Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Options
Replies
-
-
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/health/sodas-sugary-drinks-policy-statement-study/index.htmlPhysicians' groups have long taken a stand against high consumption of sugary drinks in the United States -- and now they are calling for several policies to limit access to sugar-sweetened beverages among children and teens.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association released policy recommendations on Monday targeted at federal, state and local lawmakers, encouraging them to implement policies that would reduce children's intake of sugary drinks, such as sodas, sports drinks and juice.
Disclaimer: I know it's CNN which some have issues with, and some do not. I'd rather focus on the subject of the article which is in perfect keeping with this thread, rather than the source.
OP, looks like you weren't the only one thinking this over.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.8 -
I work in a two story building where the large, wide staircase is front and center when you enter. The elevators are behind it. Even though it takes longer, I still see able bodied coworkers take the elevator over the stairs by preference.FireOpalCO wrote: »Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)4 -
I find it impossible to believe that anyone going through a public school system in America is not exposed to what makes up a healthy diet and that calories are what matters for weight.
Whether or not it sinks in is another story.
I was exposed to this stuff in elementary, middle school and again in high school. It was not only part of a required Health class, but part of daily discussions in Phys Ed and biology.
I've had a different experience. I've been in some poorly resourced schools, and it's not often that nutrition comes up in phys ed and biology. I've also discussed nutrition in a healthcare setting with adults who may have general ideas of healthy foods. They make choices that appear healthy to them, but don't realize the amount of calories, portion sizes, etc, involved. There's much room for improvement on the education front, and perhaps that's where more leverage needs to be applied. In addition, kids (and adults) are exposed to misleading information from industry and other sources on a continuous basis that's designed to muddy the waters. You only have to visit the forums here to see evidence of deficient nutritional knowledge, and that from people who are self-selecting and motivated regarding their diet.
The data tends to show that there is still considerable room for improvement in education about nutrition. For instance, in a study regarding food deserts, researchers found "that education and nutrition knowledge are strongly associated with the differences in preferences across income groups. While these findings are not causal, they may suggest that policies aimed at nutrition education may be more effective at closing the nutrition gap than subsidies and grants meant to encourage building more supermarkets and farmers markets in food deserts." (From the U of C business school, not exactly a liberal bastion) http://news.chicagobooth.edu/newsroom/nutrition-gap-between-rich-and-poor-growing-dont-blame-food-deserts-researchers-say
8 -
I would start by cutting farm subsidies for corn and other foods which we have a huge surplus of, leading them to be processed into cheap, nutrient poor foods. When Campbell’s soup finds it cheaper to add corn syrup than tomatoes to tomato soup, corn products are too cheap. And my money is paying for them to be cheap.7
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
13 -
I agree it would be nice if restaurants were required to post nutrition content on their menu's. That would be nice for me and other calorie-aware people, I'm not sure it would really do that much for helping obesity in general. Sure it would also be nice to increase the walkability of certain areas, but what are they supposed to do with a large suburb like where I live? I think if you want to live in a walkable area, then move to a walkable area. I hate big cities, but I am jealous of my sister who lives downtown because she can walk anywhere she needs to go, or take the train thing.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.10 -
I agree it would be nice if restaurants were required to post nutrition content on their menu's. That would be nice for me and other calorie-aware people, I'm not sure it would really do that much for helping obesity in general. Sure it would also be nice to increase the walkability of certain areas, but what are they supposed to do with a large suburb like where I live? I think if you want to live in a walkable area, then move to a walkable area. I hate big cities, but I am jealous of my sister who lives downtown because she can walk anywhere she needs to go, or take the train thing.
There are suburbs where I am that are quite walkable (have a village center with a good walkable shopping area, have trains easily available within a walk from many homes) or have walkable areas, as well as great parks, bike paths, etc. There are also suburbs here that are not only not aren't very walkable, but even seem to discourage walking by not having sidewalks.
We could make most non-walkable areas more walkable if we wanted.3 -
It is not government's responsibility to set policies to help people maintain a healthy weight. That is a good thing, because even if it was their job there isn't much they could really do to help. Also, more government involvement makes most things worse, not better.
