In many countries--especially in the developed world--people harm their own health with too much alcohol and/or too much junk food. Does the government have a duty to lower consumption of these things by setting minimum prices on them?
Yes, the government should try to lower consumption of alcohol and junk foods by setting minimum prices for the sake of good health of the people.
Nice query@C. Nock
In concordance with religion teaching of Islam; there is enough scientific proof that they cause cancer and other serious problems that cost a lot for the health system of every country. However; the lobby system is too strong and many people in the govermement are corrupted. It is exactly like global warming; there is a lot of talk but it seems likec business as usual. People do not understand the extreme urgency to change attitudes in daily life.
To be straightforward, you're not going to get many people in the developed western world to stop consuming alcohol. There's a 2000 year history, from Roman wine to the current UK booming trade in craft made gin. You may, however, get them to cut down their intake.
Fast food is a particular problem for producing obese kids, which is a bit shameful of the parents. Or is that a middle class view?
NOCK
Right, I appreciate that certain religions are strongly against alcohol in all its forms, except for medical purposes presumably. But not all cultures follow the same religion. As I've said, you're not going to get many in the developed western world to give alcohol up. People are quite free not to drink. But, equally, others are free to drink if they wish. That's the best we can do on the matter.
Indeed, your biggest western ally would be the USA! They did ban it in 1920-30s under religious pressure, Christian pressure. It was a disastrous experience. Drinking driven underground into "clubs" called "speakeasies". Criminals organising and running the alcohol trade. Smuggling in from Canada. Fortunes made for families and companies that still exist. Not good.
NOCK
I'm very sorry but I don't understand what you're saying.
What should what?
NOCK
Don't citizens have a right to live the life they wan to lead without governmental interference?
I'm not a user of alcohol but just because your religion demands you do not drink it, it doesn't mean its necessarily right to abstain. Taken in reasonable quantities alcohol can create pleasure (ah the dread word!) and enjoyment. Life can be stressful and people need a way to defuse it. Excessive drinking of alcoholic drinks is bad for anyone but really so is excessive religion, which perhaps should equally be banned. A world embargo on religion, I suggest, would at least, as with alcohol at parties, liven up those sunk in the permanent gloom of worship, unable to smile or be lively. Alcohol should not be therefore banned but prescribed to all the miseries who cannot embrace life.
There is a serious point here because banning produces I suggest unhappy people, who then consider banning things the answer to everything; the puritan creed that seems to infest too many parts of the world today. Although alcohol can create violence, so can religion, so perhaps, especially on RG, we should have a moratorium on both and everyone instead of overdosing on either should take in one or two parties, taste a modicum of delicious brandy and simply, for once, be happy!
Some jurisdictions (e.g. province of Saskatchewan in Canada) already mandate minimum prices based on alcohol content, which means that cheap rotgut wine can cost as much as a decent low-end wine (although winos are probably not sensitive to the differences). Some large beer breweries support this kind of price control since it stiffles competition from smaller brands of regular beers (although craft or artisan beers from small producers are probably not affected so much). At the end of the day, in addition to sales tax or GST or VAT and the like, the price of alcoholic beverages already way exceeds the value of ingredients and labor, since there are hidden taxes at every stage of production, and those taxes are themselves part of the figures to which later taxes are applied. It's a good revenue-generating racket for governments and they are not likely to want to endanger that too much. Moreover the reaction to excessive minimum pricing and overtaxation at some point will be smuggling, bootlegging, and homebrewing.
🍷Cheers. 🍻
Yes, I agree, Karl and although not a drinker, drink has been around for many thousands of years and surely is part of our evolution, as milk is for some parts of the human population. I'm sure thereby that it has some beneficial effects if consumed reasonably. Junk food appears to have little and could easily have additional tax placed on it. But as they say, everything can be harmful if taken to excess, but in moderation helps.
Boy, those crafty Cannuk authorities 'eh? Always shmuks for a "good" tax! And, of course, in Ontario, the big beer companies together own the government run 🍺 beer stores! Government and big business working together to milk the taxpayers. Ah, Canadian "capitalism" what a shocker!!!
Stanley and others, yea we're near the nub now. Isn't this precisely why secular western powers can't condone most religion based societies? If those societies won't leave it at home, they surely can't be trusted?
NOCK
If a person want to eat junk and smoke and drink too much ,use hard drugs and drint rat poison it is the person's choice. Governments should not be our baby sitter or be our big brother. That being said government should encourage and help people doing the right healthy choices. Moderate taxes on luxury or toxic products are OK. These goes beyond encouraging and here governments step into the penalizing zone and should do it very moderatly. Since governments are tax addict, they should not be allowed to use these taxes as general revenues but should use these taxes to lower the cost of necessary healthy food products. To help consumers discriminate between junk food , hand junk food and healty food, these food should be separate and grocery store should have the healty food, half junk food, and junk food section.
@ Christopher Nock : in USA, during the 19th century, alcoholism, family violence, and saloon-based political corruption prompted activists, led by pietistic Protestants, to end the alcoholic beverage trade to cure the ill society and weaken the political opposition. One result was that many communities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries introduced alcohol prohibition, with the subsequent enforcement in law becoming a hotly debated issue. Prohibition supporters, called "drys", presented it as a victory for public morals and health.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning