Mississippi bill makes it illegal to serve food to the obese

**suede** · February 4th, 2008, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Perhaps they should outlaw deep frying instead. That'd do a lot more for everyone's health.

OR

Outlaw ridiculous portions. I was in Mississippi a couple of years ago and went to an ice cream parlor. A "single scoop" was literally a fucking bowl on a cone.

That's kinda funny because by me a single scoop is an unpacked cone with a 2"-2 1/2" inch in diameter scoop of ice cream. When you're done eating it you can't even remember what flavor you ordered or if in fact you did eat any ice cream.

**ariesallover** · February 4th, 2008, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by twitchy

Chocolate Covered Broccoli Recipe

Twitchy. Marry me.

**Just Kill Me** · February 5th, 2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dixie Normos

^^ what if someone was in the car with you when there was an accident? Your body could hit them.
And it would affect the accident ruling if you died, the other driver could lose their licence EVEN if it was totally your fault...just because you weren't wearing a seat belt.

I try to point that out to my mother all the time; that she could become a flying projectile. In Texas if they pull me over and my mother is a passenger and not wearing her seatbelt she gets the ticket... but she wears her seatbelt when she's with other people now because of the risk to the other passengers.
My stepfather and mother were members of A.B.A.T.E (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments) which are bunch of bikers and one of their things were helmet laws... I understand the fine line between too much government interference and not enough; seatbelt laws and helmet laws are a ridiculous example when bitching about too much government. Of course you're not hurting anyone if you don't wear a helmet and completely smash your brains out on the highway and live the rest of your life as a vegetable or just end up dead; that's why in Texas you can go helmet free if you have a minimal life insurance policy and take a class. You could you know hurt the people that may or may not depend on you and those who care about you; but that's not a big deal the important issue when our civil liberties are being threatened.

**RevellingInSane** · February 5th, 2008, 10:02 AM

I am a Mississippian and believe this is absolutely ridiculous. Portions are out of control in this state. People are lazy. No one wants to do anything physical. My family and I are not overly active, but we do not eat like most others around and we will...GASP...actually park and walk into a bank, drugstore, etc. Drive thru? Nope.

When we go out to eat, two or three of us will actually share an entree or ask that half of it be boxed before it is even served. There are some cases in which I ask that most of it be boxed. One pound of fries, an 8 ounce chicken breast, and all you can eat grease is disgusting.

People here do not want to take responsibility for their health. Everyone wants to blame someone else for their detrimental choices. Finding anyone who actually cooks anymore is rare. I cook all the time because I can't take the food here. It's too oily and I am physically sickened after eating some of it.

No bill in the world will make this state thinner and healthier.

**crumpet** · February 5th, 2008, 10:04 AM

You could you know hurt the people that may or may not depend on you and those who care about you; but that's not a big deal when the important issue when our civil liberties are being threatened.
Well, I actually think that if you have a family depending on you for support and you take unnecessary risks with your health then that is between you and your family, not the government and me. I can understand the government requiring you to have life insurance so that your long term or emergency care costs are not absorbed by the taxpayers. That is actually a very good idea. I just don't want the government trying to regulate avoiding grief. Also, you made a good point (as did you,Dixie N) about an unbelted person becoming a flying projectile that could seriously injure someone else. That makes a lot of sense and I hadn't considered that, so thanks for pointing it out. I am actually willing to learn new things and keep an open mind about changing my persective on some things.

**darksithbunny** · February 5th, 2008, 10:06 AM

*in sing/song voice*Lawsuit.

**Dixie Normos** · February 5th, 2008, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by crumpet

You could you know hurt the people that may or may not depend on you and those who care about you; but that's not a big deal when the important issue when our civil liberties are being threatened.
Well, I actually think that if you have a family depending on you for support and you take unnecessary risks with your health then that is between you and your family, not the government and me. I can understand the government requiring you to have life insurance so that your long term or emergency care costs are not absorbed by the taxpayers. That is actually a very good idea. I just don't want the government trying to regulate avoiding grief. Also, you made a good point (as did you,Dixie N) about an unbelted person becoming a flying projectile that could seriously injure someone else. That makes a lot of sense and I hadn't considered that, so thanks for pointing it out. I am actually willing to learn new things and keep an open mind about changing my persective on some things.

Awesome attitude Crumpet! I was trying to write it in a way that wouldn't seem like finger pointing or outright condescention. If I do tho, feel free to tell me to back off.

**crumpet** · February 5th, 2008, 10:44 AM

^^^No, you did it in just the right way. If more people communicated like that maybe more dissenters would be willing to consider another viewpoint.

**Ravenna** · February 5th, 2008, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by crumpet

I just don't want the government trying to regulate avoiding grief. Also, you made a good point (as did you,Dixie N) about an unbelted person becoming a flying projectile that could seriously injure someone else. That makes a lot of sense and I hadn't considered that, so thanks for pointing it out. I am actually willing to learn new things and keep an open mind about changing my persective on some things.

True, an unbuckled person could prove to be a danger to others, but I doubt that is the main consideration of the lawmakers. I believe that is more about avoiding grief, as you put it.

An argument can be made about how just about any personal choice or action can have have a harmful effect on other people or a deleterious effect on society in general. The line has to be drawn somewhere. If you get hit by a car while riding your bicycle, you could become a flying projectile that could injure someone, too. And if you are not wearing a helmet, you are more likely to be killed and cause great grief to your family and the person who killed you, perhaps through no fault of his own. That doesn't mean we should outlaw bicycles or force people to wear helmets.

Where I live, obese people do cost everyone money by taxing the health care system to which we all contribute. But there is no way I would use the argument to support banning obese people from eating in restaurants. I care more about protecting civil liberties than I care about what it might cost me for other people to be fat.

**crumpet** · February 5th, 2008, 12:16 PM

I care more about protecting civil liberties than I care about what it might cost me for other people to be fat. Thank you. I agree. Yeah, I may have to pay extra for your fatness but you are probably paying extra for one of my shortcomings in some way (or have or will) because I am also not perfect. People can get really righteous about how they shouldn't have to pay any costs associated with obesity, smoking, etc, but who honestly never does anything that could result in the state absorbing the cost? I absorb the cost of poor people having babies as well as someone with no health insurance who runs a red light, has a wreck, and goes to a public hospital. Oh well.

**cynic** · February 5th, 2008, 12:27 PM

...I know of a few folks, myself included, who decided to quit smoking....the main reason was that we got tired of smoking outside and being treated as lepers....

....attaching social stigma to addictions or destructive behaviors.....helps some people quit/change......

....smoking is disguting...and so is obesity.....take it outside.....

**Dixie Normos** · February 5th, 2008, 01:10 PM

^That's true, I know A LOT of people quit when they couldn't smoke in bars/restaurants, esp in Canada where winter is nearly half the year.

At the very least, the obese people will be forced to walk from a restaurant that won't serve them, to a grocery store that will.

**Ravenna** · February 5th, 2008, 02:37 PM

Let's have weigh-ins on public busses and trains, too. Fatties should be forced to walk to work. And maybe charge them an exorbitant gasoline tax too, to make it unaffordable for them to drive.