, doors, the rule of law. Safer leads to a never ending war on drugs, terror, and the NSA.

 

Healthy as an objective leads to clean drinking water, trauma surgery, and fresh vegetables. Healthier leads to drinking only mineral water, colonic irrigation, and delusions of f***ing immortality.

 

Are you noticing a goddamn trend?

[Blarghagh]

EDIT: Wrong thread. Sorry!

Edited February 10, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[Orogun01]

 

Certainly. Making people "better" has definitely never had any negative consequences in the past.

 

Safe as an objective leads to walls, doors, the rule of law. Safer leads to a never ending war on drugs, terror, and the NSA.

 

Healthy as an objective leads to clean drinking water, trauma surgery, and fresh vegetables. Healthier leads to drinking only mineral water, colonic irrigation, and delusions of f***ing immortality.

 

Are you noticing a goddamn trend?

 

That there is little difference between ideologues and idiots?

[Mor]

Ouhh more people acting out... despite the crazy analogies, it is really simple, everyone else shouldn't pay for your habit.

[Hurlshort]

Ouhh more people acting out... despite the crazy analogies, it is really simple, everyone else shouldn't pay for your habit.

 

Except it is nowhere near that simple.

[Mor]

Off course it is, look how you all got riled up trying to make it seem as if it is unfair tax or unwarranted intervention by the government telling you what todo, cranking up the melodrama with compulsory camps BS.

 

Fact is that this is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, with increasing rates in adults and children. Which is regarded as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century. - So, yes this is exactly the domain of the government. And like most laws, its not about baby siting you, no one can force you todo what you don't want todo, its about you paying for your owning habit.

[Gorth]

Oh, I said something when they came for the smokers. I was the guy who quietly tipped off the men in black trench coats so they could find the smokers hiding in courtyards, alleys... and wherever they tried to hide their habits!

[BruceVC]

Off course it is, look how you all got riled up trying to make it seem as if it is unfair tax or unwarranted intervention by the government telling you what todo, cranking up the melodrama with compulsory camps BS.

 

Fact is that this is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, with increasing rates in adults and children. Which is regarded as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century. - So, yes this is exactly the domain of the government. And like most laws, its not about baby siting you, no one can force you todo what you don't want todo, its about you paying for your owning habit.

 

But isn't there an argument around people who end up getting cancer through smoking being a burden on a countries healthcare system which is either funded through taxes or medical aid? So in fact you do end up paying for someone else's bad health decisions?

[Walsingham]

I shouldn't even have to make a counter-argument here. I'm not saying you chaps are fools, you just haven't thought it through.

 

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that not getting cancer means you don't sick or die of something else. Because it still works for me.

 

You chaps begin by stating that anything which worsens the incidence rate should be taxed. If it is taxed it has to be monitored, and both taxation and monitoring has to be enforced.

 

Can you find me any aspect of human behaviour NOT implicated in cancer rates?

 

The logical outcome of an open-ended commitment to controlling cancer rates is total monitoring and regulation of all behaviour.

 

Ball to you.

[Kroney]

 cranking up the melodrama with compulsory camps BS.

 

 

That was a joke, chief. I had hoped it was obvious. I wouldn't like to see the sort of milking machine that would be required to suck fat out of people, but I'd imagine it would be rather more dystopian than the current government would like to be involved with.

 

Everybody seems to be making the same argument (you should be responsible for your own actions with minimal nannying) and then getting hung up on the details.

[Mor]

But isn't there an argument around people who end up getting cancer through smoking being a burden on a countries healthcare system which is either funded through taxes or medical aid? So in fact you do end up paying for someone else's bad health decisions?

Ofcourse, that why there is a HUGE indirect tax on cigarettes(at least here)

 

You chaps begin by stating that anything which worsens the incidence rate should be taxed. If it is taxed it has to be monitored, and both taxation and monitoring has to be enforced.

More like you put words in others mouth, because no one said that. Here what I said with highlights:

 

This is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, with increasing rates in adults and children. Which is regarded as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century.

