March 17, 2007
-
The Government and Unhealthy Choices
I was reading an article on Harvard Political Review about the governments involvement in regulating unhealthy choices.
In the article the question was being asked “Should the government be able to regulate our unhealthy lifestyle choices?” The article acknowledges that the government is making a special effort to curb smoking because it impacts other people. The tide has turned against smoking because of the perception that secondhand smoking is hurting others. So smoking is being banned in public places.
The concern expressed in the article is that the government is actually trying to regulate unhealthy patterns. That some of these small steps are slowly allowing the government to curb unhealthy patterns.
“Should the government be able to regulate our unhealthy lifestyle choices?”
Comments (101)
YEAH they should. I think it would be better for everyone
God, I hope so, because I just can’t stop fucking women.
Well, I don’t know. That could be good, but kind of strange…?
nope, it’s up to us to live healthy lives…
When they come for my taco bell, they will have a fight on their hands.
I’ll have to say no. It takes away that whole “freedom of choice” thing we love so much.
if it harms other people then the intervention is necessary. people have shown that they are incapable of regulating themselves.
I dunno.
Yes, they definitely should. And you should listen to Big Brother, because Big Brother knows what is best for you.
Not helping those who are actually practising unhealthy habits is kind of like saying that it’s too late to help them, so we’ll save everyone around that person instead.
As if big brother is so healthy??
yes.
no.
no.
yes.
they should…
but that would make us pay more for taxes and such.
so no.
i dont see why not…why should hurting yourself and other people be a choice?
No. Last I knew being stupid was an inalienable right. In other words, if someone wants to be stupid and kill themself, that’s their choice.
Mmmm, no.
Only if it is a government completely contrary to the one established by our Constitution. I know it’s a reality that people will make stupid choices that are harmful to themselves and others, but the day we require our government to protect us from our own stupidity is an even more frightening reality.
I think people need to start worrying about more important things.
Besides, if government really feels the need to interfere to that degree, why don’t they begin with themselves. For example, maybe Hillary should have put Bill’s little willy under lock and key and a muzzle over Monica’s mouth.
Uhh..no.
Only if we can regulate their unhealthy spending habits.
Maybe I’ll only eat (and drink) like Ted Kennedy.
Would THAT be acceptable to our government?
uh, yea if theyre smoking, my aunt died from that. it was sad
liz
No. But the problem is that if the government is expected to pay for our unhealthy lifestyle choices with taxpayers’ money, then they are going to want to regulate those choices as well. We need to stop begging for money for problems we have created.
no, i don’t think they should, it gives the govt. too much control
No. This would require that we accept the “mummy knows best” theory, as invariably applied by all totalitarian authoritys, including communisn, fascism, and the inquisition. Governments worldwide lack the competence, good judgement and absolute morality required to make the assumption that they are entitled to play God.
I think regulating it in restaurants and in work places is fine but besides that, like in bars and clubs i think they should allow it, at least have smoking section. I dont smoke but i think it causes people to be edgy if they dont get that fix.
some of this is now affecting parents when it comes to obesity, as well as, grocery places and restaurants – I do not think these should be regulated because the consumer buys the stuff. If we dont draw a line then there will be laws against bad food, words, and many other things.
anyone ever seen the movie DEMOLITION MAN – thats where goverement censorship leads.
- Daniel (doubledb)
The government has no business in regulating personal activities unless it directly and negatively impacts others. Then it’s a matter of one person’s rights detracting from another’s rights. In the case of smoking in public places, I have to agree with regulation. As moronic as smoking may be, a person has the right to smoke in their own privacy… it’s not effecting them in any capacity that would cause them to loose control. There is of course the matter of health care for this person when they become sick. I have no interest in paying for government health care provided to this person because of poor choices. If I’m going to help people with my resources, I’ll choose better ways.
Like they have any control anyway… The worst they’d do is put a tariff on beef to drive up McDonald’s prices
no, the government should not. as a non-smoker and an asthmatic, i am glad that they do in the sense of regulating where smoking in public can occur. but i am not entirely sure i like the slippery slope this puts us on in the eroding of our freedom of choice, even when i am a beneficiary of such intervention.
