The Food Police Are Coming!

[The Historian]

Another example of the State as Nanny:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html

[piper_chuck]

Some additional articles on it:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2008/02/05/4828036-sun.html
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2008/feb/05/mississippi-obesity-bill-has-fat-chance-passing/

It all sounds like a misguided attempt to correct some negative publicity:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20060829/mississippi-tops-state-obesity-ranking
http://health.msn.com/reports/obesity/mississippi.aspx
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity/release.php?StateID=MS

It's too bad he didn't use the time to come up with some legislation to provide better access to exercise, diet information, and other ways to improve health.

I wonder what this guy's chances are for re-election?

[CliftonGK1]

So what about delivery joints? It doesn't cover them specifically, but if the main point of business has seating for more than 5 patrons then they fall under the jurisdiction of this law. Let's say I order from Pizza Hut and the delivery kid shows up with my food. I have money in hand, ready to trade it for this food. Is he legally obligated to hand me a body-fat analyzer to determine if he's actually allowed to complete this transaction?

This is quite possibly one of the top 5 dumbest laws in the history of the world. People are always looking to scapegoat their problems onto someone else's fault. I read an article in the Seattle PI yesterday which said that the restaurants and manufacturers are to blame for the obesity epidemic, because their advertising of food, candy, soda, etc. makes it "too appealing to the general public."
Horsepucky.
In college I weighed 205 pounds. I watched what I ate, didn't drink beer or much soda, and I was on my skateboard, bike, or roller blades for 4 hours a day minimally.
After college I spent my time in a research lab for 18 hours a day and I didn't ride my bike or skate as much. I drank a lot of beer and ate poorly. These were my own choices. It's my own danged fault I weighed 265 pounds. I don't blame O'Houlie's Brewery or Late-Nite Pizza. It's not their fault I crammed so much of their product in my face.
I'd be really angry if the gang and I stopped after a ride (more than half the gang are Clydes/Athenas) to get some breakfast, and the restaurant made us order from the "fat guy" menu.

[Snapperhead]

Another example of the State as Nanny:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html

And I saw another study that stated it actually costs more (medical bills and sush) to have healthy people around living so long. It's all good. :D

[Marrock]

You can't legislate morality... but clearly you can legislate stupidity.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Please be careful in this thread....it IS a Clyde issue but it could easily wind up in P&R if not careful :(

[The Historian]

Please be careful in this thread....it IS a Clyde issue but it could easily wind up in P&R if not careful :(

Understood. I realize the term "nanny state" is often applied to the left, but the right is just as nanny these days.

[CliftonGK1]

Please be careful in this thread....it IS a Clyde issue but it could easily wind up in P&R if not careful :(

True 'nuff.

Think about the situation I stated above, though. How would you have felt, or how would any of us feel now, if a restaurant handed you a different menu based on our size? (like giving a 12 year old the kiddie menu, but far more insulting.)

Sure, I can stand to lose a few more pounds... and I'm working on that; but when I go out to eat, I don't need somebody telling me that my money's no good at their establisment unless I spend it on alfalfa sprouts and steamed kale. I eat healthy all week long. My weekend foodie outing isn't about being healthy; it's about treating myself to something I don't normally eat.

I guess they're running out of smokers to harass, so they're starting in on the next social stigma. What's next?

[Marrock]

True 'nuff.

Think about the situation I stated above, though. How would you have felt, or how would any of us feel now, if a restaurant handed you a different menu based on our size? (like giving a 12 year old the kiddie menu, but far more insulting.)

Especially when the choice is left to the teenybopper counter help that thinks the latest stick figure supermodel is the ideal weight.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Fortunately, even if it does pass, I suspect it would be very quickly struck down by the courts and injunction issued to keep it from even going into law before it even goes in force.

[CliftonGK1]

Especially when the choice is left to the teenybopper counter help that thinks the latest stick figure supermodel is the ideal weight.

Or, like the military, they'll be required to follow a BMI chart. Even at a very healthy 10% bodyfat, I'm overweight by BMI charts.
Maybe just mount one of those impedence bodyfat analyzers next to the debit card machines everyplace? We could put them in at the grocery store, and you have to grab the handles before the checker can start scanning your order. Based on your % bodyfat, the checker is prompted on the register screen whether to 'bag' or 'return to shelf' items from your cart.


When Cheetos are outlawed, only outlaws will have Cheetos.

