I'll let you evaluate the graph.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...king/index.htm

Mind that the aggressive ad campaign they are trumpeting started in 2011 or so.

There have been several components to smoking cessation programs run by different states. Advertisements are one component. Making cigarettes less affordable through taxation is another. Assistance such as helplines and free nicotine patches etc. are yet another. There is no one magic bullet but combined, these strategies have absolutely had a positive effect in helping people to quit and in reducing the numbers of people who start smoking. Especially young people.

Obesity presents different challenges, but a good starting point is to agree that obesity is very bad for you and there is nothing wrong or hateful about stating that. The whole "positive body image" campaign seems designed to make obese people feel better about themselves, rather than try to improve their health by becoming less obese.

Bloomberg for example wanted to tax carbonated soda in NYC. Not a bad idea. NYC has great tap water and it's free. Never got off the ground, complaints about the nanny state, etc.

Ignoring the ethical and moral issues about letting someone engage in very self destructive behavior without trying to intervene,

There is a clearly a very strong public and societal concern when like 40% of your population is obese.

The government doesn't promote public health programs just to "shame" the unhealthy.

In a poker forum, people are talking about how more government policies, solely to save people from themselves, is a good thing.

I prefer to shame tubbos myself

The negative externalities from something like legal poker are quite minimal and it can be argued the positive effects at least equal them. Plenty of people can also gamble completely responsibly.

Whereas the negative externalities from rampant societal obesity are extremely obvious and it's impossible to be obese "responsibly"

Besides, nobody is arguing that someone can't be fat if that's what they wanna be. But society can and should recognize this as a self destructive choice. Just like we shouldn't put someone with a gambling addiction on a pedestal and celebrate and accept it, we shouldn't celebrate obesity.

People should be free to live their lives how they please, but society shouldn't be forced to pretend your dangerous and destructive choices are not such.

The negative externalizes are basically you don't like how they look. There's no such thing as second-hand obesity. At least anti-smoking had that to lean on.

Granted, they are likely going to suffer more medical issues, etc, but in balance, I'd rather have more accessible medical care than punishment. Poor people have babies, get free natal and neonatal care, along with WiC, etc. This is a huge monetary strain on society, but I'm not for eugenics. People who otherwise can't afford it get into car wrecks, get shot / stabbed / face stomped in, and have other medical emergencies that are costing society millions of dollars per day. Once again, I'm for everyone getting a fair shake.

Yes, you can argue that obesity and smoking are self-inflicted and not accidents, but neither is having a baby that you can't afford, and neither is living in a high-risk area, and so many other things that we simply can't control about people. I know this is rabbit-hole, but if you focus on the visible, you have to, in my opinion, balance that with what is invisible to you.

Would you walk up to a waddling pregnant woman with 2 children in tow and scream at her to get her **** tied up? Would you walk into a ghetto and tell people to move out and get a better job? Would you tell people who are uninsured but scraping by to not go outside because, I don't know what will happen, maybe get hurt at the very jobs they are working at, which will cause societal monetary stress?

Many of the things you listed are flat out accidents, nobody gets obese by accident.

And as for unmarried women having a ton of kids they can't afford, pretty sure society very much looks down on that and tries their best to discourage it as well, and rightfully so.

Can't believe the idea of incentivizing positive, productive behaviors and deincentivizing negative, destructive behaviors is somehow controversial to some people. It's pretty much one of the cornerstones of a functional civilization.

Healthy body weight is the new anorexic.
A little overweight is the new healthy.
Obese is the new "could lose a few pounds".

All aimed at making the majority feel good about themselves.

I guess the argument could be made that there is nothing wrong with this, but I think encouraging healthy behavior is generally miles preferable to making unhealthy behavior the accepted norm.

A woman in oot who's 280 and involved in a weight loss bet doesn't think she looks that fat apparently. People tell themselves whatever they have to do keep going I guess. Same for alcoholics and drug addicts.

I have a problem with it when the government steps in. Adding taxes to soda is dumb policy.

Let me elaborate on why adding taxes to soda is a dumb policy. This is suppose to do what exactly? Encourage people to make "healthier" choices and buy apple juice? There are 15 or more apples that go into a bottle of apple juice, which is just screwy, and anyone that thinks juice is "good" for you is horribly misinformed. The problem is that these policies often send the wrong signals and only focus on the visible and on unfounded opinions, ultimately harming the very people they are tying to help.

Here's some article on South L.A.'s fast food moratorium: http://la.eater.com/2015/3/19/825803...ts-report-fail

Of course, the correct thing to do would be offer massive discounts to food stores and restaurants that would like to move into the area, welcome places like Walmart instead of trying to ban them, and actually put up policies that help people.

when we have universal health care we can have people get the caliper treatment at their annual doctors visit and tax them more if they are obese

or shock treatments, patients choice

Once we get their physical issues sorted out, we can start tackling their racism and misogyny.

It's supposed to do the same thing as adding taxes to alcohol and tobacco: serve as a disincentive for undesirable behavior.

It'll never happen, but taxing calories would be interesting.

Where do you draw the line though? Twinkies, cheeseburgers, ice cream, pizza, deep fried anything? There are a million and one unhealthy choices available each and every day.

A law doesn't have to cover 100% of cases to be effective. Sugary drinks/soda account for a large percentage of teh unhealthy calories Americans eat. That's why the focus is there. I have nothing against raising taxes on other unhealthy foods in principle. I don't 'draw a line'.

Eliminating sugary soda won't help a thing. You compared to alcohol and tobacco. But they don't just tax menthols or gin and vodka, they tax it all. Picking on soda helps no one and discriminates against the soda industry when frappachinos are probably even worse for you.

Probably true, people can get fat on anything if they eat/drink enough calories - but at least it sends the message that eating/drinking the most fattening/nutritionally empty food is undesirable behavior. Currently it seems like most of the focus is on making sure no one offends fat people by pointing out they are fat (like the now-outlawed billboard of the hot bikini babe in London).

I pointed out that guzzling 10x the daily recommended intake of fruits isn't good for you, but if people would be up in arms if they taxed V8 to oblivion.

So is your contention that if people drink less soda due to higher prices they'll just drink more (expensive) frappachinos instead?

The poor soda industry is being disciminated against? oh, no!!!!

Enough with the politarding already, Jesus.

Sure, it is politarding, but it does make it obvious how ignorant people are about nutrition in general.

Soda = bad;
Frappe = well, the poors aren't drinking that anyways.
Fruit Juice = very good for you, wtf?

It is like the guy upthread who is eating nothing but red meat. This is a purely emotional decision and based on no science whatsoever (the psychologist who is promoting this diet should be charged with malpractice). It is the same with the soda. Granted, no one is claiming soda is good for you, but to extend "soda is bad" to "well, that's why everyone is fat, lol" is just absurd logic.

Agreed. It is a very slippery slope when the gubmint starts telling us through taxation what we can and can't eat and drink. It is very possible to lead a extremely healthy life style that includes drinking soda and just as easy to have an exceptionally unhealthy life style and never even go near a soda.