It would solve a hundred different diet related diseases, making the country fitter, and more productive. If people can't be trusted to eat healthily themselves, shouldn't the government step in?
2006-09-10 07:31:39 · 13 answers · asked by Oracle Of Delphi 4 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
That's a very interesting concept; the population of the UK was at it's healthiest during the rationing of WWII.
it would also help combat the excess that we all live with on a daily basis. It may also be that should the environment crash around our ankles - that this will be a happening thing.
On the whole though - I can't see it happening. It's way to drastic for this political climate. There're already cries of "Nanny State" - this would give those people a cardiac arrest.
2006-09-10 07:33:17 · answer #1 · answered by Felidae 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The ultimate nanny state. What next the government passes a law to say we can only use a certain type of vehicle in order to be kinder to the environment? Or a total ban on everything that is deemed "bad" for us or is the cause of the spread of disease (so thats kissing banned).
2006-09-10 07:38:09 · answer #2 · answered by BenignSource 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a million. What replaced into the optimal rationalization for the upward push of dictators in Europe and Asia in the process the Nineteen Thirties? Dictators promised financial restoration and order. 2. Which us of a replaced into no longer invaded with the help of ecu and Asian dictators in the process the Nineteen Thirties? Vietnam 3. Why had the U. S. decrease back to isolationism with the help of the Nineteen Thirties? people felt international war I were fought for no longer something and had to keep away from a 2nd conflict. 4. all here describe techniques that FDR assisted the Allies till now stepping into international war II different than offering the surveillance centers of protection stress intelligence to permit the British to objective the Luftwaffe. 5. What finally delivered the U. S. into international war II? Japan bombed U.S. ships in Pearl Harbor. 6. What replaced into one way the U. S. met the challenge of producing aspects for U.S. troops in international war II? Federal businesses have been primary to help civilian manufacturers retool. 7. How did the function of girls replace throughout international war II? great numbers of girls entered the two the civilian paintings stress and the protection stress. 8. throughout international war II, many African people served interior the protection stress or worked interior the federal government. Many others moved to northern cities to paintings in marketplace. What danger remained closed to African people in the process the war? built-in military regiments 9. How did people participate interior the war attempt on the abode front? They wide-unfold rationing and saved scrap steel. 10. Which replaced into the main serious constitutional question raised with the help of the presence of internment camps interior the U. S. throughout international war II? maximum detainees have been U.S. voters held without quotes or the prospect of a speedy listening to. 11. What replaced into the optimal concept at the back of President Roosevelt's 4 Freedoms speech? Roosevelt believed protection, civil rights, and get right of entry to to trouble-free needs have been wide-unfold rights. 12. Which replaced into no longer a U.S. protection stress achievement interior the Pacific theater? Bataan 13. the U. S. ended the war with the help of dropping the 1st atomic bombs in August 1945. the place did the U. S. drop the bombs? Nagasaki and Hiroshima 14. Who replaced into no longer a key U.S. commander in international war II? Robert McNamara 15. Which conflict replaced right into a key component to the Allied offense to defeat Germany? the D-day invasion at Normandy
2016-11-07 01:16:10 · answer #3 · answered by filonuk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not the governments job to keep us healthy. If they are worried about the costs involved of an uhealthy population they should make the 'self inflicted' unhealthy ones pay a premium for their healthcare . It would be hypocritical of the government to implement this though, given the type of food they have been suppling to our children in schools. So its up to us to eat healthy, but its a sad fact that we can pick up a pizza for less cost than a bunch of grapes.
2006-09-10 22:37:31 · answer #4 · answered by intelligentbutdizzy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good idea in theory, but the black market would thrive...these negatives would outweigh any positives. Case in point: lots of people didn't drink during prohibition, but a helluva lot got whacked by the mob...
The best approach is to tax - to a certain point - those foods that are particularly unhealthy. Make it more cost effective for people to eat well. Of course, if you tax too much, then the black market effect kicks in.
2006-09-10 09:48:27 · answer #5 · answered by The ~Muffin~ Man 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What help would that be. Some of the problems are with people who can afford to eat and overeating.
2006-09-10 07:33:12 · answer #6 · answered by brogdenuk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope but publishing good advice on healthy eating and exercise would be a brilliant idea.
2006-09-10 07:47:04 · answer #7 · answered by quierounvaquero 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Either that or something similar, its a good idea would stop greed, obesity and perhaps people would start to appreciate the food that we have.
2006-09-10 07:47:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not! This is supposed to be a free country.
2006-09-10 07:53:30 · answer #9 · answered by Frosty 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, because there is no need. but they ought to bring back conscription...that'd stop them getting fat... jump you orrible litte man...
and of course introduce a burger tax.. they tax cigarettes and alcohol and fuel..why not burgers...
2006-09-10 08:09:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