Senior Debaters argue to what extent our lifestyles should be the concern of the State
here is a selection of some of the oustanding arguments presented
FOR THE MOTION: 'Unhealthy lifestyles are not the business of Government' - Lauren Carty, L6 Imagine a world where everything you do is highly regulated, your actions are categorised into 'healthy and unhealthy', where there is encouraged and enforced social stigma around unhealthy living. This world sounds almost Orwellian - a dystopia where freedom of choice over your own body is an illusion. Allowing the government to intervene in people's lifestyles takes away their fundamental right to freedom. Seeking to regulate the habits of smoking or drinking or eating is seeking to control a person on the most basic level - and why should we allow that control to be handed to government officials? The moral issues of government interference in unhealthy lifestyles aside, there is the glaring issue that these interventions don’t even work. People find workarounds to these measures, or just bear their costs, and all-told they have little impact. The best example of this is prohibition era America. Banning alcohol purchase led to people turning to more dangerous substances such as industrial process methanol, it led to increased crime, incarcerations and homicides, but one thing it did not lead to was decreased alcohol consumption. We have even seen evidence of people working around government measures in the UK, following the sugar tax. When Irn Bru changed its original recipe to a lower sugar version, fans stockpiled the old drink. The company even backed down and released a special edition original-recipe variety to appease consumers. People will find a way to do what they want to do, and no amount of campaigning or nudge-theory-based behavioural economics or sin taxation will change that simple fact. We should not allow the government to spend taxpayer money on healthy living initiatives that simply do not work. Finally, the fact that the government is pushing new healthy living measures now shows their utter disregard for people’s struggles and their insensitivity to what’s going on in the UK. Boris Johnson's healthy living campaign is entirely incompatible in the socio-economic climate that his own party has created, which has only been exacerbated by the impact of Covid-19. Imposing restrictions on industries such as the fast-food industry (which directly employs around half a million people), will inevitably lead to job losses, a deepening of the cost of living crisis, a loss of social mobility and an increased wealth gap. This is a time where the government should be encouraging business and commerce – not stifling it. The proposed measures don’t just harm people in an economic sense, but they also can harm their mental and physical health as well. It doesn’t sit well that a government drive to tackle obesity has been criticised by Chief Executive Andrew Radford of leading eating disorder charity ‘Beat’ as risking “causing great distress for people suffering from or vulnerable to eating disorders”. Unhealthy lifestyles should not be the business of government, because government intervention causes these kinds of negative consequences. Having heard these arguments you must agree that unhealthy living should not be the business of the government, as government intervention firstly will restrict our freedoms in a way that is unacceptable; secondly that intervention is unenforceable; and finally it can potentially harm the economy, along with the mental and physical health of the people within it.
AGAINST THE MOTION: 'Unhealthy lifestyles are not the business of Government' - Poppy Thomson, L6 Coronavirus has resulted in over 50,000 deaths in the UK and has been described as a national emergency. The vast majority of us are more than happy to wear masks and socially distance, and follow government advice, because we understand that this is a matter of life and death, and to ignore the government would endanger the lives of those around us. However, it is estimated that obesity results in 300,000 deaths every single year – 6 times that of coronavirus, and yet the other team will argue that we should be able to make our own decisions, and that government regulations to reduce obesity rates would be intrusive or oppressive. Why is it that, when it comes to obesity, people suddenly abandon the morals expressed with coronavirus, prioritising their own wants over the health of those around them? While the idea of a government having control over our health can seem a totally alien concept, in some areas there are already laws in place, such as for underage drinking and smoking. Now, while these laws don’t entirely prevent things like underage drinking from happening, the fact that there are government regulations in place emphasises to the consumer the potential dangers, and reinforces the consequences of our actions, as well as the idea that it is having a directly negative impact on our health. This demonstrates how the government will never have total control over what we choose to do with our lives, but how introducing regulations can act as a deterrent, and can encourage both education and personal accountability when it comes to our health. By introducing tighter regulations when it comes to food, exercise, or things like smoking and drinking, we are creating a conversation about things that usually go undiscussed and are therefore raising awareness and encouraging people to take control over their own health, regardless of how strict or effective these regulations were. Furthermore, health complications as a result of obesity directly cost the NHS £6 billion every single year, with wider costs to the economy of £27 billion, funded by the money we pay in tax. When looking at this from an economic perspective, it seems logical that the government should be expected to intervene, to minimise this excessive and ultimately avoidable damage to the economy, and unnecessary stress on an already struggling NHS. Studies suggest that if obesity levels could be reduced by 1% every year, £300 million would be saved every single year by 2035. This is a huge difference from such a small change, and this money can be redirected into other areas of the NHS, or things such as health education in schools, or smoking and alcohol cessation schemes. I think we can all agree that these initiatives would benefit us on a national scale, ultimately creating a happier and healthier society. We often say the phrase ‘prevention is better than a cure’ so why do we allow obesity rates, and other illness resulting from an unhealthy lifestyle to continuously rise, costing us tens of billions of pounds every year, rather than simply implementing guidelines that encourage a healthier lifestyle? While we debate whether the government should take control, we are only delaying an inevitable reform, while expecting future generations to pay for the debt we continue to accumulate - simply through procrastinating over a decision which would allow the government to take control of a situation that is spiralling out of control.
