Happy American law news.

[theweaselking]

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would block lawsuits by people who blame fast-food chains for their obesity. The "cheeseburger bill," as it has been dubbed in Congress, stems from class-action litigation that accused McDonald's of causing obesity in children.

The legislation's backers say matters of personal responsibility don't belong in the courts.

An analysis of why the lawsuits actually do have a purpose - they simply haven't met that purpose in this case.

Comments

[ianhess.livejournal.com]

I love this quote "it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses".

Doesn't this apply to just a few other things presently illegal?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Quite possibly.

There's a fair argument to be made that your excesses can and do cost other people, and so the law prevents your excesses from harming *them* by, sometimes, making your excesses illegal. This is why you can't smoke in restaurants around here.

The questions are, where does the line lie, and where *should* it lie?

[larpguide.livejournal.com]

I think it is in the quote itself. "...protect them from their own excesses." The illegal items have an effect upon others than just the users - especially behind the wheel.

When a excess directly affects another person, that is when courts should be allowed to get involved. I know that there are court cases currently against the tobacco industry - trouble is that they have WAY more money to throw at it and postpone, delay or outright buy out the issues.

[ilenebook.livejournal.com]

Have you seen that video called, Supersize Me?
I was astounded!

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I have. I don't claim, at all, that fast food is good for you - I simply dispute the claim that McDonald's is responsible for their weight gain through deception that claims that McDonald's is good to eat at every meal.

They're trying to use the suing-the-tobacco-company precedents. The thing is, smoking was portrayed as *healthy* for years, evidence that it was harmful was covered up, and there's no way to know the damage it's doing to your lungs from the outside. None of these apply to McDonald's - and unlike lung cancer, getting fat is plainly progressively obvious, long before it's a problem.

[ilenebook.livejournal.com]

Oh I didn't mean to suggest that you were making that claim, only asking if you had seen it.
Such deception.
True that McDonald's isn't reponsible for making people eat that food..but..they do spend millions on adverts that target kids.
Peace.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

I have never seen a child buy their own McDonald's food.

[ilenebook.livejournal.com]

Then you must not have children because if you did you would know the pressure a child can put on a parent who works all day and has little time to fix dinner let alone rest.
I am NOT saying these lawsuits are right..only that there is culpiblitity on the part of the big fast food chains.
PEACE!

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Ahh, yes. Children know what's best for themselves. I forgot.

I also forgot the horrors of "peer pressure" when exerted by someone one tenth your age. Maybeit's time for parents to learn to say no ot their clindren. And if they're kids don't like it? Freaking tough. they'll get over it. I certainly did.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

And I'm not implying anything about your opinion on hte lawsuits. I don't care if they're right or not. just pointing out that McDonald's advertizing to children is irrelevant. parents make the choices and they should be making responsible choices (just like the childless adults who should make the choice to eat better as well). And if the parents can't make that choice, it's not McDonald's fault, no matter who they advertise to. Parents are responsible for their children. Plain. Simple. Bottom line.

[ilenebook.livejournal.com]

I am not implying anything about you personally either.
I agree with what you said about parents being in charge.
Did you eat at McDonald's at all as a child?
Just wondering.

[jerril]

I did. Once every four or five months, perhaps. There's nothing wrong with taking your kids to McDonalds every once in a while. We went to Wendies a little more frequently, mebby once a month or two, and frankly there isn't any major nutritional difference between a Wendies ugly hamburger and a McD's processed hamburger. The only time I ever had soda as a kid was if we ate out, and we did that damn rarely. Ditto on deserts - not a done thing. If I got hungry after dinner, I got cereal or fruit or something, and no, we never had junk cereal in the house.

Anyone that thinks that feeding their kids any burger seven days a week is a good idea should a) have their head examined and b) have their kids taken away before they do them permanent harm. Ditto anything deep fried.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

on occasion (though i would say that I eat at McDonalds a hundred times more now that I'm on my own). I think a lot of kids get McDonalds. most americans do. but not because the kids decided it. When you get right down to it it's always the parent's descision. they might only be caving into their kids, but that's a choice as well.

And McDonalds does contain crack. Occasionally I just crave it.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

I love this quote:
Nonetheless, it may be beneficial for a suit to have been brought to try to force McDonald's to pay for the harm that it knowingly inflicts in the name of profits. A lawsuit, in other words, is not solely about compensating deserving plaintiffs. It is also about making companies internalize the costs of business, when those costs would otherwise fall primarily on others.

Is he a moron? THis suit and similar ones won't cost McDonald's any serious amount of money and any loses will be passed down... the owners won't be hurt at all.