[evblazer]

The government is just trying to make more service jobs. They can setup shop right outside of a fast food or grocery store.
BMI Certified "normal" folks to get your order for a nominal fee. :D

[unixpro]

Or, like the military, they'll be required to follow a BMI chart. Even at a very healthy 10% bodyfat, I'm overweight by BMI charts.

My point exactly. I'm not at 10% BF, but I am pretty low. I weigh 225 and only stand 5'6" tall, but I commute 28 miles a day, including one reasonably long hill, and I lift an additional 3 times a week. According to my HRM (yeah, I know...), I burn between 8,500 and 10,500 calories in an average week, depending on the weather (i.e. headwinds).

Consider also athletes like pro football linemen and weight lifters. All of these guys would be considered obese by the BMI, but are probably in better shape than 99.9% of the population.

Stupidity, thy name is politician.

[Marrock]

Most of the places I go to to eat know that to get between me and my dinner is usually a -very- bad idea.

[bautieri]

First they came for the smokers and I said nothing for I've given up smoking.
Then they came for the Foie-Gras and I said nothing for I've never ate Foie Gras.
Then they came for the Trans Fat in fast food, once again I said nothing for I do not enjoy fast food.
Then they came for the big guys...

You know, interestingly enough a bar is not aloud to serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. Its kind of the same thing when you think about it. "I'm sorry sir but you can't have that cannoli, you've clearly had enough to eat". The only real difference I can think of is being drunk poses a physical danger to others while being obese does not. Meh, it wont pass legislation anyways.

[CliftonGK1]

The only real difference I can think of is being drunk poses a physical danger to others while being obese does not.

I dunno... Eat a bunch of breadsticks and a carb/fat laden heavy deep dish pizza and you might just slip into a "food-coma" on the way home and smash up your car and run people over. :lol:

[CastIron]

It's not going to pass. The politician is trying to grandstand his way to a point. Obesity is a real cultural problem and is a tremendous problem in his neck of the woods. I applaud the effort despite finding the method deplorable. Lastly, lets consider that obesity is a medical diagnosis and wait staff are ill equipped to be making those even without regard to causation.

Lighten up folks.

[bautieri]

I dunno... Eat a bunch of breadsticks and a carb/fat laden heavy deep dish pizza and you might just slip into a "food-coma" on the way home and smash up your car and run people over. :lol:

GIS result number 16 for Food Coma:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/859/cnv0103gk4.jpg

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

[The Historian]

First they came for the smokers and I said nothing for I've given up smoking.
Then they came for the Foie-Gras and I said nothing for I've never ate Foie Gras.
Then they came for the Trans Fat in fast food, once again I said nothing for I do not enjoy fast food.
Then they came for the big guys...

You know, interestingly enough a bar is not aloud to serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. Its kind of the same thing when you think about it. "I'm sorry sir but you can't have that cannoli, you've clearly had enough to eat". The only real difference I can think of is being drunk poses a physical danger to others while being obese does not. Meh, it wont pass legislation anyways.

Being obese may not be a danger in itself, but the side effects could be. I nodded off for a second behind the wheel once after a large meal. I woke up when the car began to go up onto the sidewalk. I was about a foot behind someone's rear tire. Yes, I could have killed a cyclist that day back in 1987 in King of Prussia.

[mkadam68]

You can't legislate morality... but clearly you can stupidly legislate.

Of course, this is a bit of an oxymoron (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoron), but it is now fixed.

:D

[Hobartlemagne]

Its like Jim Crow for fat people.

[Marrock]

This ranks right up there with the "Quick Release Bill" (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A3000/2686_R2.PDF) that my some asshat (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/moriarty.asp) in my state legislature is trying to get through... again.

[unixpro]

I just saw this on the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004164306_health05.html

Turns out that, in the long run, it's cheaper to let people be obese and smoke than healthy and thin, as the obese and smokers will die sooner. That kinda deflates a lot of arguments, eh?

[JohnKScott]

"I'm sorry sir but you can't have that cannoli, you've clearly had enough to eat".

"How about some more beans Mr. Taggert?"...

"I think you've had enough"

[ronjon10]

I don't like this solution, but this isn't just an individuals problem. The health care costs for the entire nation are going up in part because of the obesity epidemic. So, while it may be an individuals choice to eat a large pizza and 2 liters of coke for dinner, at some level, the entire country is paying for that decision.

