Japan Legislates Fat
 

http://www.allvoices.com/userevents/...s-wasit/images

Do people have the right to life, liberty and being morbidly obese? Or does the government have the right to address a national health emergency?

In my opinion, this is smart legislation. The spirit of making laws would be protecting people from each other and themselves. Being overweight means that you're at a much higher risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes, but many people are unaware of the danger they put themselves in by an inactive and unhealthy lifestyle.

I'm sure this will piss off some overweight people and some libertarian people, but the reality is that this type of decision will likely help the health of the country. I can't imagine placing denial about weight or personal ideologies above the health and well being of your country.

I think it's a good idea. It's not punitive... it's not like you'll be imprisoned for being fat, or sent to a fat labor camp. I guess it depends on what is meant by "referred to a diet regiment", but it seems reasonable to me.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...at-waistlines/

That's kinda brilliant, actually.

I think this is avoiding the problem. Which is, the type of food available and allowed to be marketed, and also educating people to live and eat more healthily. Hey, we stick kids in front of the TV all day and feed them junk. What else could we expect?

I also don't think this is a good precedent to open...I mean do you agree with the Chinese population control policies? I'd say this is always something that will get twisted...

"33.5 in"

Holy crap, am I the only one that thinks that's really thin? I'm 75" and weigh around 200lbs and consider myself in pretty good shape, and I think my waist is 34". Then again, Japanese people are closer to 65" than 75" . . .

I read an article a year or two about about Philadelphia creating legislation to restrict or ban trans-fats.

I think it's perfectly reasonable, given the expense of health care, the expense to the government, and given that the Japanese population is aging. If they don't deal with the problem of rising obesity rates in Japan (their obesity rates put ours to shame--they're not nearly as high as ours--they're really being quite proactive), it's going to cost everyone in the long run. Obesity costs everyone, not just the person who is obese.

I wish the United States would wake up and do something like this.

It's interesting, because in doing this the Japanese have come up with a new word for someone who's overweight: metabo.

Here is a link to the NYTimes article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/wo...prod=permalink

I do agree with the chinese population control, to an extent. Of course, I don't believe in killing little girls like sometimes happens in the more rural areas, but I believe the one child per family law is ideal. There are too damned many people there and they have a hard time supporting it across the board.

As for the "type of food available and allowed to be marketed", well... why should one person NOT be able to get something tasty because three other people can't control how much of it they eat? THAT doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sure that it takes into account the BMI system or something similar. It'd be silly to try and get a 6'3" man into anything under a 34. Or a woman that's 6'3" for that matter.

Why is it everything Japan names sounds like a pokemon?

i just read this thread to Mrs dlish (shes a dietitian) and she rekons its a great idea. although she did say it will be hard to police.

i told her that we are moving to japan so that we can cash in on all the new business!

metbo?! I like it!

I agree with the posters here that with a sense of nationalism and with incentives one could ask their popu to lose weight. I think it is a cost effective and healthy measure. And I think something does need to be done. However, I dont like the idea of taking that personal of a freedom away. I dont think if it were put to a vote that I would back it. It is just too intrusive I think.

And I certainly dont like the idea of hiring/firing people based on physical attributes good or bad, nor do I like that there is a particular age group addressed.

I don't think this is the government's first foray into public education of food and health. They are battling a specific problem here. They are using this to ensure the education of those they deem to be the highest risk.

Sumo wrestling will never be the same.

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, I can certainly see the merit in it, which I don't think needs to be explained.

On the other hand, I see mandating something like belt size as setting a dangerous precedent.

For the record, I'm well under the proposed limit; the 32" jeans I'm wearing while typing this are a bit loose on me.

I'll admit I thought this, too, but I couldn't formulate an argument that wasn't a slippery slope to support the thought. Think of it: why are they doing this? Driving down healthcare cost. What could be done, besides promoting good health, that would be so bad based on the precedence set by this legislation?
And if they regulate your fedora size? :expressionless:

I'm not entirely concerned about the legislation itself so much as the enforcement. Right now it has no teeth; if you're overweight, you get referred. I'm assuming they're not going to force you to follow the diet regimen proscribed, so it won't really do much.

On the other hand, if they follow up by deciding that they are going to enforce it, then we get into dangerous territory. This is what I'm referring to. Telling people they're not allowed to be overweight is the first step in legislating lifestyle. While I'll be the first to admit that some 'lifestyle legislation' is necessary, it's a very fine line between the clear good of the people and protecting the people from themselves. That's a line I'd prefer not to walk at all.

I will successfully argue for an exemption by using my GIGANTIC BRAIN.

I like the initiative of the government to try and help there people and ease the health care system but not sure if I agree with this action.

Frankly I don't care if your fat, until you start to drive up the cost of my taxes because your always needing medical care...etc But if you paid for your own medical expenses and it had no monetary or personal impact to the general population why do I care if you eat crap food and get fat? Too each his own.

I quoted the enforcement in pst #3. If you aren't in reasonable health, the company you work for will pay more taxes for the healthcare system, which will in turn put pressure on you.

This is a restriction of personal freedoms, and shouldn't be supported by anyone who believes in such freedoms.

I think it'd be nice to have my employer realize that sitting on my ass for 8 hours a day because it's a requirement of my job, should also be compensated in the form of a free gym membership.

