It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New bill would make it illegal for restaurants to serve the obese

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


People need convenient fast food because they work 60 hours a week to pay for a studio apartment that doesn't have a kitchen. I hate fast food. I used to get a craving once in a while, like maybe once or twice a year, but try eating that crap every day.

People are fat because they can't afford healthy food.




that's non sense, they choose to be fat, and I don't want see morbidly disgusting hugely I mean fat fat. Buy rice, it is very healthy, there is almost no fat people in korea or japan and the food in Japan costs quiet a lot and they work more than 60 hours a week, so they seem to have time to eat, and they sure pay a lot more for their apartments, which are tiny, so please get real


[edit on 2/2/0808 by jackinthebox]




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I find it totally hypocritical that politicians of all people would want to push this kind of law.
I don't know about America, but I assume that it's the same as Australia, in that 1 in 10 POLITICIANS are over weight.
Wonder if they'll have the same laws in government canteens, bars, restaurants etc.
If losing weight is so easy, why don' t they jump on the backs of overweight politicians FIRST and then set the example?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
First you can't smoke in restaurants. Now they don't want you to eat in restaurants if you are deemed obese. Soon restaurants will have to stop serving the short, bald and unfit. With only a few more laws we could put restaurants out of business altogether and make people cook and eat healthy food and not smoke at home.

Non-smoking policies protect people from second hand smoke. But non-service for the obese protects people from what--an aesthetically unpleasing experience?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
Non-smoking policies protect people from second hand smoke. But non-service for the obese protects people from what--an aesthetically unpleasing experience?


lol, well not exactly. They are thinking that they are going to protect the obese from themselves. And the bottom line is you can't stop people from killing themselves, if they so desire. Even with the fact that the state has a high obesity rate, trying to legislate it is pure silliness- but worse, a real waste of time and money when instead, as our lawmakers, they should be in there trying to figure out how to get us out of this ridiculous mess in Iraq/Afghan. And stopping them from going into Iran/Pakistan.

I'll take a fat guy and a big mac any day over the sheer frustration I feel with our foreign policy.

There are so many other considerations to the bill that were obviously not considered- I really have to wonder how someone like that gets elected at all. Well, not really.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
whats next a new law that they cant sell candy, ice cream, or regular sodas to fat people? That is just stupid.

Hilda


apc

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Eating foods with preservatives and pesticides [might make] one unhealthy, and that [might] lead to being overweight.

I bolded my modifications that make that statement true.
Otherwise it's just another round of the blame game.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
whats next a new law that they cant sell candy, ice cream, or regular sodas to fat people? That is just stupid.

Hilda


no.....one that says it's a criminal offense to offer your overweight friend a soda at your next backyard barbecue.. I can see it now, the national health police, cruising america's neighborhoods, in search of unhealthy barbecues to raid, women smoking on their front porch, wait, wait...stop!! that women that just walked out of that house over there...didn't she have brown hair yesterday?? thought so, hair dye!!! let's pick her up!!
but wait...that kid over there, ya the one with the ice cream cone!! it's almost noon, child neglect there, the mother is spoiling his fine lunch of lettuce and other rabbit food!! I'll get the lady with the fake hair, you get the neglectful mother!! wait...call for backup, did you just hear that radio from the car that just went by!!! oh, my, my ears are still hearing that bass!! he needs to be picked up also.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Gee whee...

What's next, charging $50 dollars for driving a car that's not protecting the environment?

Oops!

Seriously, don't people have much more *important* things to do then going after a certain "kind" of people? Of course they don't, always have to create some mundane law that will help no one.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This is what people want. Pick a group then attack them. Attack smokers for smoking, fatties for eating, gun owners for shooting....

Break everyone up into little groups, make them fight tooth and nail to preserve a right they shouldn't have to fight to preserve and who wins in this?

The politicians. They get to tax you for being a smoker, being fat, owning a gun or an SUV. They use that money to fund more attacking to get even more money.

And anyone who doesn't currently fit into one of these groups being attacked just sits and smiles while the plight of their fellow man entertains them, makes them feel powerful.

Jokes on them. It's only a matter of time before they too get attacked.

If you value your own freedoms and liberties then you better well start defending other peoples.

Let the fatties gorge themselves until they explode. But understand I have no obligation to pay your health costs.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I don't know whether to LAUGH or Cry. This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Talk about discrimination!

First of all, assuming that "fat" people are fat because they eat in restaurants is crazy. There are plenty of fat people that are embarassed to eat in front of people, so they closet eat. Hmmm, maybe we need some kind of gestapo type people at the grocery store to monitor what a fat person buys. There would be an alarm that goes off when they buy a bag of chips or something. If they get caught trying to buy something they shouldn't then they would get a big fine...hmmm...yes..this fine would help the government come up with even more laws to control them! I mean really, c'mon, who would this "law" help? Is it going to help someone lose weight..uh, no. Really, what is the reason behind such a proposal? And why should the government care whether a person is fat or thin? What else will they deem their business in the future?

