House OKs Ban on Fast Food Obesity Suits

[DavisBAnimal]

The GOP-controlled House on Wednesday voted to ban supersized lawsuits that blame the food industry for people's expanding waistlines and health woes, saying such cases could bankrupt fast-food chains and restaurants.

The 276-139 vote is intended to prevent class action lawsuits that contend food companies and their offerings are responsible for Americans' putting on the pounds and lurching toward obesity.

House Republicans have in recent years approved similar bills barring suits against the gun industry for gun crimes and against businesses for asbestos-related health problems. Not one measure has passed the closely divided Senate.

"We as Americans need to realize that suing your way to better health is not the answer," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "Trial lawyers need to stop encouraging consumers to blame others for the consequences of their actions just so they can profit from frivolous lawsuits against restaurants."

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D817QPA81.xml

I'm generally against frivilous litigation, but I really wonder about this. Maybe someone can help me out, but how come we can't blame McDonald's for selling harmful foods but we can blame drug dealers for selling harmful drugs? Obesity's about to be set as the number killer in the US - fast food kills when taken without restraint, there's no question about it. How come it's legal to sell fattening cheeseburgers to an overweight public, but illegal to sell marijuana? I mean, sure, people need to take responsibilities for their actions and can't blame others for being fat, and fast-food is safe in small quantities, but replace "being fat" with "doing drugs" and "fast-food" for "drugs" and I feel like you still have a true statement.

If we are right now putting drug dealers into jail for their role in the promotion of drug culture in our cities and suburbs, then why aren't we putting crap-food makers like McDonalds into jail for their role in the promotion of obesity? Fast-food induced obesity kills a whole lot more people in the US than marijuana does, that's for sure.

Someone please point out the difference.

Davis

[Dont Hurt Me]

Same reason you cant blame a gun maker for killing someone, or how about a hammer maker. People have to take responsiblity for their own actions. if i go in Mcdonalds and eat 20 burgers a day is it My fault or theirs? Its my fault and the law suites are crazy and will cost each one of us for trying to blame everyone but the person doing the stupid thing. This is a good law. Yeah blame everyone but yourself for why you are a fat!

[DavisBAnimal]

Same reason you cant blame a gun maker for killing someone, or how about a hammer maker. People have to take responsiblity for their own actions. if i go in Mcdonalds and eat 20 burgers a day is it My fault or theirs? Its my fault and the law suites are crazy and will cost each one of us for trying to blame everyone but the person doing the stupid thing. This is a good law. Yeah blame everyone but yourself for why you are a fat!

Oh no, I agree with you - but I just fail to see how this isn't hypocritical when it comes to our approach to legislation against drug dealers. How come we can blame the pot dealer for his roll in providing the gateway (if you subscribe to the "gateway drug" theory) into the world of drug addiction?

Davis

[zimv20]

If we are right now putting drug dealers into jail for their role in the promotion of drug culture in our cities and suburbs, then why aren't we putting crap-food makers like McDonalds into jail for their role in the promotion of obesity? Fast-food induced obesity kills a whole lot more people in the US than marijuana does, that's for sure.

Someone please point out the difference.


drug dealers need a lobby

[DavisBAnimal]

drug dealers need a lobby

Haha, that's probably true.

And I know you were joking, but I think that actually gets to the heart of hypocrisy. Long story short, drug dealers get locked up while gun makers and McDonalds go free because drug dealers are black and gun makers/fast-food makers are white. Just more cultural lag of the racist motivations of the drug-law system.

Davis

[Sun Baked]

Guns and fat, yay... :rolleyes:

[Thomas Veil]

I don't think the legislative branch should be in the business of telling us what we can and can't sue for. That's probably not even constitutional.

Yeah, a lot of lawsuits are complete b.s., but if somebody wants to waste their money hiring a lawyer to present a case that's going to get thrown out of the first court they take it to, that's their business. We hear about the most infamous cases that make it through to the higher courts, but in reality, a lot of this stuff never makes it that far.

I'd rather trust a judge to determine what is or is not a frivilous suit, rather than have Congress decide that for me.

