Government To Watch What YOU Eat

Great Debates
1

This is, along with the lawsuits on the firearms industry, is an outgrowth of the tobacco lawsuits. If you want to go back a couple of steps more, you could probably tie it in to seatbelt laws, helmet laws and the war on drugs.

When will America stop allowing the government to decide what is right and wrong for us to do? Will America ever decide to put responsibility back on the the individual where it belongs?

I am hoping this thread withers and dies because no one will defend this type of law, aand therefore there will be no debate.

But I have to ask, Is there ANYONE who thinks this is a good idea? Is there ANYONE who thinks they have the right to do this?

Even one?
Click This for the Full article

Colorado plans law against obesity
COLORADO, famous for its snowy peaks, is to tackle an even more mountainous subject by drafting America’s first law against obesity.
The “Obesity Prevention Act”, which will be presented next month, will identify fat people as suffering from a disease and make dieting official health policy in the Rockies. Politicians also want the state to look at ways of ensuring citizens do not over-eat at meals. Colorado says it will provide treatment to help state employees lose weight and produce an annual “fat report” to see if tougher measures are needed.

Supporters of the measure say that it is desperately needed to tackle America’s increasing girth. Statistics show that one-third of the population is so fat that it affects their health and that obesity may claim up to 300,000 lives a year.

But others see a more sinister motive. They believe that the government is looking for scapegoats in the battle against flab and suspect that restaurants could suffer the same treatment as the tobacco industry.
Is this a joke? Will someone please show me that this is not real?

2

It sounds bizarre. Frankly, I am wondering about this article’s validity. If this article were published in a US newspaper (preferrably a Colorado one) I’d take it more seriously.

3

I agree with Yosemitebabe. The story provides no direct links, and the indirect ones are just general studies on obesity. The are no names to check and no agencies or organizations to question.
I’m sorry, Freedom, but there just aren’t enough facts here to worry about, let alone panic over.

4

And even if by some wild miracle this story does turn out to be true, it’s a State government enacting the law, not the Federal government. I thought you liked States’ Rights! :wink:

5

Freedom,

I keep pretty close tabs on my state of Colorado and this is the first I had heard of it.

In addition, Coloradoans are (last I heard) in the top 3 of the “fittest” populations. We enjoy incredible opportunities for outdoor and indoor sports year-round. I can’t imagine that any “official” policy or act exists.

I will double check my state’s general assembly page, but I don’t recall seeing anything remotely similar to the report as of last Thursday.

6

Captain Pedantic bounds into shot, poses with hands on hips.

"You know, kids, technically speaking, a diet refers to just what you eat - it doesn’t necessarily denote losing weight, or an improvement in health. So an official stance on ‘dieting’ is really just saying ‘People should eat!’ Which frankly is a bit redundant.

My work here is done…"

Bounds off again.

7

I am willing to endure all the flames and chuckles that come my way if this turns out be a joke.

Quick, pinch me so I know I’m not dreaming.

8

::Pinch::
Oh Oh … 2 inches … Time to go on a diet !

A point in every direction is like no point at all

9

I have been trying to get to the pages that list all the bills up for debate in the House and Senate but the site seems to be having problems.

10

GOOD GOD – the report is correct!!!

Time to hire the “Fat Police”

Here is the bill in it’s entirety – sorry for the length!

=======
Second Regular Session

Sixty-second General Assembly

LLS NO. 00﷓0398.02 Jery Payne SENATE BILL 00-034

STATE OF COLORADO

BY SENATOR Tanner

A BILL FOR AN ACT

CONCERNING THE POLICY OF ADDRESSING THE DISEASE OF OBESITY IN A MEDICALLY APPROPRIATE MANNER.
Bill Summary

(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not necessarily reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted.)

Declares the seriousness of obesity problems. Classifies obesity as a disease and defines the term. Makes treating and preventing obesity the policy of the state. Authorizes the department of health care policy and financing to study the effectiveness and effects of treating and preventing obesity. Requires the department to make a report to the general assembly after such study is completed if the department undertakes such a study.
Provides for alternative funding.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 10 Article 1 of title 25.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PART to read:
PART 6
OBESITY PREVENTION
25.5﷓1﷓601. Short title. THIS PART 6 SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “OBESITY PREVENTION ACT”.

25.5﷓1﷓602. Legislative declaration. (1) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND DECLARES THAT OBESITY IS A SERIOUS MEDICAL PROBLEM AFFECTING UP TO ONE﷓THIRD OF ALL AMERICANS. IN ADDITION, A 1997 KAISER PERMANENTE STUDY CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR A REDUCTION IN HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES THROUGH OBESITY PREVENTION. IN ADDITION:
(a) OBESITY IS KNOWN TO CAUSE OR EXACERBATE A NUMBER OF SERIOUS DISORDERS INCLUDING HYPERTENSION, DYSLIPIDEMIA, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, DIABETES, RESPIRATORY DYSFUNCTION, GOUT, AND OSTEOARTHRITIS;
(b) NEARLY EIGHTY PERCENT OF PATIENTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS ARE OBESE;
© NEARLY SEVENTY PERCENT OF DIAGNOSED CASES OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE ARE RELATED TO OBESITY; AND
(d) OBESITY RANKS SECOND ONLY TO SMOKING AS A PREVENTABLE CAUSE OF DEATH, WITH SOME THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEATHS ANNUALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO OBESITY.
25.5﷓1﷓603. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS PART 6, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
(1) “OBESITY” MEANS THE CONDITION IN WHICH A PERSON’S BODY MASS INDEX IS AT LEAST THIRTY KILOGRAMS PER METER SQUARED, OR WHERE A PERSON’S BODY MASS INDEX IS AT LEAST TWENTY﷓SEVEN KILOGRAMS PER METER SQUARED AND THE PERSON SUFFERS FROM ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OR DISEASES:
(a) TYPE II DIABETES;
(b) IMPAIRED GLUCOSE TOLERANCE;

© HYPERINSULINEMIA;
(d) DYSLIPIDEMIA;
(e) HYPERTENSION;
(f) CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE;
(g) CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE;
(h) OSTEOARTHRITIS OF THE HIPS OR KNEES;
(i) SLEEP APNEA;
(j) GASTRIC REFLUX DISEASE; OR
(k) GALL BLADDER DISEASE.
25.5﷓1﷓604. Classification of obesity as a disease. THE STATE DEPARTMENT SHALL CLASSIFY OBESITY AS A DISEASE.
25.5﷓1﷓605. Policy of preventing and treating obesity. THE POLICY OF THE STATE AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY MEDICAL CARE, AS DETERMINED BY A PHYSICIAN, TO PREVENT OR TREAT OBESITY.
25.5﷓1﷓606. Department authorized to study obesity ﷓ report. (1) THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO SAMPLE AND COLLECT DATA ON INDIVIDUAL CASES WHERE OBESITY IS BEING ACTIVELY TREATED AND TO ANALYZE SUCH DATA IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF TREATING OBESITY. SUCH DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
(a) THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING METHODS FOR TREATING OR PREVENTING OBESITY;
(b) THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATE METHODS FOR TREATING OR PREVENTING OBESITY;
© THE FISCAL IMPACT OF TREATING OR PREVENTING OBESITY;

(d) THE COMPLIANCE AND COOPERATION OF PATIENTS WITH VARIOUS METHODS OF TREATING OR PREVENTING OBESITY; OR
(e) THE REDUCTION IN SERIOUS MEDICAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DIABETES THAT RESULTS FROM TREATING OR PREVENTING OBESITY.
(2) THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO FUND THE RESEARCH AUTHORIZED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION FROM GIFTS, GRANTS, AND DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, FOUNDATIONS, OR ANY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT; EXCEPT THAT NO GIFT, GRANT, OR DONATION MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT IF IT IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THIS PART 6 OR ANY OTHER LAWS OF THIS STATE. THE STATE DEPARTMENT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO DIRECT THE DISPOSITION OF ANY SUCH GIFT, GRANT, OR DONATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PART 6.
(3) AFTER COMPLETION OF THE RESEARCH AUTHORIZED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, THE STATE DEPARTMENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY JUNE 1 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. A COPY OF THE REPORT SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO EACH MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24﷓1﷓136, C.R.S.
SECTION 20 Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

11

According to the information below, only 1% of Colorado’s population is considered obese, so why are our tax dollars going to to something that has little benefit to the population as a whole. That’s about 40,000 people in our state, the remaining 3,960,000 are not considered obese, for God’s sake. How can 1% of the population being obese be considered an epidemic???

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT, WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS

2:54 PM – SB00-034

Senator Tanner, sponsor, explained the purpose of the bill. She distributed a document pertaining to the bill (see attachment B).

02:56 PM – Dr. James Hill, Director of the Center for Nutrition, University Health Sciences Center, spoke in favor of the bill. He raised three points: 1) there is an epidemic of obesity, 2) obesity is very costly healthwise, and 3) there is growing impetus nationwide to address obesity. He said that in Colorado there is one percent of the population that is at risk, especially in some minority populations. This problem is costly through treatment of hypertension and other diseases associated with obesity. Dr. Hill said that there are efforts in the state, especially at the University Health Sciences Center to address obesity. Dr. Hill responded to questions concerning how to motivate individuals to lose weight.

Senator Tanner asked that the bill be tabled in order to work on amendments to the bill.

Senate Bill 00-34 was tabled by the chairman.

12

When they came for the people who didn’t wear helmets I said nothing.

When they came for the people who didn’t wear their seatbelts I said nothing.

When they came for the people who wanted to smoke pot, I said nothing.

When they came for the smokers, I said nothing.

When they came for the people with guns, I said nothing.

When they came for the fat people, I said nothing.

In protest, I think I am going to drive down the road without my seatbelt, eating doritos and twinkies to satisfy my munchies while smoking a cigarette and shooting my high capacity machine gun concealable saturday night special handgun.

Now that this has been confirmed, is there anyone out there who would like to defend this?

13

This is just like gun control; now that crime is at the lowest rate since 1974, and still dropping, now the politicians want to pass more gun control laws.

Seems to me that politicos need to learn to shut the barn door before the horse gets out.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“I treat Gun Control the same way I treat Religion and Government; when you can show me it works, I’ll believe in it”.

14

Please do not count me down in the “in favor of” column, but . . .

Obesity is a serious health problem with serious consequences, and while Colorado is doing a hell of a lot better than most of the rest of the United States, there’s no guarantee that its taxpayers won’t be swamped with obesity related health expenses in the near (say 20-30 years) future. Could it be that instead of closing the door after the horse has left, they’re actually trying to make sure the door is closed and locked while the horse is still in the barn?

I didn’t see anything in the bill that suggested the state wishes to legislate behavior. It looked like the bill is designed to fund research into obesity and treatments for obesity. Now, maybe that is the start of a slippery slope, but I’m more inclined to believe that they are trying to catch a public health threat before it becomes insurmountable.

According to their definition, I am obese. No surprise to me as I’ve been struggling with my weight for more than half my life. There is no consistent successful course of treatment for obesity that works for the population at large. It’s easy to lay blame on lazy habits, lack of exercise, television culture and a score of other causes - and they are to blame, don’t mistake me - but that doesn’t get very far in actually solving the problem. It only makes obese people feel more guilty and less inclined to risk public opinion by asking for help.

If it’s a question of funding studies and finding a consistently reliable and safe way to treat obesity as well as confirming methods for preventing it, I’m all for that. The tax dollars invested in that kind of research will eventually pay off in cutting the costs of treating obesity-related illnesses.

If it’s a question of policing people and making weight related disorders illegal, then I would vote against it as soon as I had a chance.

15

The end has come.
It is here. People are embracing the government as their personal savior from all responsibility for all their problems.

If you are heavy, then deal with it. I do not care. I also do not care for you to place the burden of solving your problemson me.

I have many faults, but would never expect the government to step in and solve them for me. In fact, I would never welcome them in.
When they come and ship you off to jail because you refuse to exercise according to the law and eat your regulated calorie intake, I will have no sympathy.

In fact, I think I am moving to Arizona where they are currently making contingency plans to withdraw from the United States of America.

16

phouka,

The thing is, you are allowed to be extra large or extra small, the government should never enter into areas that aren’t any of their business.

As a smaller person, I personally find it offensive that my tax dollars should go towards identifying and changing the habits of your potential overeating. I am a smoker and don’t expect that your tax dollars go towards my health care either. That’s why I have health insurance.

I also have friends that have been dangerously unhealthy because they went to extremes to be thinner. Simply put their bodies are meant to be larger. We all can’t subscribe to some standard because the government says so, it’s wrong.

Personally I pack an extra 20 pounds on my body now that I am a web designer (I spend less time out in the sun.) Speaking of sun, what’s next, a state initiative that states that fair skinned people like myself should be forced into staying indoors because our rates of skin cancer increase with every minute in the sun?

It’s a no win situation, once you start these kinds of government measures, you open the doors to legislation that can be detrimental to our freedoms.

Because of this act, and of course this is a theoretical thought, but you might be weighed and measured when you enter a grocery store. You then are given a specific card that must be run through a credit card swipe that will tax you extra for high fat and high cholesterol foods.

That sounds extreme, but my state’s act to identify people that fit the “obese” label may help create more legislation towards such things. I don’t want to be a part of it.

BTW Freedom, if I didn’t love Colorado so much I might move to AZ myself.

17

BTW phouka,

Here’s one of my main problems with this issue, any Colorado resident that is considered obese will be catalogued and identified. This is a privacy issue as far as I am concerned.

Here’s the part that concerns me:

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO SAMPLE AND COLLECT DATA ON INDIVIDUAL CASES WHERE OBESITY IS BEING ACTIVELY TREATED AND TO ANALYZE SUCH DATA IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF TREATING OBESITY…

This opens too many doors for discrimination, the government to add an additional tax to these people etc.

It’s not good anyway you look at it.

18

Techchick, maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I’m not seeing anything in the bill where they are specifically trying to legislate a “don’t let the fat lady buy donuts” law. The closest the bill appears to come to it is the following remark:

And that falls under the funding of research, not a control the fatties clause. Yes, it could be a slippery slope, and I’d rather they made the gathering of information completely anonymous if they’re going to be doing anything at all.

Obesity is as much a public health threat as sexually transmitted diseases and drug addiction. Yes, individual responsibility plays an enormous role, but that doesn’t mean that the government should shun research addressing the problem (unless, of course, you’re a Libertarian and don’t believe the government should spend any money on public health issues).

However, to boil down the issue of obesity to overeating is to dangerously oversimplify the matter and ignore the toll it takes on individuals and society.

This is not - at least, so far as I can tell - a question of whether or not the government is looking to allow me to be one size or another. It is a question of whether or not the government will face obesity as a threat to public health.

I guess I’m just not seeing this from the same perspective as you are, TechChick. I see the Colorado state government funding research to combat an illness that has made frightening headways into our population (though not so much its own state population). The state of Colorado hasn’t outlawed the sale of cigarettes or alcohol or hostess ding-dongs, and this bill doesn’t appear to be outlaw being obese itself.

I will grant you that it may be the first step of a slippery slope, but that doesn’t appear to be what you’re arguing. Of course, if I’m wrong, I hope you’ll correct me.

19

See what happens when we simul-post?

That is a point that I do emphatically agree with. Under no circumstance should the government be gathering data on identified individuals. Any research should be on anonymous subjects, otherwise it is a violation of privacy and an open door to even greater abuse.

On that point, I really hope the bill is soundly defeated.

20

(unless, of course, you’re a Libertarian and don’t believe the government should spend any money on public health issues).

If you have seen any of my postings in other threads, then you know I am a Libertarian.

Registered and paid as a Libertarian Party member!

< grin >