Japan- "the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches"

rubadub

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women

Strange that women are allowed be higher. It also says the average Japanese man's waist is 32.8 and women 28.0, while US are 39-men, 36.5-women

Racing Flat

rubadub wrote: »

while US are 39-men, 36.5-women

That's massive! Would I be right in thinking Irish male average would be 34-36 (going by friends jean sizes!!)

Cato

im 32-34 and i thought i was scrawny! :eek:

challengemaster

heh.. I'm just about filling a 30" at times!

Interesting.. wonder if it would work in the US too...

rubadub

Racing Flat wrote: »

That's massive! Would I be right in thinking Irish male average would be 34-36 (going by friends jean sizes!!)

I would have guessed more.

i.e. there is more of a lower limit than higher limit. A guy who is very underweight might have a waist of 26", a guy who is very overweight might be 50", so you end up with an average of 38".

im 32-34 and i thought i was scrawny!

Well it is japan, smaller average height and waist would be expected overall.

Also I wonder if they have rules against sucking in your gut.

pvt.joker

"while US are 39-men, 36.5-women"





That is pretty shocking statistic, although I really think we're heading that way ourselves. Probably 36-37 at the minute id imagine

BossArky

Great idea Japan.

Hanley

Sumo man says: What the fcuk do I do now???


Anyone else think that it's ironic that a country who inveneted and still celebrate a sport where one of the most important things is that you're a fat cnut, are now trying to impose waist measurement limits on the average citizen?

BossArky

lol, great pic

Japan is pretty smart to take such a preemptive strike against potential obesity probs that the likes of the USA & various other countries are experiencing.

The article mentions that employers may be fined if their employees are still over the prescribed waistline limit following a retest. There will probably be much legal wrangling about civil rights and the distinction between work and personal life... but at least it is a step (or belt notch?) in the right direction.

rubadub

Hanley wrote: »

Sumo man says: What the fcuk do I do now???

I have seen some normal sized sumos before too. Some interesting things here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo

Rikishi (Sumos) are not normally allowed to eat breakfast and are expected to have a form of siesta after a large lunch. The most common type of lunch served is the traditional "sumo meal" of chankonabe which consists of a simmering stew cooked at table which contains various fish, meat, and vegetables. It is usually eaten with rice and washed down with beer. This regimen of no breakfast and a large lunch followed by a sleep helps rikishi put on weight so as to compete more effectively

A lot of Irish men I know follow that same sumo regime religiously, no breakfast, then a feed of chicken curry & fried rice washed down with beer just before bedtime, seems to do wonders for developing the gut.

Al_Fernz

BossArky wrote: »

...but at least it is a step (or belt notch?) in the right direction.

Have to disagree with you there. IMO this article scares me because its another example of nanny state-ism and an infringement on personal choice. What gives the state the right to try dictate what size people choose to be.

If somebody wants to be fat let them. I don't see why an employer should care as long as they are performing their duties as specified. What's next telescreens and Big Brother? :eek:

celestial

BossArky wrote: »

lol, great pic

Japan is pretty smart to take such a preemptive strike against potential obesity probs that the likes of the USA & various other countries are experiencing.

The article mentions that employers may be fined if their employees are still over the prescribed waistline limit following a retest. There will probably be much legal wrangling about civil rights and the distinction between work and personal life... but at least it is a step (or belt notch?) in the right direction.

You have GOT to be kidding me! Is this article for real?!! If we didn't know better we'd say it was a piss-take?!!

If this article had come out years ago we'd all laugh and say 'yeah, could you imagine if things went that far?!' It's '1984' territory. Police state stuff and just another example of mass tyranny being imposed by governments across the world.

Watch out for a quota on the number of pints of beer you can have in any given week, coming soon from the Irish government. And I wish I was joking that something like that could ever happen.

Hanley

celestial wrote: »

You have GOT to be kidding me! Is this article for real?!! If we didn't know better we'd say it was a piss-take?!!