If they effect other people. I like that people can’t smoke in a lot of places because it’s my choice to not smoke. Smoke makes my eyes all watery and my clothes smell like crap.
but if people wanna do it, then let ‘em
I think the governmetn should control drugs only because (I have he authority to say this because I’m a high schooler) drugs destroy families. But I don’t think the government should tell us to wear seatbelts because it’s our own stupid choices.
When it comes to smoking, yes.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
It is scary that the American people are actually letting the government regulate our lives more and more. Hitler tried this too. He wanted the perfect race of people. Our government also is trying to shape and mold us into their ideal. What happens to those who do not meet the government’s standards on this slippery slope we are on?
No — who defines what is healthy or unhealthy? Where do we draw the line between what is a health concern vs. acceptable lifestyle? Do we keep it at substance abuse or our fast food choices? Or does it go beyond to who we associate ourselves with, how we think, how we act, how we fit in?
no thanks
Interesting how people are reacting to this question. Everyone seems to think that if a little common-sense legislation is passed, such as no smoking in public or fast food joints need to use no trans-fat oil, the that de facto means that government is “big brother” “playing mommy” or “playing god.” Like, they can have my Big Mac when they pry it from my cold dead hands, man. Silly.
Now suppose their is some kind of almost universal consensus about some manmade phenomenon that might destroy the planet…let’s call it “Global Warming” just for kicks, as if that could ever happen. Now, let’s further assume that all the cows we need for our Big Macs (billions and billions served!) are causing people to cut down the rain forest and contribute to this “global warming” thing. Should government insist that more earth-friendly (and very likely healthier) menu items be made available at McDonalds?
I think that if we ever have national healthcare, then the government should take more steps than it is to regulate unhealthy habits, but until we have national healthcare then no.
there
Jeez.
no…i keep thinking this is America…land of the free…I must be confused…
not smoking cause i like that
no way. my life, my body, my choice. as long as its not affecting other people, keep the government out.
smoking is an unhealthy lifestyle that affects others besides the smoker, so I agree that is should be regulated and am glad that it is in Ohio now. I for one am not a smoker and am very allergic to smoke. It was hard for me to go out in public at times cause of others smoking. Now I can and love it. I hated not being able to go to certian places cause of the smoke. But if it is an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn’t directly effect others…no then they shouldn’t…in those cases they should state the dangers and let the person decide for themselves
I think the government has a right to do so if the unhealthy lifestyle choices affect other people…..like secondhand smoke does.
Only insofar as those actions directly effect others. I have a very conservative view on this due to the way I was raised, but I think all of this effort to ban smoking in public is fantastic, and I would love it if they banned public drinking too, although the likelihood of that ever happening is negative
All that aside though, smoke from cigs actually makes me rather ill, so this is perfect for me.
if it affects other ppl then yesssss.
Only so far as our choices affect others.
I really believe that the government should involve itself in its citizens’ affairs as little as possible, but when citizens infringe on other citizens’ rights (secondhand smoke, drunk driving, homicide, robbery, etc.), then the government needs to step in.
No.
Also, where do you draw the line when it comes to “affecting others”?
Secondhand smoke is an obvious example — but many could argue that they are negatively affected by the choices of others (be it economically, physically, emotionally, etc) — so arguing that anyone is free to do what he or she will as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else seems simple enough, but is, ultimately, hard to define and far more complex than it seems.
If it is directly harmful to others, it should be regulated.
Otherwise, how about we mix it up for once and be responsible for our own actions. Just because some people are stupid and they choose to eat unhealthily all the time shouldn’t mean I can’t have some nice, greasy fries once in a while for a special treat. To expect the government to protect us from ourselves our whole lives is ridiculous. How about if you don’t want to be fat, you actually exercise and check out the nutritional info on your food? And if you do get fat because you’re not smart enough to do this, you can’t sue the fast-food establishments for not stopping you? How about we just suck it up and deal with the consequences of our choices?
