Illegal For Restaurants To Serve Obese Patrons?

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1455883' date='Feb 5 2008, 05:08 PM']it's absolutely sickening. so now the state will decide who is 'fit' enough to eat? what's next?[/quote]

Really it isn't that much of a stretch for them. They already decided that some of us don't have to be born. And some have tried to say that we don't have to live. Why not decide who is fit enough to eat.

[johnnydigit]

well baptize me and call me Christian, it is real!

and here's our Masonic American Representative, [url="http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/members/house/mayhall.xml"]W. T. Mayhall, Jr.[/url]
[img]http://bp3.blogger.com/_DjrlSOJqAn0/R6JH_BkzWHI/AAAAAAAADiY/glX8I539VQs/s200/mayhall.jpg[/img]

Legislative Experience:
2004-present

Education:
University of Memphis
Northwestern University

Occupation:
Retired Pharmaceutical Sales
(DuPont-Merck)

Committee Membership:
· Agriculture
· Conservation and Water Resources
· Judiciary B
· Judiciary En Banc
· Marine Resources


Contact Information:
Capitol:
P. O. Box 1018
Jackson, MS 39215

Home:
8417 Cedarbrush Drive
Southaven, MS 38671
(662)393-2069 (H)
(901)734-9540 ©


Representative Mayhall is [b][size=4]a member of Horn Lake Masonic Lodge 617[/size][/b], Horn Lake Chamber of Commerce, Southaven Chamber of Commerce, and the Civil War Preservation Trust.

Representative Mayhall born March 23, 1939 in Memphis, Tennessee and is married to the former Minnie Melton. He is of the Methodist faith.

Email:
tmayhall@house.ms.gov

[SanctitasDeo]

Are you honestly saying that he sponsored this bill because he is a Freemason? So this is just another attempt by those darn Freemasons to conspiracy it up and take over the good ol' USA? (First America, then the World! Omigosh!)

It's a stupid bill. But I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with his status as a Freemason.

In fact, I would think it is more of an indirect argument against socialized medicine than just another way for those Freemasons to exert their sneaky, heathen control over our most-Christian Nation.

[Deb]

[quote name='XIX' post='1456029' date='Feb 5 2008, 08:56 PM']I strongly favor restrictions on public smoking. There is no reason I should have to inhale smoke when i don't want to inhale smoke.
The ban on transfats I get. I don't know if I favor it, but I can handle it.

The law against serving obese people sounds dumb.[/quote]


You can't smoke indoors anywhere in Minnesota now. I finally quit. Too much hassle.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='XIX' post='1456029' date='Feb 5 2008, 09:56 PM']I strongly favor restrictions on public smoking. There is no reason I should have to inhale smoke when i don't want to inhale smoke.[/quote]

We don't need to give government more power over us for that. Just don't stand next to someone while they smoke.
It's giving government the power to tell "we the people," under threat of law, what legal products can and can't be used and where, that leads to laws telling restaurant owners who can and can't be served and more...
It's called "soft despotism." It's the government taking on despotic authority because the governed actually demand it.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1455318' date='Feb 4 2008, 11:51 AM']Who gets to define obese?[/quote]
[url="http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-clinical-definition-of-obesity.htm"]Clinical definition of obesity[/url]. Perhaps they'll have restaurants measure patrons body mass index before allowing them to enter the restaurant.

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1456561' date='Feb 6 2008, 05:16 PM']We don't need to give government more power over us for that. Just don't stand next to someone while they smoke.
It's giving government the power to tell "we the people," under threat of law, what legal products can and can't be used and where, that leads to laws telling restaurant owners who can and can't be served and more...
It's called "soft despotism." It's the government taking on despotic authority because the governed actually demand it.[/quote]
Smoke drifts. Tobacco is legal, and if one wants to kill oneself by using it, work away. Just leave me out of it.

[Norseman82]

So what's the next step? An "obese" person not being able to but food at the grocery store? Raiding people's gardens and confiscating their tomato plants?

[prose]

Where I live you are not allowed to smoke anywhere public. Even outside. You can not smoke on sidewalks, in parking lots, nothing. No bars, and not within 5 meters of any building access that is not your own home.

In our neighboring city, that extends to your own car as well. You can not even smoke in your vehicle while it is parked.

I think there are a lot of ex-smokers here now.

As for the obesity thing. It is one of those things that is a positive idea with a bad execution. It is good to try to help overweight people to overcome their addictions. But I don't believe this is the way.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='prose' post='1456638' date='Feb 6 2008, 06:35 PM']execution.[/quote]

Don't give them any ideas!

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1456561' date='Feb 6 2008, 04:16 PM']We don't need to give government more power over us for that. Just don't stand next to someone while they smoke.
It's giving government the power to tell "we the people," under threat of law, what legal products can and can't be used and where, that leads to laws telling restaurant owners who can and can't be served and more...
It's called "soft despotism." It's the government taking on despotic authority because the governed actually demand it.[/quote]
L D, I'm usually in agreeance with you, but now I think you're going overboard. I think it's a just law that restaurants are smoke free or (in some cases) have a "smoking room". Basically it's not for an individuals health, but for the health of those around. As for the obesity thing, it's an act of discrimination and impracticality. It will not help their situation. Plus, all this talk about BMI... geez, it's sadening to think that restaurants would be using such a flawed system and have to go out of their way to impliment this system in order to serve people.

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1456583' date='Feb 6 2008, 04:47 PM']Smoke drifts. Tobacco is legal, and if one wants to kill oneself by using it, work away. Just leave me out of it.[/quote]

Thanks be to God there is some words of sanity!

[Paddington]

I'm just flat out against it like y'all.
Also, I have had days where I ate relatively little, but it included something unhealthy from a restaurant. I lost weight on those days since I burned more calories than I consumed. Go fig.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1458577' date='Feb 11 2008, 03:13 AM']I'm just flat out against it like y'all.
Also, I have had days where I ate relatively little, but it included something unhealthy from a restaurant. I lost weight on those days since I burned more calories than I consumed. Go fig.[/quote]
But think of the fact that by eating anything you have to kill something.

The poor cow to be slaughtered for your hamburger(even if its just a tiny one ).
The poor cacao tree yanked from the earth to make you chocolate.
The poor parasite on your food that the FDA requires to be massacred for nothing more than wanting to give you malaria.

Regardless in order to eat, you have to kill something. Now Jesus said, "Thou shall not kill"...or was that Moses?...whatever, the point is "THOU SHALL NOT KILL", ok? Stop eating in the Name of Jesus..or Moses(whatever)!

We'd all be skinnier, no?

Edited February 10, 2008 by Justin86

[Paddington]

Ouch! I stand corrected.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1456583' date='Feb 6 2008, 05:47 PM'][url="http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-clinical-definition-of-obesity.htm"]Clinical definition of obesity[/url].
Smoke drifts. Tobacco is legal, and if one wants to kill oneself by using it, work away. Just leave me out of it.[/quote]

Let us look at the real statistics here. 60% of the people who die of lung cancer were not smokers. Check it out. The second hand smoking thing turned out not to hold water and yet all these laws were created in the name of "the public health." Now instead of discriminating against smokers we are discriminating against people who are heavy and people are getting upset? Why? It is the same concept.

[XIX]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1456561' date='Feb 6 2008, 05:16 PM']We don't need to give government more power over us for that. Just don't stand next to someone while they smoke.[/quote]
Yeah, have you ever been inside of a bowling alley?

If we allow people to harm us badly enough to potentially give us cancer, that's closer to anarchy than it is to conservatism. The government should at least have the right to tell people not to slowly kill me.

[XIX]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1458600' date='Feb 10 2008, 03:29 PM']Let us look at the real statistics here. 60% of the people who die of lung cancer were not smokers. Check it out. The second hand smoking thing turned out not to hold water and yet all these laws were created in the name of "the public health." Now instead of discriminating against smokers we are discriminating against people who are heavy and people are getting upset? Why? It is the same concept.[/quote]
Unless 40% of the population consists of "smokers," your statistics do not prove anything.

Say, for example, 20% of the population smokes, and 40% of people who die from lung cancer are smokers. That would mean that smokers are almost three times as likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers. As it is, roughly 28% of the US population smokes, so if your statistics are true, then smokers are almost twice as likely to die from lung cancer. [url="http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/87373"]http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/87373[/url]

Besides, "death by lung cancer" is not the only way smoking can adversely affect your health. You could just get lung cancer and survive. Your life will be shorter no doubt, but you won't fall under the category of smokers who died from lung cancer. It also makes it harder to breathe. Having an inferior respiratory system may not kill you directly, but it's almost guarantee to shorten your lifespan. I'm not saying that smoking is objectively immoral; I am saying that "we the people" have no right to force "they the people" to inhale smoke against their will.

One final point: smoking may okay in certain circumstances, but addiction in general is objectively wrong according to the Catholic Church, because it saps us of our free will. So in a way, smoking laws perhaps uphold the law of God by discouraging addiction. And as we all know, the laws of man should reflect the laws of God.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1458600' date='Feb 10 2008, 02:29 PM']Let us look at the real statistics here. 60% of the people who die of lung cancer were not smokers. Check it out. The second hand smoking thing turned out not to hold water and yet all these laws were created in the name of "the public health." Now instead of discriminating against smokers we are discriminating against people who are heavy and people are getting upset? Why? It is the same concept.[/quote]
That's the point of the laws. Those laws were not made to protect the smokers, but the non-smokers, who get cancer and they don't even smoke!
And it's not at all the same concept. People who smoke are affecting the people around them directly --people who have asthma or are allergic to smoke are in immediate danger. People who are obese are not placing those around them at a health risk.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='XIX' post='1458611' date='Feb 10 2008, 03:49 PM']Unless 40% of the population consists of "smokers," your statistics do not prove anything.

Say, for example, 20% of the population smokes, and 40% of people who die from lung cancer are smokers. That would mean that smokers are almost three times as likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers. As it is, roughly 28% of the US population smokes, so if your statistics are true, then smokers are almost twice as likely to die from lung cancer. [url="http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/87373"]http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/87373[/url]

Having an inferior respiratory system may not kill you directly, but it's almost guarantee to shorten your lifespan. I'm not saying that smoking is objectively immoral; I am saying that "we the people" have no right to force "they the people" to inhale smoke against their will.

One final point: smoking may okay in certain circumstances, but addiction in general is objectively wrong according to the Catholic Church, because it saps us of our free will. So in a way, smoking laws perhaps uphold the law of God by discouraging addiction. And as we all know, the laws of man should reflect the laws of God.[/quote]

What I am saying is that no one is forcing anyone to go places where people are smoking. If you have a problem with people smoking then stay away from it. That is a personal decision. Don't inflict laws that discriminate against people who are doing something perfectly legal just because you and some others have a problem with it. You have a choice don't smoke and go places that don't have smokers. If there is a demand then business will fill it.

And just so you know, I have a very bad allergy to tobacco. So, I know that it is now and has always been possible to avoid smoke. I feel strongly on this because I don't like to see our rights as citizens forfeited in the name of public health. People laughed at me when I first said fought the smoking bans saying that the next thing they would go after is my French Fries. Well, they have changed how my French Fries are cooked and now they are not going to even let me in the restaurant to order them.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1458624' date='Feb 10 2008, 04:16 PM']That's the point of the laws. Those laws were not made to protect the smokers, but the non-smokers, who get cancer and they don't even smoke!
And it's not at all the same concept. People who smoke are affecting the people around them directly --people who have asthma or are allergic to smoke are in immediate danger. People who are obese are not placing those around them at a health risk.[/quote]

They are not as health and cost tax payers more to because of it. We have Medicare in this country. This is how they defend this. It is the same way they argue smokers. It cost tax payers more to provide treatment for them.

edit - to correct spelling. Someday I will learn to type!

Edited February 10, 2008 by Mercy me

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1458632' date='Feb 10 2008, 03:27 PM']They are not as health and cost tax payers more to because of it. We have Medicare in this country. This is how they defend this. It is the same way they argue smokers. It cost tax payers more to provide treatment for them.

edit - to correct spelling. Someday I will learn to type![/quote]
But there is also the more immediate threat with smoking, too, and the health issues affect more people from the secondhand smoke.
I agree that soemthing needs to be done about the obesity problem, but this is NOT the way to do that!