If this article had come out years ago we'd all laugh and say 'yeah, could you imagine if things went that far?!' It's '1984' territory. Police state stuff and just another example of mass tyranny being imposed by governments across the world.

Watch out for a quota on the number of pints of beer you can have in any given week, coming soon from the Irish government. And I wish I was joking that something like that could ever happen.

It's not tyranny. It's a very valid school of thought. It's all about an economic term called "Externalities". Basically the choices you make will have an impact on someone else, either positive or negative. If fat people are over-burdening the health service due to their gluttony then society as a whole suffers, so it makes sense to prevent the selfish miniority from having a negative impact on the majority of the population.

Al_Fernz

Hanley wrote: »

It's not tyranny. It's a very valid school of thought. It's all about an economic term called "Externalities". Basically the choices you make will have an impact on someone else, either positive or negative. If fat people are over-burdening the health service due to their gluttony then society as a whole suffers, so it makes sense to prevent the selfish miniority from having a negative impact on the majority of the population.

Damn that selfish minority! How dare they purposely sabotage their health in order to maximize their use of public health care treatments.

Where do you draw the line with allowing people access to public health care? Whats next - not allowing people who spent too long in the sun treatment for skin cancer? Or people who have work stresses treatment for a heart attacks etc etc....

Also, given that there is a negative correlation between weight/BMI/bodyfat and life expectancy you could argue that when individuals choose to be overweight they produce a positive externalities for society. Their lower life expectancy requires less of a state pension and they also incur fewer of the medical expenses associated with old age.

Its a perfect example of nanny-state-ism and an infringement on personal choice.

Wibbs

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Where do you draw the line with allowing people access to public health care? Whats next - not allowing people who spent too long in the sun treatment for skin cancer? Or people who have work stresses treatment for a heart attacks etc etc....

Well people already pillory smokers for the same reasons, so why not the very overweight? The second hand smoke is largely a blind alley argument wise on that one.

Al_Fernz

I do kickboxing training. It is my personal choice. Last year I broke my hand training and received treatment in a public hospital. My personal choice led to a negative externality for society. Should contact sports be banned too?

Wibbs

Nope, because you weren't spending years knowingly hurting yourself to end up a chronic health case. Bit of a diff there.

Don't get me wrong, healthcare should be for all, regardless of what people do or don't do to themselves. To suggest otherwise would be sailing too close to godwins law for comfort.

I also think penalties for being fat are a bit of a step too far joking aside. Yea go the Japanese etc.

I think educating people to face up to the fact that in 90% of cases it's not their "big bones", homones, metabolism, genetics or any of the other excuses always trotted out by many is a must though.

celestial

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, because you weren't spending years knowingly hurting yourself to end up a chronic health case. Bit of a diff there.

Don't get me wrong, healthcare should be for all, regardless of what people do or don't do to themselves. To suggest otherwise would be sailing too close to godwins law for comfort.

I also think penalties for being fat are a bit of a step too far joking aside. Yea go the Japanese etc.

I think educating people to face up to the fact that in 90% of cases it's not their "big bones", homones, metabolism, genetics or any of the other excuses always trotted out by many is a must though.

Yes, but there is a MASSIVE difference between education and actually forcing people to lose weight. One is helpful advice, the other is state sponsored fascism.

The externalities argument is fine as an argument in the same way as Communism and Fascism are fine as theories. In the real world we want to live as free citizens and this Japanese thing is the thin end of the wedge in terms of the state intruding on the life of the individual. It's scary stuff whether you know it or not.

Those in support of this - where do we draw the line? If you think about it, shouldn't we limit the amount people can drink in one sitting? Given that alcohol is one of the leading killers and plagues of society today (car crashes, suicide, depression, murder, anti-social behaviour, the list is endless) it would seem like a logical and fair step no? Or has a shiver just run down your spine?!