Wusses.
The gov’t can, like, try all they want, but, like, people do what they want.
They should define what is ‘unhealthy’, do a public awareness campaign on it, and then let people decide for themselves.
’nuff said….
i always find it interesting how smoking is always the big issue, but people have no problem jumping into their cars, SUVs, and 18 Wheelers and pumping out a million times more pollution in the air than inhaling some second hand smoke from time to time. I agree that there should be separate places for people to smoke in some situations, its only fair to everyone, and i even refrain from doing it when someone asks me not to when i’m in their direct presence….but don’t expect me not to smoke in a wide open park because you are walking by on the way to get back to your exhaust pipe on wheels.
but as for the government stepping in to regulate peoples lifestyles, i believe its wrong.
its not the governments business whether i CHOOSE to do something that could potentially be harmful to my body. what is happening to our simple civil liberties. why cant people accept the fact that some people enjoy smoking.
hm… well id depends – what do you value more? your liberty? or the health of every person in the country? i am a firm believer if you are hurting yourself and noone else – go ahead… but then again – i am all for legalizing pot and prostitution… so im a bit too liberal for this forum anyway.
Unfortunately the government has a history of helping out the businesses that contribute to these unhealthy life choices– how many congressmen are in cahoots with Big Tobacco or the Meat/Fast Food industry? The government has been funding these big corporations and helping them out for years. They’ve given huge advantages to the suppliers of these unhealthy choices,allowing them to overrun those who give us healthier foods, etc.
So maybe the govt should try to equate things out a bit. From a purely economical standpoint, unhealthy lifestyles cost the government money– a lot of it. So in that way it’s in their best interest to try to keep people healthy. If nothing else, even if you believe the govt has no business getting involved in our private lives, it should at least ensure that the information necessary for people to make the healthiest decisions for themselves is readily available for all, so that WE can have the best chance at making educated, healthy choices for ourselves. When McDonald’s and cigarettes are advertising directly to kids (who cannot make these sorts of decisions), the govt fails in this.
Seeing as suicide is now legal…
NO!!!!!!
It’s not and should not be the government’s job.
I’d like to revise my previous statment. I ate some challupas tonight and… long story short, they still look the same as before I ate them. If the government could keep me from ever making such a poor judgment again…. I’d consider it. However… When It comes to pizza….(mumble mumble) …Shot guns..(muble mumbles)…
Personal responisibility must factor in at some point not to mention the fact that I do not think the government knows what is best for me and my family.
For example, does autoracing have any merits. I think you could argue that pro-basketball and football and baseball contribute negatively to society. No one would drink alcohol (prohibition worked well) or eat a whopper. The problem is that for many people eating a whopper is just fine.
That totally kills Darwin’s “natural selection” and “survival of the fittests (and smartest)”.
Gosh, my post seems to have ben deleted.
NO way! This is supposed to be a free country. I am supposed to have the freedom to smoke when and where I want. I dont smoke in restaurants as a courtesy to others, because I believe that the smoking section of a restaurant is like the “peeing section of a pool”… I dont smoke inside the building where I work, because people will have to walk through my second hand smoke…. But now, I cant stand outside that same building and smoke OUTSIDE. Which I think is a total CROCK. No one asked ME if, while I am out there, I want to breathe in all the carbon dioxide that the car at the curb is making, or breathe in all the fumes from the jet planes that are taking off to deliver people to their vacation destinations, or the the pollution from the factory down the street. Even worse- CHEAP perfume…I shouldnt have to breathe it in- That is so bad! It gives me headaches.
Let’s have them start regulating FAST FOOD intake (its bad- It makes people fat, and clogs their arteries), regulate RED MEAT intake (BAD again- It causes clogged up colons which lead to CANCER…I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that cancer is bad)… SEX! Lets let the governmant regulate that one- (With all of the disease out there – YEP too much sex is BAD) One step further- For all the people out there who arent getting ANY- We should regulate that too-They should have to get laid on a regular basis, as to iumprove their BAD ATTITUDES.
