Why does the government let us choose our own diet?

[TripleB]

I'm not allowed to smoke crystal meth because it's bad for my health. But if I want to eat fast food and drink soda all day, every day, I'm allowed to do that. Both are obviously bad, yet the government grants me permission to do me but not the other.

Perhaps someone who kills themselves on fast food and soda can still continue to work for many years and pay taxes. Is that the line? Whether our self-destructive actions allow us to continue to be productive taxpayers?

[stone]

A lung doctor said something to me about how smoking might actual help "the system". He said his typical patient was about 70 years old and had gone to see a GP after not being able to breathe OK. They were then refered to him and he would diagnose lung cancer and put them on a waiting list for palliative radiotherapy knowing that they would probably be dead before they got any treatment. He said those patients sometimes hadn't seen a doctor since they were born. They had paid duty on the cigarettes for half a century and weren't going to draw a pension. Basically they were ideal citizens for UK plc.

I think junk food is ideal for production, marketing etc etc. Carrots or lentils don't have a brand or a "wide moat". Fresh food perishes and is a logistical nightmare. That said some people are scared that government diet police will swoop. A friend (who ironically is a cardiologist) says that he never uses a Tesco club card because he doesn't want a record being made of his food purchases by the powers that be.

[Storm]

A lung doctor said something to me about how smoking might actual help "the system". He said his typical patient was about 70 years old and had gone to see a GP after not being able to breathe OK. They were then refered to him and he would diagnose lung cancer and put them on a waiting list for palliative radiotherapy knowing that they would probably be dead before they got any treatment. He said those patients sometimes hadn't seen a doctor since they were born. They had paid duty on the cigarettes for half a century and weren't going to draw a pension. Basically they were ideal citizens for UK plc.

I think junk food is ideal for production, marketing etc etc. Carrots or lentils don't have a brand or a "wide moat". Fresh food perishes and is a logistical nightmare. That said some people are scared that government diet police will swoop. A friend (who ironically is a cardiologist) says that he never uses a Tesco club card because he doesn't want a record being made of his food purchases by the powers that be.

I can see that being the case for lung cancer, but adult onset diabetes and other preventable diseases are actually a huge burden on the medical system.  This is just yet another example of highly paid lobbyists allowing an industry to pollute without our society taking into account the externalities associated with obesity.

When you consider the fact that giant food conglomerates intentionally increase the sugar, fat, and salt content of manufactured foods just to make them more addictive, it becomes worse.  If a tobacco manufacturer were caught increasing the nicotine content to make cigarettes more addictive, society would be up in arms.

Now, the growing realization and body of evidence that sugar addiction causes some of the same liver problems that alcoholism does, and the high cost of maintaining the health of a diabetic is weighing against the giant food conglomerates.

I'm not really sure how you should regulate these things.  I do support the right to eat a twinkie if one chooses to do so, but maybe there should be a limit to how many twinkies one person can eat.  Do we start putting a sugar cap on every citizen and let those of us that have extra credits trade them on an open market?  Sort of like the carbon cap where companies could trade pollution credits.  I'd be happy to sell my sugar credits to a diabetic sugar junkie.  Let the free market sort it out - if you're rich enough to buy sugar credits you should be rich enough to pay for your own health care.  Or, better yet, make health insurance a requirement before you can buy extra sugar credits.

[stone]

Storm, I thought tobacco nicotine levels have increased. Is that just an urban myth?

I totally agree with you about diabetes being very costly as well as tragic. I think I saw something that said that invert syrup was much worse than  sugar because our physiology can not respond properly to high levels of fructose. In Europe sugar beet gets the subsidies rather than corn so at least we have sugar rather than invert syrup in our junk food -a small mercy.
I think a sensible option might be to not allow food adverts. I don't see what harm would come from not having food adverts. Junk food gets advertised because it is branded.  To some extent I guess generic junk food rides on the coat tails of the advertized brands.

[MediumTex]

There is really no rhyme or reason to what we are legally permitted to put into our bodies.

The fact that alcohol is legal while pot is illegal is perhaps the best example of what we are talking about here.

In general, I think that there is a strong preference for the status quo when it comes to these things.  Thus, the lobbyists for McDonald's and Coca Cola would vigorously fight against any increased regulation of junk food, while the lobbyists for the companies operating private jails and the prison guards unions would vigorously fight against any decreased regulation of marijuana.

[TripleB]

That said some people are scared that government diet police will swoop. A friend (who ironically is a cardiologist) says that he never uses a Tesco club card because he doesn't want a record being made of his food purchases by the powers that be.

I refuse to use grocery store shopping cards for a different reason. See the below story of a firefighter whose wife and children were murdered by being set on fire in their home. The firefighter was criminally charged with killing his wife and children because on his grocery store card he had bought several firestarters the previous month.

1 year after the arrest (and of course all of his friends and family hating him, and losing his job, and tens of thousands in legal bills), someone else stepped forward and took blame for the arson act. If he simply hadn't used a grocery rewards card, none of this would have happened.

Google "Phil Lyons Arson" if you want to read more about it.

To this day I will NOT use a grocery store card. Up until 4 years ago, I lived in an area serviced by 2 large supermarket chains. One didn't have a discount card, and the other did. I refused to shop at the one that had a card and did 100% of my shopping at the other.

The discount cards are a marketing sham. Everyone can get the card for free, and in exchange you get around 10% to 30% off certain items every week. The reality is, you are getting the regular store price with the card, because anyone can get the card for free. You are simply penalized if you choose not to get one.

Then 4 years ago I moved to a different state. There were 4 grocery chains that serviced the area. All 4 had discount card programs that penalized shoppers who refused to participate. I started doing all of my grocery shopping at a Super Wal Mart.

Maybe I'm alone in my hatred of these grocery discount cards, or maybe one of the reasons that Wal Mart is now the biggest grocery store in the US is because they don't use discount cards (that perhaps other people despise too).

[stone]

TripleB, the Tesco club card is credited with Tesco's dominance in the UK. Apparently it allowed them to track shopping patterns and cater for them. The classic example was that they noticed that people stopped using Tescos when they had babies. Tesco then went all out to make the stores baby friendly, offers on baby stuff etc etc. That is what they say anyway .

[Jan Van]

...The fact that alcohol is legal while pot is illegal is perhaps the best example of what we are talking about here...

HA! That's what came to my mind reading TripleB's post. In school (in the Netherlands) I was taught alcohol is a hard drug, pot is a soft drug. Yet we can score the hard drugs legally, but people get all uppity about soft drugs. Pretty dumb. Oh, well, pet peeve, so I might have mentioned this before 

[TripleB]

...The fact that alcohol is legal while pot is illegal is perhaps the best example of what we are talking about here...

HA! That's what came to my mind reading TripleB's post. In school (in the Netherlands) I was taught alcohol is a hard drug, pot is a soft drug. Yet we can score the hard drugs legally, but people get all uppity about soft drugs. Pretty dumb. Oh, well, pet peeve, so I might have mentioned this before 

Alcohol is responsible for significantly more deaths than all other drugs combined. We already tried banning it once in the US. Far too expensive and it would be political suicide to try it again. Sometimes we need to let people destroy their own lives.

Marijuana and other drugs, on the other hand, seem to be perfect for criminalization. It justifies the existence of additional government three-letter agencies, justifies additional erosion of constitutional rights, and pads the pockets of congressmen looking to porkbarrel in new correctional facilities in rural areas.

For every person who is arrested for a dimebag of weed, that's another days work for a judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, bail bondsman, contractors to the prison, local police, state police, federal police, probation officers, etc.

Back in the day when 29 out of 30 people needed to farm for society had to get food, there's no way we could afford such inefficiency in society. Today when only 2 out of 30 people are required to get enough food to feed the other 28, we have to find work for the other 28 to do. 1 of the 28 can be arbitrarily criminalized and a few more can handle the roles described above in "rehabilitating" him.

[Jan Van]

...
Back in the day when 29 out of 30 people needed to farm for society had to get food, there's no way we could afford such inefficiency in society. Today when only 2 out of 30 people are required to get enough food to feed the other 28, we have to find work for the other 28 to do. 1 of the 28 can be arbitrarily criminalized and a few more can handle the roles described above in "rehabilitating" him.

And doesn't it somehow someway work out here in the USA that that 1 of the 28 person happens to be black?

Edit:
But yet...
Black, Asian teens least likely to use drugs, alcohol

[TripleB]

And doesn't it somehow someway work out here in the USA that that 1 of the 28 person happens to be black?

Yes and this is proportional to the fact that in the USA only 1 out of 28 congressmen happen to be black.

[smurff]

TripleB, what many people do is fill out the application form with
fake name, address, etc. They could then get the discount card without giving up any info.

Lots of people with private health insurance, or who are ready to increase their
life insurance do this, for other ominous tactics that TPTB engage in. Some insurance companies buy these records to see what kind of foods their covered parties and applicants eat. Never mind that people often shop for relatives, for food banks, for workplace potluck snacks where the foods to bring are pre-designated.

[TripleB]

TripleB, what many people do is fill out the application form with
fake name, address, etc. They could then get the discount card without giving up any info.

I did that for one year until I realized I could just go to a Super Wal Mart and do my foodshopping there without much additional effort on my part.

To be "safer" I would throw away the discount card with fake name/address every couple months. If the card is found on your person, then it's attached to you. Also, if you pay by credit card, your name is built into the magnetic card strip and can be associated by the POS to the discount card.

[KevinW]

The pattern seems to be that society is more permissive about vices that have been around longer. By any rational measure, alcohol and overeating are bigger problems than marijuna. But the first two have been around since the beginning of recorded history, long enough to become entrenched institutions.

These inconsistencies should be phased out, but I'd rather that we do that by moving in the direction of legalizing things than banning them.

[TripleB]

The pattern seems to be that society is more permissive about vices that have been around longer. By any rational measure, alcohol and overeating are bigger problems than marijuna. But the first two have been around since the beginning of recorded history, long enough to become entrenched institutions.

These inconsistencies should be phased out, but I'd rather that we do that by moving in the direction of legalizing things than banning them.

Ancient Roman adult males used to frequently have sex with prepubescent boys. That vice might not follow your duration algorithm. 

[dualstow]

If marijuana were legalized, I wonder which brand would become the Budweiser of pot, ie considered the absolute worst by aficionados but popular among heavy users on a budget. WalMart? Diageo? I'd be all over that stock.

Back on topic, they do talk about creating a sugar tax once in a while, don't they? I think New York's mayor Bloomberg (someone who happily admitted smoking pot in his younger days) might have been into that.

[MachineGhost]

They were then refered to him and he would diagnose lung cancer and put them on a waiting list for palliative radiotherapy knowing that they would probably be dead before they got any treatment.

LOL, definitely a feature of "free" socialized medicine.

MG

[Storm]

The pattern seems to be that society is more permissive about vices that have been around longer. By any rational measure, alcohol and overeating are bigger problems than marijuna. But the first two have been around since the beginning of recorded history, long enough to become entrenched institutions.

These inconsistencies should be phased out, but I'd rather that we do that by moving in the direction of legalizing things than banning them.

Ancient Roman adult males used to frequently have sex with prepubescent boys. That vice might not follow your duration algorithm. 

One is a victimless crime, the other is not...