*shrug*

I think it's a bad idea. I don't think that it's government's rightful place to legislate what people's waistlines should be. Not to mention when I was 21 I would have not been able to meet that standard despite being 6'1, 156lbs, and having a 36" waist at that point in my life, which made me very skinny. Government should keep it's grubby paws off of my waistline. Funny thing is that I was in the Military (USAF) at the time and they didn't seem to have a problem with my weight at all.

Japanese people, on the whole, are considerably smaller than Americans. They aren't as tall as we are--a person who is 6'1" in Japan is a giant. Therefore, the waistline size they've chosen is relative to the people the government is governing.

Yes, but it's the freedom to be fat. I'd hardly compare that to freedom of speech or press. Is being fat really a freedom you want to fight for? I mean it's really disrespectful to categorize fat with freedom to speak against the government.

Furthermore, it can't be denied that obesity drives up health care costs--should a fat person have the freedom to cost me more money because they choose to be fat?

This is a slippery slope. There are many things that "drive up" health care costs based on lifestyle choices.

* * * * *

We shouldn't read too much into this. It looks to me like people are going to be told what foods to eat and not to eat if they are deemed overweight or obese. They aren't forced on a diet. It's a legislation of education.

Heart disease and diabetes have a direct relationship with obesity and are leading causes of death in Japan, immediately behind Cerebro-vascular disease (strokes).

So what happens to those Japanese that happen to be well above the norm as far as height is concerned? I don't think that such "one size fits all" legislation should have a place in people's lives with respect to a person's life. In my opinion it's an abuse of governmental authority to legislate that the population must maintain a certain waist size, or a certain weight.

The proper role of government is to protect it's citizens from being harmed by other people, and to prohibit people from inflicting harm (which includes reckless endangerment such as driving while intoxicated) upon any non-consenting 3rd party or their property. In my opinion, it is not the proper role of the government to legislate to an adult what their choices in life should be outside of those paramaters

It's under "pursuit of happiness". Same thing as Prohibition and criminalization of drugs.

Why should I not be allowed to do to my body whatever I want?

Are you taking into account the universal healthcare? This is about ensuring that universal healthcare continues to be a good investment for their people.

Because, in Japan, it's not just effecting you.

Let me frame it this way. What happens when you have a heart attack while driving home from work on the highway? You take out a dozen people because you couldn't stop cramming bacon in your mouth. Suddenly you're effecting other people due to your mistakes (and being fat is a mistake, not a freedom).

While I am for people having assistance controlling their weight, I can see the slippery slope argument.

however, the grey becomes black and white rather quickly if you start asking fat people if they WANT to be fat.

not going to find a lot of support there.

however, if you try to compare it to something like smoking? yeah, people want to smoke, despite it driving up health costs, so theres no way you could convince people that businesses jumping in and throwing nico-gum/patches and whatever else is required to stop people from smoking would gain even remotely the same support as this.


so Yeah, I'm totally for this.

I think ths slippery slope argument is invalid in this particular case

Even if they have Universal Healthcare, I could not support being told that the government should be allowed to tell adults how to live their personal lives in that manner. I'm more a limited government type w/r/t the personal decisions of individuals. I have mixed feelings on the concept of Universal Healthcare, I don't like the idea of said health care being able to be used as a reason for giving the government any additional authority in our lives, it already has too much as it is.

I again see the value in having these types of policies but I think in the end it is just too much government intervention and not enough personal freedoms.


Anyway this law/action will only really get big once the government can properly utilize this plan to rape the average citizen out of more of there money.

In a universal system, one's BMI isn't "personal". At the very least it's public decency, but in reality it's an economic drain.
For the sake of the thread, I think we should avoid discussion about universal healthcare in general and keep this on Japan's legislation.

Any mandatory measurment of my physical body is by definition personal, because it requires me to allow another person to touch my body without my consent. If someone touched my body against my will without said government mandate it would be called simple battery at the very least and would be a crime against my person. Probably a misdemeanor, depending on the jurisdiction, but a crime nonetheless. Tell me again how is it not personal simply because the government decides to violate my person against my wishes?

My weight has nothing whatsoever to do with public decency.

On disease, one can only be deemed a risk for disease based on being overweight, unless a person has actually been diagnosed with said disease, and had said disease tied specifically to their obesity (easier said than done, since there are often multiple factors involved).

I didn't bring universal healthcare into the discussion, I merely pointed out my mixed feelings on the issue, particualrily how it could be used as an excuse to expand already excessive governmental authority.

This is simply incorrect. If you were injured and paramedic were touched, there would be no legal violation of your person in treating you.
http://argville.com/images/funny-pic...nder-dress.jpg
Obesity is a disease. Those who are clinically obese are ordered to seek treatment just as someone who has a flu. It's something to cure. While obesity clearly causes many health conditions, it is in and of itself a health condition.
I never said you introduced it, I said this isn't the thread for it. Please, no threadjacking.

the whole thing is just silly.

This thread could have continued on fine without that picture Will!

Sure, but it communicates more than a thousand words.

True, it also communicated to me that I am now officially not hungry for dinner.



Beer it is then.

Only if I'm unconscious or incoherent and cannot refuse. If I am conscious and coherent and say that I don't want treatment, then he has to honor my right to refuse treatment, and is liable if he does not.

This photo is an example of the person not choosing the apropriate clothing for their body weight, rather than their body weight in and of itself. There's a difference

I would see ordering a competant adult to seek treatment for obesity (in themselves) as an abuse of governmental power. I don't see government's rightful role in society as protecting an adult from himself.

I really don't want to talk about universal healthcare that much either, I was trying to make a point about keeping it out of the discussion. Perhaps I could have worded it better.