Newsflash: smoking is bad for you.  So, apparently, is drinking to excess.  And, wait for it, regularly gouging on fatty foods is no good either.  It’s shocking, I know.  Better go get a coffee to help get over it all; but do make it one of those low fat, caffeine free types so as to look after yourself.

Yeah yeah, we know.

Maybe, however, you happen to be one of the 99 per cent of people who knew these things to be the facts of life already.  You may still engage in one or some of them, but you do so knowing that there are risks.

This informed consent that you grant yourself is under threat.  A new buzz-phrase is sweeping the bureaucracy and is being visited upon us all.  It’s called “preventative health”.

The first, reasonable, question you may ask is why would I want to prevent health?  But that would be splitting hairs – “preventative bad health” just doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. 

But the real issue is just what is this preventative health, why does it matter and why is it relevant now? 

At its purest form much of preventative health is just like motherhood – something so wonderful and wholesome that it is hard to disagree with.  At varying levels it aims to avoid the development of disease, support the early diagnosis of disease or reduce the negative impact or complications of established disease.  All worthy aims.

Using condoms, washing hands, cleaning areas of food preparation or providing immunisations are all areas of preventative health.  Early screening and testing for a range of diseases, especially diseases with a family history, gets a tick too.

Unsurprisingly, preventing drug abuse, stopping smoking, eliminating excessive drinking, embracing a healthy diet and exercising regularly are also winners.  Nothing to disagree with so far.

The Rudd Government decided that preventative health needed a bit of a kick along and, back in April of last year, established a Preventative Health Taskforce.  It narrowed the scope of consideration somewhat, with terms of reference focused on lifestyle or consumption issues solely, requiring the development of “a blueprint for tackling the burden of chronic disease currently caused by obesity, tobacco, and excessive consumption of alcohol”.

The task force delivered their strategy to the Minister a couple of months ago, yet only released it yesterday.  The delay in releasing it was no doubt caused by the vast array of Rudd Government spin doctors obsessing with how to turn a document that talks endlessly of tax rises, advertising bans and promotional restrictions into a politically palatable policy response.  It must almost be driving them to drink!

What worries me is that, in all of the discussion of ways to reduce the incidence of smoking, alcohol abuse and obesity, there seems to be very little debate about when we start to cross the line of unreasonably telling people how to live their lives or instructing businesses how to run their businesses.  So long as you don’t live in an information vacuum, you already know these things are bad for you, yet people choose to engage in them anyway.

What’s more, they already pay the price for it too.  Let’s pick on smokers – everyone else does and, unlike a pint of beer or a Big Mac, every cigarette does, apparently, do you harm.  Smokers pay $5.5 billion in tobacco excise alone every year.  GST comes on top of this.  According to a 2005 federal government report that more than recoups the $670 million that smoking costs the hospital system, while leaving plenty for other areas of smoking related healthcare too.

So we know that most smokers understand the risk and are paying the price.  Drinkers pay plenty in tax too and, I contest, know that both chronic and acute harms can result from prolonged or short term abuse of alcohol.  That just leaves the obese.  While there may not be a fat tax, fresh food is GST free, unlike take-away.  Regardless, I would certainly challenge you to find me any overweight person who thinks it healthy to be overweight.

You see, life is full of risks.  From getting up in the morning and crossing the road, driving your car, jumping in a plane, jumping out of a plane for that matter, we make all manner of calculated risks all of the time. 

At what point do we simply acknowledge that people choose, of their own free will, to smoke, drink to excess or eat to excess?  When will we be spending enough on telling people they shouldn’t do these things?  When will we be overly inconveniencing those who choose to simply enjoy the odd drink or an occasional chocolate donut?  When will we be impeding legitimate businesses from selling legitimate products?

I do need to engage in a little disclosure.  I used to work in the alcohol industry, so I fully expect some to attack me as a heartless voice of evil industry.  I also don’t have any children, so I know others will explain that I just don’t understand what it’s like when little Billy or little Lizzie nags to eat some sugary breakfast cereal after seeing some of the evil advertising that invades their homes.

However, I can claim to have some understanding too.  My father died of smoking related cancer when I was 12.  I believe we should ensure people are informed of the risks.  We should discourage such risky behaviour.  There is a place for “sin” taxes.  We should strongly enforce laws that prohibit minors from engaging in risky practices that they don’t have the judgement to assess.  And we should absolutely enforce laws that already prohibit drink driving or otherwise prevent harm being done to innocent parties.  But there are limits to how much government can or should control the free will of people, so long as their actions do no harm to others.

There are some reasonable ideas contained in the Preventative Health Taskforce report.  Increasing the provision of fresh food to remote indigenous communities, while also reducing tobacco and alcohol abuse, is critical to tackling obesity, diabetes and many other endemic problems.  Sadly, the capacity for informed choice simply does not exist in some of these communities. 

Preventative health has a very important place.  So do parts of this report.  But please, higher taxes, advertising bans and bigger warning labels only serve to tell us what we already know and punish us for what we already choose to do.  People are already largely informed and somewhat punished.  So please, let’s pick the best bits of new thinking out of this report, but let’s leave behind the tired old headlines that simply point to doing more of the same.

Most commented

24 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Grandma says:

      06:39am | 02/09/09

      Regardless of what your view of all this (smoking, alcohol and obesity) is, setting the precedent on smokers, what they can and can’t do (and that includes making informed choices), means any other group of ‘deviants’ is fair game. Hence the ability now to focus on obese or overweight children. Who is going to pick up the tab for the psychological bills or care these kids are going to need? Yep they may get made fun of at school etc., and bullied now, but what will be happening is the reinforcement of bully tactics they are currently receiving. 
      After the fat police have whipped these kids/ people into shape, who is next? Which group of ‘deviants’ will find themselves ‘under the microscope’ and being pressured to conform to what governments and media consider proper?
      Seems to me we’re on very shakey ground in the matter of human rights and freedom of choice and speech. , I wonder if people will have a change of heart if at sometime in the future they find themselves a ‘deviant’ because of the way they look or the personal habits they have.

    • Liz says:

      07:45am | 02/09/09

      So you’re saying a Big Mac or a drink does no harm? See then that you need the new Task Force and it’s information rather badly.

    • BJ says:

      07:48am | 02/09/09

      Gouging? Wrong word,. The correct word is gorging! As for the rest of your article, I didn’t bother reading it. If you can’t get a simple adjective right in the first sentence, it doesn’t do much for the credibility of the rest of your opinion.

    • mark says:

      08:11am | 02/09/09

      now switch parties to the ldp and get away from those christian lunatics in the liberal party - those who may not want to tell you what to eat or drink, but damn sure want to stop you reading and watching what you want. then, simon, i might just vote for you.

      watch your freedoms people. liberal and labor want to steal them

    • Seanous of the NT says:

      08:29am | 02/09/09

      Damn Straight! Smokers pay for ourselves plus another couple of people in health care.

      Its a free country, let us choose!

    • WC says:

      08:53am | 02/09/09

      Can you please point me in the direction of where to get the 2005 Federal Government report showing how much smokers cost vs how much they contribute, I would like to show it to some doctor friends of mine.

      Thanks

    • Sash says:

      08:57am | 02/09/09

      I have no problem with people choosing to kill themselves by smoking, however I do have an issue with smokers inflicting their lung damaging smoke on others when out in public.  I would like to be able to choose not to have cigarette smoke blown in my face as I’m walking down the street.

    • st says:

      10:22am | 02/09/09

      Great column! My question is - how does the Senator feel about legalising illicit drugs?

      “But there are limits to how much government can or should control the free will of people, so long as their actions do no harm to others.”

    • BMJ says:

      11:06am | 02/09/09

      Great piece. Its time to stop with this madness.

