MarvinisaLunatic Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Proposed Bill AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES. The costs of enforcement will make it impossible. A person would have to get their weight and height measured every time they enter a restaurant and someone would have to decypher the BMI chart to figure out whether or not the person is fat or not. And in the end it really amounts to descrimination based on a medical condition which would never fly anyway. Mississippi is the fatest state in the country with about a 30% obesity rate.
lomasmoney Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 this just screams discrimination... I mean you cannot turn down someone at a restaurant for the sole fact that they are fat, that is just totally wrong and the state legislature should be shot for putting this through
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 I like this idea. It did say "certain food establishments".. I'm guessing fast food?
Dobbs 3K Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 How about educating people on healthy diet choices instead of trying to pass a law that will be impossible to enforce? I'm sorry, but the diets of some of those people down there are total garbage (and I'm from Wisconsin where we're not exactly known for being lean and healthy, either). Your body can only take so much fried junk before it quits on you.
PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Being mean to fat people is awesome. Mississippi can be cool, sometimes.
Corey_Lazarus Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 As somebody who registers on the BMI chart as "obese," I'd say this is ridiculous. I'm 5'10" and 235, but I don't look it. So if they weighed me, measured me, and checked the BMI? I'd be rejected, and I'd be pissed off. Discriminatory. Like others have said, why not just teach people to change their fucking diets?
dubq Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 BMI charts are bullshit. They don't even take into account the fact that muscle weighs more than fat, but takes up less space. As for teaching people about healthy diets.. I agree.. but, it's getting them to LISTEN in the first place.
Dobbs 3K Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Right. A lot of it, frankly, is cultural. Speaking in broad and general terms, people in the Deep South tend to eat a lot of chicken, beef, fish, etc. Most of it fried and served in huge portions, along with food rich in carbs (potatos, etc.) I don't believe the government should force people to change, but maybe improving education down there would be a good step.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted February 4, 2008 Author Report Posted February 4, 2008 I heard someone claim that this is the same as forcing Smokers out of restaurants, but they were shot down with "smoking harms others, you being fat only hurts yourself"..I was expecting a childish "Not if I sit on you" reply.
dubq Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 It's quite different even past that though. Smokers aren't forced OUT of restaurants.. they can still eat there, they just can't smoke there. I always get a kick out of their whining.. like it's so difficult to step outside to smoke a cig.
Corey_Lazarus Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 That's not really the argument, though. Even if I'm outside I can't smoke wherever I want. I'm not talking crowded public place or in a school, I'm talking about some towns that don't allow public smoking at all. Or public events where the smoking section is approximately the size of a small Port-O-Potty. It's annoying to not be able to sit down and smoke when I'm not harming anybody if I'm at a concert, but yet people can run around all drunk out of their skulls. I've had my cigarettes confiscated from me - an unopen pack, mind you - at a venue because they don't allow smoking inside, yet I get in and there's a smoking section. It's bullshit, but yeah: it's a minor inconvenience. Doesn't mean it's not an inconvenience, though.
Timmy8271 Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Right. A lot of it, frankly, is cultural. Speaking in broad and general terms, people in the Deep South tend to eat a lot of chicken, beef, fish, etc. Most of it fried and served in huge portions, along with food rich in carbs (potatos, etc.) I don't believe the government should force people to change, but maybe improving education down there would be a good step. And the fact that Fast food is a lot cheaper.
Dobbs 3K Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 I guess I feel like if you really need to smoke while you're inside a restaurant, which takes up what? An hour or two at most?...Then you probably have a bigger problem than you're willing to admit, so you're not going to be rational about the issue anyway. As far as the obesity issue, I don't know if I buy that fast food is that much cheaper. Yeah, if you are comparing to organic food stores, it's cheaper. The average grocery store has plenty of low cost options that are perfectly healthy for you. As easy to prepare? No. Part of it is laziness, lack of good parenting, etc.
dubq Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Right. A lot of it, frankly, is cultural. Speaking in broad and general terms, people in the Deep South tend to eat a lot of chicken, beef, fish, etc. Most of it fried and served in huge portions, along with food rich in carbs (potatos, etc.) I don't believe the government should force people to change, but maybe improving education down there would be a good step. And the fact that Fast food is a lot cheaper. Also - If people are going to use that excuse, then they can just get their fast food at places like Subway. They have quite a few selections that are perfectly healthy for you and are low cost. The turkey breast is under $5 for crying out loud.
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 On that note, what's the deal with people eating foot-long subs all the time at Subway? The 6-inch is, and quite frankly has always been, enough to feed my appetite and it's easy on the wallet. I didn't realize people NEEDED to order the foot-long all the time until I started eating there with friends. Note to American fat people: You don't have to stuff yourself until you can't eat anymore in order to satisfy your hunger. Yeesh.
JHawk Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 On that note, what's the deal with people eating foot-long subs all the time at Subway? The 6-inch is, and quite frankly has always been, enough to feed my appetite and it's easy on the wallet. I didn't realize people NEEDED to order the foot-long all the time until I started eating there with friends. Note to American fat people: You don't have to stuff yourself until you can't eat anymore in order to satisfy your hunger. Yeesh. I can't speak for anybody else, but I tend to order the footlong around lunchtime because then I have something healthy and sensible I can eat at night when I get hungry. Eating it in one sitting is probably pushing it, but I've been known to do it if I'm hungry enough.
King Kamala Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 Like JHawk- I like to get the footlong cause I usually can get two meals of it. I rarely eat it in one sitting but I guess that's not the case for most people who order 'em.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 I'm a skinny fuck and I get the footlongs and eat them in one sitting.
PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 I am in full-agreement on the multiple-meal front. I got a 12-inch sub today, and I made it a point to have some of it for lunch, and some of it as a snack later on.
Nighthawk Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 I could eat two footlongs in one sitting. I don't. But one is not a stretch for me, and I'm not fat. Some people just eat more. As far as telling restaurants not to serve fat people, I'd see it as preventative. If you're a fat person, you probably don't want to go to a restaurant and get turned away. It would be humiliating. So you just wouldn't go.
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 Back in the day (by which I mean about a year and a half ago), I could eat two footlongs of the Chipotle Philly Cheesesteak one as well. Of course, that was just stuffing myself. I definitely see the reason for going for two meals in one, though. Smart idea.
dubq Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 Like the rest, if I were ever to get a 12-inch these days, it'd be to eat half right then and then the other half for dinner or something. Though, I usually only get the 6-inch.
ZGangsta Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 I'm a skinny fuck and I get the footlongs and eat them in one sitting. Yeah me too. Though it depends I guess on how many vegetables you load it up with. Some subs I like really plain with just the main toppings, and those I can do a whole footlong. But if I load it up with most of the vegetables then yeah a 6 inch will do.
RHR Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 is it wrong that a discussion about men taking a footlong or 6 inch or 12 inch in one sitting is making me chuckle like an 8th grader?
Brett Favre Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 I don't usually go to Subway so when it comes up whether or not we could take a 12 inch, we always laugh.
Nighthawk Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Make sure you eat that second half in the same day though. Nothing is worse than a soggy cold cut sandwich that's been sitting in the fridge overnight.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Posted February 6, 2008 Saw this today: Obese people dont cost the healthcare system as much as previously thought Basically because..fat people die faster. A relatively healthy person will suck up more healthcare costs over their longer lifetime than a fat person in their shorter lifetime. So I guess, if everyone suddenly loses weight, healthcare costs will be even higher?
Big Ol' Smitty Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 We've finally found the solution to America's health care crisis. Everyone get really fat and have heart attacks (just be sure to die)!
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Well, my planned killing rampage through the South just sounds like a better idea with every passing day!
Guest Tzar Lysergic Posted February 8, 2008 Report Posted February 8, 2008 Make sure you eat that second half in the same day though. Nothing is worse than a soggy cold cut sandwich that's been sitting in the fridge overnight. Congealed tuna helper.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now