Wibbs

celestial wrote: »

Yes, but there is a MASSIVE difference between education and actually forcing people to lose weight. One is helpful advice, the other is state sponsored fascism.

Yep that's what I said.

celestial

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep that's what I said.

I was actually meant to quote Hanley's post above there.

BossArky

celestial wrote: »

Those in support of this - where do we draw the line? If you think about it, shouldn't we limit the amount people can drink in one sitting?

This is (in theory) the case in pubs nowadays. Bartenders should not serve those already on their ear.

Taking the article at face value and leaving the Orwellesque sentiments aside, this is a move for the good of the people.

celestial

BossArky wrote: »

This is (in theory) the case in pubs nowadays. Bartenders should not serve those already on their ear.

Ah now it isn't, not in the way I'm describing. There's a big leap from that to what I'm saying.

Taking the article at face value and leaving the Orwellesque sentiments aside, this is a move for the good of the people.[/QUOTE]

It's a great move if gross state intrusion into the private lives of citizens is for the good of the people. I can hardly believe it isn't a piss-take tbh - that's what makes it so bloody frightening.

Al_Fernz

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, because you weren't spending years knowingly hurting yourself to end up a chronic health case. Bit of a diff there.

There is always the potential risk of both long and short term injuries in contact sports. I KNOW these risks. However, given my individual preferences I choose to participate. I like the fact that I have the personal choice to do this.

BossArky

celestial wrote: »

It's a great move if gross state intrusion into the private lives of citizens is for the good of the people.

I don't see anyone complaining about mandatory education. That sure intruded on the extra hours I could have spent making kit kats from mud as a child.

heyjude

Well done Japan, they've seen a major problem developing and are trying to do something about it. It may not be PC, but if the experience of the US and other western countries is any guide, simply encouraging people through advertising and leaflets to lead healthier lives doesn't work, as the proportion of overweight and obese people continues to rise.

It also isn't PC in the west, to express concern about the cost of potentially having the treat millions of people suffering from weight related diseases, but the Japanese may have grasped the fact that while it may not be PC, it may be the right thing to do. And if the carrot of gentle encouragement doesn't work, then some stick may be needed.

Roper

It's amazing what people will and will not complain about.

Public services being sold off to private concerns, health service being auctioned off to the highest private bidder with no return for the average citizen, democratic rights being slowly rolled back... no complaints, as long as we can eat drink and buy what we want then that's "freedom" enough for us.

Take away our right to eat and drink as much as we want- uproar!

LegacyUser

"All the good things in life are immoral, illegal, or bad for your health." - Oscar Wilde

It won't work.

rubadub

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Its a perfect example of nanny-state-ism and an infringement on personal choice.

And there are many more examples, eductation as mentioned, drugs being illegal or prescription only, drink-driving, public order offences. It is not like they bring out laws etc just to piss peope off.

It says they will fine companies and local governments, not sure if everybody would be tested so. They talk of education about weight loss, then if you lose it you "pass" and there is no fine, so in a way you could say you get a bonus if you do "pass" if they just phrased it differently. Many companies would give a pay increase if employees pass courses. I see some government advertised jobs insisting people have the leaving cert, if they can freely discriminate about intellect, why not body size too, I expect some jobs already might, like ballerinas, models etc.

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

Cato

rubadub wrote: »

And there are many more examples, eductation as mentioned, drugs being illegal or prescription only, drink-driving, public order offences. It is not like they bring out laws etc just to piss peope off.

It says they will fine companies and local governments, not sure if everybody would be tested so. They talk of education about weight loss, then if you lose it you "pass" and there is no fine, so in a way you could say you get a bonus if you do "pass" if they just phrased it differently. Many companies would give a pay increase if employees pass courses. I see some government advertised jobs insisting people have the leaving cert, if they can freely discriminate about intellect, why not body size too, I expect some jobs already might, like ballerinas, models etc.