[mactastic]

"Hamburgers don't kill people, people kill people." :D

[IJ Reilly]

Nobody's in favor of "frivolous lawsuits," not even the lawyers who file product liability claims. Like everything else in national politics these days, you have to look for the code within the words. In this case, protecting against "frivolous lawsuits" is code for carving out an exception in the law for a favored industry.

[yahooz]

Haha, that's probably true.

And I know you were joking, but I think that actually gets to the heart of hypocrisy. Long story short, drug dealers get locked up while gun makers and McDonalds go free because drug dealers are black and gun makers/fast-food makers are white. Just more cultural lag of the racist motivations of the drug-law system.

Davis

Do you actually believe that statement or are you just trying to start a flame war? Where do you draw your conclusions from? I agree that people should not be able to sue fast food chains as it is unfair for companies to lose money over people's laziness... However I believe gun makers have a responsibility to ensure that the owners of guns are safe to use them and will in turn not misuse them.

As for drug dealers being locked up just because they are black, the very idea is ridiculous. Perhaps it is because selling drugs is illegal, hmm, maybe thats why they are arrested? What study shows only black drug dealers are arrested, while their white counterparts' activities go unchecked?

I hope you arent just touting some campaign slogan dogma; there's no reason to make illogical statements like drug dealers are locked up only for their race.

:o

[zimv20]

I agree that people should not be able to sue fast food chains as it is unfair for companies to lose money over people's laziness...


being able to sue and winning are two different things. i don't think people should win lawsuits against, say, McD, for being fat. however, whether or not the justice system allows the suit in the first place is an entirely different matter.


As for drug dealers being locked up just because they are black, the very idea is ridiculous.

are you sure? every study i've seen points to a built-in racial bias in the justice system. someone here keeps close track of that stuff, i forget who. IJReilly, is it you?

[DavisBAnimal]

Do you actually believe that statement or are you just trying to start a flame war? Where do you draw your conclusions from? I agree that people should not be able to sue fast food chains as it is unfair for companies to lose money over people's laziness... However I believe gun makers have a responsibility to ensure that the owners of guns are safe to use them and will in turn not misuse them.

As for drug dealers being locked up just because they are black, the very idea is ridiculous. Perhaps it is because selling drugs is illegal, hmm, maybe thats why they are arrested? What study shows only black drug dealers are arrested, while their white counterparts' activities go unchecked?

I hope you arent just touting some campaign slogan dogma; there's no reason to make illogical statements like drug dealers are locked up only for their race.

:o

I'm not stupid, I don't think you understood what I was saying. I know drug dealers go to jail cause it's illegal - that's a no-brainer. I'm wondering WHY is it illegal? Why is drug dealing illegal and frowned upon when fattening-food dealing is legal and rewarded, even though fattening-food kills more people than drugs? The only explanation I can see is that the drug laws were created in more racist days, with racist motivations, and despite the possible end to the literal racism of the old days, racism is still, nevertheless, fully institutionalized. And this hipocrisy is example numero uno. I can see absolutely no other reason behind this baltant hipocricy. Maybe you have a better, more plausible idea, but I wasn't starting a flame war, my statements were completely logically if read correctly, and I don't know any campaign out there that is right now centered around the empowerment of drug dealers.

How come if I sell some pot to a stoner I can get tossed in jail for life, yet if I sell a Double-Quater Pounder with Cheese to an obese man on the verge of a heart-attack I get $1.65 and a law written by the US Congress to proect me?

Davis

[pseudobrit]

The House is just protecting the new light manufacturing base.

[IJ Reilly]

every study i've seen points to a built-in racial bias in the justice system. someone here keeps close track of that stuff, i forget who. IJReilly, is it you?

Not me, though I remember discussing this in a long ago far away thread.

[wwworry]

Haha, that's probably true.

And I know you were joking, but I think that actually gets to the heart of hypocrisy. Long story short, drug dealers get locked up while gun makers and McDonalds go free because drug dealers are black and gun makers/fast-food makers are white. Just more cultural lag of the racist motivations of the drug-law system.

