There can be nothing more sanctimonious than a reformed smoker so I refuse to be one of those. I have no problems with friends who smoke and I don't chide or berate them for their bad habit. They know it is stupid and unhealthy and they don't need me interjecting opinion into their own understanding and knowledge of their nasty habit.
In America, most smokers are now looked down on with disdain. They not only are killing themselves but possibly someone else. They and their health problems also are a leading cause of skyrocketing health care.
Curiously, another leading cause, obesity, seems to be getting a pass as are all the companies that have brought on the weight problems this nation has.
Over the years, I have had my bouts with extra pounds so I understand the problem. I also understand that there are people with legitimate health problems that make losing pounds almost impossible. Here again, I won't pass judgment on another adult as to how they are living their lives. I wonder though, if I and perhaps all of you should be able to determine how they allow their children to grow up and grow out of normal weight categories and into the realm of obesity.
A report states one in five children under the age of twelve is obese and that can lead to a lifetime of health and quality of life problems but little is being done about it. I'm not saying they are overweight. I am saying they are obese and there is a sizable difference between the two.
Oh sure, schools have had to get the junk food out of their vending machines. But the stores across the street from the schools all have the crap that has tons of fat and calories just waiting for kids to come and devour.
We have no problem continuing to add taxes to smoking products but greasy burgers, fries and foods filled with sweet tasting slop that goes right to a person's butt or stomach have been given a pass.
Why is it the government hasn't added high taxes on all those foods to pay bills for healthcare costs? Why doesn't a triple burger floating in mayonnaise have an extra buck added to it? And what about those fries and what about all those sugar coated cereals and the pizzas that make the cardboard box soggy with grease?
I'm sure the argument can be made that government should butt out of our affairs but they have hammered the smokers so why not the people who are allowing their children to grow up into unhealthy individuals.
The argument of second hand smoke from cigarettes is valid but what about the fact we all end up paying for the second-hand effect of medical centers having to treat patients for weight related health problems that we end up having to subsidize. There are millions among our population that now can't work because of their weight and health related problems. So we subsidize them too. The possibility of an even larger segment, a caste of overweight citizens never being able to work is becoming a looming possibility.
The reports show obesity is highest with the poor. That necessarily shouldn't be the case since a home made salad or a home-cooked meal of pasta and greens per serving isn't any costlier than going to a fast food place to buy the family meal. But being poor makes a great excuse not to cook anything at home and require the kids to sit down at the family dinner table.
Kids don't play as much as they used to. Now they spend their time doing things like watching television, playing video games or texting their friends that burn off zero calories from the slop they eat. Mom and dad don't tell them to stop sitting and to do something else because mom and dad are all busy sitting around doing the same things.
There are a great many organizations trying to help fight obesity in our nation but they keep putting band aids on the problem. Making surrogates like schools and daycares keep an eye on foods won't get to the root cause.
The real problem is the slop this nation allows on the shelves and the parents who keep buying it to share with their children.
Should the garbage have a sin tax like cigarettes and booze? Should parents be accountable legally for allowing their children to be obese? Those draconian remedies would alleviate the situation.
I will leave the debate for all of you to decide. It's a tough one; much tougher than blaming smokers and tobacco companies for all our health care woes to be sure.
Freelance writer, columnist, author and writing coach, ex-Chicagoan Mike Fak presently resides in Central Illinois. More information about Mike's services are available at his home website www.mikefak.com
Mike currently writes primarily humor columns for searchwarp bi-weekly and is the managing editor of www.lincolndailynews.com
Mike now offers a 26,000 word e-book on making money as a freelance writer for only $10.00 at this page. http://www.mikefak.com/id45.html
To tax cigarettes is one thing, because there is no way the tobacco companies can make them healthier. As far as junk food goes, I think the solution to the problem needs to be put on the doorstep of the food manufacturers, not the consumer. I'm sure there must be a way to make a hamburger and fries a little more healthier, but the manufacturers have never had to be accountable, so they don't even try.
» left by Dianne Lehmann from Dewey, AZ (123 days ago.)
Hi Mike.
