THE TOBACCO FAT POLICE ARE HERE!
REVENUE BONANZA-MORE FAT PEOPLE THAN SMOKERS
By: Dariel A. Colella
Hold onto your cookies folks - the fat police are here. As the anti-tobacco campaign wanes, another crusade has burst into the limelight to take its place. As state legislators grapple with falling tax revenues, there are those who would like to see a "sin tax" on foods that contribute to obesity. The claim that this sin tax will alleviate the costs of medical expenses related to obesity rings a bit hollow. One has only to recall how much of the state tobacco settlements were actually spent on smoking prevention programs. As of 2000, less than 10% (nationwide) of the money received is spent on anti-smoking programs. A sin tax may slim down the general public, but it will certainly fatten the state coffers.
In December, 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a "call to action" in an effort to bring attention to this national crisis. According to the press release issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Approximately 300,000 U.S. deaths a year currently are associated with obesity and overweight . . . the total direct and indirect costs attributed to overweight and obesity amounted to $117 billion in the year 2000." Warning bells should be going off all over the place by now. This language mirrors the "call to action" regarding tobacco. Oh, and don’t forget, it’s for the good of the children.
The Journal of the American Medical Association stated that "The time has come to develop a national comprehensive strategy - analogous to those already in place for tobacco use." Let’s consider the effects of the earlier jihad: 1) taxpayers are now paying approximately $4.50 for a pack of cigarettes; 2) the states have collected billions of dollars from tobacco companies which ultimately comes from individual smokers; 3) smokers have been relegated to doorways and back alleys; 4) people became closet smokers. Where are the benefits of this windfall from the tobacco companies? According to Vince Willmore, spokesperson for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, "The vast majority of states are not spending even the minimum amount needed to put in place an effective and comprehensive tobacco prevention program." The Center for Public Integrity reports that Connecticut, for example, "dedicated the majority of its share to fund a freeze on tuition at the University of Connecticut and to local property tax relief." Now I understand what they meant when they said, "It’s for the children."
A January 2002 ABC News report says it all in the title: "Whose Fault is Fat?" It is clear that we have created a culture of citizens with a total lack of personal responsibility. Smoke too much? There must be someone else to blame. Eat too much? It must be someone’s fault. The report states that "while individuals surely bear responsibility for what they eat and whether they move, some nutrition and legal experts say we may not be entirely at fault." Hmmmm, a "legal expert" claims it might not be my fault if I’m fat. So, we niftily have someone else to blame for our own bad behavior. Except, I don’t seem to recall seeing the food industry force-feed anyone lately. As long as we still have personal choice, there will always be those who over-indulge. This does not mean, however, that our choices should be limited because of those who often eat, drink or smoke to excess. The state government takes on a parental role by "punishing" (taxing) those who exhibit "bad" choices.
At a conference in Washington, DC entitled "Obesity: The Public Health Crisis," the President of the American Obesity Association stated that "fat taxes" were needed to implement anti-obesity educational programs. In order to scare taxpayers into "donating" their tax dollars for these programs, the press has embraced this new cause and is vigorously reporting the dangers of tax-free eating. Here are a few samples since January 2002:
DenverPost.com: "Colorado Aims to Get Obese Kids Moving"
Time Magazine: "Too Heavy, Too Young"
CNN Poll: "Most Americans Older Than 25 Are Overweight"
Reuters: "Obesity Harder on Health Than Smoking"
Chicago Tribune: "Study: 47 Million Adults Have Obesity-Related Syndrome"
ABC News: "Whose Fault Is Fat?"
Whenever over-indulgence is involved, trial lawyers cannot be far behind. Before long, the tort-masters will provide an answer to ABC’s question: "Whose Fault is Fat?" Once the blame is placed squarely on the food industry, and the appropriate parties have been punished, the state revenues will once again be replenished. Call me crazy, but I always believed that exercise was the cure for obesity, not torts and taxes.
Unless the general public significantly reduces the national weight and ends the current "obesity epidemic," Americans will soon be digging deep into their bulging pockets to pay for their "sins."
"Published originally at EtherZone.com
Dariel A. Colella writes from Wilton, Connecticut and is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