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

good idea, but controversial don't see it happening, people are to sensitive to let this type of legislation pass... god forbid anyone mentions someone weight. :rolleyes:

Roper

rubadub wrote: »

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

I don't disagree with the Japanese idea, but now I think you're skirting the ridiculous. I'm 84kgs, should I pay more for my plane ticket than a skinny guy next to me? Also, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that obese people are any more likely to have a car accident.

Also, in a small step back towards my earlier comment on privitisation- health insurers are extremely discriminatory in other countries and life insurance here is the same. Though the legislation has remained stringent over here regarding peoples right to private health insurance, family history can exclude you elsewhere, and genetic testing for insurance is not far off if they can get government to agree. Already you can be denied a mortgage based upon your parent's medical history in Ireland, or be forced to pay a huge premium on account of a history of a genetic illness in your family for example.

But like I said, people don't really care about things like that, what we care about is our right to Burger King yeah! I ain't lettin The Man measure my waist!

celestial

rubadub wrote: »

I see some government advertised jobs insisting people have the leaving cert, if they can freely discriminate about intellect, why not body size too, I expect some jobs already might, like ballerinas, models etc.

You're not comparing like with like there though really. There's a difference between satisfying the minimum requirements for a job versus invading a person's private life to check their waist size in the name of some notion of 'reducing the burden of obesity/being fat on society'.

It's also worth mentioning that there are fat people out there who are miles healthier than those with lean waists. Yes, shock horror!!!

rubadub wrote: »

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

This is not about PC-ness. It's about dehumanising people and enforcing state control. What's next? Where do you draw the line? Why don't we measure all of a person's attributes against the effect of said attributes on society? It's borderline Nazism!!

You say you drink 25+ pints a week Rubadub - would you be happy to face sanctions because of the potential effects on your health and the corresponding effects on funding the health service? Wouldn't that be fair enough like, considering we're doing something similar with 'fatties' in Japan? I'm not picking on you like but just using it as an example as in my previous post on alcohol. How about restricting car journeys to help with global warming, etc etc...

rubadub

Roper wrote: »

I don't disagree with the Japanese idea, but now I think you're skirting the ridiculous. I'm 84kgs, should I pay more for my plane ticket than a skinny guy next to me?

Is it ridiculous to have to pay more to post a 84kg package by airmail, than a 70kg one, even if they both take up the same space?
Postal rates are usually based on weight and volume. You could say you are both taking up the same seat, but you wiegh more, more fuel is needed to bring you from A-B, why should you expect everybody else to chip in for you?

Should all restaurants be forced to have an all you can eat service, it is the same sort of idea, in most circumstances you pay for what you consume by the unit, be it food, material, fuel.

I am very surprised no airline has tried for this, I have heard airlines are having to put in larger seats nowadays. I would love to see ryanair blatantly advertise cheaper flights, being able to cram more people on a plane with more seats since they are small. Insurers blatantly advertise lower car insurance for women, do the men get all upset? some do, and I expect some large people would be upset about the cheap flights, but it is fair, you pay your own way. Some already pay more, e.g. for clothes, and rightly so, they use more material.

Another way would be to have a fixed rate for the flight, €100, and if you choose to, you can be weighed and prove you are eligible for a discount. This is sort of similar to pensioner, child, student discounts, there is nothing to stop you going into the cinema and paying full rate, but if you are willing to prove your age for a discount you can. Discrimination based on age like this is very common, and based on sex for car insurance. I do not think it is ridiculous to think it could and should happen.

There was a UK documentary which was suggesting taxing people over a certain BMI, it had very good arguments and even Tony Prescott seemed interested in the theory.

Roper wrote: »

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that obese people are any more likely to have a car accident.