[Zoraptor]

That isn't all you said though. You also said "look how you all got riled up trying to make it seem as if it is unfair tax or unwarranted intervention by the government telling you what todo". That, combined with the rest, most certainly logically implies that you'd tax other 'bad' stuff as well. And Walsingham is most certainly correct in that you'd have to monitor a lot of stuff to enforce the sort of system you were outlining, you'd need to regularly have people's weight and incomes at least.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 cranking up the melodrama with compulsory camps BS.

 

 

That was a joke, chief. I had hoped it was obvious. I wouldn't like to see the sort of milking machine that would be required to suck fat out of people, but I'd imagine it would be rather more dystopian than the current government would like to be involved with.

 

Everybody seems to be making the same argument (you should be responsible for your own actions with minimal nannying) and then getting hung up on the details.

 

 

I have learnt on these forums that never assume people will know you are joking, try to use  or  to indicate a joke or a partly joking statement

[213374U]

More like you put words in others mouth, because no one said that. Here what I said with highlights:

This is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, with increasing rates in adults and children. Which is regarded as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century.

 

 

But Wals' synthesis follows naturally from your particular example. Defeat smoking and something else will replace it as the preventable leading cause of death worldwide—this, in his view, will eternally perpetuate the mandate of those who seek to make everyone "healthier", which also connects with his "delusions of immortality" remark, before. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

 

What I am not so convinced of is his other assertion that everything affects cancer rates. This may be strictly true, but the extent to which this risk is relevant is what makes it suspect. I mean, your body fights cancer constantly, in your sleep. It could fail to naturally defeat it at some point, so an argument could be made that sleeping gives you cancer. This is clearly an absurd conclusion. And while I'm not more convinced than Wals than governments (and especially undemocratic, transnational bureaucracies) are exempt from reaching absurd conclusions (deliberately or by sheer disconnection from reality), I'm afraid this is a big ol' slippery slope. The amount of power and ability to regulate that states have is arbitrary and not everyone will agree exactly where the proverbial line in the sand lies. But it has to be drawn somewhere.

[Blarghagh]

About taxing in the goal of preventing cancer: I read recently that apples, in fact, do not keep the doctor away because they can cause both cancer and wreak havoc on your teeth. Apples, public health hazard? Time to tax apples, or even ban them?

[Walsingham]

 

More like you put words in others mouth, because no one said that. Here what I said with highlights:

This is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, with increasing rates in adults and children. Which is regarded as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century.

 

 

But Wals' synthesis follows naturally from your particular example. Defeat smoking and something else will replace it as the preventable leading cause of death worldwide—this, in his view, will eternally perpetuate the mandate of those who seek to make everyone "healthier", which also connects with his "delusions of immortality" remark, before. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

 

What I am not so convinced of is his other assertion that everything affects cancer rates. This may be strictly true, but the extent to which this risk is relevant is what makes it suspect. I mean, your body fights cancer constantly, in your sleep. It could fail to naturally defeat it at some point, so an argument could be made that sleeping gives you cancer. This is clearly an absurd conclusion. And while I'm not more convinced than Wals than governments (and especially undemocratic, transnational bureaucracies) are exempt from reaching absurd conclusions (deliberately or by sheer disconnection from reality), I'm afraid this is a big ol' slippery slope. The amount of power and ability to regulate that states have is arbitrary and not everyone will agree exactly where the proverbial line in the sand lies. But it has to be drawn somewhere.

 

 

Good analysis, thanks for running with the ball.

 

I think I agree with your last point that this does not have to be a slippery slope. Eventually the enforcement resources would fail. But I think that point is waaaaay past where it would be good. A better option is to draw the line ourselves and state clearly what we expect, and no more. I may be misinterpreting you.

 

On the subject of influences, I think it's established beyond the necessity of references that diet, stress, work environment, and exercise all affect cancer. That's more than enough to be going on with.

[Mor]

That isn't all you said though. You also said "look how you all got riled up trying to make it seem as if it is unfair tax or unwarranted intervention by the government telling you what todo". That, combined with the rest, most certainly logically implies that you'd tax other 'bad' stuff as well.

Uhm, yes.. the government taxes and regulate a lot of things. However, that not what you meant, you were going with demagoguery BS about 'they take our freedom, we need to put our foot down'.

 

Again, what I said was that: It is the governments job to address Public health issue, obesity is regarded as the most pressing issue of the century. The specific solution that I proposed for addressing this issue(which effects others and preventable through exercise of control by the individual) was incentives through taxation(direct or exemption).

 

And Walsingham is most certainly correct in that you'd have to monitor a lot of stuff to enforce the sort of system you were outlining, you'd need to regularly have people's weight and incomes at least.

Maybe. Though your income is already "regulated" (notice all the tax deductions), if "health" clause is added as prerequisite for deductions it can be just one more forum to fill or covered through other means like the usual medical checkups.

[Walsingham]

I think you might be interested if you do even a little digging around tax related crime. The history of revenue enforcement is almost entirely one of the revenue being cheated. North America and Northern Europe are just about the only places where its even a _culturally_ accepted norm to pay taxes. And that's only a small slice of those societies, and only for the last hundred or two hundred years.

[213374U]

I think I agree with your last point that this does not have to be a slippery slope. Eventually the enforcement resources would fail. But I think that point is waaaaay past where it would be good. A better option is to draw the line ourselves and state clearly what we expect, and no more. I may be misinterpreting you.

 

The slippery slope works both ways, I think. There is a recorded tendency by those in power to abuse and expand their power if no resistance is encountered, but that is also an argument that can be wielded to stand against reforms that can be advantageous to society as a whole. Ideally, the people would handle their own affairs and need very little support or intervention from the state—but then again we need the state (and the rule of law entails a degree of repression) because real societies and people behave and interact in... less than ideal ways. The optimal balance... your guess is as good as mine, quite literally.

[Walsingham]

 

I think I agree with your last point that this does not have to be a slippery slope. Eventually the enforcement resources would fail. But I think that point is waaaaay past where it would be good. A better option is to draw the line ourselves and state clearly what we expect, and no more. I may be misinterpreting you.

 

The slippery slope works both ways, I think. There is a recorded tendency by those in power to abuse and expand their power if no resistance is encountered, but that is also an argument that can be wielded to stand against reforms that can be advantageous to society as a whole. Ideally, the people would handle their own affairs and need very little support or intervention from the state—but then again we need the state (and the rule of law entails a degree of repression) because real societies and people behave and interact in... less than ideal ways. The optimal balance... your guess is as good as mine, quite literally.

 

 

I don't want to misrepresent my position. I'm an engineer at heart. My default setting is to tinker and damn the consequences. But not if it's going to result in weird mayhem. I think

 

What we have to keep  fixed in the spotlight of awareness is what kind of government would occur if it felt so proud and certain that it never got drunk. And wouldn't take a risk equivalent to smoking a cigarette. The answer being a bloody disaster of a government.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by Walsingham

[Orogun01]

You know as I was reading your post for some reason I thought of Sweden.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You know as I was reading your post for some reason I thought of Sweden.

Tall blondes make me think of Sweden.

[Mor]

I think you might be interested if you do even a little digging around tax related crime. The history of revenue enforcement is almost entirely one of the revenue being cheated. North America and Northern Europe are just about the only places where its even a _culturally_ accepted norm to pay taxes. And that's only a small slice of those societies, and only for the last hundred or two hundred years.

so what?! this just a generic excuse not to do anything, that can be applied to anything with taxes in it or with little change to anything with crime in it...

 

On the subject of influences, I think it's established beyond the necessity of references that diet, stress, work environment, and exercise all affect cancer. That's more than enough to be going on with.

I don't know if you noticed, but through out this thread, I haven't mentioned cancer once. I discussed how to deal with obesity effects in general, not because one of its effects was now highlighted by the world health organization as well.

 

The problem with obese people is like with some smokers, who think that it wont happen to them. After all they just smoke one cigarette not a whole pack, they have been at it for years and feel fine, all that stuff about erectile dysfunction is just to scare them, they can take the chance...

 

Well Obesity health risk are not just for people who can't fit in a standard chair, some think that little abdominal fat is not a bigy, they are soo wrong. Also Obesity is not just cancer or heart attack(which is the most easy way to go), there is world of "fun" waiting for you...