So in that regard, I'd like to see a system similar to cigarettes and alcohol. Give people a choice, and tax the tar out of them.

Start with taxing fast food restaurants. Use that money to subsidize national wellness programs, healthier food choices, education, health care or something like that.

[unixpro]

Actually, if you'll read the link above, it costs more long-term to care for the thin and healthy than the obese and/or smokers. Kinda pokes a hole in the whole health-care costs argument.

[The Historian]

Actually, if you'll read the link above, it costs more long-term to care for the thin and healthy than the obese and/or smokers. Kinda pokes a hole in the whole health-care costs argument.

Not really. This isn't a case of deterioration of capital. It's "working capital." People who live longer work longer and contribute more. So the article's argument is moot.

[ronjon10]

Actually, if you'll read the link above, it costs more long-term to care for the thin and healthy than the obese and/or smokers. Kinda pokes a hole in the whole health-care costs argument.

Haha, I missed your post. I have heard that argument before. I still like the idea of taxing fast food places :)

[Hobartlemagne]

Haha, I missed your post. I have heard that argument before. I still like the idea of taxing fast food places :)

Just make sick people pay more for treatment if their problem is due to their behavior choices.

[unixpro]

Not really. This isn't a case of deterioration of capital. It's "working capital." People who live longer work longer and contribute more. So the article's argument is moot.

This isn't necessarily true. People who are retired are no longer contributing. Assuming that an obese person, a smoker, and a very healthy person all make it to retirement, then it will cost more to support the healthy person through their retirement.

A case might be made for time periods prior to retirement, but even that would be debatable. An individual who is healthy would be more likely to recover, at least partially, from a disease. This recovery would bear significant costs in both in-hospital and after-hospital care. The individual who is out of shape would be more likely to die, resulting in a net cost savings. I believe that was the point of the article.

[Wogsterca]

I don't like this solution, but this isn't just an individuals problem. The health care costs for the entire nation are going up in part because of the obesity epidemic. So, while it may be an individuals choice to eat a large pizza and 2 liters of coke for dinner, at some level, the entire country is paying for that decision.

So in that regard, I'd like to see a system similar to cigarettes and alcohol. Give people a choice, and tax the tar out of them.

Start with taxing fast food restaurants. Use that money to subsidize national wellness programs, healthier food choices, education, health care or something like that.

Here in Canada were kinda having that debate with ganga, a lot of people would like to see pot legalized, including the government, because they could put the illegal dealers out of business and get a huge new pile of tax dollars..... The only reason they haven't is that the US threatened to close the boarder. They may have a point, if you look outside a variety store in any border town, you see the cars with US plates lined up to pick up Cuban cigars, which are legal here.....

I think it would be difficult with food, what places do you tax, and which do you not, do you tax all meals at a place or just the fattening ones, and how do you determine the break points, sounds like a tax where the tax takes in $34,543,234 and it costs $64,543,234 to administer it........

[ronjon10]

I think it would be difficult with food, what places do you tax, and which do you not, do you tax all meals at a place or just the fattening ones, and how do you determine the break points, sounds like a tax where the tax takes in $34,543,234 and it costs $64,543,234 to administer it........

I haven't worked out the fine details yet :) You're right though. As soon as you have the slippery slope definition of 'Fast food', places like McDonalds would (#1 sue, but then) fight tooth and nail to be classified as something else.

[Marrock]

I wonder if the legislators will use the Mr. Creosote scene from Monty Python's Meaning of Life as an example.

[bautieri]

So in that regard, I'd like to see a system similar to cigarettes and alcohol. Give people a choice, and tax the tar out of them.

Start with taxing fast food restaurants. Use that money to subsidize national wellness programs, healthier food choices, education, health care or something like that.

How dare you, who do you think you are using logic and sound reasoning in a discussion involving politicians? :D

It's a good point, tax the snot out of any restaurant with a drive through window or curbside service. Then use the money collected to subsidize gym membership fees. Maybe more people would go to Golds Gym is if didn't cost 65 bucks a month.

[bautieri]

Here in Canada were kinda having that debate with ganga, a lot of people would like to see pot legalized, including the government, because they could put the illegal dealers out of business and get a huge new pile of tax dollars..... The only reason they haven't is that the US threatened to close the boarder.

Didn't they already do that? I could be wrong but I was under the impression that a passport was now required to travel to or from Canada. Or by close do you mean physically erecting a fence of some sort like we're did to our southern neighbor with similar laughable results.

[The Historian]

How dare you, who do you think you are using logic and sound reasoning in a discussion involving politicians? :D

It's a good point, tax the snot out of any restaurant with a drive through window or curbside service. Then use the money collected to subsidize gym membership fees. Maybe more people would go to Golds Gym is if didn't cost 65 bucks a month.

I pay 39 bucks a month for my membership. :-)

[Marrock]

What's a "gym"?

[Wogsterca]

Didn't they already do that? I could be wrong but I was under the impression that a passport was now required to travel to or from Canada. Or by close do you mean physically erecting a fence of some sort like we're did to our southern neighbor with similar laughable results.

No doing a full body cavity search and tearing every vehicle apart, because they are afraid someone will buy a joint in Canada and want to smoke it in the US:eek:. Meanwhile professional criminals are shipping the stuff in by the boat load. I think the last proposal was that Canada wanted to reduce possession to a simple ticketing offense (no criminal record and a small fine).

They can't close that border completely, something over 1,000,000 tonnes of stuff cross that border every day, mind you with the US economy circling the bowl these days, maybe it would be good for Canadian companies to look at new markets.....

[bautieri]

I pay 39 bucks a month for my membership. :-)


Is your membership to Golds Gym? The cheapest gym I ever lifted at was World of Fitness in Leymone, it was 20 a month and filled with equipment from the early 80s. The ceiling was caving in, everything was damp and smelled of mildew but the flat benches and squat rack were sturdy. Big bonus was they didn't mind power cleaning/jerking, throw the weights around they didn't care. Other places I've lifted at had a big problem with it, do a power clean and they will kick you out.

[JohnKScott]

People who are retired are no longer contributing.

I think that's a stretch. Define contributing? Is interest earned in invested retirement funds contributing? What about the volume of investing in the market related to retirement funds (some of which is owned by or owed to people who are actually retired). Is that contributing? What about the social security funds that the "retired" people have paid in and are invested (Oh wait. I forgot. There isn't any. The goverment already raided and spent that...).

You do realize that not all retired people sit around and collect social security checks don't you? ;) Many older people start a second career after they "retire". Sometimes that is even just in having the time to volunteer and help other people rather than worrying about the mundain day to day food gathering.

Is the ammassed knowledge and wisdom of retired people contributing? I guess we have to answer the question, contributing to what?

I happen to think that "retired" people are a valuable resource and contribute mightily to society in many ways including financially. They have one of the strongest lobbies in Washington for cryin' out loud :D.

And no, I'm not old enough to retire. Or rich enough ;)

[The Historian]

Is your membership to Golds Gym? The cheapest gym I ever lifted at was World of Fitness in Leymone, it was 20 a month and filled with equipment from the early 80s. The ceiling was caving in, everything was damp and smelled of mildew but the flat benches and squat rack were sturdy. Big bonus was they didn't mind power cleaning/jerking, throw the weights around they didn't care. Other places I've lifted at had a big problem with it, do a power clean and they will kick you out.

Yes, Gold's Gym, Limerick, PA.

[unixpro]

I think that's a stretch. Define contributing? Is interest earned in invested retirement funds contributing? What about the volume of investing in the market related to retirement funds (some of which is owned by or owed to people who are actually retired). Is that contributing? What about the social security funds that the "retired" people have paid in and are invested (Oh wait. I forgot. There isn't any. The goverment already raided and spent that...).

You do realize that not all retired people sit around and collect social security checks don't you? ;) Many older people start a second career after they "retire". Sometimes that is even just in having the time to volunteer and help other people rather than worrying about the mundain day to day food gathering.

Is the ammassed knowledge and wisdom of retired people contributing? I guess we have to answer the question, contributing to what?

I happen to think that "retired" people are a valuable resource and contribute mightily to society in many ways including financially. They have one of the strongest lobbies in Washington for cryin' out loud :D.

And no, I'm not old enough to retire. Or rich enough ;)

Once an individual enters retirement, they usually become a drain on the economy. Yes, they've got investments and those investments will continue to grow over time, but they will grow at a much slower rate as cash is pulled off for living expenses. It's possible that, at some point, all of the earned interest will be drawn down and capital will begin being consumed. That's assuming that they've planned for retirement at all. This has a negative macroeconomic impact.