    • Phil says:

      11:18am | 02/09/09

      I agree. And legalise illicit drugs, too, while we’re at it. And away with seatbelts and traffic lights and speeding fines. And why not let tobacco companies hand out cheap ciggies to kids too, like they do in Indonesia?
      We are a free society and it is OUTRAGEOUS that the government tells us what to do.
      If I want to shoot up crack then hop in my BMW and drive at 180kmh the wrong way down the street while downing a supersized burger and texting on my iPhone, I DAMN WELL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO.
      #&^%$ nanny state.

    • Jake the Muss says:

      11:53am | 02/09/09

      Phil I think your argument is something of a red herring although I’m going to come straight out and say that I absolutely think that some of your sarcastic suggestions are actually good suggestions.

      I think a good political rule is that people should be free to do as they wish as long as they don’t initiate force on another person.

      As such I think that illicit drugs SHOULD be legal simply on that basis (not to mention prohibition hurts people rather than helping them).  I absolutely believe that people should be able to chase the dragon till their heart is content.  I may not think it’s a good idea.  I may try to pursuade them not to.  But I’m not going to initiate force to stop them.

      Drug addicts and drug dealers committing assault and robbery etc though.  Absolutely make those things a crime.  In actual fact it is the illegal nature of these drugs that associates drug use and selling with violent crimes.

      Same with seat belt laws.  If rational adults want to not wear a seatbelt, let that be the case.  New Hampshire, US seems to cope well enough without mandatory seat belt laws for adults.  We can see in seat belt laws the same argument as we do for current public health debates.  The Government steals peoples money through taxation, and uses it to pay for peoples health needs.

      So people with risky behaviour somehow get blamed for this instead of the Government that actually took the money in the first place.

      As for traffic lights, kids to cigarettes, and crack abusing BMW drivers.  Well I think you can argue that those cases do involve the initiation of force.  A crack abusing bmw driver endgangers the lives of OTHER people.  Traffic lights/safety laws etc, THAT’S FINE for the same reason.

      Cigarettes to kids?  Well I think we can accept that children are different from consenting adults and thus need to be protected.  This example is a strawman, nothing else.

      http://www.pimpinforfreedom.wordpress.com

    • Formersnag says:

      12:26pm | 02/09/09

      There is one aspect left out of this debate. Child abuse, what about deadbeat mothers, inflicting smoking, drinking, drugs, and gambling on their children? An ever increasing problem?

    • Jake the Muss says:

      01:00pm | 02/09/09

      Is it actually an ever increasing problem?  Do you have figures?

      I have no idea but considering that most people think crime has increased over the last 30 odd years when it has actually sharply decreased, I like to ask for a source on such matters.

      Like I said above, I think there is a case for rescuing children from such situations.  It would depend on the severity though…and there is the rub.

    • Glen says:

      01:07pm | 02/09/09

      These measures reek of being social engineering in ts infancy.  Stand by for more from Krudd.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      01:19pm | 02/09/09

      A fat tax on obesity should be more than smoking or alcohol and round it off with a green tax on every one who does not have the required sustainable amount of trees in their backyard to offset family emissions.

    • Tuttle says:

      02:56pm | 02/09/09

      I am going to start eating up big now so that I have more fat to lose when the Govt introduces its tax incentives to lose weight, which I am sure it will inevitably do. 

      I guess you have to look at how these measures will change people’s behaviour - probably in many unpredictable ways.  These measures - if not implemented properly - could give people incentives to put on weight. 

      Can’t we just let people live their lives how they like?  We all know the risks of being unfit and having a poor diet.

    • ANDIKA says:

      03:08pm | 02/09/09

      I can’t help but feel that our rights and more importantly, our freedoms, are slowly being eroded by Rudd & Co. The examples mentioned in this article illustrate this. I’m particularly worried as we have an ineffective opposition and an ‘love in’ media who aren’t scrutinising the Government enough.
      I fear that Rudd & Co could well control the reins of power in this country for many, many years to come and I fear what other freedoms this Government will slowly but surely take away.
      The same can be seen by state and local governments – You and five friends can’t go and kick a football in a park without having the Gold Coast City Council stick their noses in and tell you its not allowed.

    • Kris says:

      03:10pm | 02/09/09

      Outstanding column Simon. Surely we are at a point where people are more than adequately informed on the risks associated with cigarettes, alcohol and poor nutrition and can make rational decisions based on this information. Every report or study commissioned in this area seems to do little more than recite the same diatribe about how “we must do more”.

      There needs to be an acceptance of personal responsibility for these issues, not simply another round of calling for governments or retailers to decide what people should consume and in what quantities.

      @ BJ
      Whether the word “gouging” was used incorrectly or not is of absolutely no relevance to the substance of the column. On that note, is “gorging” in the context used not a verb rather than an adjective? If you can’t get a simple matter of grammar right, why bother commenting in the first place?

      @ Liz
      The comment in the article was that A Big Mac and A drink don’t in and of themselves do you harm but it is generally accepted that A cigarette does. What evidence is there to support that a single instance of either of the first two will harm you? Indeed, there is ample evidence to support the proposition that some alcohol is in fact good for you.

    • Samuel J. says:

      04:09pm | 02/09/09

      Once the government starts trying to tell us how to lead our lives, it is a slippery slope.  Did you know, for example, that older people tend to die more than younger people?  Therefore, if the same logic applies to smoking etc, should we discourage people getting old?  I recall a movie about that - Logan’s Run!  Big Brother is here - a few decades after 1984.

    • E. E. Campbell says:

      10:26pm | 02/09/09

      At last! A voice of reason and sanity!  I’m so sick of the Nanny Nation treating us all like kindergarten kids. The fact is that everything has descended to the lowest common denominator.  The Government is legislating for idiots.  Interference in our daily lives is something we’re seemingly taking for granted.

      We supposedly live in a free society in a freedom-loving country and yet we are having our freedoms nibbled away constantly… and all done with Nanny Labor shaking her political finger and telling us it’s for our own good and if we don’t follow orders there will be tears before bedtime.

      We’re gagged by political correctness, cocooned from reality by the trash that passes as entertainment, spun around by political spin doctors, made to feel guilty about the size of our carbon footprint, endlessly lectured on what is bad for us - and it seems that the list of what is bad for us grows longer by the day

      To quote Virginia Woolfe: “The world is such a dangerous place it’s a wonder we’re afraid of anything” - which I take to be your point, Senator.

    • Orobas says:

      01:51am | 03/09/09

      Absolutely spot on ! We must stop punishing people for legitimate personal lifestyle choices. And, hasn’t anyone noticed that the same health professionals who thrive off public funding and grants, always produce recommendations that increase funding to their own areas of expertise. Most often paid for through tax impacts on marginal social demographics who are most affected by these lifestyle choices.

    • MH says:

      12:21pm | 03/09/09

      The problem, as I see it, is the eventual burden on the public health system of all the Big Mac addicts, long-term binge drinkers and Malboro men. Whilst I wholly share your views on the right of the individual to smoke, drink to excess or eat to excess, I would go one step further and argue that they should do so in the explicit knowledge that they will pick up the tab for their own health care costs under a user-pay system for smoke-drink-obsesity assessed ills. That would place the true risk in the hands of individuals.

    • jason edwards says:

      02:20pm | 03/09/09

      Simon - The issue is not wether the government crosses any lines by delivering important health messages, but the ability of the government to cut that message through to the general public.

      Why on earth would you ague that the government should not use the tools it has control over (taxes, money etc) to counteract the tools large ‘vice’ companies have over the public (addictive products, advertising, false health reports etc).

    • Andrew Michaels says:

      02:24pm | 03/09/09

      Simon you are such a disappointment. Your lack of any real conviction shows in this essay. Have you forgotten that your own party advocated for a rise in cigarette tax in Turnbull’s budget in reply speech.  Rather than be a follower of where you think popular sentiment is going and trying to appeal to it for your own ends, why don’t you actually initiate a debate and lead the charge whether it is popular or not. Your contributions say more about your lack of conviction than anything else.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

@Cmdr_Hadfield @mattpturner Hope you have sweet views while you heal

Lucy Kippist

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter