No food for fat people

[phreakwars]

Bill would make it illegal to feed the obese - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

 

House Bill No. 282, which was introduced this month, says: Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

 

OK obesity is a problem, we all know that, but come on? Illegal to serve a fat person? What has this country come to?

.

.

[hugo]

Another giant leap for the nanny state.

 

I know y'all love my Milton Friedman quotes:

 

Friedman: The proper role of government is exactly what John Stuart Mill Said in the middle of the 19th century in "On Liberty." The proper role of government is to prevent other people from harming an individual. Govern- ment, he said, never has any right to interfere with an individual for that individual's own good.

 

The case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case for prohibiting people from overeating. We all know that overeating causes more deaths than drugs do. If it's in principle OK for the government to say you must not consume drugs because they'll do you harm, why isn't it all right to say you must not eat too much because you'll do harm? Why isn't it all right to say you must not try to go in for skydiving because you're likely to die? Why isn't it all right to say, "Oh, skiing, that's no good, that's a very dangerous sport, you'll hurt yourself"? Where do you draw the line?

[wez]

Yeah, lets not let obese people eat and make it everyones responsibility... They may as well say, don't come out in public if you are obese and eat food, stay home and eat yourself to death..We don't want to look at you. WTF?

 

I wonder if I could then get arrested for a hate crime if I tease obese people with my Big Mac?

 

Could you imagine the humiliation of someone saying, "sorry, too fat, please leave before I call the police". Whoever proposed this garbage should be flogged...

[timesjoke]

Does society suffer any negative effects from those who over eat?

 

 

I will admit to being a tad disturbed by the "super" overweight from time to time.

 

 

I have always said there should be a weight limit to things like spandex and similar items as well.

 

 

I wonder if this was started by the all you can eat restaurant lobby?

[hugo]

Does society suffer any negative effects from those who over eat?

 

 

 

Yes, it does. Even more so when national healthcare becomes a reality.

 

Milton Friedman:

 

We've talked about economic and political freedom as if they were wholly separate things, which they are not. I think the next big task facing the economic freedom project will be to try to weld the two together and make a combined index of economic and political freedom, especially where they mesh with one another. Property rights are not only a source of economic freedom. They are also a source of political freedom.

Barry Goldwater:

 

Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.

 

George Washington:

 

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master

[snafu]

I don't believe that this bill could pass. What about their civil rights? where's the NACLU when you need them? And who would detrime obsisty? Would have to walk up on the scale before you get your Big Mac?

[snafu]

I guess next you will need to take a glucose count before you can by sugar. Don't want any sugar getting into the diabetics hands now would you?

[timesjoke]

Yes, it does. Even more so when national healthcare becomes a reality.

 

So my next question for you is if the people who over eat cause harm to society, should government try to stop that harm to it's society?

 

 

 

I don't believe that this bill could pass. What about their civil rights? where's the NACLU when you need them? And who would detrime obsisty? Would have to walk up on the scale before you get your Big Mac?

 

They have machines that use two probes and can tell your fat percentage in seconds. Determining if someone is too fat is easy, deciding what to do about it is the difficult part.

 

 

 

I believe we can all agree that being severely overweight is a bad thing.

 

I also believe we can agree that "something" should be done to help these people, but our problem is trying to agree on what (if anything) should be done.

 

 

There is one thing we can say for sure, doing nothing won't help.

[hugo]

I also believe we can agree that "something" should be done to help these people, but our problem is trying to agree on what (if anything) should be done.

 

 

 

If by something you mean government action then, no, I do not believe anything should be done to "help" the obese.

 

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Ronald Reagan

[snafu]

...

 

They have machines that use two probes and can tell your fat percentage in seconds. Determining if someone is too fat is easy, deciding what to do about it is the difficult part.

 

.

 

Ain't nobody probin me with nothin! And there would have to be a defactor to go by. I might be big boned.

[snafu]

Again diabetics would be the next discriminated against.

[timesjoke]

If by something you mean government action then, no, I do not believe anything should be done to "help" the obese.

 

So you agree that those who severely overeat are harmful to society but the government should not try to do anything about that harm right?

 

 

If protecting members of our society from harm is not the job of government, what is?

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe we should only have state governments with any real power, a federal government only to coordinate large actions like wars and to offer a bridge between states for things like crimes covering more then one state being as one state cannot control another. I agree that a federal government is bad, but that geenie is now out of the bottle and she is not going back in.

 

 

My point is once we allowed an all powerful government to exist, this is the kind of natural progression government will take. I keep thinking about Demolition Man where the government made things like swearing and unhealthy food illegal.

 

I am sure it will not happen overnight but elected officials must always be passing new laws to justify their existance.

[hugo]

So you agree that those who severely overeat are harmful to society but the government should not try to do anything about that harm right?

 

 

If protecting members of our society from harm is not the job of government, what is?

 

 

 

The proper role of government is to protect individuals from internal (police power) and external aggressors (military), not themselves.

[snafu]

I think the pertinent thing would be is to deny them subsidized health care as apposed to deny them their civil rights.

[timesjoke]

The proper role of government is to protect individuals from internal (police power) and external aggressors (military), not themselves.

 

So to further define your possition and be sure I understand, you say government should only act to stop direct crime with police, and agression from other Countries with an army?

 

 

That leave out a mess of stuff.

 

 

How about disease like small pox? Should the government take action to prevent disease?

 

How about other harful factors to society like poverty/hunger? Should the government take action to provide at least basic life for it's people?

 

 

Where I am going is if you can identify any factors you believe are good for government to manage, that is how it starts. First one "need" then another until it starts snowballing out of control.

 

I am not saying I dissagree with you, if you believe the federal government should never directly act on anything you would be very close to the original design of our Country by the founding fathers, but where most find pause is the fact that most of the modern things we enjoy like a National road system is only possible by a federal government. Balanced penalties for certain violations of the law is only possible with a federal government. Prison overcrowding was stopped by the federal government. Even food safety programs are run by the feds.

 

The federal government has slowly taken over where we have let them, and now it is a force of it's own. Hell, even things like sex education is handled by the government because parents can't be bothered.

[hugo]

I'm happy with Article I Section 8 of our once great Constitution

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

These, along with some of the amendments, are the enumerated powers of the federal government.

 

A few quotes:

 

"

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

-- George Mason, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

-- James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

"the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."

--Thomas Jefferson

""We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."

-- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489

[timesjoke]

Okay, but this is the part they fall back on:

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

 

Event he rest of it lays grounds for more. You cannot expect to put limits on the monster once you create it because it will grow beyond your control on it's own.

 

The minute you make up excuses for federal control over certain things, the natural progression must force it to consider other things previously thought to not need it's "help".

 

 

While I agree with you and I would say my own desires for America is much harsher then yours I would bet, we have to accept the fact that we have made exceptions to federal control, and it is the exceptions that lead to more exceptions.

[Feckless Wench]

The country needs to educate children properly in school about food and nutrition, when it can truly say it is doing that, only THEN can it choose to discriminate against people who CHOOSE to be obese.

[Old Salt]

The country needs to educate children properly in school about food and nutrition, when it can truly say it is doing that, only THEN can it choose to discriminate against people who CHOOSE to be obese.

There used to be a course in high school called "Home Ec". It taught the students (about 90% female) about planning proper menus and household budgeting, as well as cooking and cleaning. As far as I know, it has gone by the wayside.

[Feckless Wench]

There used to be a course in high school called "Home Ec". It taught the students (about 90% female) about planning proper menus and household budgeting, as well as cooking and cleaning. As far as I know, it has gone by the wayside.

 

 

Good heavens, you can't call it anything 'homely' anymore. It's 'Food Technology' now and part of the Design and Technology department in schools. Instead of concentrating on how to actually FEED a family healthily and keep them clean it concentrates on the following:

• 
  [ ]manufacture and packaging of food (frequenly concentrating on the process of 'cook - chill' foods
  [ ]constituent parts of food
  [ ]food hygiene
  [ ]how to make an asian meal
  [ ]cake decorating...I ask you..Bloody cake decorating!!!!
  

 

What it doesn't teach these days is:

• 
  [ ]how to use a washing machine
  [ ]how to plan a healthy menu
  [ ]how to cook BASIC foods from fresh ingredients
  [ ]how to remain at an acceptable weight by moderating your food intake
  

 

It's damn ridiculous. Last time I covered a food tech lesson the kids sat and watched a video about how food is vacuum packed! Who gives a monkey's how it's packed...teach them how to cook!

[Old Salt]

Good heavens, you can't call it anything 'homely' anymore. It's 'Food Technology' now and part of the Design and Technology department in schools. Instead of concentrating on how to actually FEED a family healthily and keep them clean it concentrates on the following:

• 
  [ ]manufacture and packaging of food (frequenly concentrating on the process of 'cook - chill' foods
  [ ]constituent parts of food
  [ ]food hygiene
  [ ]how to make an asian meal
  [ ]cake decorating...I ask you..Bloody cake decorating!!!!
  

 

What it doesn't teach these days is:

• 
  [ ]how to use a washing machine
  [ ]how to plan a healthy menu
  [ ]how to cook BASIC foods from fresh ingredients
  [ ]how to remain at an acceptable weight by moderating your food intake
  

 

It's damn ridiculous. Last time I covered a food tech lesson the kids sat and watched a video about how food is vacuum packed! Who gives a monkey's how it's packed...teach them how to cook!

Agreed. The schools need to get back to the basics. At least in this arena. If a student wants a career in food preparation/sales, then "Food Technology" is the course to take. But for everyday healthy living, it's the basics which count.

[timesjoke]

The country needs to educate children properly in school about food and nutrition, when it can truly say it is doing that, only THEN can it choose to discriminate against people who CHOOSE to be obese.

 

 

 

And this is a great example of my point.

 

 

Some of us find good reasons for how we need government to intrude in the most basic needs of it's people in one way, that meant it will feel obligated to do it in other ways as well.

 

 

Why does the government need to teach our kids any of this? Where are the parents?

 

What ever happened to common sense? Do you really need the government to tell you bacon and fried chichen are bad for you?

 

 

If we are relying on the government to raise our kids, what is the point?

 

 

 

I say schools need to go back to the "real" basics, like math, science, and history. Make the parents get back to being parents.

[Feckless Wench]

Why does the government need to teach our kids any of this? Where are the parents?

 

 

Sadly the parents are no longer parenting, they are out working to earn the money to feed the kids etc etc etc and so the sorry circle goes.

 

School is no longer about basic academic education but more an education for life. Someone has to do it after all!

 

When I signed up to do my job I never realised for one moment that part of the job of educating the kids would be to parent them too......sad really.

[hugo]

Okay, but this is the part they fall back on:

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

 

 

James Madison, Federalist Paper #41

 

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

 

 

 

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

 

 

 

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

 

The proper meaning of the general welfare clause was defined during the ratifying process. Your socialist interpretation of the general welfare clause has no basis in fact. Let us not stoop to misconstructions.

 

Barry Goldwater:

 

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents ``interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

[timesjoke]

The proper meaning of the general welfare clause was defined during the ratifying process. Your socialist interpretation of the general welfare clause has no basis in fact. Let us not stoop to misconstructions.

 

It is not my interpretation of it just like this comment you posted was not your opinion but another man's opinion your using.

 

The point he clarly misses though is if the specific points given were the only intended uses of federal government and power, then the general part would have been worthless right? If this was the case, they could have simply said that the following were the on;y things allowed, but that is not what they did, they allowed the general term to stay.

 

 

Clearly like the basic constitution we started with, this was seen to allow other things to come as well, to suit the needs of a changing society.

 

 

You keep missing my point about how one thing leads to another in a natural order. By making exceptions for an all powerful government in some ways, we pave the road for an all powerful government in other ways. It is all of our faults becasue each of us can see where "some" of what the government does to manage our lives is good. Some can see more good then others to be sure.

 

 

The only way to change it now would be to go back to almost no federal Government (something I fully support) and get rid of all the social programs completely. Remove the federal government for all things except for crimes crossing state lines, world trade, and running the military. In my opinion, all other things should go back to the states to decide how they want to do things.

 

 

But that is just me.