It could be either way, i.e. they could well deserve cheaper insurance based on statistics. I get cheaper insurance due to being an engineer, when I state I am one they keep asking if I mean a mechanic, since they get charged more. There must be evidence to suggest they are more likely to claim, just like women statistically claim less per year. They discriminate over a lot of things, and I would imagine being vastly obese would indeed affect driving ability more than slight variations in profession. They may drive less and so have less overall claims per year, it could well go either way, e.g. women are supposed to have more claims per mile, but insurers usually base prices on an annual basis.

rubadub

celestial wrote: »

You're not comparing like with like there though really. There's a difference between satisfying the minimum requirements for a job versus invading a person's private life to check their waist size in the name of some notion of 'reducing the burden of obesity/being fat on society'.

Peoples private lives are similarly invaded to check their academic ability using the junior cert, in some notion of reducing the burden of ignorance/lack of work skills on society/the economy.

celestial wrote: »

It's also worth mentioning that there are fat people out there who are miles healthier than those with lean waists. Yes, shock horror!!!.

And there are people out there who never sat the leaving who are more intelligent than people with Phds. It is a generalization and guideline that will prove true in many cases, just like BMI is fine to use on the majority of the population.

celestial wrote: »

You say you drink 25+ pints a week Rubadub - would you be happy to face sanctions because of the potential effects on your health and the corresponding effects on funding the health service?

Actually I would love to see alcohol being banned outright, but that is another discussion entirely! I am already risking imprisonment for other substances I choose to ingest, and risk fines for choosing to use them. I would understand if such sanctions were brought out, I may not be happy but sometimes they are in the persons best interest. If I am over a certain blood alcohol level and driving I am deemed to be a danger to myself (and others) and fined, sort of similar to the overweight "fine".

I was fairly overweight and if incentives were out there all along I might have lost the weight long ago, or never got that way in the first place.

Supercell

I've mixed feelings about this, but..

Pretty much as a direct result of the smoking ban i quit smoking after being a heavy 40+ a dayer for about 15+ years and these days still cannot believe I ever smoked and the smell utterly disgusts me.

If having to pay a higher tax rate or becoming unemployable as a result of being above a certain waistline, I'm pretty damn sure i'd make sure I met those requirements as I know at the end of the day it really is in my best interests to do so in every way.

Nanny state maybe, but in this case its hard to argue with the benefits most of society would gain, and those that wouldn't won't be affected anyway as they already meet the required waistline measurement.

celestial

Supercell wrote: »

I've mixed feelings about this, but..

Pretty much as a direct result of the smoking ban i quit smoking after being a heavy 40+ a dayer for about 15+ years and these days still cannot believe I ever smoked and the smell utterly disgusts me.

If having to pay a higher tax rate or becoming unemployable as a result of being above a certain waistline, I'm pretty damn sure i'd make sure I met those requirements as I know at the end of the day it really is in my best interests to do so in every way.

Nanny state maybe, but in this case its hard to argue with the benefits most of society would gain, and those that wouldn't won't be affected anyway as they already meet the required waistline measurement.

I'm sure you do have mixed feelings to say the least, and so you should!

You've actually hit upon a crucial point here. Your argument is exactly the kind of argument that governments or potential oppressors will use to get you on board with these kind of ideas. They'll espouse the benefits of a particular idea or decision and everyone will go 'oh sure that does make sense, might be a bit inconvenient but it's overall for the good'. The smoking ban is a good case in point. On the surface it's a great idea, overall for the good and has wide backing. But why don't we look a bit closer? (most people don't cos they are too busy worrying 'more important' other stuff and prob don't really wanna know anyway).

The smoking ban restricts the freedom of approx 30% of the population who are engaging in a perfectly legal activity. Why should it be that smokers aren't allowed to smoke in pubs when it's perfectly legal? Now, the backers and enforcers come along with their 'passive smoking kills' argument and suddenly they've automatically won the argument. But it's really just a movement towards mass control. The reason being that if you apply their logic you can pretty much enforce anything upon people.