Add to that the effect of social security and Medicare. Individual who have up until this point contributed to those programs will now be receiving benefits from them instead. Again, a negative cash flow to the individual. As individuals grow older, they will have increased problems (arthritis, longer bouts with common diseases, etc.) that will require more and more medical care, causing a very significant and long-term cost to the Medicare system. Both of these factors combine to cause a very serious negative cash flow from the macro economic point of view.

Now, consider the individual who went back to work. If they did so legally, they're required to report their income to the government, which will then reduce their SS income accordingly, possibly completely eliminating it. In this case, they cannot be considered to have truly retired; simply to have changed careers or jobs. If their new employer (are you listening Wal-Mart?) doesn't provide medical insurance, then the individual still consumes Medicare expenses, generally at a rate in excess of what they are paying back in.

If the individual doesn't report their income, then they're still pulling in full SS and depending on Medicare. Generally, these are people who turn a former part-time hobby into a more time consuming endeavor, but still not what would be considered full-time employment. The income these individuals make is generally small and used to supplement the SS and 401(k) income they receive. It is not usually enough to make a significant impact on the economy. As above, these individuals will still rely heavily on Medicare for their medical needs, so the cash flow is still significantly negative.

Contrast that to an individual who just dies. All expenses stop there. No additional SS or Medicare necessary. The total expended to date is all that ever will be expended. The point of the article was that these people actually cost society less, in terms of real dollars, than those who live longer and consume SS and Medicare (and possibly pull down their 401(k) funds). That is the entire point of the study and the article.

Volunteers, mentors, and community activists do not generate income to the economy. Again, they're consumers not producers. Still a negative impact. They may have a significant emotional appeal to many people, but the article and this discussion were purely economic in nature.

[webist]

Ban sick people from hospitals and doctors' offices too.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

A couple of points I strongly disagree with here:

Mentors contribute to economic growth by passing along their experience and giving small businesses a better chance to survive.
Advocates contribute in alternative ways as well, by motivating, and negotiating transitions from one status to another, such as disabilities advocates helping handicapped individuals achieve gainful employment.


Just because their contribution isn't direct, the fallout of theior contribution may well have greater impact than individual contributions. ;)
Once an individual enters retirement, they usually become a drain on the economy. Yes, they've got investments and those investments will continue to grow over time, but they will grow at a much slower rate as cash is pulled off for living expenses. It's possible that, at some point, all of the earned interest will be drawn down and capital will begin being consumed. That's assuming that they've planned for retirement at all. This has a negative macroeconomic impact.

Add to that the effect of social security and Medicare. Individual who have up until this point contributed to those programs will now be receiving benefits from them instead. Again, a negative cash flow to the individual. As individuals grow older, they will have increased problems (arthritis, longer bouts with common diseases, etc.) that will require more and more medical care, causing a very significant and long-term cost to the Medicare system. Both of these factors combine to cause a very serious negative cash flow from the macro economic point of view.

Now, consider the individual who went back to work. If they did so legally, they're required to report their income to the government, which will then reduce their SS income accordingly, possibly completely eliminating it. In this case, they cannot be considered to have truly retired; simply to have changed careers or jobs. If their new employer (are you listening Wal-Mart?) doesn't provide medical insurance, then the individual still consumes Medicare expenses, generally at a rate in excess of what they are paying back in.

If the individual doesn't report their income, then they're still pulling in full SS and depending on Medicare. Generally, these are people who turn a former part-time hobby into a more time consuming endeavor, but still not what would be considered full-time employment. The income these individuals make is generally small and used to supplement the SS and 401(k) income they receive. It is not usually enough to make a significant impact on the economy. As above, these individuals will still rely heavily on Medicare for their medical needs, so the cash flow is still significantly negative.

Contrast that to an individual who just dies. All expenses stop there. No additional SS or Medicare necessary. The total expended to date is all that ever will be expended. The point of the article was that these people actually cost society less, in terms of real dollars, than those who live longer and consume SS and Medicare (and possibly pull down their 401(k) funds). That is the entire point of the study and the article.

Volunteers, mentors, and community activists do not generate income to the economy. Again, they're consumers not producers. Still a negative impact. They may have a significant emotional appeal to many people, but the article and this discussion were purely economic in nature.

[JohnKScott]

A couple of points I strongly disagree with here:

Mentors contribute to economic growth by passing along their experience and giving small businesses a better chance to survive.
Advocates contribute in alternative ways as well, by motivating, and negotiating transitions from one status to another, such as disabilities advocates helping handicapped individuals achieve gainful employment.


Just because their contribution isn't direct, the fallout of theior contribution may well have greater impact than individual contributions. ;)

Exactly. Looking at a "first level" economic impact like the article unixpro refers to is over simplistic. The trouble is it is impossible to quatify what economic impact an older person who has mentored a younger person might have had. But you can bet it's there in many cases. Most people who are extremely good at something learned at the foot of a master somewhere. It's sort of like the butterfly effect.

I suppose the only way to really know is to kill off everyone once they stop "working for a living". Then watch things deteriorate over time (which I'd be willing to bet it would). Heck, if they are such a drain on society what's the big deal. Right? ;) <----sarcastic wink in case anyone's sarcasmometer is broken. :D

[MrCjolsen]

I used to know a guy who would actually get "cut off" at Starbucks when he'd had too many capuccinos.

[cousincletus]

^^^ Oh no!!! Don't tax my beer! You can keep the cigs, though. Supposedly 2 beers a day is good for you. What's a working man to do after a hard days work?

[unixpro]

Exactly. Looking at a "first level" economic impact like the article unixpro refers to is over simplistic. The trouble is it is impossible to quatify what economic impact an older person who has mentored a younger person might have had. But you can bet it's there in many cases. Most people who are extremely good at something learned at the foot of a master somewhere. It's sort of like the butterfly effect.

I suppose the only way to really know is to kill off everyone once they stop "working for a living". Then watch things deteriorate over time (which I'd be willing to bet it would). Heck, if they are such a drain on society what's the big deal. Right? ;) <----sarcastic wink in case anyone's sarcasmometer is broken. :D

Well, I've still got to disagree on this. While there are exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of elder individuals don't pass on any significant information to the younger generation once they've left the work force. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but I'm talking about a macro scale here, not individual contributors. The arguments for preventing people from smoking, drinking, eating, doing dangerous sports, etc. all focus on the supposed costs to society at large, so the entire argument must be in those terms. Introducing specific contributions by a relatively small group is not valid.

Please note that I'm not really disagreeing with your goals. After all, I commute 28 miles a day and work my upper body 3 times a week. I eat properly (for the most part), don't drink or do drugs, etc. All I'm saying is that the argument that X must be contained, restricted, or eliminated because those who partake place a greater cost burden on society is demonstratively incorrect.

If I were to provide counter arguments to the original premise (that restaurants must refuse to serve obese people), I would point out all the obviously in-shape clydes here, football and rugby players, etc. Again, however, these are exceptions to the general rule and are not valid arguments to the macro argument.

P.S. I love a good debate. Even if I have to play devils advocate. Perhaps more so then.

[Wogsterca]

Well, I've still got to disagree on this. While there are exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of elder individuals don't pass on any significant information to the younger generation once they've left the work force. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but I'm talking about a macro scale here, not individual contributors. The arguments for preventing people from smoking, drinking, eating, doing dangerous sports, etc. all focus on the supposed costs to society at large, so the entire argument must be in those terms. Introducing specific contributions by a relatively small group is not valid.

Please note that I'm not really disagreeing with your goals. After all, I commute 28 miles a day and work my upper body 3 times a week. I eat properly (for the most part), don't drink or do drugs, etc. All I'm saying is that the argument that X must be contained, restricted, or eliminated because those who partake place a greater cost burden on society is demonstratively incorrect.

If I were to provide counter arguments to the original premise (that restaurants must refuse to serve obese people), I would point out all the obviously in-shape clydes here, football and rugby players, etc. Again, however, these are exceptions to the general rule and are not valid arguments to the macro argument.

P.S. I love a good debate. Even if I have to play devils advocate. Perhaps more so then.


The real issue of the elderly don't contribute, is a sign of modern and often technical times, when religion has been replaced by the religion of science and technology.....

In many cultures even today, you often have patriarchal and matriarchal families, where children learn from parents, and parents learn from grandparents. In North America we have replaced this with book learning and technology. The issue is, when the oil runs out, we will need to learn what fewer and fewer people still know, and most of those people are now 80+.

[Spartan112]

The elderly contribute in a multitude of ways that can't always be quantified. But you're missing something else Unix, what is the avg. age of retirement for a healthy person v. an obese person? I'd hazard a guess that the healthy are part of the work force longer and thus greater contributors.

On another point brought up I pay $29/month and get reimbursed up to 150 from my health insurance so the cost is negligible.