Hey, I'm american and ive got tons of personal responsibility, and im gonna throw it out there, so does every other american on this site. I love how america bashing is en vogue (sarcasm). Its not that im super patriotic, its just i hate following crowds. My favorite is when foreigners complain that americans stereotype other people. (if you dont know whats wrong with that, its a stereotype itself)

I was talking in direct reference to the article. There are plenty of individual Americans with loads of personal responsibility, but at the same time the US is the most lawsuit-happy nation on earth.

I don't think I'm bashing Americans by pointing out an American news article, about the American legislature, in which Rep. Rick Keller says "We've got to get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense, and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and blames other people for their problems".

It's relevant to this newsgroup in light of the discussion that took place a little while ago about the proposals from the WHO re: fast food advertising guidelines.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

"maybe americans are ready for some personal responsibility" is a pretty general statement. There are certain groups of people (wont say which ones, for fear of backlash) where AIDS rates are rising extremely fast, if there was an education movement in this population, and i stated, "(Ethnic Minorities) ready for some personal responsibility" It would be seen as extremely offensive. A few high profile cases, and an entire population is stereotyped, ex. the woman who spilled coffee on herself, then sued that it was too hot. Everyone points to that, but it's just anecdotal. You're fooling yourself if you think this law was passed to, " get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense" It was passed because of studies on obesity scared the fast food industry, and they gave millions of dollars to representatives, and so they passed the law. On a similar note, Gym memberships and money spent on diets and weight loss are highest in the united states per capita.

The Bush administration is also doing the same thing with lawsuits against hand gun manufacturers. They're obviously much more interested in preserving the corporate profits of those who pay their campaign funding than they are concerned about the health of ordinary Americans. Then of course they disguise it with the "freedom of choice" and "individual responsibility" rhetoric.

Apparently I'm anti-American now. Oh well, I've been called worse.

I would be interested in knowing exactly how this legislation is crafted. If it is simply a case of saying that individuals or groups cannot sue fast food joints because they ate too much and got fat, I can buy it. The benefits are potentially reduced burden on the courts, and reducing insurance premiums.

If they are banning any and all lawsuits against the fast food places for obesity related lawsuits, including things like false advertising, publishing inaccurate nutritional information, negligence, etc., then that would be a problem.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

OK--Here's the scenario. A person breaks into my house and steals one of my guns. He then goes to a 7-11, robs it, and kills the clerk. The clerk's family sues Smith and Wesson. After a few of these lawsuits, S&W decides to go out of business, putting thousands of people out of work and impacting millions of other people who choose to own guns for sport or self-defense. Why is S&W culpable--their product worked exactly as advertised?

Here's another (true) scenario--A guy gets his private pilots license. The next day he goes to his local airport and rents a plane for an hour. When he gets back to the airport, he misjudges the wind, and overshoots his approach turn. Instead of going around and trying again, he shoots for the runway. He puts the plane in an approach turn stall and augers into the ground, killing himself. His family sues Cessna and wins. The airplane functioned exactly as advertised (no engine or airframe failure). The operator simply flew it outside of the envelope. Why is this Cessna's fault? These types of suits have nearly destroyed the light civil aircraft industry in the US, again, impacting the employment of many and the ability to use and buy light, civil aircraft for many others.

Here's another (true) scenario--A bike dealer in Michigan....well, we all know the rest.

Lawyers and plaintiffs hit the jackpot, and the rest of us pay. The Democrats vote against any kind of tort reform, because the lawyers are "those who pay their campaign funding."

A bonehead in Nashville poured hot oil on his wife and 8 month old baby yesterday but God knows the real responsibility lies with Crisco! It's really their fault for making the oil so lets sue them!

---

jimmyk

a little more food for thought...;-)

I agree that people need to take personal responsibility for their actions. But, a good question to ask is does the food supply chain have some civic duty to provide a better product? We can argue day and night that people have a choice - drink or don't drink, smoke or don't smoke, eat McDonald's or eat at the health food store, but consider some of the economic impact. Subsidized products are what are winding up in fast foods & cheap foods, and our less fortunate population (as well as those who are ignorant or just don't care) as a trend picks these commodities over their more expensive, healthier counterparts. They wind up obese. That impacts everyone else with lost productivity, health insurance hikes, etc.

So, to an extent, to speak in Slowtwitchian terms, sometimes the only way to induce change is to apply force. In this case, economic force. The tobacco industry got their pants sued off, now cigarettes cost more (taxed out the yinyang) and they have to give money to anti-smoking campaigns. Caveat that they're making mucho bucks in other countries pushing their product. Until we the people as a whole stand up and say stop giving me this subsidized shite (hydrogenated oils, corn syrups), we're all going to pay, one way or the other.

That's my happy meal for the day.

---

Marty Gaal, CSCS
One Step Beyond Coaching
Triangle Open Water Swim Series | Old School Aquathon Series
Powerstroke® Freestyle Technique DVD

How bout this one from a few months in the future. I get sued for causing pain and suffering by smokin' all of you in local and regional triathlons. hahaha, i crack myself up.

"The Bush administration is also doing the same thing with lawsuits against hand gun manufacturers. They're obviously much more interested in preserving the corporate profits of those who pay their campaign funding than they are concerned about the health of ordinary Americans. Then of course they disguise it with the "freedom of choice" and "individual responsibility" rhetoric. "


There are so many things wrong with this statement... 1) the Senate is not the "Bush Administration" - one is the executive branch, the other is the legislative. 2) What is wrong with corporate profits? Corporate profits mean corporate taxes, which means revenue. Profitable corporations also hire people and pay them money. People then use that money to buy food and clothing. Would you rather have a massive welfare state? Worked well in Russia... 3) Who do you really think opposes eliminating lawsuits against the gun or fast food industry? Trial lawyers, who make massive contributions to Democrats. 4) Lawsuits against fast food chains will not make one person healthy. Period. 5) You apparently dislike corporate profits, but do you also dislike the profits made by the law firms? They are the only reason suits like these are filed in the first place. 6) "Freedom of choice" and "individual responsibility" are not rhetoric. These concepts are the lynchpin of our society.

C'mon Cerveloguy....shouldn't ordinary Americans be responsible for their own health? Why should the government get involved? Considering how nearly 80% of all death and disease is a result of lifestyle choices; smoking, overeating (obesity), drinking, drugs.....all preventable with an ample body of knowledge available to the general public on why these things should be avoided.

Let's say you and I bought homes in the same neighborhood 25 years ago and during that time, we took care of our homes and kept them in a good state of repair; cleaning the gutters, trimming the trees, all the regular type of home maintenance.....

We have a neighbor that bought his house at the same time we bought ours and over the years he did -0- maintenance on his house. Now, his house is in need of some serious repairs costing thousands of dollars......why should you and I have to pay the bill?

That's healthcare in America. All kinds of disgusting fatbodies shoveling loads of crap into there pieholes finishing off the meal with a smoke and they wonder why they're getting fat and sick. Why should we have our taxes raised to pay for medical care for all these fat slobs?

You make sure your bike is safe and ready to ride, right? It's your choice. If your bike fails due to you neglecting it's maintenance, is it fair for you to send me the repair bill and expect me to pay it?

Oh yeah, about the gun thing. Why should gun manufacturers be sued? Can the relatives of victims of violent crime sue judges and parole boards who release violent felons into society only to kill again?

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Evidently you don't shop at Tom's store. . .



;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's the thing, the government IS getting involved by proposing legislation that says Joe Obese cannot sue the fast food guys.

I don't really have a side on this issue. I just thought it was an interesting topic.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

1) While they may be different branches, the same party controls both. We say, bush administration because it is easier than, Policy Makers of the Republican Party 2) Corproate profits are great, but the question is, at what price? CerveloGuy is saying that corporate profits are being put before public safety. i.e. the fast food industry is making a dangerous product, further production of that product increases profits, but at the cost of public health, which is not good. 3) Yes, trial lawyers do oppose this, but so does anyone who wants corporations to act responsibly. Protection from lawsuits gives a corporation no incentive to engage in good buisness practices. What do they care if one BigMac has more than a weeks supply of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease? They cant sue, so the industry does nothing to change. Would big tabacco stopped advertising to teenagers if it didnt get sued? 4)"Lawsuits against fast food chains will not make one person healthy. Period." While the tabacco lawsuits didnt cure anyone's lung cancer, it did prevent many people from smoking, and got a lot of people to quit. Imagine a huge campain against unhealthy food similar to the one against cigarettes. If it gets one person to decide to eat salads instead of bigmacs, then it has made one person healthy. period. 6) "public health" isnt rhetoric either. Each side has a valid arguement, and is cloaking its side in lofty terms while each is really driven primarily by special interest. Which do i agree with? I dont know. I think the american diet is horrendous, and something has to be done. Inactivity and Poor diet are going to be the smoking of my generation. I suspect in forty years, people will be amazed at the things we put into our bodies.

I'll throw it back to you another way. If an individual is hurting society the individual will be charged/put in jail. Shouldn't also corporations?

Not saying that we should round up the McDonald's executives and throw them in jail, but I see no reason why the junk food industry shouldn't be regulated since it is an industry that is hurting or at least having a negative effective on the greater society. It's fine to talk about individual responsibility but that assumes that everybody is well versed on nutrition issues. Unfortunately that's not the case and that's why North Americans are getting fatter with the corresponding increase in health costs to the tax payer.

In fairness to McDonald's, I did read last week that they are doing away with the super fries. That's one small step in the right direction.

Being on the winning side of capitalism, and having been born that way, i totally agree, screw everyone else, i want another BMW. *sarcasm

I would rather try to help them get fit and healthy then spit on their grave shouting, "you deserved it" We as triathletes engage in a pretty dangerous sport. If you were to get melanoma, how would you like it if no one wanted to give you healthcare because, "you did it to yourself by being out in the sun so much"

http://thomas.loc.gov/...3:./temp/~c108rfDTOT::

I've answered my own question. Basically the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act says that a person cannot sue the fast food guys for their own weight gain, unless the fast food guys "knowingly and willfully" violated some other statute. I'm no lawyer, but I think that phrase, "knowingly and willfully" includes anything that the fast food guys should have known about (eg labelling requirements).

I think thats fair.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

"I see no reason why the junk food industry shouldn't be regulated...." Sounds like a true Canadian talking - let's tax and regulate them to death.

---

Andrew Inkpen

The whole sun exposure/melanoma thing is cooked up by the skincare industry for marketing purposes. You're at much greater risk of health problems brought on by vitamin D deficiency. It's better to be in the sun than out of the sun. Like I tell my girl; "The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice"

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Cerveloguy,

If a corporation is selling a legal product they should not be held responsible for an individuals use of that product.

Maybe the arguement is pointless. Life expectency is up even as we have health scares like this. However, If people are living longer but dependant on government healthcare I am opposed to it because they feds are digging in my pocket to care for someone who gobbled up too much junk food.

I could use that money to buy some ammo for my .357 ;-)

MZM

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

What if it was found that fast food companies were guilty of adding chemicals to their food to not only make it safer and taste better (which all the fast food chains do right now), but also to give their foods an addictive quality not unlike the product manipulation big tobacco has done with its product? Would this warrant a law suit?

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

"the fast food industry is making a dangerous product, further production of that product increases profits, but at the cost of public health, which is not good"

I only have an issue with the "dangerous product" if the company producing it is (mis)represent it as something other than what it is (think Tobacco) or if the existance of the product is inherently dangerous. (Think toxic waste.) The existance of a Big Mac is not a bad thing and McDonalds should not suffer for creating or marketing it. Consuming a big mac might be a bad thing but the only person whom should be held responsible for its consumption is the one eating it. If you think otherwise, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.



"Yes, trial lawyers do oppose this, but so does anyone who wants corporations to act responsibly"

If you want corporations to "act responsibly", vote with the almighty dollar. Don't buy the product if you don't like it. The only time I disagree with what I just wrote is if just doing business is inherently harmful to people/the environment. Companies that do this should be regulated to some extent. As far as I know, cooking McNuggets doesn't kill people. The fact is that McDonalds and the fast food industry are serving an unimaginable DEMAND.



"What do they care if one BigMac has more than a weeks supply of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease?"

They should care no more than the individuals that are lining up to shove them down their own faces. I had Ice cream today....who can I blame????



"While the tabacco lawsuits didnt cure anyone's lung cancer, it did prevent many people from smoking, and got a lot of people to quit."

True. My issue with Tobacco is that the companies lied their asses off in saying that cigarettes are not addictive. They deserve to be punished for that. Unfortunately, everybody knew they were lying and smoked up anyway. What a perfect excuse to not be responsible for one's own actions.



"If it gets one person to decide to eat salads instead of bigmacs, then it has made one person healthy. "


http://story.news.yahoo.com/...mcdonalds_salad_dc_2

Horrors, the tobacco companies manipulated the nicotine level in the cigarettes. You forgot to mention that they manipulated it by making it steadily lower over the years. Swallowing the half truth blather is as intelligent as swallowing too many big macs.

Yes, the fast food industry manipulates the fat content of their food. I certainly hope so. An objective observer would call them product specifications.

I am about as interested in having lawyers save me from buying a light airplane, or protect me from McDonald's, or stop me from smoking as I am in having them protect me from Osama Bin Laden. We stuck our lawyers on it after the first WTC bombing. That didn't work out. The second time we handed it over to Special Forces. Funny how much more effective they are.

<<We stuck our lawyers on it after the first WTC bombing. That didn't work out. The second time we handed it over to Special Forces. Funny how much more effective they are. >>

Some people take "mission objective" to heart better than others...

Brett