People who see everything as a problem to be solved by the application of exquisitely calibrated governmental force remind you of the maxim: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Mark Bittman, a food writer who penned a op-ed for the New York Times about the wisdom of taxing unhealthy--i.e. delicious foods.

"The resulting income should be earmarked for a program that encourages a sound diet for Americans by making healthy food more affordable and widely available." Then they'll eat broccoli! Vegetables, after all, are less expensive than cigarettes. Bittman, a good little socialist at heart comes out with "Public health is the role of government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, for water treatment to mass transit."

Your private eating habits are a public responsibility. This is all part of public health! You are putting wrong things in you body and that's everyone's business. Stop the war on drugs, but keep smoking as we need the taxes. And, put the donut down and don't you dare look at the Golden Arches.

I exercise four days a week, and generally take care of my body. I may occasionally indulge in some ice cream. Yet, I'd pay a tax based on the assumption I sit on a couch and watch "The View" while dipping some Oreos in chocolate sauce? Hmm, maybe this is a weird idea, but, maybe the government should leave me to decide what I eat and how much.

Of course, we would have to have exceptions for a plan like this. Maybe the people on food stamps should get a special voucher (we can ever form a new government agency) for a special treat of Hostess chips for the kids.

The reality is it is more likely, that people will eat what they want and the populace will not be swayed by cartoon carrots and Al Gore's new book: "Going green at the table?"

This micromanagement mentality of everything is scary. Who are the "experts" that will decide what is good and bad?

I have a better idea. If you want to combat obesity put a tax on TV watching (studies have shown a correlation between TV watching and obesity). The government can put a device on everyone's TV to time how much TV they watch and tax them accordingly. Heck, they are probably watching Bill O'Reilly anyways, so let's soak them. Of course ,if they are watching PBS or CBC in Canada we will provide a tax bre

Oh great. More "lifestyle taxes." Of one thing I have no doubt: As you hint at, it would most definitely call for the creation of another government agency.

On second thought: If they keep this up, we'll very soon have full employment. Everyone in the US will be directly employed by the government. Yay! The perfect system!

I'm not certain about the statistics of obese people in Canada, but somehow I doubt it is as bad as here in America, especially where I live currently, the southeast. The reason that some believe there needs to be a "nanny state" influence on food consumption is, quite frankly, because a huge number of Americans are acting like children when it comes to food, stuffing anything and everything into their mouths, thus becoming inflated walking tubs of fat.

In my state, you can draw disability pay because you have willingly turned yourself into a land whale, and obese state employees can get free gastric bypass surgery in order to shrink their stomachs which, of course, is funded by tax revenue. Most of those who have GB surgery lose weight initially, but then gain it back because they have not changed their eating habits, once again stretching their stomachs by overeating. This is not normal behavior, and the vast majority of these people have no conscious thought about their eating habits or the consequences thereof. This is why I say to obese people, don't want to be treated like a child who is unable to think for itself? Then stop acting like one.

I work at a health food and supplement grocery store part time, and let me tell you, I have witnessed and heard some amazing things. You have not lived until a 400 pound woman comes up to you and asks for weight loss pills and/or diet tea, and how to lose 250 pounds as fast as possible. Telling such people that they need to eat a healthy diet and exercise is useless, because most of them just don't get it. They think they can continue eating 2 Big Macs at lunch 5 times a week, sit on the couch for 12 hours a day, and just by popping some pill they will magically shed those pounds. And there are few things more ridiculous than listening to a morbidly obese man who has had 2 gastric bypasses, a heart attack, and has diabetes and gout, tell you that he deserves free health care from the state because "he earned it".

Now, I don't believe for a second that placing a tax on certain foods would make anything better, and its a really dumb idea. First, there needs to be a complete removal of state provided disability insurance and benefits gained from being obese. I personally do not care if people are fat or not, I just don't want to have to pay for any of it. Second, there could be (not necessarily should be) incentives to be more healthy, like cheaper insurance, etc. But these measures are already in place. Many companies reduce insurance rates for healthy employees, and even help by providing free personal training and a fully equipped gym at the workplace. My father's company does this, and it seems to work relatively well.

This is no different than drug addiction. They do it to themselves, willingly. They should be made to deal with the consequences on their own, and without making healthy individuals pay for it.

It is all the chemicals in the food and the packaging that also takes a role in making people obese. The chemicals make the food have fewer nutrition and the body will want more and more food and then the person ends up eating more in order to get the starving body for nutrients. I stay away from preprocessed foods and have good Mexican food. People need to eat good organic food that is not package in plastic to make them more healthy.