Even if they took every single suggestion on this page (ignore the financial costs for this exercise) and made it law, obesity would still be a huge problem. Why? Because all you need to do to lose weight if put the fork down and move a little more, but unless you are going to mandate a government employee to follow every overweight or obese person around all day every day and forcibly remove the excess food from their hands and make them go for a walk instead, most people will still eat more than they need. The vast majority of adults (and most teenagers) understand that too much food makes you fat. It's really that simple. We all know what to do, it's the sticking with it that can be difficult.
Mandatory free nutrition classes, even more onerous calorie info, another overhaul of school lunches, etc. aren't going to change how people respond when they have an ice cream craving. Nice stairs in the building won't mean people won't take the elevator. Wide sidewalks and bike lanes in every community will not make lazy people exercise more. People who are motivated to exercise do it even in bad neighborhoods or bad weather or without money for a gym. People exercise in hotel rooms, living rooms, etc. You can do burpees or crunches or pushups literally anywhere!!! Safety and equipment are not issues.
This is a cultural issue, not a legal issue. Until people change habits and society changes its norms, nothing will change.10 -
njitaliana wrote: »It's easy to know how many calories are in your food if you eat at chain restaurants, since they all have calories listed. Before I go to a restaurant, I check the restaurant meals' calories online at their nutrition website, and enter that into MFP. But, privately owned restaurants probably don't even have the money to hire someone to calculate all their food ingredients, especially when they change the menu frequently or have new specials each day. I stick to mostly chain restaurants for that reason. But, if I do eat at a privately owned restaurant on occasion, I just eat carefully. And I don't stress about it. I have 67 lbs off now, so it's working.
My bigger concern is insurance companies (specifically Medicare, which is for elderly and disabled people) not paying for obese people to see dietitians. Obesity is now considered a disease, yet they only want to pay for diet pills or surgery. It's disgusting to me that they won't pay for us to lose weight naturally and healthily with the help of a dietitian.
They don't NEED to pay for you to lose weight "naturally". You will "naturally" lose weight if you eat less. You don't need a dietitian for that. Just like you don't need a trainer to work out. If you want one, and can pay for it, okay...but it is not necessary. Even if you keep eating exactly the same food you eat now, if you eat less of it you WILL lose weight. Don't ask other people (taxpayers) to pay a dietitian to tell you what is pretty straightforward stuff.
I will probably get flags, woos, and lots of nasty comments for this, but I don't care. I am going to give an honest opinion. You are "disgusted" that "they" (other people!) won't pay for YOUR dietitian? I am disgusted that you EXPECT other people to pay for something you can do yourself. Just eat less. If you really want to change WHAT you eat, there is plenty of free info online. This is part of being an adult.23 -
The government is already involved in too many things they should be staying out of. We don't need more laws to help us become or stay healthy/thin/active or whatever.
Besides, if the government DID give us all these regulations, we'd have one less person/entity to blame for it if and when we continue to be unhealthy/overweight/lazy.
6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.
You obviously don't live in the same area of the country that I live in... most speed limits are taken as suggestions to be ignored around here.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
I'm still confused as to what laws you think we should repeal. Do you have specific laws in mind?
I get that you're generally opposed to "nanny state" laws, but what specific laws do you think are making people fatter?3 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »xCopper_Boom wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Putting aside for one minute that people need to take more responsibility for themselves, mandating that food suppliers, restaurants, etc have to provide nutritional information would be the one thing I'd like to see.
That's already required for the most part. It would be very burdensome for mom and pop establishments though and many of them would likely go out of business.
Just curious- why would this be especially burdensome for Mom and Pop restaurants and put many of them out of business? They’re allowed to use the database method. It doesn’t have to be any harder than it is for us to fill out a recipe in MFP. It might actually help them to more accurately calculate the cost to make a portion when they look at the amount of each ingredient.
