Martli, your point has not been the same the whole time. You keep adding things to fit the presented argument, then state you had that point the whole time. Your argument at the beginning was society is paying for the choices of others, by using resources that could otherwise be used on more needy people. And you now state that we need to step in before it gets to the point that innocent people are effected by government regulations.
They are two completely different points, and you cannot even begin to try and say they are one and the same. You have not had the same point through out this thread. You are merley arguing from an easy to defend stand point, and not offering anything new from post to post, besides trying to make people look stupid in comparison to your posts.
I suspect you are over stating your view to an extent that people will react to you from the obvious "its our choice stance" and you enjoy being able to argue that.
Anyone can do that. All you do is put some carefully placed words in to make yourself sound like you know what you are talking about.
And on that note, dont group me with previous posts. My arguments are not the same as them. I am trying to predict the implications of your view.
And this is basically your view in laymen:
Trying to prevent a growing obesity rate (by default, regulation, the government can't intervene without regulations) will have less of a negative impact on society than the actual regulations themselves.