My husband and I have a theory. Food that is junky is made to taste really good with the addition of lots of fats and sugars (for the most part) and garlic and things like autolyzed yeast (just another way of hiding MSG). We both believe that the main reason so much of that stuff is put into junk food is because of what Bernd calls "The Perfuming of America." I told him he should write that article. He has noticed that beyond a doubt, the delicious and healthy meals that I make at home and we eat at home taste a whole lot better at home than the same delicious and healthy meals that I make for him to take to work. The reason ... The store where he works is full of all sorts of fragrances that compete with his sense of taste. Our home is fragrance free. Okay, I got in my soapbox item in for the day. :)
As to the issue that you brought up ... yeah it's a tricky one. On the one hand we have the sin tax on alcohol and tobacco as you mentioned and I, like many today, consider the use of those things to be a "sin." But food is food, and basically you need food and it can be good for you. The same can not be said for alcohol and tobacco (the whole red wine issue aside ... they've recently determined that you have to drink a ridiculous amount of it to do you any good).
I don't agree with David. I think it is the consumer's responsibility to make good choices and eat healthfully. Only government has the power (outside of everyone refusing to eat junk food and fast food until the manufacturers clean up their acts) to tell manufacturers to produce healthier foods and (in my opinion ... in fact I'm working on my next article on just this issue) the government is already way to active in our personal lives.
I believe education is the key. And as you pointed out, you can eat very healthfully and cheaply by shopping in the fruit and produce aisles. Protein is another matter, but you can still find good deals on chicken and fish and beef. Preparing it all in a very tasty fashion is the key. Maybe they should trash whatever home economics classes still exist in schools and instead insert an "elements of tasty cooking" course that all students are required to attend.
I imagine that you will get a lot of comments on your article. I will be very interested to see what others have to say about it. Thanks for putting it out there.
All good popints Dianne. I'm not sure about the education bit since we seem to spend a fortune on educating common sense to people and it doesn't seem to get throught their heads.
Too much government already for sure but then govt. already has stepped in and made us pay for healthcare for these people so maybe they should make them responsible as well. And then again, maybe not.
My opinion on this is yes and no. I do think it is the governments job to do something to prevent people becoming obese and help them lose weight. They could run free weight loss camps ectra.
The question is whether to use a carrot or a stick. A carrot will work to those who want to lose weight. However a stick approach will damage more than just the intended target. The only stick approach I can agree with is higher medical bills for obese people.
However, the most important thing the government must do is protect peoples freedom of choice. I would rather be obese than live under a dictatorial government where choices are made for you not by you. If you want to be fat and are competent enough to know the dangers fine - you don't care I don't care. Though if you want help that is where the government is needed.
» left by Kathi Harris from Florida (120 days 21 hours ago.)
I'm new here, your article on the front page caught my eye, as I passed through. I am a smoker, and in fact at the moment, writing articles to promote a book on 'growing your own tobacco.' When the federal government passed all these new tobacco taxes, they told us it was for our own good. They said the increased prices would make a lot of people quit. They ('they' being the powers that be) KNOW that the vast majority will not, or can't quit.
The huge increase in tobacco taxes is their best cash cow so far, and that's the real reason for the increases. They need help paying for all the bailouts and deficits. So what's next? Should we tax obese people? After all, many times their health issues rival those of us evil smokers. And who determines what exact amount of overweight constitutes obesity? While we're at it, let's tax people who grow their own vegetable gardens. Everbody knows that home gardens contribute to global warming. (This is actually a true fact) And besides, they're not getting the tax money they would receive, if we had just gone to the store and bought some stupid tomatoes. Would we have to pay taxes on a couple of tomato plants on the patio, or would the minimum amount of taxable garden be say, 1/2 an acre? Why not tax large families, instead of giving them tax breaks. After all, large families use up more resources, food, fuel, etc. How about...don't get me started, I really could go on, ad infinitum....with ridiculous ideas for people we could tax.
So where do we draw the line at choosing who gets to have freedom of choice, and who doesn't? I see our liberties and freedoms rapidly eroding, as they look for more and more ways to restrict our freedom of choice.
In response to Diane, above, yes, we have to eat, it's required to live. And yes food can be good for you. However, in my opinion, eating yourself to 300 lbs is just as 'sinful' as smoking or drinking, and every bit as harmful to the body.
I really did not plan to post this as anonymous, however, I still waiting for my membership confirmation to arrive by email, so I can't login. I've requested it twice, and it's still not here. I guess their autoresponder isn't working properly. My name is Kathi Harris, just for the record, in case it doesn't show up.
When it's less expensive to buy a burger and fries than to eat healthy, this nation will continue to expand (pun intended). You can buy a burger and fries for $2, yet to get something healthy costs more. People these days feel they are in too much of a hurry and they're watching their dollars, so of course they will continue to eat junk.
The government won't step in because apparently people have a 'right' to be unhealthy as long as there's no second-hand effects . . .
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
