New bill would make it illegal for restaurants to serve the obese, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 04:05 PM by Area_X

1. This is completley discriminatory.

2. Who gets to set the guidlines for obesity?

3. If they're implying by the proposal of such a law that it is the responsibility of the establishment selling said food to determine if it will be detrimental to the health of it's clients then McDonald's will be going out of business shortly. (Maybe this is a good thing! LOL)

4. On the opposite side of the argument is this: NOBODY had a problem when the law was passed that said the bartender that did nothing but pur your drink was responsible if you got too drunk, got in your car and killed someone. This law just takes the next step, toward protecting the actual customer. - From themselves.

Insane.

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 04:32 PM by Pymeohmy

reply to post by TheRedneck

Well said Redneck, well said. I couldn't agree with you more on this, and of course I'm going to go off on my own little tangent here..
I don't understand why some cannot see beyond what is put in front of them. The minute I heard the slightest buzz about the smoking thing it sent a red flag up to me. It all started with the propaganda, the constant barage of news reports on how bad smoking is...blah blah blah...and so many just fall for it. I call it smoking hysteria! I actually knew someone who crossed the street when she saw someone smoking so she wouldn't have to be near their smoke like she was going to die, and yet, she is out in the polluted air day in and day out. Now that they've passed these smoking laws in many states they are going a step further and really getting out of hand with it. People are complaining that their neighbors are on their own back porch smoking, or smoking in their own home and they can smell it next door. You can't smoke OUTSIDE in many areas or in certain parking lots. Once the smoke has cleared so to speak, a new bandwagon is formed...and so many just jump right on.
Whether you're a smoker or a non-smoker..the bottom line is that someone's rights in this country have been taken away which leads to another and another..and before you know it...YOU'RE affected and don't understand how this could happen.

It happens slowly and deliberatly. Now it's the food, and the overweight, and the trans fats...soon it will be sugar and colas and so on. I wouldn't be surprised at some point that if your child is overweight you will get investigated or at some point you may be alotted only so much meat and/or fats you can eat because you have high cholestral. This may seem far fetched but sooner or later they will be targeting those that so smugly agreed with these laws for one reason or another and they too will be told how to live their life. It is a snowball effect, is going to go on and on and on and we are letting it happen. At some point we will all be affectd.

Make no mistake, I am not for or against smoking. What I am for is our rights to make our own decisions. Bars and restaurants should be able to make their own choice if they want to allow smoking or not...and then I have the choice as to whether I want to work there or go there to eat or drink. I don't want to be told how to live my life.

I am really afraid for us all.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by Pymeohmy]

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 04:57 PM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

I posit that trans-fats are no different form drugs in that regard. What's more, government also regulates things like fertilizers and pesticides such that your food is not entirely poisoned by the time it reaches you. Do you agree that somebody should care about these chemicals, or you'd rather the capitalist system kill you in the name of you nutritional freedom?

And I personally agree with the restriction on alcohol sales as well.

Yes, you sounded like a reasonable person to begin with. So, what is the difference between being buzzed and trying to get more booze, and being seriously obese and trying to get even more obese (with all but guaranteed grievous harm to your health)?

Come on. The question here boils down to the role of the government in our lives.

Right on. And I submit that it has its role.

So let's just state it plainly: do you or do you not think we need to be controlled by our government in every aspect of our life?

You see, this is a loaded question. What does "every aspect" mean?

I frankly am grateful that it is now prohibited to smoke in bars. It was fun when we could, but in all seriousness, my T-shirt and skin would be like covered in tar by the time I'm home. Not the case anymore, and I smell normal.

Let's put it this way, I have no problem if they legalize MJ but ban greasy fast food. Are you with me?

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:01 PM by hildar

It just ticks me off though that they are doing this what is next we cant fart. What is this world coming to. I am surprised they havent made it a law yet that we can only have sex once a week. there already saying they want to make it a Law that we cant smoke in our own homes, well when that happens they better pay my mortgage payment every month.

here is the next laws they will work on:

You can not snore at night
Sex once a week only
No farting in public
No burping in public
No sneezing in public
People with Aids must stay in there homes at all times
People with the Flu can not leave there homes
You must clean the litter box daily
You must make your bed daily
You must kiss government butt daily

Hilda

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:02 PM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Pymeohmy
It happens slowly and deliberatly. Now it's the food, and the overweight, and the trans fats...soon it will be sugar and colas and so on. I wouldn't be surprised at some point that if your child is overweight you will get investigated or at some point you may be alotted only so much meat and/or fats you can eat because you have high cholestral.

That makes a lot of sense, this proposal of yours.

You see, try and research the diabetes trends in this country. You will probably be scared (I am) by the tsunami of diabetes which continues to rise, crippling people and making them permanently dependent on big pharma for mere survival. Numbers are staggering! Makes you think about conspiracy of some sort.

Sodas are evil. It's death by corn syrup. As far as I am concerned, they must be banned as soon as practically possible. In fact, let's ship the stock of sodas for free, to enemies of the United States.

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:21 PM by Pymeohmy

reply to post by hildar

There are many things that are not good for you,,,,why not just ban everything ,,,that way you have no choices, nor responsibility for anything.

And when your right to speak your mind is taken away from you .... think back to when cola's were banned, that is if you're allowed to think at that point.

SO SORRY HILDAR THIS POST WAS IN REPLY TO BUDDAR NOT YOU, I HIT THE WRONG REPLY BUTTON! Forgive me, I am a Newbie

[edit on 4-2-2008 by Pymeohmy]

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:26 PM by Pymeohmy

reply to post by buddhasystem

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:43 PM by TheRedneck

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes, you sounded like a reasonable person to begin with. So, what is the difference between being buzzed and trying to get more booze, and being seriously obese and trying to get even more obese (with all but guaranteed grievous harm to your health)?

No difference. And if you'll read all of that response, you'll see that I point out that the law against serving booze is a burden on those who serve it. A burden I feel is unwarranted. Sorry if that bit of sarcasm skipped by unnoticed.

Come on. The question here boils down to the role of the government in our lives.

Right on. And I submit that it has its role.

I see that role as very minimal. I don't agree with your premise about regulations are necessary to protect the people from corporate greed... well, maybe in a precious few cases, but that's a case-by-case basis with me.

So let's just state it plainly: do you or do you not think we need to be controlled by our government in every aspect of our life?

You see, this is a loaded question. What does "every aspect" mean?

I frankly am grateful that it is now prohibited to smoke in bars. It was fun when we could, but in all seriousness, my T-shirt and skin would be like covered in tar by the time I'm home. Not the case anymore, and I smell normal.

Let's put it this way, I have no problem if they legalize MJ but ban greasy fast food. Are you with me?

I use the term 'every aspect' to show the creeping regulation that is steadily entering our lives. If I can bring back up the smoking issue, the first strike was simply to ban smoking in the US on domestic airline flights less than 2 hours in length. Then it went to all domestic flights, then to all flights period. It started in buildings as a ban on smoking in public buildings, not too terrible. Then it went on to include all restaurants, bars, stores, and now even private homes and outdoor areas (as was mentioned above).

This incrementalism has also been used to force seat belt use... a good thing, yes, but rather than educate people to use seat belts, our government decided to legislate it. In Alabama, the law started out as a $10 fine for a secondary offense. now it is a primary offense and the typical fine is upwards of $200.

New York banned trans-fat. Mississippi wants to ban obesity. I'm no fan of either, but where does this intrusion into private lives and regulation of personal choices end? That is my point. Before smoking was banned in bars, any bar owner was free to ban smoking in their building. No legislation was necessary for this, because the place was theirs. All you had to do was find one that banned smoking (or start one) and you and I could both have our desires. Now, it's only you. Is that fair?

And I agree with the legalization of marijuana as well. I have drank and used weed, and I see no difference in the two on a quantitative level. Treat them the same. I just don't think that banning greasy food is a good idea. I like my trans-fat-saturated, mayonnaise-covered, grease-dripping hamburgers.

TheRedneck

[edit on 4-2-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 06:15 PM by hildar

reply to post by Pymeohmy

Not a problem I made that mistake once to and I wasnt even that new. But I do remember my mom talking about the ban on coca cola years ago. She said they thought it was a drug. It just may be. I am addicted to Pepsi lol. But as far as to the government telling me I cant have a burger when I want one cause I might be 5 or 10 pounds overweight they can kiss my A$$.

they actually had a ban on potatoes many years ago. I know people in Maine had to throw away all there crops cause the government said potatoes were bad for us. It lasted one year. But many taters were wasted.

Hilda

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 06:56 PM by Terapin

I think restaurants should serve the obese. That is provided that they are cut into small portions and braised in a hickory smoked BBQ Sauce. When Hillary becomes president, and we are all put into NWO slave labor camps, eating the unfit will ensure future generations. Unfit physically, does not mean unfit to serve with rice and broccoli.

Long Pork, it's not just for dinner anymore. The other white meat.

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 07:51 PM by tyciol

This is a really horrible idea. Firstly, taking care of your health should be in your own hands. Fat people can still buy from supermarkets, which carry all sorts of unhealthy stuff, or machines that sell chips or soda. It does not solve the problem. I'd much rather see these troubled people going out and socializing at restaurants than eating from machines or at home. Socializing will encourage them to want to better themselves I think.

Secondly, even if you could somehow control food intake, people with reliance on chemical spikes from earthly things would just find some other vice like smoking or reckless sexual encounters. It doesn't solve the root personality problem they have. Being fat is just a symptom of it.

This kind of descrimination's bad because often restaurant food can be more nutritious and fresh compared to food you buy at many supermarkets. You're condemning them to receiving less nutrition, which they need to fight off disease and recover from exercise which they really need to do more of.

reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 11:18 PM by kokuryu

One of the most insensitive pieces of legislation going into action, and yet I would not be surprised if it was passed. Plenty of legislation going around to penalized people deemed to be "too fat". Me, I am one of those crowd that has zero control over what I weigh. I eat 90% healthy, cannot have fast foot at all without getting severe digestive problems, cannot eat foods with an inordinate amount of preservatives or other chemicals in it, and do not eat more than most other people - and in fact usually eat less than most other people, but yet I am "overweight". Aside from the occasional cold during the winter, I am otherwise always healthy. Compared to other people suffering from just about anything and everything else you can think of, am I really "too fat", or am I actually the right weight? Heck, two of my close friends who were rail thin died from heart attacks, everyone else that I know who is "fat" or "obese" has never suffered any heart ailments at all! Are those figures from the AMA actually real that say "fat" and "obese" people suffer more from heart attacks? I dont think so...

Quite frankly I think the entire US definitions of the "right weight" based on "height" is all BS - I have seen plenty of people who are toned and buffed and havent been those weights since they were little kids and weigh in nearly 50% OVER what those height and weight charts are, yet nobody calls THEM
"obese".

And it is not my imagination, but with the Federal Government trying harder and harder to enforce it's version of nutrition on the population, why has the population alll of a sudden gotten "fatter"? Well, if it is true that we are getting what we should be getting for nutrition, then that means reality is the REAL weight we should be is NOT a stick figure!

reply posted on 5-2-2008 @ 04:35 AM by Areal51

reply to post by hildar

Refined sugar, high fructose, basically any substance like alcohol or nicotine, that has an effect on your body's chemistry and affects the way it works, is a drug. It is possible to become addicted to processed sweetners. And if you look in the ingredients of most foods today you will see that high fructose is found in just about anything and everything that is processed. That's because processed food manufacturers sell taste. And because of that they want to increase their profits so they use corn to produce high fructose. The production of real sugar is not subsidized by the government to the extent that corn is. So it's much cheaper for food manufacturers to use high fructose and other processed sweeteners that are produced from corn.

Check these out for more info:

The Hidden Story of Big Sugar
Why Coke uses High Fructose Corn Syrup
Read the transcript: The obesity epidemic

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Areal51]

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 12:44 AM by jackinthebox

The bill will never pass because obesity and malnutrition are part of the plan of the perpetrators of the NWO. Fat people are literally and intentionally being starved to death.

I humbly invite everyone here to visit "Let Them Eat Cake!"

Please stop by and let me know what you think. Don't forget to flag.

[edit on 2/6/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 09:46 AM by dj05544

Its stupid law's like this that make people realize how dumb the people are that hold power in this government....What a waste of time, money, and brain cells. Fat people are fat because of themselves- Leave it out of government. Government doesn't hold any power over eating- eating is necessary to live. Thats like the government saying- "everyone with breathing problems stop breathing".

I'd love to be a politician but Im not the scum of the earth so I wouldn't qualify.

Our government needs to be filtered or flushed out....straight up

There's far too many fools giving orders and even more taking them.

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 03:10 PM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Ron Paul. We need you, fella. Get rid of this insane overindulgence of government meddling in our lives.

Ron Paul can't save you - this is what he wants! Does his constant mantra of "state's rights" not sink through your skull? The Ron Paul approach is to strip the ability of the federal government to abuse its citizens rights, and instill that power exclusively in the hands of the states.

There's a reason he's got at the absolute best, 4% of anyone's votes. The guy's dumb as a sack of moist waffles

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 07:59 PM by Critical_Mass

Any establishment who discriminates against anyone should be boycotted by ALL.

We have a responsibility as HUMAN BEINGS to ensure we live in a world determined on crushing all discrimination be it government endorsed, or endorsed by something as small and insignificant as a restaurant. What year is this for crying out loud, and haven't we learned anything?

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 08:11 PM by Terapin

I am uncertain if anyone in here has read beyond the ATS post regarding this story. The Legislator who proposed the bill does not believe it will pass. His goal was simply to draw attention to the serious problem of being obese. His state leads the nation in severely overweight individuals.

Folks can complain all they want about 'guberment' gone crazy, but this legislator took enough action to bring light to the seriousness of the issue. It wont pass and was not intended to, but it is indeed a subject worth taking seriously.

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 08:50 PM by undo

Originally posted by Terapin
I am uncertain if anyone in here has read beyond the ATS post regarding this story. The Legislator who proposed the bill does not believe it will pass. His goal was simply to draw attention to the serious problem of being obese. His state leads the nation in severely overweight individuals.

Folks can complain all they want about 'guberment' gone crazy, but this legislator took enough action to bring light to the seriousness of the issue. It wont pass and was not intended to, but it is indeed a subject worth taking seriously.

That's more logical.
Gotta make sure I read the links.

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 11:24 PM by Cyberbian

I believe that Obesity is considered a disease, so the sufferer has a disability and is therefore a protected species.

That aside, I would bet a buck, that at least one of those good ole boys owns a takeout only restaurant (4 seats or less).
The legislation only applys to restauraunts with 5 or more seats.

Just legislate every competitor out of business, and you are the man!

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 >> ^^TOP^^