Davis

I have seen studies that show the justice system does have a racial bias and definitly an economic bias.
But to say drug dealers are black is too much. I know of a few white drug dealers. I know a lot of black people who are not drug dealers and who would be incenced with the claim that drug dealers are black.

Maybe you just miswrote. You could point out that the penalties for the possesion of crack cocaine (the cheap stuff) are a lot higher than the penalties for the possesion of cocaine (the expensive stuff). And that wealthy people are given lesser sentences for possesion of the same drug.

Suing McDonalds because it is fattening is kind of crazy. How can you sue a company for selling a product that does not harm people when used in moderation? You could take any product available in the grocery store and if you injest enough of it, it would kill you. I agree that fast food lifestyles are killing the planet but the answer is education not litigation. But litigation does call attention to the problem which is good but wastes a lot of people's time which is bad.

I do not think congress should be involved in lawsuits against specific industries. Let the courts do what the courts do. It's the separation of powers thing.

[numediaman]

From Mike Luckovich:

[mactastic]

Hey Davis, wern't you the one admonishing me not to be too antagonistic to our conservative friends here?

[applebum]

Why is drug dealing illegal and frowned upon when fattening-food dealing is legal and rewarded, even though fattening-food kills more people than drugs? Davis

Ok - tell me just exactly which food is fattening. Dr. Atkins says it is the Carbs (the bun of the Cheeseburger). He has plenty of case studies that support this. Dr. Ornish says it is the Fat (the cheese and the beef of the Cheeseburger). He has plenty of case studies that support his opinion. Dr. Schwartzbein says it is not necessarily either of these but just white carbs and non-nutritive foods (chips, cake, etc). Again her personal case studies will support this. Weight Watchers says you can eat anything - just in moderation. Plenty of Dr's say that it is total calories and portion sizes that matter, not the specific food. Ask any runner, and they will tell you they can eat anything - they just burn it off. So, it actually may not be the food at all, but our own laziness/idleness that makes us fat. In fact, maybe Apple computers make us fat when we actually sit in front of our computer instead of going outside and getting some exercise.

So, you can't put people in jail that sell food, because there is no proof that any one food item by itself makes you fat. However, we do know that exact side effects of Heroine, Cocaine, Opium, Crystal Meth, etc. We do know how addictive they are. Now, this is not a comment on whether these things should be illegal or not. I am just pointing out one of the differences.

[DavisBAnimal]

Hey Davis, wern't you the one admonishing me not to be too antagonistic to our conservative friends here?

I realize I may have gotten a little defensive, but I wasn't trying to be antagonistic. I really am wondering if there is a better theory out there for the hypocrisy (and maybe he has an idea), because I admittedly don't have any historical context to bring to the issue, or any statistical knowledge.

Looking back on my original post, though, I can see how it could be misread - I wasn't being clear. And I realize I was making a generalization, and obviously not all drug dealers are black and not all black people are drug dealers, but I've always heard that while the majority of drug users are white the majority of drug dealers are black, that drug dealing is a bigger issue in inner cities in poor and black neighborhoods than it is in other neighborhoods, even though drug use is widespread across all racial and socio-economic boundaries, and that, at the very least, the judicial system is constructed in such a way as to be tainted by a number of racial disparities in regards to drug prosecution.

All I am saying is that so long as it is illegal to sell drugs, it should be illegal to sell ridiculously unhealthy foods, like those found at McDonalds. Taking both is the choice of the consummer, and both are fine in moderation though dangerous once they become a part of a destructive and consumming lifestyle. And I am proposing that the reason why one is illegal while the other is a legitimate business practice soon to be protected against litigation by law (if this passes the Senate) is the result of racial disparity. And I am legitimately curious as to another explanation.

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

Ok - tell me just exactly which food is fattening. Dr. Atkins says it is the Carbs (the bun of the Cheeseburger). He has plenty of case studies that support this. Dr. Ornish says it is the Fat (the cheese and the beef of the Cheeseburger). He has plenty of case studies that support his opinion. Dr. Schwartzbein says it is not necessarily either of these but just white carbs and non-nutritive foods (chips, cake, etc). Again her personal case studies will support this. Weight Watchers says you can eat anything - just in moderation. Plenty of Dr's say that it is total calories and portion sizes that matter, not the specific food. Ask any runner, and they will tell you they can eat anything - they just burn it off. So, it actually may not be the food at all, but our own laziness/idleness that makes us fat. In fact, maybe Apple computers make us fat when we actually sit in front of our computer instead of going outside and getting some exercise.

So, you can't put people in jail that sell food, because there is no proof that any one food item by itself makes you fat. However, we do know that exact side effects of Heroine, Cocaine, Opium, Crystal Meth, etc. We do know how addictive they are. Now, this is not a comment on whether these things should be illegal or not. I am just pointing out one of the differences.

Those are all good points. Although I don't think there is any debate as to whether or not a Big Mac is unhealthy, and potentially quite dangerous if not eaten in moderation, same as cocaine. But food addiction is obviously more controversial and not as accepted as drug addiction, so addiction is a good thing to bring up.

And I think this would be a good example getting beyond the racial disparity if it wasn't for the Tobacco industry. Tobacco is just as addictive as many of those drugs, and kills more people than anything but....obesity (which just passed tobacco as the number one killer). Why is Tobacco legal still? Probably because they have an active, white lobby, and have historically been a practice of wealthy white business persons, whereas pot (for example) came over brought by Mexican immigrants and popularized by lower-income Mexians and Blacks in the early 20th century.

If the drug laws are set-up to protect the American populace from an unhealthy and addictive lifestyle, then there should logically be laws against what kind of foods, portion size, on and on, should be allowed to be sold - then it should be illegal to sell a cheeseburger to a fat man similar to the way it's illegal to sell alcohol to a drunk man.

And obviously this is riduculous, because people should take responsibility for their own actions. So, really, if we want to have that attitude about these substances (which is still a debatable argument) then drugs (at least drugs without the potential to kill when used in moderation) should fall under the same type of libertarian attitude.

All this and I've never even smoked pot!

Davis

[applebum]

If the drug laws are set-up to protect the American populace from an unhealthy and addictive lifestyle, then there should logically be laws against what kind of foods, portion size, on and on, should be allowed to be sold - then it should be illegal to sell a cheeseburger to a fat man similar to the way it's illegal to sell alcohol to a drunk man.

Davis

Actually alcohol, like most drugs, causes impairment. By selling booze to you after you are drunk, I can be held responsible if you wind up hurting someone in your impaired state. Cheeseburgers do not cause impairment. If I sell a fat man 20 cheeseburgers, he is not any more likely to be in a car wreck (unless of course he is trying to eat all 20 while driving :D ). I tend to think most drug laws are there due to the impairment factor as opposed to the addiction factor. Impaired people do stupid things - how many crimes are committed because of someone being impaired. While cigarettes are extremely addictive, they don't tend to impair a smoker to a point that they are likely to make stupid decisions and hurt someone else. I think the true hypocricy in America is alcohol. It is by far as addictive as any illegal drug, plus the impairment factor is just as high. Unfortunately, we have already proven in America that making it illegal simply leads to more crime and violence.

[DavisBAnimal]

Actually alcohol, like most drugs, causes impairment. By selling booze to you after you are drunk, I can be held responsible if you wind up hurting someone in your impaired state. Cheeseburgers do not cause impairment. If I sell a fat man 20 cheeseburgers, he is not any more likely to be in a car wreck (unless of course he is trying to eat all 20 while driving :D ). I tend to think most drug laws are there due to the impairment factor as opposed to the addiction factor. Impaired people do stupid things - how many crimes are committed because of someone being impaired. While cigarettes are extremely addictive, they don't tend to impair a smoker to a point that they are likely to make stupid decisions and hurt someone else. I think the true hypocricy in America is alcohol. It is by far as addictive as any illegal drug, plus the impairment factor is just as high. Unfortunately, we have already proven in America that making it illegal simply leads to more crime and violence.

Yeah, very good point - which would make you think we'd realize the amount of crime and violence that gets created through the illegalization of drugs.

[parrothead]

Same reason you cant blame a gun maker for killing someone, or how about a hammer maker. People have to take responsiblity for their own actions. if i go in Mcdonalds and eat 20 burgers a day is it My fault or theirs? Its my fault and the law suites are crazy and will cost each one of us for trying to blame everyone but the person doing the stupid thing. This is a good law. Yeah blame everyone but yourself for why you are a fat!


Exactly, people have to learn to take responsibility for their own actions. It is not like Macdonalds has forced us all to eat there.

[DavisBAnimal]

Exactly, people have to learn to take responsibility for there own actions. It is not like Macdonalds has forced us all to eat there.

That's true, but to play devils advocate, I still think McDonalds, as a US corporation, should in some ways take into consideration the affect that their product and business dealing have on the American population. I don't think these suits should ever win, but by outlawing them outright you close off that form of speech against the McDonalds corporation for what amounts to questionable business ethics. There's no question that Mickey-D's has played a big role in the fattening of America, so frankly, I'm happy there has been negative attention given to McDonalds through these suits (all have which have lost, I'm pretty sure) such that McDonalds has now started to make it's menu a bit more healthy. I'm not saying that the suits themselves single handidly did this - there's a variety of factors, a change in the market away from fatty foods being one - but the suits nonetheless were a great way to get attention to the role McDonalds has played in getting us fat.

People are ultimately responsible for their own decisions, but I don't think it's ok for US coporation to be able to hide the ill-effects of their business practices behind the profit motive. There needs to be more social responsibility encouraged within these corporations, and I would much rather that responsibility come from the potential threat of class-action lawsuit than from coercive laws dictating what a restaurant can or cannot serve (and we all know it ain't gonna come from within).

Davis

[pseudobrit]

So, you can't put people in jail that sell food

No one is saying the execs of fast food restaurants should go to jail. This is about civil lawsuits, where they're held financially liable for their actions.

[applebum]

No one is saying the execs of fast food restaurants should go to jail. This is about civil lawsuits, where they're held financially liable for their actions.

How come if I sell some pot to a stoner I can get tossed in jail for life, yet if I sell a Double-Quater Pounder with Cheese to an obese man on the verge of a heart-attack I get $1.65 and a law written by the US Congress to proect me?


Ummmm did you read the post that said this? This is why I mentioned jail.

[pseudobrit]

The only thing I see there is someone addressing the contrast between the two scenarios.

There's still no one trying to put execs in jail for this type of behaviour yet, no matter how heinous their greed.

[applebum]

The only thing I see there is someone addressing the contrast between the two scenarios.

There's still no one trying to put execs in jail for this type of behaviour yet, no matter how heinous their greed.
If we are right now putting drug dealers into jail for their role in the promotion of drug culture in our cities and suburbs, then why aren't we putting crap-food makers like McDonalds into jail for their role in the promotion of obesity? Fast-food induced obesity kills a whole lot more people in the US than marijuana does, that's for sure.

Someone please point out the difference.


Ok - then did you read this post? Which by the way is the original post. He started out this entire thread asking why the drug dealers went to jail and the fast food makers didn't. Did you read this entire thread before posting?

[pseudobrit]

Ok - then did you read this post?

Yeah, he's asking a question about the disparity between how we hold people responsible for their actions, not calling for mandatory jailtime for Ronald McDonald.

[DavisBAnimal]

If we are right now putting drug dealers into jail for their role in the promotion of drug culture in our cities and suburbs, then why aren't we putting crap-food makers like McDonalds into jail for their role in the promotion of obesity? Fast-food induced obesity kills a whole lot more people in the US than marijuana does, that's for sure.

Someone please point out the difference.


Ok - then did you read this post? Which by the way is the original post. He started out this entire thread asking why the drug dealers went to jail and the fast food makers didn't. Did you read this entire thread before posting?

If anything, I was making the point that if it is ridiculous to put fast-food makers into jail for making dangerous foods (which it is), then it should be ridiculous to put drug dealers into jail for selling dangerous drugs. That's all - I wasn't implying we should put Ronnie in jal.

Davis

[windowsblowsass]

Haha, that's probably true.