I am not a judgemental person by nature, however I do have a STRONG opinion about anyone that thinks this could be a good idea "for the fat persons good." Anyone that thinks this in my opinion is beyond understanding what doing something like this would mean to all of us in this country. We should be outraged that anything like this would even be proposed. It would be just one more door open into controlling all of our lives fat,skinny or otherwise. We are to be contolled? For the good of whom? Us? Think about it.

A word about fat people:

I have read some posts that really disturb me about the misconception of why someone is fat. Believe me when I tell you fat is not something that anyone wants to be. I lost a lot of weight, I am probably about 15 lbs over my "ideal" weight at this point but by comparison I am now thin. I chose the behaviour that lead to weight gain, but I did not choose to be fat. Being fat and the journey there are two different things.
Getting fat was the result of my addiction to food and it is the only addiction that many people have no sympathy for. I am amazed at how people with other addictions are rallied around by the general population,yet food addiction is looked upon as just a simple push yourself away from the table thing. There are so many reasons people use food. The mind is where the addiction starts and it is also where it has to end.
A fat person is not someone who just likes to eat. Please understand it is a mental issue. One of the main problems is that you do HAVE to eat to live, so it is a battle every single day of your life. Anyone that doesn't have this problem does not understand it. But, you can have compasion without having the problem yourself. I don't understand where the LOATHING comes in? I really don't.
It's almost scary to me that a segment of society is so loathed for the way they look. One time after eating a whole bag of cookies myself I cried and asked myself why couldn't I eat like "normal" people. It is torture to not be able to control this,,,and not know why. Please just think about what I said. These people are hurting. It is not an easy thing to fix, it is very complex,,,if it weren't then no one would be fat. The ridiculous comments like "I hate fat people" not only show ignorance but are juvenile, and really make no sense. I take great offense to hearing these kinds of comments even though I am thin I am fat inside. I know the battle, I will be in it the rest of my life.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 


TheoOne,

Fat people are the only unhealthy people? Seems to me there is a lot of unhealthy behaviour going on that has nothing to do with fat people. Hmmm...maybe those people should also be targetted. Of course we would have to put a sign on them or make them wear a patch or something because we wouldn't be able to "see" their problem.

This could start a whole new industry! A high cholesterol patch. High blood pressure patch. A eats too much fatty foods even though he/she is thin patch. A drinks too much patch. The possibilities are endless! Some people have several issues, so they would need to wear something like the boy scouts where to display their patches. But, you can get only so many patches or your ostrasized. Think this would help get people into shape and up to your standards?




[edit on 4-2-2008 by Pymeohmy]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Wow.. I just found this thread!! As a kitchen Manager I am somewhat taken back by this bill... It doesnt make much sense to me..

I can just say this.. Some of my best cleints are big guys and gals.. They pay for a service.. Who are we to turn them away.. They are grown ups and can make their own minds up about what they want to eat...

Also if this bills comes to pass, I will do back door food service!! All this bill would make is another black market.. You want poppers? Mozz sticks?
Come meet me out back.. I will sell them to you!! Meet me out back, and I will hook you up with some fried chicken, and butttered greens!!!


This Bill is a waste of time... WTF.. makes no sense to me..
Okay well makes a little sense, but really.. Its up to them to chose what they will eat and what they wont.. The government needs to back up a bit.. They are really pushing their luck here..



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Yeah this is just another way to form a whole new black market...
Do you all really think just becasue a bill would be made to stop this it would just magically stop...

No sertin types of food would be on the level of contra band now.. A whole new Black Market.. So at one time some greasy Mozzy sticks would be 4.95$.. But after this bill would pass.. I would sell them out the back door for 8-10$ per order.. Becasue its illegal.. What a bunch of crap..

So in my eyes, this is just another way to make a new black market for food products that act like a drug to sertin folks...

I dont expect this bill to pass... And even if it does.. Im telling you.. Theres going to be tons of back door food sales going down...

Im be the first to say.. I will be selling all the fattest foods right out the back of my kitchen...

Goverment needs to back the heck back on this one.. Or they will just make matters worse..


LOL I can see it now.. The DEA busts down my kitchen, and puts me in jail for 15 years for selling Mozzy sticks and friend shrimp... OMG..
Thats freakin silly... really silly.. lets lock up the cook with the murders, pedo's, and rapest... They will need more prison space for all these new offenders!

[edit on 4-2-2008 by zysin5]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I'd like to propose legislation that anyone with a penis under 7 inches be refused...uh....some kind of service. Or, maybe just euthanized!

Obviously, they can't be HEALTHY...look how shrunken they are!! And they're a health hazard to boot...think of all the depressed sexual partners out there who MIGHT be suicidal!!

Those small penises are a DRAIN on the tax payers wallet...somehow (let me think about it some more).

OK, got it.

Because happy, sexually fulfilled women are more nurturing (and therefore raise happier, more cognitively viable children), it should be a law that a male's penis is measured after puberty and if he comes up short (uh...) well..sorry Chuck, you're a liability to our society and you must be killed.

As for esthetics, don't they realize they look disgustingly disgusting with those small penises (penii?)?

