Now here's something I can comment about without being accused falsely as a expert in sarcastic tones.

Being a rather rotundus bloke, ( at 6ft 5" and 375 pounds ) I AM a actual expert on being fat. :D

However, I'm the only one responsible for my condition - society didnt do it, my workplace didnt do it, I did it. Reminds me of the lawsuits that decimated the personal aircraft industry for about 15 years - causing the loss of hundreds of jobs until they passed laws tightening that avenue of litigation much in the same manner.

I'm surpised they havent thought of a Fat Tax yet. ( or would that be a Phat Tax??? )

Actually this is not funny, people who are overweight are so for various reasons.

1. Some may suffer from depression from abuse in their life and use food to escape.
2. If you have diabetes it makes it harder to lose weight.
3. Thyroid problems.

It isn't always the person fault.
NO I DO not have a weight problem, I never have.

The undertones of this article make it seem like the Libertarian Party supports this legislation. Government restrictions and limitations on tort are a dangerous idea--like the medical malpractice legislation previously passed. Civil lawsuits shouldn't have anything to do with federal legislation.

Here is the solution: LOSER PAYS.

Trial lawyer sharks won't be as inclined to work pro-bono for frivilous lawsuits if they end up responsible for the Defense's legal fees in the event of a loss.

Involve the government (as the article suggests), and you've just got a war between trial lawyers' special interest lobby versus corporate food/retail/medical/firearm special interest lobby.

For Freedom, I agree with nearly everything you wrote. Obesity is definitely a serious problem, particularly for the overweight persons themselves. However, Tim West has the right attitude. It IS his problem. That's the only thing I question in your analysis: your claim that it's not the overweight person's fault. And like you, I am not overweight either.

I'm sure you agree that regardless of whose fault it is, the problem is the overweight person's responsibility. And that's what's really important.

Nor is being overweight merely a condition of lack of exercise, although that is certainly a contributing factor. But let's face it...you can't put on the weight if you don't eat the food (particularly the junk food) in the first place.

You cited three poignant problems:

1. Some may suffer from depression from abuse in their life and use food to escape.

This is true. More accurately, a large number of overweight people have histories of abuse in their families. The abuse can be anything from sexual to physical to mental/emotional. It falls into the category of "food issue" and has many of the same characteristics as bolemia and anorexia, surprisingly enough, even though the latter have to do with not eating enough rather than overeating.

2. If you have diabetes it makes it harder to lose weight.

This is also true. However, diabetes is a disease that comes from the body's inability to process sugar. It is most common in people who are overweight...no surprise there, since overweight people tend to eat sugar by the barrel (so to speak).

3. Thyroid problems.

This is a maybe. There is indeed considerable evidence that suggests a connection between weight and thyroid problems. However, what causes the thyroid problems themselves? There is no clear answer on this. I wonder if thyroid problems can be related to....diet?

My point is that we really can't say for sure that being overweight is not the overweight person's fault. However, we can certainly say that it's up to the overweight person to do something about it, because it is certainly their responsibility.

There are people who try very hard to lose weight and have failed. I think that foods with hormones put in them, grown with pesticides may or may not be a contributing factor. You have heard stories of children reaching puberty quicker then they should, so what other harmful things do you think these food may do to a body?

I want to add. Women who go through the change, when they have their ovaries removed can be a factor. Yes there are a lot of indication that thyroid can contribute.

So I still cannot blame everything on the person. People who reach middle age with ongoing problems of whatever sickness that ills them can contribute.

Some people lets say would like to eat healthier foods such as Trader Joes, Wild oats which is suppose to be better for you. But for some it is to expensive to buy for the budget they may be living on due to the Government taxing us beyond our means.

You can't blame everything on the person, but you sure as %^&$ can't blame it on the food companies.

Nigel your ignorance is bliss.

"Here is the solution: LOSER PAYS."

Couldn't be said better!! This one change to civil suits would deter frivolous lawsuits better than any cap law ever would/ will.

As our government gets larger and slower, so do many Americans. Is this a coincidence or a sign of the times?

As far as I'm aware, those who fail to lose weight simply don't do what they need to do to succeed. There are two primary components to weight: what (and how much) you eat and how much (or little) exercise you get to burn up the energy you derive from what you eat.

