Study: We're Eating Ourselves to Death

AP ^ | 03/09/04

[CSM]

"A poor diet and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths in 2000, a 33 percent jump over 1990, said a study released Tuesday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco-related deaths in the same period climbed by less than 9 percent and the gap between the two narrowed substantially."

How the heck are these numbers even possible? I am very doubtful in a 33% increased number of deaths statistic. The only way it would be possible is to change the criteria for measuring the data! More government manipulation to create a "crisis" calling for more theft of money.

How has the tobacco use number increased while over the past 20 years there has been a 50% decrease in the rate of smoking? More fictitious data!

[CSM]

"What are they going to do? Fat tax? Forced exercise? Illegalization of anything not Tofu?"

Mmmmmmmm, soylent green.

[metesky]

I must say that I have some resentment subsidizing health care for all those who do not take care of themselves.

Stop acting the reformed whore and do what a conservative should do, which is work to get government out of the health care business. Then you won't have to give a damn about anybody else but healthy you and your healthy family.

I'm disappointed, Sam.

[metesky]

More fictitious data!

Somebody had to say it, and nobody could say it better than you.

[tahiti]

"I think you're looking in the wrong direction. This is a "commerce clause" issue, which provides the basis for federal interference..."

I can not readily tell if you were being serious or facituous by your remark listed above.

But just in case you are being serious, I would agree the "commerce clause" grants (dubious) jurisdiction and power to the U.S. Congress to "regulate" the food industry.

However, just because Congress has the granted constitutional power and jurisdiction, the laws that Congress enacts and the President signs still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.

This is why the anti-federalist would not ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added. They feared, in the future, that the granted power and jurisdiction would be misinterpreted and expanded beyond their wildest dreams, thus robbing future generations of the liberty that they tried to secure.

The anti-federalist were correct in their fear.

Many people make the common mistake that the "commerce clause" gives unlimited power to the U.S. Congress to regulate, interfere, deny, and disparage our rights and liberties because the majority rules or certain behavior "cost the taxpayers" a lot of money.

That concept and thinking is wrong.

For example, the commerce clause allows for regulation of the newspaper business. But would that mean the Congress has the power and jurisdiction to regulate the content of newspaper?

No,the 1st amendment prohibits Congress from regulating content.

The same Bill of Rights analysis has to be performed on all legislation proposed by Congress.

Does "federalized" airport security personnel violate the 4th amendment?

Does the minimum wage law violate the 5th amendment?

Does prohibiting citizens from consuming the chemical of their choice and the food of their choice in the quantitites they choose, violate the 9th amendment?

I say yes in all cases. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution and ratified by the member states to protect our property and personal liberties from being denied and disparaged by our government.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Not to worry. After all the high-paying jobs are outsourced to India and China none of us will be able to afford to eat at the fine fast food restaurants we'll be working at.

[Cantiloper]

Actually, I believe the study citing the 300,000 figure for eating related deaths is very understated. In one of the appendices to my book I spend several pages showing how a truer figure might be up around 900,000 when one takes into account cancers attributed to improper diets, accidents occurring due to or post-operative complications caused by gross overweight, increase in diabetes due to diets heavy in sugar, and other such factors. "Deaths Due To Eating" far outweigh "Deaths Due To Smoking." and Big Macs are also killers "when used as directed."

:/
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com

[Gabz]

You have a strange knack for showing up just at the appropriate time----don't you, my friend?

[CommandoFrank]

Jack-booted food police thugs will pay you a visit. Stay armed, stay safe...

It's now 7:13 am, I'm still here... I guess I escaped them so far. My problem is I still have some strawberries, bisquits and whipped cream left. I'll destroy this evidence tonight. I'll be safe after that...

[Calamari]

Other Things to Worry About

[metesky]

Wow! So much to worry about.

That really worries me.

[Calamari]

Yes! And there is more and more to worry about every new day! It gets worrisome,worrying about what new thing we may have to worry about.

[Labyrinthos]

I can not readily tell if you were being serious or facituous by your remark listed above.

A little bit of each. Your comments on the commerce clause and the bill of rights are interesting and, in my opinion the relationship between the bill of rights and the commerce clause is one of the more interesting aspects of constituional law. Although your central point is correct in that laws and regulations enacted under the commerce clause are subject to the bill of rights, the standard of review under the bill of rights depends upon the type of right at issue. Take for example the regulation of advertizing by the FTC. One would think that the right to free speech under the 1st and 14th amendments would take precedence over the FTC's right to regulate advertizing under the commerce clause. Yet the SCOTUS has held that the commerce clause allows congress to regulate commercial advertizing provided the regulations are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest even though neither the commerce clause or the 1st/14th amendments contains such language. The same holds true with the regulation of business under the commerce clause and the resulting impact under the due process clause and equal protection clause. One would think for example that in enacting laws under the commerce clause, congress may not violate the equal protection clause. But according the SCOTUS, congress in regulating commerce can treat people and businesses differently provided the need to treat people differently is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

[k2blader]

And check back next week for the gubmint's newest findings: "We're Living Ourselves to Death".

[In_25_words_or_less]

"We're just too darn fat, ladies and gentlemen, and we're going to do something about it," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said

Like what, encouraging smoking again?

"Oh great and wise government leadership, lead us to safety, save us from ourselves!"

[In_25_words_or_less]

Wow! So much to worry about.
That really worries me.

Me too. So gloomy. I think I'll sit on a wire and sing an anguished song.

[Calamari]

LOL

[hollywood]

Be prepared for those food-police JBTs; just get a license to carry fatty foods in paper or plastic, and, for the kids' sake, get a fatty-foods safe. Oh, and always purchase the fig newtons with the child-proof wrapper.

[swarthyguy]

>>For years they said smoking will kill me, so I quit. Like many ex-smokers I put on extra weight, now that will kill me. The hell with it, I going to start smoking again.

So9 said the same thing.

Sorry, folks, I made a funny at your expense.

I said, that people who quit smokes, gained weight subsequently, are pissed.

[tahiti]

"...the regulation of business under the commerce clause and the resulting impact under the due process clause and equal protection clause."

I agree with you that the "relationship between the bill of rights and the commerce clause is one of the more interesting aspects of constitutional law."

With that being said, I contend that most, if not all of business regulation violates the 5th amendment. ("...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.")