Another step nearer tyranny
Posted by: Laurie Saunders on 14 November 2004
I understand that the Government is going to attempt to ban advertising junk food
Soon it will be illegal to eat junk food in enclosed public spaces!
I wonder what will be the next bete noir that our dear legislators can impose restrictions/censorshipon?(in our own interests of course)
Is there still any activity left that is neither compulsory nor banned???
Tyranny here we come...
Laurie S
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
quote:
In this case they aren't, they are just trying to ensure you are allowed to make a choice based on facts not propaganda
Of course, anything the government tell us will always be factually correct and could never be described as propoganda, eh?
What about the BSE fiasco. The then government (admittedly Tory) tried to supress the truth.
Oh, I forgot.....Socialist governments have the monopoly when it comes to honesty and integrity, eh?
My response: a big "come off it"....I ain`t convinced
Laurie S
The 'Gummer stuffing burger into child' incident was food industry propaganda. Gummer, like a good Tory, was putting business interest over and above our interest. There is more of a chance that the government, in the self interest of getting votes, may do something for us. There is no chance the likes of the Coca Cola Company, McDonalds, BAT (British American Tobacco) will *ever* put us above their profits. Their shares go up the more we consume and the more we consume the unhealthier we get. They know this hence healthy pretty people eating burgers. Joe Petrik pointed out in the non-smoking thread that obesity has overtaken smoking in the U.S as the biggest killer. Trying to do something about this is not tyranical, restricting the activities of these companies is not tyranical. Banning advertising isn't the nanny state telling us what to eat, it is stopping those bastards spending billions telling us to eat, drink and smoke their crap.
Steve M, stop being silly
.
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by DLF:
Steve M, stop being silly .
Hmmm, doesn't leave me with much.
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Joe Petrik
The causes of overweight and obesity are many and intertwined (ever-increasing average caloric intake, less daily physical activity, changes in lifestyle, billions being spent by fast-food companies on adverts relative to the pittance spent by the government on healthy-eating campaigns, and so on.). But now that being a lardy arse has truly reached epidemic proportions in the U.S., one thing is abundantly clear: The huge numbers of overweight and obese
children (!) and adults are costing the nation billions of dollars.
Check it out.
Banning junk-food ads will not solve the overweight and obesity problem -- which, incidentally, has come about mostly in the last 20 years -- but it is one step toward a comprehensive, population-based solution.
Joe, second author on the
Kentucky Big-Butt Report (largish PDF)
P.S. Find out if you're
fatPosted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by sideshowbob:
If you drink too much water you will die (sodium dilution in the bloodstream can have _very_ nasty side effects). Perhaps people should be warned?
Ok smartarse how many people annually die of sodium dilution in the bloodstream? Is there a death rate you would actually consider warning people or would you just keep it to yourself out of principle?
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
P.S. Find out if you're fat
Hurrah. Normal!
So please don't ban nauseous ads on my account.
Paul
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
quote:
P.S. Find out if you're fat
Hurrah. Normal!
So please don't ban nauseous ads on my account.
Paul
I think they prove I'm a bodybuilder, there can be no other explanation. Nice one
.
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Joe Petrik
Paul,
quote:
Hurrah. Normal!
So please don't ban nauseous ads on my account.
Good to hear, but I suspect your weight is normal partially because you are much better educated and informed than the average bloke on all sorts of matters, including health and fitness.
I see bans very much as a last resort, but what would you suggest as a solution to the very real and growing epidemic of obesity? Broad education coupled with intelligence is a rather good inoculation against all sorts of societal ills, but not everyone can be a Paul Ranson. Maybe society needs a soup nazi telling them, "No soup for you!"
Joe
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by sideshowbob
quote:
Originally posted by DLF:
Ok smartarse how many people annually die of sodium dilution in the bloodstream? Is there a death rate you would actually consider warning people or would you just keep it to yourself out of principle?
I have no idea how many people actually die of drinking too much water. But I don't believe people become alcoholics or eat too much junk food because of advertising. Sorry if you think that makes me a smartarse, but I think the smartarses are the people who believe that the majority of the populace are simpletons who need a benign state to tell them how best to live their lives. I say this as a socialist FWIW.
-- Ian
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by sideshowbob:
I have no idea how many people actually die of drinking too much water.