For years, my sister couldn't seem to lose the weight. Eventually, she realized that she had been rationalizing away all the junk food she was eating because it was "low calorie." It wasn't until she started the Atkins approach and dramatically reduced her carb intake that she saw any results.

Even now, she still hasn't lost all the weight she wants to lose, but I'm pretty confident it's because she doesn't exercise and she still binges occasionally on junk food.

Losing weight is not easy, but in my mind anyone who really is willing to do what it takes can do it. It's just that most overweight people aren't willing to do what it takes.

Blaming obesity on the food companies is like blaming murder on the gun companies...

...or blaming traffic accidents on the car manufacturers...

...or blaming lung cancer on tobacco companies.

The list goes on and on. Individual responsibility is unavoidable, even when the government tries to pretend otherwise. Each of us is responsible for everything we take into our own bodies.

WHOA.

What this measure allows is for manufacturers or government to put poisons in food that may indeed create obesity or habituation with impunity.

Remember there are two sides to the Drug War: Government prohibiting certain drugs--and also its mandating or favoring certain drugs by legislation, as we have seen with Ritalin.

It isn't the job of the legislature to make laws; and certainly not of Congress to ban lawsuits or any form of action or prosecution(and thus implicitly have the power to mandate them).

Legislatures arose to announce and determine customs and expectations, and Libertarians oppose the concept of legislated "positive" law that mandates anything that has spread in the last 150 years. No legislature can create law: law is summarized by the non-coercion principle. Legislative declarations as to custom can always be superseded by fair contract or variant cultural custom.

The LP Platform correctly states it is up to juries to determine the appropriate (common) law (or right) and facts i.e in the particular case (or in some matters e.g. suicide or abortion, not a jury matter but of e.g. family councils and not properly in any process of government at all).

The LP Platform also is against any form of Sovereign Immunity, which this is.

It is quite conceivable that a supplier may be liable for obesity; it is incorrect to claim it is the custom or a matter of right that they are never so, which is what this ill-thought out measure attempts to do.

Congress should ideally stick to its main job of e.g. governing through setting regulations for the military, not issuing what are in essence Bills of Attainder that attempt to pre-judge a case.

Governmeny and coerced legislation is never the solution: it's the problem. The solution is voluntary alternatives.

The only people who'll get fat off this measure will be, as usual, the lawyers and reguilators.

No matter what the government is doing what it wants is to benefit themselves. We not only have to watch what we eat. But we have to worry about either eliminating let alone becareful of foods such as, mad cow, bird flu, what else is next. They are talking about clonning foods. Smoking is bad for you. Soda is bad for you. Lets face it, growing our own food in the earth soil is not even pure anymore since this planet is polluted one way or another. There are fish that has mercury.

Next on the list will be people to get arrested for being fat.

MG,

huh?

This is all good and well, but if I was fat (and I mean fat enough to say "^%$# starving africans" just by standing there), I would be really confused right now. Who would I find to take responsibility? I mean, obviously it wouldn't be my fault. Yeah, this is the fattest country in the world, but clearly I'M not a symptom of the social disease that's causing it. It's gotta be genetics, or the government. This "taking responsibility for your own actions" thing would really be cramping my style.

MG is right IF loser pays is instituted. There may be some isolated incident where a food mfg. could be found liable, therefore the plaintiff should be able to recover damages. Congress should stay out of it, except to institute loser pays in this country. Caps may work for 99% of the cases but not all. For example, a male goes
in the hospital for a hernia operation. Oops, the
guy next to him is in for a sex change and they mix up the patients. If it was you, are you going to settle for a maximum of $250,000 damages??

THANK YOU for passing this law!!! I'm so glad that the government finally recognized individual responsibilty recently. Along with the new bankruptcy law, the blame is placed where it should be placed: on the individual's own actions. Now, I will eat a 75 calorie cookie, and accept that fact that I will gain 75 calories (.0214 pounds) as a result.

I would hate to imagine government regulation going too far. Imagine this: a deceased person's child suing a doctor because that person died! That is pure stupidity, because when you live, you will eventually die.

Funny how government takes people money, and put the blame that is convience according to the government back on people. Why do they do the whole job not just half.

Though I don't agree with lawsuits against companies for someone's obesity, I do feel that nutrition is much more complicated than most people realize. There are SO MANY gimmicks to lose weight. By the way just cause you find a way to lose weight doesn't mean you are healthier. Many items that say low fat are high in sugar especially high fructose corn syrup. Basically much of the products on the market that claim to be healthy are not. With so much misimformation in the market place, it is pretty easy why people make poor decisions on what they buy when they are trying to make the right decisions. I work in a grocery store and hear people looking at labels and discussing nutrition with their friend or spouse. Many people buy products cause they think it healthy when actually they are buying into a gimmick or don't realize that fats are different, sugars are different. I do think its unfortunate that many labels are misleading.
I'd like to think that everyone understands how food effects the body's biochemistry, Because that is really what determines a food is how the chemical structure is broken down, how it reacts with other compounds in the body, how it is assimilated, etc. However, moreoften than not most people are not thoroughly informed and therefore make purchases they might not otherwise. I believe in freedom of choice, but I do have a problem with misleading information.

I am still up in the air on the overall idea of tort reform. I favored it in regard to lawful commerce in firearms, for the main reason that frivolous and malicious torts threaten our most precious right of all. Also, these torts were totally without basis in any shape or form. S. 397 has been passed and soon these torts will be gone forever.

As for torts in regards to obesity and food in general, it bears a lot more thoughtful consideration. There are concerns of federalism right off the top. Of most import, is the fact that a percentage of these torts may actually be justified. There are no basic "rights" at stake here, unlike in the case of firearms torts, so I would tend to slide to the side of maintaining the torts, but in some more limited form.

For entities operating within intrastate commerce only, the Federal government should not be involved in any way. It should solely be up to the state governments to regulate torts.

As for entities involved in interstate commerce, I believe reforms centering around loser pays would be a good start. Furthermore, require a finding of deliberate AND malicious intent. Finally, raise the bar for civil suits from the current "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal suits. Also, bar civil suits were an entity has been previously acquited in a criminal court of similar charges to the proposed civil case.

A further reform would be to assign any punitive damages to the treasury of the appropriate government. This would discourage lawyers from going after huge punitive awards, since they would not personally benefit in any way. Plaintiffs, of course, would still personally receive awards for damages, minus the lawyers percentage.

I think that this approach would better serve the needs of justice. I would not be opposed to state governments closing off very narrowly defined torts, where such torts are truly frivolous, but I believe any such laws must be VERY strictly and narrowly written.

Mark B wrote: "A further reform would be to assign any punitive damages to the treasury of the appropriate government."

I disagree with this 100%. The problem with justice in America today is that crimes are considered to be against the state, not against victims. So-called "tort reform" that makes it impossible for a victim to gain any direct compensation under any circumstances only furthers the cause of big government and undermines the rights of individuals. I find it appalling that a self-described libertarian would argue that the state should be made richer by court cases than it already is.

My intent here is not, of course, to enrich the government, although that certainly would be an unfortunate side effect. Perhaps another alternative would be better.

Also, my tort reforms would most certainly allow victims to gain ordinary damage awards to make them "whole" for whatever the tort sought. My comment was solely directed at limitations on the "punitive" portion of awards.

Instead of allocating punitive damages, as I mentioned earlier, perhaps create a predetermined series of punitive damage levels, similar to fines imposed in conjunction with criminal penalties. This would act to reign in unjustly high punitive damage awards. If such punitive damages are to be awarded to the plaintiff, then provision by law ought to be made for capping the amount of such punitive damages as would go to the attorney. The idea of torts, is to make the victim "whole", not make the victim rich. So I am still not entirely convinced that the "punitive" portion should go to victims. I would be satisfied if, in federal cases, that punitive damages be used solely for retiring principle of the national debt. In state courts, cumalative of such awards could be rebated to taxpayers.

This is definately a subject that needs to be bandied about and discussed thoroughly, there are several good alternatives as to what to do and I am open to consider any of them.

Obesity is a serious problem, and like many others said in this discussion, can result from many different situations (Diabetes, Thyroid problems, and poor food choices).
While help should be made available for those who wish to rectify their obesity, these overweight people have no right to sue restaurants and other eateries for making them obese.
This is the same as the spurious arguments against the tobacco and gun industries. Because people misuse guns, the gun manufacturers are to blame... what about the murderer who used the gun inappropriately? This ridiculous logic would lead me to propose suing the car companies because I may, one day, run down a slow walking pedestrian crossing the street. It's ridiculous.

As for smoking, I do not buy the whole "they lied to us about it being addictive" argument. Every smoker (and I am not one) will tell you that their first cigarette produced a coughing/hacking response. It is not normal to breathe in smoke and our bodies normally react by trying to purge the toxic fumes. While animals generally tend to run from fire and smoke, us humans manufacture it and sell it with the promise of relaxation. If you are stupid enough to fall for that then you are stupid enough to die from lung cancer and/or emphysema. The cigarette and cigar manufacturers are not holding a gun at your right temple forcing you to purchase, light up and start smoking cigarettes. You are! You are 100% responsible for the outcome.

These obesity lawsuits, which target mainly fast food places because they do not inform their customers of nutrition information as well as "healthy alternatives", are nonsense lawsuits. No one forces anyone to go into a McDonald's for breakfast, lunch or dinner. They should not even have to tell you about the nutrition information. If you are so offended that they don't offer that information, don't patronize that business. Use your own head and brain. McDonald's is a company selling certain products. If you don't like the way they sell those products or the products they sell, don't buy there! It's that simple.
But, if you (and I've seen you fatsos) go and get three #1's with extra cheese and extra large fries, sit your rhinocerous-size ass cheeks in the booth, and shovel food down your throat, then you are the one to deal with the consequences. If you have a heart attack as a result, so be it. That is your fate. McDonald's is not your mommy who should tell you to watch what you eat. In this society, we expect adults to use their brains to make intelligent decisions (at least most of the time). If you can't, then you will fall by the wayside and die out...that's natural selection.

Mark B: I can definitely agree with the idea of setting specific punitive levels for given damage levels. That makes much more sense to me. I strongly believe that instead of complaining about the enrichment of victims we should be making victims the centerpiece of justice, and to do that I think we have to insure that judicial decisions aren't out of whack.

The only point I would add is that I think the levels should reflect the relative wealth of the perpetrator. A $100,000 punitive damage ruling is much more devastating to an empoverished perpetrator than it would be to a millionaire perpetrator, who would barely notice it. If the perp is a multi-billion dollar corporation, then this becomes particularly important. Perhaps levels of punitive damages should be set at some percentage of net worth, with some minimum level for perps with no financial net worth. After all, the idea is to make the financial amount of the damage meaningful to the perp.

What do you propose?

The LP is making a mistake by supporting this legislation. In many cases, these laws contain provisions that prevent lawsuits that charge the fast food industry didn’t tell them the food was unhealthy.

We all know NOW that smoking is unhealthy. However, the previous generation has a legitimate gripe because they were told it was good for them and was not warned about the dangers. The same may be true with fast food. While most people of my generation know that fast food is unhealthy but we consume it anyway, our previous generation may not have been informed.

This is another backdoor attempt at tort reform that should be resisted at all costs. Blanket laws to limit lawsuits are rarely a good idea. Its much better to let a judge, jury and court decide based on each situation.

So no longer will food providers have to defend themselves because someone has abnormal weight, or will a gun manufacturer be sued as long as his product is not defective but was used to harm someone.

In the U.S. anyone can sue anyone for anything. It to ban frivolous suits they must be banned by Congress and one at a time. The old world way required one to get permission from a judge to sue.

Irrespective of whether "tort reform" is a good is a good idea as a matter of public policy, the statute is unconstitutional. Congress has been delegated no general police power to ban or regulate the content of foods or to ban or regulate what states may deem appropriate to be actionable at law.

Interesting site, and very organized too. Good work. thins that excited you at 14: http://www.yahoo.co.uk , black girls on their mission , my parents didnt told me about it

Have you seen this before? It's a number guessing game: http://www.amblesideprimary.com/ambleweb/mentalmaths/guessthenumber.html. I guessed 74411, and it got it right! Pretty neat.