John Banzhaf in 1991, on the 'slippery slope' argument that the war on tobacco would be followed by a war on food:
"They use the 'slippery slope' argument. 'My God, if they can do this to smokers today they can do this to people who eat Haagen-Dazs ice cream or whatever.'"
Ridiculous, yes?
Tackling obesity may require anti-smoking style approach: Canada's top doctor
Canadians need to do more to reduce their growing waistlines, but the country may not be ready for tough measures and legislation to help shrink the nation, according to the chief public health officer.
First comes the scare-mongering...
"The concern with the increasing rates of obesity is that this may in fact, be the first generation of children to not live as long and healthy as their parents," said Butler-Jones in an interview.
If that's true then why does life expectancy go up year after year?
Then the velvet glove is taken off to expose the iron fist...
Governments over the years, have passed various pieces of legislation designed to reduce smoking, including increased taxation and packaging requirements, and some health experts have been pushing for similar initiatives to combat obesity.
Proposals include banning the advertising of unhealthy foods, increasing taxes on food that isn't nutritious, subsidizing fruits and vegetables to make them more affordable for Canadians and forcing the food industry to change its labelling, packaging and ingredients.
Does anyone seriously dispute that the slippery slope is real, or that this was not always the next 'logical step'?