The government should not attempt to regulate unhealthy habits that affect only the person making the choice. However, when the choice affects others, it is time for the government to step in and protect the rights of all.
I’m not crazy about the regulation… it does seem to give the government too much control. I don’t see anything wrong with maybe charging more to make stupid choices, but banning stupid behavior… like eating trans fats?… erh, I don’t know. Although I’m for the smoking ban, because that is one stupid choice that actually hurts other people.
When it comes to public smoking, yes. I have a lung disease and it causes me serious, immediate problems when someone smokes in my presence. Not like “Oh, I’m going to get cancer.” but “Oh, you might have to call 911.”
“You are free, to do what we tell you!” ~Bill Hicks
Really though, not being able to smoke in bars or restaurants is a far cry from having a microchip implant so that “the they” know what you’re up to. That’s been the law in New York state for three or four years. I didn’t mind it when I lived there, even though I smoked. Now I live in AZ and PA, and people smoke in bars there. Even though I still smoke some, I prefer smokefree bars. They’re a little less disgusting.
What really pisses me off is the seatbelt law! And why should I have to wear a helmet, ever?!? If I want to scatter my brains across the highway, that’s my god given right as an American! That’s why our grandfathers gave their lives on battlefields like Iwo Jima and across Europe! Right! Right!?!
yes. lifestyle choices of each individual affect everybody. i don’t know.
I think they should ban smoking completely. There is no benefit to it and it harms innocent bystanders. Plus it contributes to pollution.
Personally: yes.
In reality: It would never happen.
Seeing how I am absolutely perfect I can say it wouldn’t bother me much: I don’t drink, don’t smoke, haven’t eaten fast food in about ten years, don’t eat meat. So, uh yeah.
I would be all for it.
In some cases, yes.
It it hurts others or ends up costing other taxpayers money.
no snit they should. i’m sick of walking behind smokers on the street, why should i be put at a health risk becuase others choose to waste their lungs away? and mcdonalds is slowly killing the children of this country. it’s best if we eat healthier, even if it is forced.
No. Not at all.
When it comes to hurting others, they should be able to punish the wrongdoers. However, for something like smoking, they don’t have the right to ban smoking on privately owned property (e.g. bars). Taking others’ rights away for matters of your convenience is deplorable.
I am bothered that the government pours millions of dollars into anti-smoking campaigns (debunkify, truth, etc) when whether I smoke or not (I happen not to) should not be their concern whatsoever. It has nothing to do with the job of the government. And the fact that they tax cigarette sales just because they can is the ironic icing on the cake.
If someone wants to make an unhealthy choice, they should be free to do so. It may be stupid, but so are mullets and spandex and we don’t stop them. People are going to make wrong choices. However, the only time they should get nailed for it is when they are hurting others.
No.
Ideally, the government should regulate sufficiently enough on a fundamental level so issues such as this do not come into concern. Providing the masses with high quality food, choices and affordable substitutes etc is key. Cigarette advertising needs to be banned as well, however, the government still allows them to continue and it is allowed in movies. Where is the regulate on the MPAA for that? EVERYTHING begins on a fundamental level of evaluation and regulation. Then, we would not have a need for a special government board of “Unhealthy regulatory Actions”. Come on now. I can think of a much better way for us to spend our tax dollars. Lets put that into health care and programs for the children. -Sahre
Why is fighting off death so damned important to our government?
That questions sounds harsh. I think the government should be able to regulate pornography, smoking, excess drinking, etc…whatever harms people other than the person doing it. ‘Course, I don’t want the government to have total control.
I’m not crazy about the regulation… it does seem to give the government too much control. I don’t see anything wrong with maybe charging more to make stupid choices, but banning stupid behavior… like eating trans fats?… erh, I don’t know. Although I’m for the smoking ban, because that is one stupid choice that actually hurts other people.
Posted 3/18/2007 9:29 AM by squeakysoul
Yeah, they should just charge more. Especially fast food! Two out of three Americans are obese..
If you want to read about government control, I suggest you read the book “Uglies” by Scott Westerfield, which shows a government where people are made pretty and have brain lesions in their heads (which they don’t know) so that they will be easy to control.
What are we, communists?!
I am not a fan of Paternalism.
well isn’t the government’s job to look out for its people?
As long as they’re only hurting themselves with their stupid choices, it should be fine. Let stupid people be stupid.
But if their stupid choices are hurting other people who choose to not be so stupid, then the govt. should intervene.
it is not up to the government to regulate “unhealthy behaviors,” but rather, it is the job of society to make sure that they are frowned upon.
I would be so afraid to live in a country that did that.
I have decided that the government has decided to totally ignore the 10th amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Has the federal government been expressly given the right to regulate healthy v. unhealthy choices? no! therefore it is reserved to the states or the people. (I’d go with the people on this one)
no its our lives not the governments…not that there shouldnt be laws but this isn’t something the government should be invlolved with.
jeez.. Why can’t we just live?
Just exist?
I wish lived in a different time..
oh yeah and..
SMOKING SUCKS!!
no. governement does government stuff. they stay OUT of our lives. this isn’t communism. they are not daddy. they need to get off their high horse and JUST DO THEIR job. stop controlling things that are not theirs to control.
The government will try to regulate everything about us if they have the chance. They are not really very good at most of what they do. I wish they would stay out of our lives more. They pretty much think we are to stupid to make our own rules and that they must make them for us.
Only when it affects the other people as well as the person itself. I’m for banning smoking because it affects the bystander via secondhand smoke.
yes
one of my favorite bash quotes:
The problem with America is stupidity. I’m not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don’t we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself? Quote 4753
if they want to do that, then what will they stop at? drinking is unhealthy. radiation is unhealthy. how do they expect to control these things?
NO!
It’s not that I think people should smoke, but if the government regulates smoking in public, the next thing you know they’ll be regulating smoking in the home, and then how many kids you can have, what you can eat, and everything else. It’s called communism, and banning smoking in public is among the first steps.
For example, my dad works out of his house and he has one guy that works for him. If that guy comes over to our house my dad would not be able to smoke (if he did smoke, that is). The government should not be able to dictate that!
No. It’s our fucking choice. They should just warn us about how it negatively affects others, and hopefully we’ll learn to quit smoking for the good of others or something- but they’re limiting our lives way too much! And if they’re so concerned about our health, why do they advertise milk as so damn healthy when it’s not? The hormones injected into the cows they get the milk from have seeped into the product and have caused breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, and SO much more. Yet they continue to say it’s healthy and makes your bones strong (which is the opposite of the truth- the hormones in the milk actually keep the calcium from getting into your bones)because the government makes money off it.
http://www.notmilk.com
You know, my inner-libertarian has never liked the idea of the government telling people that they can’t smoke here or there. But since my Aunt was recently diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, my opinions are a little more emotionally influenced. . .I don’t really want my kiddos exposed to those toxins. So now I don’t care where they ban smoking, so long as people can smoke in the privacy of their own homes.
When the government makes smoking ILLEGAL, then it is trying to regulate unhealthy habits. All it is doing right now is trying to protect people who AREN’T trying to kill themselves with cancer sticks.
No. They have more than enough that should be keeping them busy–like who the next lobbyist they should slip the contracts to.
Yes if it affects others well being.
I think the public bans on smoking are fine, although the more personal ones like smoking in your car should be unconstitutional somehow; I think they also should regulate restaurants more strictly, because also they aren’t the only reason we have such an obesity problem, if meal sizes were standardised and minimised then it would cut out a good portion of the problem, albeit people would probably just order more of the same stuff. But at least the gov’t could say they tried.
I guess they should, when it affects other people.
Like IMHO I think there should be a site up with the names of people with AIDS, (I hate to compare this way, but) like they have for sexual offenders. Because of the risk it poses to their partners, especially those that they don’t tell they have the disease.
Maybe it’s just a little unfair, but something has to curb this crap.