But how many should die annually before you, as minister for health, would feel compelled to do 'something' about it. One, none, half the population?
quote:
But I don't believe people become alcoholics or eat too much junk food because of advertising.
I don't know of anyone who does.
quote:
Sorry if you think that makes me a smartarse,
Your smartarsey post makes you a smartarse
.
quote:
but I think the smartarses are the people who believe that the majority of the populace are simpletons who need a benign state to tell them how best to live their lives. I say this as a socialist FWIW.
-- Ian
I agree broadly with your sentiments (with the caveat that my education was state provided). However I put it to you that in this case the proposal is not about the government telling us what to do, it is about restricting the scope for large corporations to tell us what to do. And back to my original question, is there *never* a case for state intervention?
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by sideshowbob
quote:
Originally posted by DLF:
quote:
Originally posted by sideshowbob:
But I don't believe people become alcoholics or eat too much junk food because of advertising.
I don't know of anyone who does.
Earlier in this thread you said:
quote:
OK, so where are the beer adverts with an alcoholic waking up in the morning having pissed themselves, the obese munching on a burger, the cars stuck in traffic jams, trains with standing room only. They can't lie but they aren't there to help us make an informed choice.
Isn't the implication of this that people are unable to make an informed decision about alcoholism or poor diet without advertising? I think most people are smarter than that.
quote:
However I put it to you that in this case the proposal is not about the government telling us what to do, it is about restricting the scope for large corporations to tell us what to do.
Corporations who advertise unhealthy products are not "telling" anyone what to do. I repeat, people don't, for example, become alcoholics, because corporations tell them to. They become alcoholics for a whole number of complex economic, social, and psychological reasons. There's a certain strand of "we know what's best for the people" Labourism, which seems to go hand in hand with a tedious Methodism, that is deeply obnoxious. It's enough to drive a man to drink, in fact.
quote:
And back to my original question, is there *never* a case for state intervention?
I'm a libertarian communist. It's not "my" state.
-- Ian
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by sideshowbob:
I'm a libertarian communist. It's not "my" state.
-- Ian
Answer my question and I'll answer yours.
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
I see bans very much as a last resort, but what would you suggest as a solution to the very real and growing epidemic of obesity?
Does it need a solution? What happens if you do nothing?
And if it does, then banning or controlling advertising won't have any effect, it's just easy for government to do. You have to control the substances. It's easy to define and control tobacco, and governments choose not to. I don't see there's any possibility of effective government interference in diet when all foods are OK what matters are the ratios.
What's needed is a proper war with food and fuel shortages.
Paul
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by sideshowbob
I thought the answer was obvious from my earlier comments, but to spell it out:
If by "state intervention" you mean banning advertising of junk food or even beer, on the grounds that some people eat too much of the former or drink too much of the latter, and damage their health as a consequence, then I'm against it in principle. I'm against banning the advertising of any legal product, and when I see a dead-eyed Labour or Tory front-bench bureaucrat on the TV I can't say I have any great faith in their understanding of the causes of obesity, or alcoholism, or drug dependency. Regardless of how sincere they may be about the issue, they're barking up completely the wrong tree. Address the social and psychological causes of ill-health, not the irrelevant easy targets.
-- Ian
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by sideshowbob:
I thought the answer was obvious from my earlier comments, but to spell it out:
If by "state intervention" you mean banning advertising of junk food or even beer, on the grounds that some people eat too much of the former or drink too much of the latter, and damage their health as a consequence, then I'm against it in principle. I'm against banning the advertising of any legal product, and when I see a dead-eyed Labour or Tory front-bench bureaucrat on the TV I can't say I have any great faith in their understanding of the causes of obesity, or alcoholism, or drug dependency. Regardless of how sincere they may be about the issue, they're barking up _completely_ the wrong tree. Address the social and psychological causes of ill-health, not the irrelevant easy targets.
-- Ian
If is the state that should act to "Address the social and psychological causes of ill-health, not the irrelevant easy targets." then I would say you advocate state action. Sorry but this wasn't clear.
That so much is spent on advertising with the sole purpose of increasing sales suggests there may be a case for banning it. An easy yet relevant target if you like. One could look at the effect of the advertising ban on tobacco sales for a clue I suppose.
