Even disregarding that statement about the government looking after the country, Id like to hear what your view is on the rest of my post, It directly relates to the issue of "government interfering". its not just about changing others, they are not taking away free will they are creating a more ideal situation for eating foods and for those who are healthy it rewards us rather than punishes us with higher prices and premiums.
Even discounting all that this idea is the government is trying to encourage people to be healthier not force them, how is that a bad thing.......would you get angry at someone trying to save lives..no, they are not taking away any choice or forcing anything on anyone, they are creating a balanced and ideal living situation....its that simple.
The only ban I will 100% support is smoking, its unfair that they should smoke and damage my health. If you want to make a choice to damage your healthy do it on your own but don't mess others up. This is partly the same argument for this type of idea, the government is trying to make a ideal living situation and unhealthy decision will be a choice. Right now people are forced to eat unhealthy, they don't have a choice if their money doesn't let them, for these people let unhealthy food be a choice, don't make healthy food be a choice.
That is forcing people to eat a certain way too, it isn't about controlling the idea, it's about flipping the current situation so the living situation is ideal, there is no choice been removed it just makes the dynamic ideal and smart, by healthy living been rewarding and easier. healthy individuals pay more for being healthy its bullsh*t.
Right now our situation is this
unhealthy food = normal majority and cheap
healthy food = unique minority for wealthier people
The goal is to flip this, not eliminate choice but flip the way our society is to improve overall health, decrease health costs and create a ideal living situation for struggling family and a awarding situation for those who eat healthy.
You are effectively limiting choice, by increasing prices via tax, when as you acknowledge, the target market is poorer - Further, the most important point, is that taxation on these products would punish all - so even if your BMI is 25, you exercise 6 times a week, and have a life expectancy of 90, you still have to pat extra for your fast food. I dont agree at all that its worth penalising the majority to exert extra control on a minority.
Smoking - banning smoking is the same - your fear of second hand smoke by my understanding of the science is unfounded (unless you work in a smoking bar, which there arent a lot of these days). Tax on cigarettes only applies to smokers - this is different to the fast food carte blanche idea.
people arent forced to eat unhealthy - this is a misnomer. eating unhealthy isnt cheaper, this is not a misnomer, its simply bullshit.
What causes eating unhealthy is a lack of skills to cook food, and laziness - sorry, time. The best correlation to obesity etc is education level - this also correlates with income. One thing that needs to be done is more research, what effects satiety etc is not well understood, nor is what interventions that work well known.
Hell, dietitians seem not to know whats going on in a behaviourial sense on this front.
Some simple stuff - protein satiates for longer, food delivered as a soup likewise, slightly smaller plates modify behaviour, chewing twice as long leads to earlier satiety, reducing kj intake by a smallish amount (say 10%), works far better than aggressive dieting - there are i am sure plenty of others. BUT the dietitian approach is here is the groups of food you should eat and the quantities - nad its so far from normality from most people that it never works - you need to slowly modify peoples "normal" over a long period of time, and dont expect to change peoples taste - you needed to do that when they were 12.
There are 2 superb examples of what is wrong with the current approach, the English woman who does you are what you eat, and Rosemary Stanton. there got that off my chest.