Then ban McDonalds. Ban cigarettes outright for all. Give federal funding to healthy alternatives. Raise tax on sugar 200%. Alcohol 500%. Use federal funds to make cities walkable. Give police the mandate to enforce more action on violent criminals. Fund unions. Fine employers where people work longer than 8 hours per day on average. Fine employers who do not grant mandatory 5 weeks vacation per year.
This is the world where the interests of the NHS is what counts for making the rules. Many countries implement at least some of these measures, to great success.
There is something insidious about the state forcing a citizen to pay for its services, only turn around and insist that the use of said services entitles the state to further control of the citizen.
Not the quantity of food though. Deaths attributed to obesity are higher than those of smoking in recent years. Smoking rates are falling, but obesity continues to climb in the UK.
Unlike food, nicotine is not a necessity. Also calorie intake alone doesn't determine weight gain or loss. The problem of obesity is much more complex.
Governments try to address this problem through education and regulation of food. There are drugs available now to help control obesity and they're very popular, so people obviously want to avoid the condition.
I don't know why you think people should have a right to take highly addictive drugs that result in premature death. Contrary to smoker's claims, cigarettes are pure addiction and provide no benefits whatsoever to the smoker.
They already prevent advertising the sorts of foods that contribute to obesity to children, and encourage you to drink less sugary drinks by applying tax to them (though unfortunately manufacturers have responded to this by reducing choice and adding artificial sweeteners instead of selling something at a higher price that can be enjoyed once every few weeks.
I don't think any of this is unreasonable in a country that picks up the tab through both subsidised dental care and completely free-at-point-of-use healthcare.
A legislation that isn't possible to enforce is not reasonable, no.
Banning cigarettes = easy to enforce.
Banning sugar in soft drinks = easy to enforce.
Limiting how many calories you can consume = how do you propose we do that? Do we even have the technology to track what someone eats? And do we carve out exceptions for athletes?
If there was a way to cap calories without surgically inserting trackers into everybody I'm sure you'd see a lot less opposition to your idea.
Whether something is possible to enforce seems like a sliding scale. We can totally imagine a world where a calorie cap is possible to enforce. In such a world, would it be reasonable?
not could, should. i'm fully in favor of banning processed foods that fall below a threshold for calories/micronutrient ratio (and no artificial enrichment permitted)
Smokers cost less in medical care because they die of heart attack and stroke before they get old enough for age-related care, along with smoking disqualifying people from many common procedures. Plus the sin taxes they pay already bring in more revenue than their entire lifetime medical costs.
OK, so if you smoke you don't get national / socialized health care but don't have to pay the taxes that fund it either. Deal. It's enough to convince me to take up smoking.
