Should people be allowed to do potentially harmful things?

[m76]

New Zealand to completely outlaw smoking by 2025.

Now I'm not interested if you are a smoker or not, what I ask is whether people should be allowed to do things that pose a health risk?

Because if the point of this legislation is to protect people, then there are various other activities that also pose health risks, should the government ban those as well?

If what we eat is a personal choice then surely what we inhale also should be a personal choice. It seems to me that the Netherlands, and more recently Belgium where recreational smoking of weed is legal are among the best places to live in the 1st world.

So what do you think? Should the government control lives to this degree?

[The Blackangel]

I don't think they should, but I don't know their politics. It's my belief that it's not the governments place to tell people what they can and can not do with their own bodies. As long as it doesn't affect others, then do with your body whatever you want. Put harmful chemicals in it. Become a vegan. Get your dick tattooed to look like the space shuttle. The government shouldn't have a say in whether you can do any of that or not.

I'm not a smoker, as I find it absolutely disgusting, but the vast majority of people here are. The economy of the US would collapse if smoking was completely banned. But this also opens the door to other things like heroin, cocaine, and meth. There were places called "drug dens" in the 19th century that were specifically for a person to go to and get whacked out of this world. They obviously don't exist anymore, but I've heard people saying that we should bring them back. I'm not sure where I stand on that one, but the tobacco market is big money.

This ban could also lead to smuggling and black market deals at the worst scenario. But those wanting cigarettes may just find a way to somewhere else to pick some up. I don't know the geography down there (physical or political) but I'm sure there would be someplace easy to get to that's willing to ignore the ban.

[Techno]

Well I mean we can't really force a man to undo his will. A man's will is his greatest weapon. To try and destroy it would break a man. 

[m76]

31 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

This ban could also lead to smuggling and black market deals at the worst scenario. But those wanting cigarettes may just find a way to somewhere else to pick some up. I don't know the geography down there (physical or political) but I'm sure there would be someplace easy to get to that's willing to ignore the ban.

It surely will create a black market. The US prohibition on alcohol is not so ancient history that we can not learn from it.

 

[The Blackangel]

That was a disaster.

 

 

[Reality vs Adventure]

If they ban tobacco, then they must ban alcohol. There is plenty of published research on diseases caused by both. So why choose just one poison? If anything, a ban on alcohol would be more appropriate because tobacco doesn't cause violence, but alcohol does, including accidents. I think banning tobacco is a popular public opinion and even politicians feel reluctant to take bribes from that market, whereas alcohol is still fattening pockets of politicians and that is why we have this ridiculous hypocrisy of attacking tobacco and not alcohol. If the government wants to get involved with our personal health, they have to go all the way and ban all substances that are bad including the high fructose corn syrup and set limits to sodium in the food nutrition label. There is a clear epidemic of diabetes, so why allow so much sugar in our food? Smoking can cause cancer; alcohol can cause cancer; sugar can cause obesity which can lead to health problems. Why pick just one to attack and not everything else that is harmful to our health? 

Governments know full well what is harmful to the public health, so I believe it is their responsibility to set standards to limit those things on the industrial scale so that outright banning things don't create black markets and unnecessary imprisonment. Why is there a ban on marijuana in most places and not alcohol? These lobbying markets have to be broken up and limit the amount of alcohol/tobacco being sold and purchased. Tax the hell out of it. Make a 6 pack cost three times as much. Governments regulate fluoride in the water, why not sodium and sugar in our food? Tax the hell out of it or set standards. The weird things in the ingredients list, ban it! Ban the trans fats. Force fast food companies to limit the amount of the 3 evils in their foods-sugar, sodium, and fat.

So if governments claim to care about our health, then those are the steps to show it. Otherwise, banning tobacco only is just a big whatever move. But I do personally believe governments have the responsibility to step in and reduce all those top poisons mentioned. 

[Reality vs Adventure]

I also wanted to add something to this topic because I know there are people who don't want government overreach into their health and choices. But in the USA in the WW2 era, there were far too many people that couldn't enlist in the military and were rejected from service due to them being malnourished and health related issues; so that became a national security risk. They then passed the school lunch program in 1946. Today we have an overwhelming obesity epidemic in the westernized world which is also a national security risk of today. So should governments have that responsibility to step in and try to make the population more healthy? Of course they do. 

[m76]

1 hour ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

If the government wants to get involved with our personal health, they have to go all the way and ban all substances that are bad including the high fructose corn syrup and set limits to sodium in the food nutrition label. There is a clear epidemic of diabetes, so why allow so much sugar in our food? Smoking can cause cancer; alcohol can cause cancer; sugar can cause obesity which can lead to health problems. Why pick just one to attack and not everything else that is harmful to our health? 

 

I'm all for more healthy eating, but it can't be achieved by banning stuff. People don't eat food that is less healthy necessarily because they want to, but because that's all they can afford, if they can afford anything at all.

If I go to the supermarket, the regular non-healthy products always cost half or less than anything healthy. And it's not because it costs that much more to make the healthy food, in some cases it is actually cheaper.

So if the government wants people to eat healthy they should force companies to not upsell the better food. And people will automatically start buying that.

I always try to get food that has more healthy ingredients but more often than not it is too expensive, and I reluctantly settle for the one that contains processed sugar.

Edited December 10, 2021 by m76

[The Blackangel]

Being on disability, I will say right now that if it wasn't for food stamps, I would be back to dumpster diving for food again. My disability check barely covers bills, and leaves little to nothing for food. So I don't have much of a choice but to buy the unhealthy stuff that's overloaded with fats and sugars, just so I can put something in my stomach. The government doesn't care though. They make a move when the general public gets their panties in a twist, but otherwise ignore most issues like this.

[Reality vs Adventure]

The nutrition label on foods shows what percent of dietary allowance is given per serving. So if the food label shows that product to have sodium per serving to be 100% of the dietary recommendation, then that's obviously no good. So there should be limitations on sodium, fats, and sugar based on what percent of the dietary recommendations per serving. And the food manufacturer will have to abide by that in every product they make. That would work easily for fat and sodium, but It would be harder to do with sugar, since carbs is the largest portion of our dietary requirements. We need at least 130 gm of carbs a day just for normal brain function. So we would have to go by the weight of what the product is made of. The ingredients list has the ingredients that weigh the most in the product at he beginning, and the least weight at the end. So if sugar is the first ingredient, then that product's weight is mostly sugar. So we can set standards to make sure sugar is at least the 5th ingredient, which would have the weight of the product mostly wholesome food. These are the things that need to be implemented in order to fight the obesity epidemic. And the built environment has a lot to do with it too. For example, you can compare the food that sits on shelves in the grocery store of a poor community, which is abundant in junk, and that same grocery chain will supply healthier options in a wealthier neighborhood. Yes, healthy food is more expensive, but at least offer a box of wholegrain cereal for cheap instead of nothing but sugary junk. No excuse. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Reality vs Adventure

[The Blackangel]

Valid points, but all those labels are based on a 2000 calorie diet. I don't know of anyone who limits what they eat to 2000 calories per day. That's next to impossible unless you're vegetarian or vegan. 2000 calories won't keep a person going. The adult human body needs more than that to keep up with daily life. Unless they live an entirely sedentary life, there's no way 2000 calories will suffice.

[Jayson]

This is a tough one.  Well, one thing about smoking is that some people want to smoke around kids.  However, how can you police this without 1984 totalitarianism?   It would just be great if people had better morals.  Well, people who smoke around kids often think probably that those who oppose it are PC goody-two-shoes.  It's a culture problem.