« A Record Broken, A Promise Kept | Main | Wanted: Environmental Analyst. Must Love Toll Roads »

Comments (11)

1. Bob Squalonero says:
   February 20, 2008 06:34

   Howdy y'all!

   Ah recently returned from visitin' mah kinfolk back in Arkansas (specifically, the Little Rock/Jacksonville/Cabot area) & jess lahk Mississippi (which is raht nex dawr to Arkansas), we've gawt lawts of fast food restaurawnts (Taco Bell, Sonics, McDondalds, Jack in the Box, Pizza Hut, KFC, Waffle House, etc.), and they're all drive-thru.

   Hell, even the Starbucks are drive-thru & as if that ain't enuf, the Wal-Marts (Arkansas' gift to the U.S. of A) got fast food restaurawnts in 'em!

   As a result of all this fast food convenience (again, jess lahk Mississippi), there are lawts of people in Arknasas lookin' lahk Bubba, Junior & Beulah-Mae (go to a clothing store in 'em-there pawts, and the majority of the clothing sahzes sold are XL, XXL & even XXXL).

   To quote an Arkansas native, who was once U.S. President (ah think his wahf is gunnin' for the same jawb), "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!"

   Ah guess wut ahm tryin' to tell y'all is that them there Mississippi-folk can pass all the anti-obesity laws they want, but as lawng as there's a need for fast-food restaurawnts, Bubba, Junior & Beulah-Mae will keep goin' to 'em lahk a hound-dawg to a rabbit hole.
   

2. Diana Hsieh says:
   February 20, 2008 08:25

   This proposed law is really too stupid for comment, but it's exactly what opponents of blaming tobacco companies for smokers predicted.

   Restaurants should not be charged with the chore of refusing food to fat people. It's the job of the fat person to eat healthy food in moderate portions. Obviously, it's just as possible to do that well or badly at a restaurant as at home.

   What's next, making sure that dorky people are well-dressed before allowing them to leave the house?!? Fat police, fashion police, it's all the same nanny state inanity.

3. Raman Gupta says:
   February 20, 2008 12:49

   So will restaurateurs walk around with measuring tapes to make sure that their customer's bellies meet the state prescribed standards? Or will the state force them to install weighing scales in front of cash registers and underneath chairs?

   That such a law can even be considered is a sad comment on the state of our society, as well as indicative of a widespread misunderstanding of the proper role for government in a free society.

4. Jason Stanfield says:
   February 20, 2008 13:48

   What a catch 22 ... serve big people, get fined ... refuse to serve big people, get sued.

   I find it baffling that those that would propose such a law couldn't figure out in a heartbeat how epically stupid it is.

5. John Powers says:
   February 20, 2008 14:26

   Even if our nanny state rulers stopped restaurants from serving fat people, they would still be able to make poor choices in the privacy of their own homes. The only way to prevent private individuals from making bad personal decisions that affect only their own bodies would be to remove all privacy from eating. This would entail removing all possibilities for a person to exercise his free will when it comes to eating. The state would force grocery stores to sell only low-calorie health food in restricted quantities, prohibit private gardens, dictate the number of calories each person may purchase each week via a rationing system, force each American to regularly report his weight and diet to a national database, and even make illegal the sharing of one's food (just like prescription drugs). And then our overlords would still require nutrition police to randomly search refrigerators and burst in on dinnertime in order to catch offenders.

   I know that scenario sounds ridiculous. But then so is the idea that a restaurant is responsible for the health problems of fat people who choose to eat too much.
   

6. Kyle Haight says:
   February 20, 2008 21:46

   You think it's bad now, just wait until after the government has finished taking over the health care system. If the government pays your medical bills, then anything that can impact those bills becomes a matter of government concern. Whether you smoke, how much exercise you get, what you eat, how you drive, whether you own a firearm, how you store the rat poison in your home -- anything that can potentially injure you, make you sick or keep you healthy will be the subject of intrusive government regulation. And in the final analysis, that means everything.

   And the real devil of it is that, once the premise of government-provided health care is conceeded all of the above follows quite reasonably.

7. Natalie in MS says:
   February 20, 2008 22:36

   Every time I see a mention of HB 282, I cringe.

   The author of the bill says he knew the bill had no chance of passing but that his intent was to "create awareness." Thanks, buddy.

   The bill died in committee on Feb 6.

8. Rootie says:
   February 20, 2008 23:01

   Can an obese person suffer physical harm to themselves if they have no caloric intake? (i.e. can they starve or suffer ill effects beyond simple hunger?) IIRC, too rapid weight loss has physiological effects?

   I can imagine someone with a busted fridge and/or empty cupboard or no other food source for any of a substantial number of either valid or illogical reasons. "I'm sorry, we can't serve you here" -- so they starve to death with no ability to buy food?

   What about grocery stores?

   What about food stamps? Will the government decide not to give *my* money taken by taxes to people who are obese? If private industry can't do it then certainly government shouldn't either right?

   I really hope this proposed law is a joke, because I just can't believe people could be that illogical.

9. Jeff Montgomery says:
   February 21, 2008 08:29

   Governments have no moral right to intercede and prevent people from buying food. A person's life is their own, not society's, and is theirs to live however they decide. If someone wants to grow obese by eating fatty foods, that is their decision and their right. It is also the right of restaurants to sell to whoever will voluntarily pay them for a meal.

   And if the argument is that this will result in costs to taxpayers, then the obvious solution is to remove such funding, not compound the damage by adding yet another infringement of our liberty.

10. Mel McGuire says:
    February 21, 2008 18:55

    As government sees itself having the responsibility of taking care of us, it necessarily will give itself the power to control us. No thanks, I'd rather have my rights.

    Stop rejecting freedom for the sake of altruism and short sighted expediency. Lots of people extoll "freedom" yet in fact reject it at every turn with the result that the whole idea of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is almost dead.
    

11. Jim Manley says:
    February 24, 2008 10:06

    The Ayn Rand Institute is entirely correct: government has no authority to protect me from my own choices if those choices do not violate another person's rights.

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)