Obese people may be banned from eating.

[Averagesupernova]

...at restuarants in Mississippi that is.


http://politisite.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/02/1273590-mississippi-to-ban-fat-people-from-restuarants

I heard that this was on the TV news this morning so I googled it. The above link is one of probably many sites that has this story. What is this country coming to? I know there has been a thread on PF before concerning a fat tax, but this proposed law is just plain crazy.

 

[mgb_phys]

According to a dutch study reported on the Reg http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/
It's those selfish health freaks that cost the taxpayer by living long enough to get expensive, long lasting diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.
Obese people only cost the health service £187,000 over a lifetime compared to £210,000 for the joggers.
The ideal citizen are the smokers who pay lots of tax and die quickly of untreatable lung cancer at the peak of their earning power before the pension kicks in.

 

[ShawnD]

According to a dutch study reported on the Reg http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/
It's those selfish health freaks that cost the taxpayer by living long enough to get expensive, long lasting diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.
Obese people only cost the health service £187,000 over a lifetime compared to £210,000 for the joggers.
The ideal citizen are the smokers who pay lots of tax and die quickly of untreatable lung cancer at the peak of their earning power before the pension kicks in.

tru dat

People who live into their 90s are the ones who will kill things like medicare and social security. The people who chose to die young are, in a sense, taking one for the team.

 

[waht]

Does that mean they are not going to promote health because the earlier a person dies the less insurance companies, and SS has to spend on you?

 

[G01]

According to a dutch study reported on the Reg http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/
It's those selfish health freaks that cost the taxpayer by living long enough to get expensive, long lasting diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.
Obese people only cost the health service £187,000 over a lifetime compared to £210,000 for the joggers.
The ideal citizen are the smokers who pay lots of tax and die quickly of untreatable lung cancer at the peak of their earning power before the pension kicks in.

:rofl: It's true though!

 

[Moonbear]

According to a dutch study reported on the Reg http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/
It's those selfish health freaks that cost the taxpayer by living long enough to get expensive, long lasting diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.
Obese people only cost the health service £187,000 over a lifetime compared to £210,000 for the joggers.
The ideal citizen are the smokers who pay lots of tax and die quickly of untreatable lung cancer at the peak of their earning power before the pension kicks in.

I guess that's one way of looking at it.

As for the story in the OP, I heard about it a couple days ago. Some of the other stories I've seen have dismissed it as a way of publicizing the obesity problem in the state, and not something that really had a rat's chance of surviving for passage (I'm sure there are at least a few overweight legislators in that state who enjoy eating at restaurants who would ensure such a thing never became actual law).

If you read the original bill (not that I remember where I saw it...don't know if the story in the OP links to it), it is pretty vague, leaving the definition of who would be restricted from eating out up to the state health deparment, and has no means of enforcement attached.

 

[ShawnD]

Does that mean they are not going to promote health because the earlier a person dies the less insurance companies, and SS has to spend on you?

It's a catch 22. If people support good health, it raises the burden on tax payers to pay for long term care for those who just refuse to die. If you run a tobacco company, which arguably does the exact opposite, you're evil.

It's interesting to think the idea of choice is the last option. That movie Demolition Man is a lot more realistic than anybody expected.

 

[Moonbear]

It's a catch 22. If people support good health, it raises the burden on tax payers to pay for long term care for those who just refuse to die. If you run a tobacco company, which arguably does the exact opposite, you're evil.

It's interesting to think the idea of choice is the last option. That movie Demolition Man is a lot more realistic than anybody expected.

I don't have a problem of what people choose for themselves. Overeating hurts the person who does it, but nobody else...I'm not talking tax burden or cost of insurance, because one can measure those things and if there's a substantial extra burden for someone at a particular amount overweight, then the cost can be shifted to them...their responsibility for their choice. Likewise, if someone told me, hey, you're being so healthy that you're likely to live to 102, and we need to charge more now so your insurance after you retire still covers you that long, then okay, fair enough, I'm paying for my choice. Smoking is different because it affects the people around you when you're smoking, not just yourself. If smokers never smoked in public places or around any non-smokers, then there really wouldn't be as much of a cry to stop them.

 

[ShawnD]

You may be right that this is just a publicity stunt. Then again, classic liberals think a lot of stupid things were publicity stunts, but they still happened. Did anybody think the government was going to build a fence along the boarder of Mexico? Sounds equally silly, but it really happened.

second hand smoke

True, but second hand smoke is a small risk when you look at the big picture. How many are killed by second hand smoke? Isn't it only a few per hundred thousand? What is killing the other 99.9% of people?

 

[waht]

I'm wondering though if obesity also affects other people. If kids find themselves surrounded by obese people, will they be influenced in some way (subliminally) to accept obesity as normal, or in an extreme case healthy? That way the person won't feel guilty when gaining weight?

 

[ShawnD]

I'm wondering though if obesity also affects other people. If kids find themselves surrounded by obese people, will they be influenced in some way (subliminally) to accept obesity as normal, or in an extreme case healthy? That way the person won't feel guilty when gaining weight?

When they find that nobody will have sex with them, they'll try a bit harder to lose the weight

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm wondering though if obesity also affects other people. If kids find themselves surrounded by obese people, will they be influenced in some way (subliminally) to accept obesity as normal, or in an extreme case healthy? That way the person won't feel guilty when gaining weight?

You don't have any rights that can't be taken away from you in the name of protecting children.

 

[Moonbear]

True, but second hand smoke is a small risk when you look at the big picture. How many are killed by second hand smoke? Isn't it only a few per hundred thousand? What is killing the other 99.9% of people?

It's hard to quantify how many are harmed by second-hand smoke, since it's hard to quantify that exposure at all. Those who live with or worked in offices with smokers when it was still permitted to smoke in offices, or who work in places where there is known to be a lot of second-hand smoke (bars, smoking section of a restaurant) might be easily identified, but if a non-smoker gets lung cancer when they're 40, do we have a way to know it wasn't because they were in a carpool driven by a friend's parent who smoked when they were a kid? If we know cigarettes are harmful to the smoker, what difference does it make what end of the cigarette you're inhaling the smoke from? This is still relevant to the person who chooses NOT to smoke if someone who chooses TO smoke has made the decision for both of them to threaten their health in that way.

 

[ShawnD]

It's hard to quantify how many are harmed by second-hand smoke, since it's hard to quantify that exposure at all.

Wouldn't this alone mean a ban on smoking is wishy washy at best?

The EPA's initial estimates were 3000 people per year died from second hand smoke. It's surprisingly hard to get numbers for how many people die in a country, so the best I could find was http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n11_v19/ai_19977823, which is 2.3 million in the US. That means roughly 0.13% of people die from second hand smoke. Then in 1998 the EPA's study was thrown out in a federal court because it was found to be yet another pull-numbers-out-of-ass EPA report, not all that different from their report stating that America was running out of landfill space. That same EPA report stated the risk of developing lung cancer with no exposure to second hand smoke was 10 per million, while the risk when exposed is 12.5 per million. Not statistically significant.

So how does second hand smoke compare with other dangerous things we don't think of as dangerous? In 2003, 43000 people died in car accidents. Driving your car to work is 14x as dangerous as sitting in the same vehicle as someone who smokes. If you're worried about second hand smoke in a car, your worries are pointing in the wrong direction.

 

[binzing]

Once again, its natural selection and survival of the fittest (literally!)

 

[NoTime]

Wouldn't this alone mean a ban on smoking is wishy washy at best?

The EPA's initial estimates were 3000 people per year died from second hand smoke. It's surprisingly hard to get numbers for how many people die in a country, so the best I could find was http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n11_v19/ai_19977823, which is 2.3 million in the US. That means roughly 0.13% of people die from second hand smoke. Then in 1998 the EPA's study was thrown out in a federal court because it was found to be yet another pull-numbers-out-of-ass EPA report, not all that different from their report stating that America was running out of landfill space. That same EPA report stated the risk of developing lung cancer with no exposure to second hand smoke was 10 per million, while the risk when exposed is 12.5 per million. Not statistically significant.

So how does second hand smoke compare with other dangerous things we don't think of as dangerous? In 2003, 43000 people died in car accidents. Driving your car to work is 14x as dangerous as sitting in the same vehicle as someone who smokes. If you're worried about second hand smoke in a car, your worries are pointing in the wrong direction.

There seems to be a fairly significant relation between cars/trucks and lung cancer.
The proposed mechanism is small carbon clusters with attached metal ions.

 

[mgb_phys]

Both my parents smoke - so I'm going to die of second hand lung cancer.
I grew up in the 70s with lead in petrol and additives in Sunny Delight.
In the 80s I ate canteen food - with mad cow disease.
I used Mercury and Benzene in the lab.

I'm doomed - so at least I now have an excuse to buy a big motorbike when I hit 40.

 

[NoTime]

Both my parents smoke - so I'm going to die of second hand lung cancer.
I grew up in the 70s with lead in petrol and additives in Sunny Delight.
In the 80s I ate canteen food - with mad cow disease.
I used Mercury and Benzene in the lab.

I'm doomed - so at least I now have an excuse to buy a big motorbike when I hit 40.

Nobody gets out alive

 

[wolram]

Governments should stop being hypocritical, if every one stopped smoking, driving, drinking alcohol for a week there would be mass panic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yep, all of this nonsense about banning this and banning that based on the cost to the public has opened the door to absolute control over our lives - there is no logical limit. And it certainly is not in line with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They lost me on the 2nd hand smoke business when they claimed that 2nd hand smoke is worse than smoking. Clearly there is something wrong with this often heard but highly implausible claim since the smoker is exposed to the 2nd hand smoke as well.

 

[Evo]

Wouldn't this alone mean a ban on smoking is wishy washy at best?

It's not just the fact that second hand smoke is harmful, it's the fact that it is obnoxious and an invasion of other people's rights.

If I am in a restaurant, I have the right to be able to smell and taste my food instead of some moron's cigarette. If I am anywhere except that person's home, I have the right to breathe clean air.

People do not NEED to smoke.

A person next to me can smoke if I can funnel the exhaust from a bus in his face the entire time he's smoking..

 

[rewebster]

I'm wondering though if obesity also affects other people. If kids find themselves surrounded by obese people, will they be influenced in some way (subliminally) to accept obesity as normal, or in an extreme case healthy? That way the person won't feel guilty when gaining weight?

I was standing next to an overweight person and gained TWO pounds---


I worked in an office with ALL women and ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's not just the fact that second hand smoke is harmful, it's the fact that it is obnoxious and an invasion of other people's rights.

That is how we need to draw the line on this stuff. Protecting the rights of others is why we make laws, but protecting us from ourselves, or limiting liberty based on the claimed long-term financial impact on society is a sure path to an Orwellian nightmare.

I don't believe many of the claims about the health risk of 2nd hand smoke, but no one wants to smoke without against their will. However, I do take issue with bans on people smoking in their own homes, or even their own backyards [if it bothers the neighbors], as is true in at least one town in California.

 

[ShawnD]

It's not just the fact that second hand smoke is harmful

Says who? The World Health Organization's study concluded that it was not harmful, and the EPA's study was thrown out after it was confirmed to be made up. If it's harmful, there should at least be a study to back such a claim.

it's the fact that it is obnoxious and an invasion of other people's rights.

It's also annoying as hell when people talk loudly in movie theatres but I don't see any laws stopping that.

If I am in a restaurant, I have the right to be able to smell and taste my food instead of some moron's cigarette.

If you didn't want to smell smoke, you shouldn't have sat in the smoking section.

If I am anywhere except that person's home, I have the right to breathe clean air.

Rules are decided by land owners. This is why smoking has been banned in government buildings for quite some time (no 1 person owns it), and this is why it's immoral to ban smoking on private land.

People do not NEED to smoke.

This isn't soviet russia where you only get things you need. I don't need salt, but I put salt on my food because I like salt. Native Americans didn't need electricity, but I personally like electricity. Smokers don't need smoking, but they strongly prefer smoking.

A person next to me can smoke if I can funnel the exhaust from a bus in his face the entire time he's smoking..

Your car, your rules. His car, his rules. I don't let people smoke in my car, but if it's someone else's car, they can just as easily tell me to get out and walk.

 

[Evo]

I don't believe many of the claims about the health risk of 2nd hand smoke, but no one wants to smoke without against their will. However, I do take issue with bans on people smoking in their own homes, or even their own backyards [if it bothers the neighbors], as is true in at least one town in California.

I agree that what a person does in their own home or car (as long as a minor is not involved, consenting adults are ok) and it's not illegal, is ok. Smoking on your own property should be ok as long as it's not a tiny spot where your smoke will impinge upon your neighbor's rights. Your neighbors also have the right to breathe clean air on their property. If your smoke is covering your neighbor in a cloud, be a decent person and move away. Come on people, show some common courtesy.

Seriously, you do not have the right to impose your bad habits on someone else, and I'm glad that the law is finally enforcing the right of people to not have to suffer because of other people's addictions.

 

[rewebster]

I can see some politician asking that everyone wear masks before too long, as one doesn't know what someone else MAY have and give it to someone else--like those people on all the streets, etc. during that SARS scare.

some people do not like the smell of tobacco--some are allergic to it too

 

[Cyrus]

Says who? The World Health Organization's study concluded that it was not harmful, and the EPA's study was thrown out after it was confirmed to be made up. If it's harmful, there should at least be a study to back such a claim.


It's also annoying as hell when people talk loudly in movie theatres but I don't see any laws stopping that.


If you didn't want to smell smoke, you shouldn't have sat in the smoking section.


Rules are decided by land owners. This is why smoking has been banned in government buildings for quite some time (no 1 person owns it), and this is why it's immoral to ban smoking on private land.


This isn't soviet russia where you only get things you need. I don't need salt, but I put salt on my food because I like salt. Native Americans didn't need electricity, but I personally like electricity. Smokers don't need smoking, but they strongly prefer smoking.


Your car, your rules. His car, his rules. I don't let people smoke in my car, but if it's someone else's car, they can just as easily tell me to get out and walk.

Unless you have a class 1000 clean room over the smoking area, I don't see this as a practical idea for a resturant. If it were an outdoor area, that would be better. But for indoors, no. I don't smoke, but I like the smell of it. But a resutrant full of it would make my eyes irritated after a while.

When I went to Iran years ago, we stopped over in europe for a day. The people there smoke like there's no tomorrow. My eyes would bother me when I would wait in line with all the chain smokers indoors.

Its ok for certain areas, clubs and bars. Thats about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that what a person does in their own home or car (as long as a minor is not involved, consenting adults are ok) and it's not illegal, is ok. Smoking on your own property should be ok as long as it's not a tiny spot where your smoke will impinge upon your neighbor's rights. Your neighbors also have the right to breathe clean air on their property. If your smoke is covering your neighbor in a cloud, be a decent person and move away. Come on people, show some common courtesy.

Seriously, you do not have the right to impose your bad habits on someone else, and I'm glad that the law is finally enforcing the right of people to not have to suffer because of other people's addictions.

Then I should be able to insist that my neighbors can't BBQ or run an automobile in their yard, or use a fireplace or woodstove, if it bothers me. I should also be able to demand that people drive fuel efficient cars.

Here is a great example of irony: SUV drivers who complain about smokers. Talk about hypocrites!

I seriously doubt that any credible case can be made for second hand smoke out of doors and next store - I'm sure that a BBQ is far more hazardous to the neighbors. So I see this as nothing but self-righteous intolerance and mob rule.

 

[Evo]

Then I should be able to insist that my neighbors can't BBQ or run an automobile in their yard, or use a fireplace or woodstove, if it bothers me. I should also be able to demand that people drive fuel efficient cars.

Here is a great example of irony: SUV drivers who complain about smokers. Talk about hypocrites!

I seriously doubt that any credible case can be made for second hand smoke out of doors and next store - I'm sure that a BBQ is far more hazardous to the neighbors. So I see this as nothing but self-righteous intolerance and mob rule.

I doubt barbecue smoke is more hazardous, but it's certainly not healthy. That's why my first husband and I built a brick barbecue pit at the back of our property. The smoke wouldn't bother anyone.

 

[seycyrus]

Says who? The World Health Organization's study concluded that it was not harmful, and the EPA's study was thrown out after it was confirmed to be made up. If it's harmful, there should at least be a study to back such a claim..

The data is difficult to accumulate. Are you going to tell me you honestly think that if you sat in a room with a smoker, you would suffer NO adverse affects. Cmon.

It's also annoying as hell when people talk loudly in movie theatres but I don't see any laws stopping that.

The management will ask them to leave if necessary. If they fail to do, the police will be brought into play.

If you didn't want to smell smoke, you shouldn't have sat in the smoking section..

Yeah, too bad that smoke particles don't pay attention to sections. I can smell it far off. If people need to smoke, they can go outside near the dumpsters, with the rest of the trash.

 

[tribdog]

My parents didn't smoke, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to die from their actions. If it wasn't for them I wouldn't have caught the most fatal disease known to man. Life. I'm pretty sure everyone dies from it eventually.
I also used to cut asbestos pipes without a respirator while smoking a cigarette which in hindsight wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done.

 

[rewebster]

I doubt barbecue smoke is more hazardous, but it's certainly not healthy. That's why my first husband and I built a brick barbecue pit at the back of our property. The smoke wouldn't bother anyone.

http://www.dana-farber.org/abo/news/press/grilling-script.asp

 

[tribdog]

Back to the fat people law, don't restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter what the reason is? Why is this law needed?

 

[Hootenanny]

Back to the fat people law, don't restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter what the reason is? Why is this law needed?

One has to be careful with systematic discrimination, if the law doesn't expressly permit restaurants to refuse service based on the level of obesity, then any restaurant that refuses service on such grounds is open to claims of breaches in human rights.

 

[tribdog]

One has to be careful with systematic discrimination, if the law doesn't expressly permit restaurants to refuse service based on the level of obesity, then any restaurant that refuses service on such grounds is open to claims of breaches in human rights.

Next you'll be telling me I have to stop refusing to serve black people.