What is next graphic pictures on cars about what happens if you speed? Even better let's go for graphic ads about on football shoes on the dangers to knees if you put the wrong studs on.

They take our freedom one piece at a time.

"But the unfortunate truth is that a good proportion of the population are making pretty lousy decisions when it comes to controlling their weight. And according to research published in the Medical Journal of Australia, these lousy decisions are costing our country upward of $21 billion each year."

One approach could be an 'abuser pays' system to spread the load...

Medical and hospital fees and rebates could be capped with an exponentially increasing scale of charges heavily weighted against body mass index.

What if there isn't an obesity problem? What if the data show that obesity levels in Australia have remained at about 7% for decades and indeed have shown a slight reduction in the last five years? That seems to be what Victoria's analysis of its children's health shows and there's no compelling reason to believe other states are significantly different. Just take note of the number of times you hear or see the phrase 'overweight or obese', then ask yourself what overweight means. It's only by combining the two terms that the figure becomes high enough for a scare campaign. Yes, another scam; with our money.

Public health professionals have generated this scare campaign both to protect their taxpayer funding levels and to justify their own existence. It's another example of rule by fear that pervades so much of our public discourse.

Unfortunately there are a lot more more FAT people, (I make no apologies for using the word FAT), in this country than there was 20 years ago, I have been 74 kilograms for the last 50 years (I am approaching 70) I stopped adding salt and sugar to food more than 30 years ago, those ingredients change your metabolism and stop FAT being used in a natural way and lets it build up in the body.
about 13 years ago I went on a driving adventure through 34 states of the USA; 23000 kilometers, we had to eat at "restaurants" the quantity of food was generous (excessive) and relatively cheap and contained massive amounts of sugar and salt both used as a form of preservative, it was tasty and I indulged, the result was I put on more weight than I have ever been, however when we returned and resumed eating our own prepared food my weight reduced back to the healthy condition it was before I left Australia, what this proves is that if you keep eating the "wrong" foods and excessive amounts you will get FATTER and FATTER, there are "natural" amounts of sugar and salts in almost all foods, the problem is magnified by ADDING more salt and sugar, to achieve a healthy weight balance you MUST reduce, better to eliminate, the amount of SALT and SUGAR, it will take self control but when you do wean yourself of the problem food, you will say "why did't I do that sooner??"

Not entirely true, Ms McAuliffe.

>>Unlike smokers who can blow toxic smoke into the faces of passers-by, eating junk isn't hurting anyone else.<<

Try this: Sydney to Perth, Economy Class, in the middle seat between two obese people. Five hours of that most definitely hurts. For several days.

Nevertheless, it is a vexed question. By what measurement does the law decide what actually hurts "other people". And who are those "other people" anyway? Is it just a majority/minority decision, or is there a measure of value judgment in the mix as to rightness and wrongness?

You even manage to identify the key issue, without realizing it.

>>The fact that we need to redesign equipment, infrastructure and transport, use more fossil fuel and even increase staffing rosters due to obesity shows that it's an issue reaching far beyond the individual. So because it's a public problem, it requires public intervention.<<

I strongly suggest that your logic fails here: this is not a "public problem" at all.

Looking at it more closely, the example you provide is of a commercial nature, not moral, or legal, or even health-related. The commercial reality is that over the centuries, house-builders had to gradually increase the height of doorways to accommodate an upwardly-evolving population. What we have here is today's manifestation of that evolution. Only outwards, rather than upwards.

Should we legislate against obesity? I don't believe so. Could we legislate against obesity? I doubt it very much. Should we use government money - i.e., our money - to shame fat people into changing their diets? Not at all.

The way in which it does affect us thinnies is - as with smokers - when their actions cause the cost of healthcare to increase. For both these categories, I suggest we determine a form of "user pays", so that their habits do not harm others financially.

Along the same lines, airlines should install "fat seats", and charge accordingly.

As far as hospital expenses are concerned, as with smoking, obese individuals' life span is so significantly shortened, that total health expenditure is likely to be less than on a healthy individual that lives to 90. With about 2/3rds of adults having a BMI>30 (clinically obese) fat is considered normal, and while tobacco and alcohol are not necessary to sustain life and can be controlled by taxing, food is an every day essential. While one burger a week is not a problem two burgers a day is. Does the nanny state control every burger for everyone, or make the supplier cut off customers above a certain BMI? There is no easy answer.

I have no problem with my fat compatriots, unless they want to share their problems (generally not an issue). For example, if someone cannot fit into their plane seat and wants to raise the arm rest to flow into my seat, then I firmly refuse. I agree with airlines that if they cannot fit into economy, then they need to get two seats, go business class, or push for "premium" economy seats on domestic flights too.