Obese people overwhelming the health service? - do a Japanese on em and get measuring their waistlines 5 times a year (a disgusting notion as i've already expressed)

Drink causing road accidents every weekend and again, overwhelming the health service? Well, we certainly won't ban drink cos of the massive taxes it generates (government hypocrisy at its worst) BUT we will make the common slaves accept a quota on how much they can drink. Let's give them 6 tokens per weekend at the pub door and once they're done with those tokens they're done with drinking for another weekend. Why not sure? It's for the common good!

Hmm, sexually transmitted diseases out of control and crippling the health service, costing us millions per year? Oh, I know! - let's get people to sign an agreement to use condoms no matter what, and if they present at a clinic with a burning sensation when they pee....look up the contraceptive agreement they signed and throw the book at them! charge them twice as much for treatment and give them an official warning for next time!

What I'm trying to get across here is that these arguments sound so reasonable when they're presented - of course they do - they're drummed up by very clever people. That's what makes them so sinister and why we should recognise them for what they are. Not everyone who contributes towards putting them into effect has nefarious motives, but you can be damn sure that some of them do, and that's the thrust of it and the trend we're seeing in the world today - greater and greater control exerted by the many over the few and erosion of personal freedom and the dignity of the individual.

Johnny Storm

Hanley wrote: »

It's not tyranny. It's a very valid school of thought. It's all about an economic term called "Externalities". Basically the choices you make will have an impact on someone else, either positive or negative. If fat people are over-burdening the health service due to their gluttony then society as a whole suffers, so it makes sense to prevent the selfish miniority from having a negative impact on the majority of the population.

Quite so! It's analogous to the way certain cretins in the US are so proud of their "freedom" to play with guns, ride motorbikes without helmets etc. They prefer to ignore the costs of these freedoms.

In fact I think I'll move to Japan.
A place where honour, courtesy and responsibility to the community are still things to be valued (unlike in certain other places....:D)
Plus they have the best gizmos. :pac:

Roper

celestial wrote: »

You've actually hit upon a crucial point here. Your argument is exactly the kind of argument that governments or potential oppressors will use to get you on board with these kind of ideas. They'll espouse the benefits of a particular idea or decision and everyone will go 'oh sure that does make sense, might be a bit inconvenient but it's overall for the good'. The smoking ban is a good case in point. On the surface it's a great idea, overall for the good and has wide backing. But why don't we look a bit closer? (most people don't cos they are too busy worrying 'more important' other stuff and prob don't really wanna know anyway).

I disagree. I think people focus on small issues like this one, plastic bag levies and smoking bans and don't bother trying to deal with the real, larger issues.

Ultimately, the whole idea of "freedom" as some all encompassing right to live and to do whatever you want whatever way you want is a crock of sh1t. Society needs boundaries, that's why it's a society and not a collection of individuals doing whatever the hell they want. If a certain behviour, exhibited by many, is to the detriment of the majority, then it is up to government to rein in that behaviour. At the moment in many developed nations, obesity is a health care issue and a burden on taxpayers.

There's greater things to be concerned about if you're concerned about "freedom".

Hanley

celestial wrote: »

The smoking ban restricts the freedom of approx 30% of the population who are engaging in a perfectly legal activity. Why should it be that smokers aren't allowed to smoke in pubs when it's perfectly legal? Now, the backers and enforcers come along with their 'passive smoking kills' argument and suddenly they've automatically won the argument. But it's really just a movement towards mass control. The reason being that if you apply their logic you can pretty much enforce anything upon people.

That is utterly ridiculous. I can't believe you're arguing against the smoking ban. It's not a case of "backers and enforcers winning an argument". It's about preserving the health of the workers and patrons who choose not to smoke. And remember, as you stated, these are in the majority. Smoking is only legal because of it's historic position. If a company brought out something that we knew had a high chance of killing the user and those around him/her with cancer, and then attempted to sell it OTC in every shop in the country, do you think it would be allowed??

I'm confused as to what you'd suggest as an alternative. Anarchism perhaps?? Lets have a free for all.... sure we know smoking kills, but why try to prevent the deaths of the innocent bystanders because it might upset a smoker.

Drug use and high crime rates show a high correlation, so we better legalise drugs (at least that'll take that specific crime figure down), but we won't worry about the old lady getting her handbag snatched cos a junkie needs his fix. That's his right sure.

Speeding kills... but it gets those who survive to their destination quicker. Who is the government to stop them from doing that.

Al_Fernz

This debate is beginning to get a bit rail-roaded.......

.... is there any conclusive evidence that shows overweight people cause more negative externalities than positive externalities?

I can't think of any apart from the extra strain placed on public health services. But you could discount this against the fact that the overweight will die sooner - thus requiring less hospital services and also reducing the exchequers expense on state pensions amongst other services.

Then if you are going to use the overburdening the health service arguement - where should we draw the line with permiting treatment? What about the sunbather with skin cancer or the man who fell of the ladder and broke his spine etc etc. People make decisions everyday that can potentially contribute towards overburdening public healthcare.

I agree that there needs to be boundaries in society. Who would agree that people should have the personal choice and freedom to commit murder etc.? However, the difference here is that this or similar acts directly impinge on another person's right (like the right to life etc.). Being overweight does not do this.

Roper

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1101139.stm

Being overweight increases the risk of heart disease, adult-onset (type II) diabetes, both of which place an enormous strain on the health service.

The argument that smokers/overweight people etc. die sooner so negate the strain their illnesses place on the health service is one that was first conjured up by the smoking apologists. Same with the taxation thing- oh it's okay because the tax I pay on smokes will pay for my future medical care. As if the states pure motivation was to have you financially covered in case of illness, to make the books balance. Is it all all possible that people may just also be concerned for your health and indeed, the health of the nation?

One of the stark realities in Ireland is how fundamentally unfit we are. I know people hark on about Scandanavia as though they have the solution to life's problems but as a challenge, go walk around Sweden and find an obese person. It won't be easy. What they have is a good attitude to diet and exercise, but what they also have is a high level of government involvement in diet and exercise.

Al_Fernz

That article proves nothing. There is no quantitive data or research contained in it that illustrates how the negative externalities caused by rising obesity outweigh (he he) the positve.

Do the Swedish govenment set individual targets and actively punish those who breach these measures? What sort of policies are followed by these countries?

Roper

Al_Fernz wrote: »

That article proves nothing. There is no quantitive data or research contained in it that illustrates how the negative externalities caused by rising obesity outweigh (he he) the positve.

Do the Swedish govenment set individual targets and actively punish those who breach these measures? What sort of policies are followed by these countries?

There's no need for behavioural change policies in Sweden because the positive behaviour is already there.

I'll pre-empt the backlash about the term "behavioural change" by saying that it's a common practise everywhere in civilised society. From attitudes toward smoking to trying to keep kids away from drugs. These are the realities of living in a society as opposed to wishing it were true.

Johnny Storm

+1 on the observation that Swedish people (sweeping generalisation here) look slim, fit and have excellent posture. However is this based on diet, genetics, type of school PE training?

Also on the issue of freedoms, it's not that long ago that all alcohol in Sweden was sold through Government-owned off-licenses and that purchases of spirits was rationed through the use of ration-books. (70's - early 80's I think.) IMHO Sweden is a another country where the individual feels a real responsibility to his/her community.

Al_Fernz

Johnny Storm wrote: »

Also on the issue of freedoms, it's not that long ago that all alcohol in Sweden was sold through Government-owned off-licenses and that purchases of spirits was rationed through the use of ration-books. (70's - early 80's I think.) IMHO Sweden is a another country where the individual feels a real responsibility to his/her community.

Its also not so long ago (1975 I think) that Roma gypsies were forcefully sterilized in Sweden. So I wouldn't be too keen to adopt their social engineering policies....

Roper

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Its also not so long ago (1975 I think) that Roma gypsies were forcefully sterilized in Sweden. So I wouldn't be too keen to adopt their social engineering policies....

So they have a chequered past regarding Eugenics, show me a European country that doesn't. By the same token then we shouldn't copy the German system of providing sports facilities in public parks because they were responsible for the holocaust? The Americans had a fairly extensive eugenics programme pre-WW2, so we should ignore their innovations?

You seem to be going for the controversial and avoiding the thrust of the discussion. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against the Japanese idea that isn't based on sensationalism and watching too many X Files episodes.

Al_Fernz

Roper wrote: »

You seem to be going for the controversial and avoiding the thrust of the discussion. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against the Japanese idea that isn't based on sensationalism and watching too many X Files episodes.

You havn't supplied any conclusive figures, data or studies that credibly prove overweight people are causing negative net externalities in society.
Just a link showing that people in the UK are fatter now than x number of years ago.

You need to prove this before you can even start to think of designing policies that infringe on peoples personal rights. Otherwise you end up with policies based on beliefs and assumptions like the Swedish gypsy sterilization policy.

CerebralCortex

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Its also not so long ago (1975 I think) that Roma gypsies were forcefully sterilized in Sweden. So I wouldn't be too keen to adopt their social engineering policies....

Seriously?

Al_Fernz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Seriously?

http://www.themilitant.com/1997/6133/6133_18.html

There was also an article on gypsies in "The Economist," a few weeks ago - that discussed this.

CerebralCortex

Al_Fernz wrote: »

http://www.themilitant.com/1997/6133/6133_18.html

There was also an article on gypsies in "The Economist," a few weeks ago - that discussed this.

I had held Sweden in such high esteem. :eek:

ali.c

Roper wrote: »

I have yet to hear a coherent argument against the Japanese idea that isn't based on sensationalism and watching too many X Files episodes.

Personally I think it is too negative and is subtracts from personal dignity. I think that as a society as a whole we already are already exposed to a lot of body negativity, you should look like this or that, weight this or that be this dress size or have that jeans size. I think a government based mechanism is legitimises this type of thinking and that really getting your waist measure for statutory requirements 5 times a year is undignified.

A few people have been drawing parelells between this and smoking. Its easier with smoking. Its black and white, smoking is unhealthy EOS but with eating certain foods occasionaly or being just outside the border of normal waist measurement has it been categoraily shown that this is going to lead to massive negative externalities?

As you so aptly put it

One of the stark realities in Ireland is how fundamentally unfit we are. I know people hark on about Scandanavia as though they have the solution to life's problems but as a challenge, go walk around Sweden and find an obese person. It won't be easy. What they have is a good attitude to diet and exercise, but what they also have is a high level of government involvement in diet and exercise.

Frankly IMHO there are other more effective measures and are well thought out. The plan outlined in the article seems a hair brained (again IMHO)

celestial

Hanley wrote: »

That is utterly ridiculous. I can't believe you're arguing against the smoking ban. It's not a case of "backers and enforcers winning an argument". It's about preserving the health of the workers and patrons who choose not to smoke. And remember, as you stated, these are in the majority. Smoking is only legal because of it's historic position. If a company brought out something that we knew had a high chance of killing the user and those around him/her with cancer, and then attempted to sell it OTC in every shop in the country, do you think it would be allowed??

I'm confused as to what you'd suggest as an alternative. Anarchism perhaps?? Lets have a free for all.... sure we know smoking kills, but why try to prevent the deaths of the innocent bystanders because it might upset a smoker.

Drug use and high crime rates show a high correlation, so we better legalise drugs (at least that'll take that specific crime figure down), but we won't worry about the old lady getting her handbag snatched cos a junkie needs his fix. That's his right sure.

Speeding kills... but it gets those who survive to their destination quicker. Who is the government to stop them from doing that.

You've completely missed the point I'm making. As of yet no-one has come back on my arguments in my earlier post re applying the logic for the Japanese idea to the other areas I mentioned.