While they're at it, they should mandate that women over 60 cannot make their hair blue, because that always made me ill. Actually, those pesky old folks are SUCH a drain and they're hogging all the resources! I've been paying SS taxes for for 31 years and I wont get anything for it when I'm their age--so, we should pass legislation that you have to be euthanized when you hit 70 years old.

Whew! Next?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The whole reason that Americans are obese is because they can't afford real nutritious food instead of raiding the dollar menu and eating the same food they are serving. Why don't they propose a bill that sends fat people to a nutritionist and gives them discount organic foods?


These statements are quite incorrect.

a) everybody who can afford to eat can afford to eat healthily. I know because I went though a few meager years myself when I was starting in graduate school. Veggies aren't more expensive than red meat. Rice and beans are relatively healthy and very cheap. If you go easy on butter, that will help, too. Now, one has to make a decision to not drink sweetened sodas because it's a caloric bomb, and eschew chips and beer. Mind you if anything this helps you conserve your budget, and not the other way; by the way I didn't see obese people in Cambodia, and don't tell me that cambodians can afford better food than Americans!

b) organic foods by themlseves won't help you get slim



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Time to tick a few folks off...

15 years ago I predicted this day. It was about the time smokers started losing their rights. I said then that smoking was only the first salvo. Next to come under the gun would be the overweight.

Make no mistake about it, while this law will not pass, future laws will. Then will come those who are not overweight, but who simply don't eat healthy. Anyone familiar with NYC's recent ban on trans-fat? Next it will be those who don't exercise enough... maybe a ban on non-physical jobs for them?

Ah, well. I'm 6'-2" tall and weigh 180. No obesity here. And I plan on being as compassionate to this cause as people were to my cries about smoking bans. You wanted regulation then, you get it now. Poetic justice.

Sheesh, I'm actually getting riled up here... time for a smoke.

-----puff, puff-----

-----puff, puff-----

-----puff, puff-----

Ahhhhhh, that's better.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


Haha, I didn't even think about the black market food business.

There was a South Park (?) episode where Cartman goes to 'fat camp' and sells food to the campers. They all end up gaining weight because they love candy and snacks so much.

This could be a possible future if Mississippi bans the sale of food to obese people.

$50 for an ounce of steak...$1000 for a pound...And the rates get cheaper the more you buy
. Sounds a lot like drug dealing to me, quite a bad idea.


apc,

I wrote what I did for a reason.

Preservatives are not part of a healthy diet, nor are excessive salt and fats.

Do I think we should restrict people's diets? No.

That sounds like 1984 all over again, and I am not a fan of Orwell's work.

When I wasn't eating healthy, my family came out and told me. That's how this problem needs to be solved, not through political moves such as this one.

Another step towards fascism...

Big Brother IS watching you step onto that scale. Make sure you're not above the predetermined weight requirements for your height or you'll be heading to Rex-84 FEMA concentration camps!

[edit on 2/4/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Make no mistake about it, while this law will not pass, future laws will. Then will come those who are not overweight, but who simply don't eat healthy. Anyone familiar with NYC's recent ban on trans-fat? Next it will be those who don't exercise enough... maybe a ban on non-physical jobs for them?


I think you have a couple of good ideas here and there! By the way, banning a synthetic substance (most of transfats, but not all, of course) from our food chain was a mighty good idea. If there is a reason to believe that it's linked to heart desease (and so is smoking), banning it isn't all that crazy. After all, not all drugs are considered safe for public consumption, don't you think?

Also... If you are visibly buzzed, liquor stores in many jurisdictions are required to deny you buying more alcohol... Do you agree with that?


[edit on 4-2-2008 by buddhasystem]


apc

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 

Yes but neither are Ding Dongs. I eat the occasional Ding Dong and I'm quite healthy.

Apples are one of the most pesticide-laden fruits. But an apple from Price Chopper isn't going to make you any fatter than one from Whole Foods. Saying certain foods are less healthy than others is one thing, but trying to draw a cause and effect relationship between the subjective qualify of the food and the objective obesity of an individual is a stretch at best. Even eating those frozen bean burritos I mentioned, as long as one spends sufficient time on a treadmill or riding a bike they'll be fine (absent genetics or disorder or blah blah blah).

You're definitely right it's none of the Government's business. Nor is it the restaurant's or the grocery store's. The ultimate and sole responsibility for what people put in their mouths falls on the one holding the fork.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I think you have a couple of good ideas here and there! By the way, banning a synthetic substance (most of transfats, but not all, of course) from our food chain was a mighty good idea. If there is a reason to believe that it's linked to heart desease (and so is smoking), banning it isn't all that crazy. After all, not all drugs are considered safe for public consumption, don't you think?

Also... If you are visibly buzzed, liquor stores in many jurisdictions are required to deny you buying more alcohol... Do you agree with that?


Great ideas, as long as you are not the one being restricted... and there-in lies the problem. Sure, trans-fats are a long way from being 'healthy', but is it the job of government to regulate them? I don't think so, but that's my opinion of course.

Not all drugs are safe for public consumption, true. Many drugs have serious side effects, up to and including a tendency to cause one to become dead when taken in too large quantities too fast. Of course, making them illegal has really stopped the misuse of dangerous drugs, so that's a moot point.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join