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by DLF:
That so much is spent on advertising with the sole purpose of increasing sales suggests there may be a case for banning it. An easy yet relevant target if you like. One could look at the effect of the advertising ban on tobacco sales for a clue I suppose.
Actually, advertising is necessary to maintain one's sales against the competition. Those brands that don't advertise tend to diminish in public awareness and often disappear.
In the case of cigarette advertising, it's the same for all brands. However, it isn't possible to determine the effect of the ban on sales because, while the ban has been in operation, there has been a very significant increase in prices. I believe that cigarette sales have fallen in the UK but you can't attribute that to the advertsing ban. If I take myself as an example, the advertising or non advertising of cigarettes had no effect whatsoever on my consumption.
Steve M
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Joe Petrik
Paul,
quote:
Does it need a solution? What happens if you do nothing?
Ummm... obesity becomes such a prevalent problem that the health consequences to the population place undue financial strain on the NHS?
quote:
What's needed is a proper war with food and fuel shortages.
Or a really good Depression -- or is that what causes a proper war with food and fuel shortages.
Joe
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
What's needed is a proper war with food and fuel shortages.
Paul
Alien Invasion.
"WHEN THEY COME THEY'LL EAT THE FAT ONES FIRST."
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Ummm... obesity becomes such a prevalent problem that the health consequences to the population place undue financial strain on the NHS?
And what would the consequences of that be for essentially healthy people?
quote:
Or a really good Depression
That would do it too.
Paul
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
And what would the consequences of that be for essentially healthy people?
Paul
They still go to the back of the queue should they need treatment. The queue is longer than it could be.
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Nime
Bring back ration coupons for all unhealthy food and drink?
If you're an overweight porker you have your allowance rationed until you prove to a doctor (or appointed civil servant) that you deserve a larger ration. But only because you've lost weight first.
Same with booze. They check your blood/alcohol level and dispense the beer coupons according to a weight:tendency to fight complete strangers in the street ratio.
Fags can be rationed just as easily.
Nime
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Can you enlighten me why those in power shouldn't try to tackle social & health issues?
Because generally the tackling is as harmful as the issue.
If obesity is an issue then tackling it requires understanding it. If you control advertising of certain foodstuffs or restaurants then you are reinforcing the disengagement of the obese from the responsibility for their condition. Why would this reduce obesity?
When someone says 'Something must be done!' the first question to answer is 'What happens if we do nothing?', and all proposals must be tested against that.
The cause of obesity is eating too much and exercising too little.I was once a rocket scientist and this is obvious, even to me. So will constraints on food advertising lead to a reduction in consumption? How about VAT on processed foodstuffs?
Paul
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
quote:
Can you enlighten me why those in power shouldn't try to tackle social & health issues?
Because generally the tackling is as harmful as the issue.
If obesity is an issue then tackling it requires understanding it. If you control advertising of certain foodstuffs or restaurants then you are reinforcing the disengagement of the obese from the responsibility for their condition. Why would this reduce obesity?
When someone says 'Something must be done!' the first question to answer is 'What happens if we do nothing?', and all proposals must be tested against that.
The cause of obesity is eating too much and exercising too little.I was once a rocket scientist and this is obvious, even to me. So will constraints on food advertising lead to a reduction in consumption? How about VAT on processed foodstuffs?
Paul
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the state should research a problem but *generally* they will find that they should do nothing or are you saying the state, even if they recognise a problem, should *always* do nothing because it is, for example, interfering with natural selection or market forces?
To me this is the crux of this thread, not banning advertising but that the idea that you can legislate for the good of society. I think you can. If you think that we would be better off without *any* of the parliamentary (and pre parliamentary) reforms made over the centuries then fair enough. If you don't then surely you must acknowledge it is not unreasonable for the state to explore the possibility, however unlikely, that a ban on junk food advertising may be desirable 'for the common good'.
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
I'm saying that generally when the State tries to alter behaviour to the benefit of the population it fails.
I thought I suggested that VAT on processed food would be more likely to tackle obesity than attempting to control marketing of processed food, if tackling obesity were the aim.
Paul
Posted on: 16 November 2004 by Berlin Fritz
I agree, if Margaret has really been killed, what to God in a World do we honestly live ?
Fritz Von Kenunderstandstoo