And I know you were joking, but I think that actually gets to the heart of hypocrisy. Long story short, drug dealers get locked up while gun makers and McDonalds go free because drug dealers are black and gun makers/fast-food makers are white. Just more cultural lag of the racist motivations of the drug-law system.

Davis
race doesnt have anything to do with it its just the ways laws are stated honestly think about your comment your saying everyone whos a drug dealer is black and everyone who works at/in mcdonalds is white bottom line drugs are illegal so people selling them get arrested hamburgers are legal

[pseudobrit]

race doesnt have anything to do with it its just the ways laws are stated

No, he's alluding to the way laws are applied.

[DavisBAnimal]

race doesnt have anything to do with it its just the ways laws are stated honestly think about your comment your saying everyone whos a drug dealer is black and everyone who works at/in mcdonalds is white bottom line drugs are illegal so people selling them get arrested hamburgers are legal

I've already addressed concenrs with this generalization, but I'll explain a bit more. Here is what I said before, when someone called me out on it:

Looking back on my original post, though, I can see how it could be misread - I wasn't being clear. And I realize I was making a generalization, and obviously not all drug dealers are black and not all black people are drug dealers, but I've always heard that while the majority of drug users are white the majority of drug dealers are black, that drug dealing is a bigger issue in inner cities in poor and black neighborhoods than it is in other neighborhoods, even though drug use is widespread across all racial and socio-economic boundaries, and that, at the very least, the judicial system is constructed in such a way as to be tainted by a number of racial disparities in regards to drug prosecution.


Basically, minorities are unfairly targeted in all aspects of the judicial system regarding drugs - from the way the laws are carried out and prosecuted, right up into the reasons the drug laws were written in the first place. It's more than just a conspiracy theory that the early marijuana laws were established to curb Mexican immigration and the expansion of minority neighborhoods in the early 20th century. Pot was brought into use by these groups, and the laws were created essentially out of fear and discrimination.

Just to be absolutely clear, I know drug dealers go to jail because drugs are illegal. I really, really, am not very stupid. My biggest beef is WHY is one illegal and the other is not. The reason I initially raised this question was because, if you take as the reason behind the illegality of a drug the harm it will inflict on its user, then it is entirely hypocritical to make drugs illegal while fattening-cheeseburgers and cigarettes sell for big bucks, because a lot of drugs, taken responsibly, aren't any more bad for you than those Big Macs. Someone, however, came along and very perceptively pointed out that drugs are illegal not because of the harm they inflict on the user, but because of the impared state they place that user in, thus making the user a potential threat to others. In this case, the true hypocricy with our current system is the way in which alcohol is freely legal to sell, despite its ability to put its users in an impaired state, but drug dealing is verrrrrry bad bad, illegal illegal. And, in this case, I think we should use our knowledge of the amount of crime and violence created by prohibition laws as evidence that the crime and violence plaguing our cities may be a result of our prohibition against drugs.

And I'll go out on a limb and say some of the reason we DON'T readily realize this is because of systematic and still lingering racism - the idea that it's not really "our" problem because it's not in our face - because, to borrow a bit from the movie Traffic - we don't have hordes and streams of black faces coming into our neighborhood saying to our sons and daughters "hey, you gotta any drugs? Where can I score some drugs", just like many many inner city black youth have to deal with suburban whites everyday. Because drug laws are still being used as means behind racial discrimination, a means of segregation, of differntiating those "dangerous" neighborhoods from "our own".

People are afraid of calling out racism these days cause everyone's going to jump down their throats yelling "Race card! Race card! He's playing the race card! OJ! OJ! Jesse Jackson! Al Sharpton! Tawana Brawley! Tawana Brawley!! Tawana Brawley!!!!!!!!!" and I say that's a bunch of garbage. If it reaks like racism, smells like racism, even hints at racism, lets just assume for the benefit of the doubt that it IS racism, and work on making sure it's not, before those who think it may be have to prove that it is. We are a long way from the day when we can approach every situation under the assumption that race isn't issue. Until we get there, the "race card", as it is so often called, should still be a part of the American deck.

Davis