For one thing, if actual legislation was enacted, I would have serious doubts as to them being allowed to use the data base method as that would be pretty loosey goosey for actual legislation. And really, what's the point of enacting legislation when databases are so full of absolute *kitten* for entries made by other users of the system? How much will they be allowed to be off? Would people even trust the stated calorie counts? I mean people already question the counts of restaurants who's food gets sent to a lab. Do they get fined for using bad entries to create their calorie counts? Do they get away with using entries that are erroneously low to make it appear that their menu is lower calorie? How is the FDA going to verify the calorie counts without that food going to a lab?
Mom and pop restaurants already run on a very thin margin and many, if not most struggle to just stay open. As I stated in an earlier reply, this is extra time spent when owners of these establishments are already burning it at both ends, and time is money. It's irrelevant though because any such legislation would never allow for something so unscientific as using a random database to come up with calorie counts to assure the public of what they're getting. Having food sent to a lab is expensive and would put many of these places under.
Beyond that, mom and pop restaurants are a pretty small % of the restaurant world and the overall food supply. I seriously don't think mom and pop restaurants are contributing substantially to the obesity epidemic. If you looked at it on a pie chart, mom and pop restaurants would be a tiny sliver of the overall food supply...why burden something so small with more bureaucracy? They already have to deal with a *kitten* ton of it already. The government doesn't typically enact legislation that makes things easier...
I'm not sure where you are located, but this is already required in the U.S. for restaurants with 20 or more locations. The FDA website does state that they can comply using nutrient databases (USDA, cookbooks, etc.). No requirement to send food to a lab.
Seemed pretty clear he was talking about "mom and pop" restaurants, which do not have 20 or more locations.
Yes... my point was that the FDA doesn't require even the chain restaurants to send the food out for lab testing if they choose to use the nutrient databases, so why would they require it of the mom and pop restaurants.
Even if they use the database method, it is done through a lab...the restaurant isn't getting on MFP to enter their stuff...they are still doing it through a lab.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.
Capital punishment for doing so in the left lane.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
I'm still confused as to what laws you think we should repeal. Do you have specific laws in mind?
I get that you're generally opposed to "nanny state" laws, but what specific laws do you think are making people fatter?
Objectively. Weight discrimination law.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.
I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.
I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).
No worries - I apologize if I conveyed any ill intent. Addition or removal of a single law has little direct impact, but dramatic impact over time. I tend to focus on how law shapes generations and the long game as opposed to the short term. I look at all the laws passed in the US in 1980-1990 and the resulting damage done to the millennials. If we understood the impact in hindsight would you have done the same?
Neither do I, but then again my livelihood isn't negatively impacted by law - or I have adapted to this and managed to continue a live with purpose.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.
I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).
No worries - I apologize if I conveyed any ill intent. Addition or removal of a single law has little direct impact, but dramatic impact over time. I tend to focus on how law shapes generations and the long game as opposed to the short term. I look at all the laws passed in the US in 1980-1990 and the resulting damage done to the millennials. If we understood the impact in hindsight would you have done the same?
Neither do I, but then again my livelihood isn't negatively impacted by law - or I have adapted to this and managed to continue a live with purpose.
I didn't feel any ill intent from your posts at all, but thank you.
I am not sure what laws from 1980-1990 you're referring to, so I have no idea if I would have done the same. Like many people, I find that I support some laws and am opposed to others.
As far as laws specifically designed to curb obesity or address health (or laws that I interpret to have that goal), I think many of them miss the mark by a lot. I don't think a soda tax is going to save us. My opinion is that in our current state of food abundance, many of us have to *choose* not to be fat and that is a choice that many of us are failing to make. I can't think of anything the government could do to fix that (other than actively imposing limits on food or requiring physical activity, neither of which are remotely acceptable to me).5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
The other day I really wanted to kill somebody, but I didn't want to spend the next six years wearing orange.6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
The other day I really wanted to kill somebody, but I didn't want to spend the next six years wearing orange.
Gotta say, as a very fair-skinned person, the fact that wearing bright orange makes me look jaundiced has been a powerful motivator in my life!12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 450 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions