What do you think of obesity drugs that control the appetite through receptors in the brain?

Better than nothing, but if people are not eating right they still won't be healthy.

I'd say the suckers who need those drugs are too undisciplined to diet and exercise properly, and deserve nothing but to pay ten-fold the going price of the 'wonder' drug. Wonder my *ss - most cases of obesity are indicative of a mental illness, as are most drug dependencies.

@TrevorPeace1, So just so I understand what you are saying here. Mentally Ill people don't deserve any help, and deserve to pay 10fold for ineffective medicine?

Maybe we should just lock all the fat people, smokers and alcoholics and give them chock treatment? Perhaps we should go back to drilling holes in their skulls to let the evil spirits out?

Squidbert yes i can see the chock treatment working well on the obese lol.

Sounds good where can I get some?

Lame that you have to use drugs to teach new tricks to your brain.

Probably the drugs are cheaper than the illnesses they have higher chances to contract due to their obesity. It's basically the same question with smokers and heavy drinkers - should society pay for the lack of self-discipline of its members, because it will be cheaper in the end. On the other hand, humans have the right to be obese if they like. Ordering people to be thin and healthy is against basic human rights. Bad problem...

Giving medicine to genuinely ill people is one thing. Giving pills to people because they are too lazy to do it on their own (which the vast amount of overweight people are) is not the answer. It's just another shortcut that will make people even more dependent on external crutches.

However, as a believer in the free market, I believe people should be able to create and sell whatever they want, provided people are willing to buy it with their own money.

Just don't expect me to support any tax dollar subsidies of this to treat some kind of "obesity epidemic" or something. Ain't my fault you can't control your eating.

Mmmmmm sounds delicious.

According to statistics, people only lose 5% of their weight taking those. Plus, many of those pills come with chances of getting cancer or cardiovascular diseases. Walking for 30 minutes three times a week would be more beneficial and cheaper.

All for it as long as it isn't covered by health care. You can't control yourself and want to lose weight? Pay for it yourself. I'm also all for charging fat people, smokers, heavy drinkers more for their health care. Why should the rest of us prop these folks up with regards to their health?

Two thumbs down for trying to save taxpayers money... Nothing like a nanny state folks.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-officially-incurable-according-to-science/

This is a question for doctors, isn't it?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All schools need to get serious about educating students on how not to get fat in the first place. All governments of countries with obesity problems need to ensure that companies promoting unhealthy diets and lifestyles either change or fail.

I'm also all for charging fat people, smokers, heavy drinkers more for their health care. Why should the rest of us prop these folks up with regards to their health?

They prop you up too. That's how the system works, it's public healthcare.

Wipeout, they don't "prop" me up. I pay more into the system than I get out - because i look after myself and thankfully haven't had any accidents. The same can't be said for smokers who are constantly sick who visit doctors a few times a year, fat people who do the same...

Wipeout, they don't "prop" me up. I pay more into the system than I get out.

No, they really do. They pay into the system, you pay into the system, and whoever needs treatment takes out.

And not all smokers, heavy drinkers and fat people are "constantly sick". You're just one of the many people who thinks of a system for everybody (it's not for you, it's for everybody) in terms of themselves. "Your" money goes in, some fat scumbag takes out.

Indeed wipeout that is how the system works but who gets more treatment? It isn't the healthy people who look after themselves. On average it is people who don't look after themselves. Surely you aren't silly enough to argue that, are you?

Seems two folks are silly enough....

On average it is people who don't look after themselves. Surely you aren't silly enough to argue that, are you?

I'm not silly enough to let someone put words in my mouth.

So what;s your point as clearly you agree with what I said above.

So what;s your point as clearly you agree with what I said above.

I don't.

The system is not tailored to penalize people according to the cost of their treatment or how often they require it. It does not and cannot discriminate against people who "on average" need more treatment. In any case, finding which diseases or injuries are someone's own fault, which should be put down to a combination of factors, or which simply can't be ascribed, would be an impossible task - not that that would stop you taking a shot at it, I'm sure.

You have no idea how much you are going to draw on the health service between now and the end of your life, but given that most of us are going to suffer from cancer, or heart disease, or stroke before we die, one day you're going to be spending other the taxpayers' money like it's going out of fashion. If you come from a country with universal healthcare, you also already benefited from other people's input for quite some years before you grew up, left home and started earning your own wage (you're in a very well paid job I trust) and contributing to the system. A lot of the people who carried you (and me) then were smokers, drinkers, and fat people.

My point (since you asked me to repeat myself) is that the system is by everybody and for everybody.

When you get sick, really sick, you'll be first in the queue for treatment. Just like all those other people. And the good thing about the taxpayer funded system is that it will treat you without judging you, however badly you've screwed your health up between now and then. You should cut other people some slack, you've probably used hospital services far more than I have, and you don't me complaining.

I pay more into the system than I get out - because i look after myself and thankfully haven't had any accidents.

I think someone doesn't understand the concept of insurance. You pay in, and hope you won't have to claim. If you do fall ill or suffer an accident, thankfully the insurance is there to pay for your treatment.

I'll bet the drug makers are making money off this.

What else are these drugs controlling besides appetite?

I imagine in many cases these drugs don't work because the people didn't get obese in the first place by paying attention to their appetites, eating only when they were hungry and stopping eating when they were no longer hungry. Controlling the appetite isn't going to help people who are paying little or no attention to their appetite in the first place.

What else are these drugs controlling besides appetite?

Your wallet!