Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

To fine fat people for not dieting is [to me] like saying that fat people don't have self discipline. Add that to the headlines on the news this week that scientiest have found a rogue gene that is the "smoking gun" for obesity I would have to say "no". If we fined fat people for not dieting what would be next? Fining alcaholics for drinking a beer and fining smokers for buying cigarettes? Those things are not good for you but just like food, buying alcahol and cigarettes are not illegal.

I paid almost $8 for a yellow pepper last year and $6 for a dozen eggs. That's just insane.

To fine fat people for not dieting is [to me] like saying that fat people don't have self discipline. Add that to the headlines on the news this week that scientiest have found a rogue gene that is the "smoking gun" for obesity I would have to say "no". If we fined fat people for not dieting what would be next? Fining alcaholics for drinking a beer and fining smokers for buying cigarettes? Those things are not good for you but just like food, buying alcahol and cigarettes are not illegal.

Cigarette smokers ARE essentially fined by the huge tax that was put on the purchase of them. In Hawaii, they're $10 per pack. In California, they're about $5 per pack. I think in the UK they're about $20 per pack. Less than 20-years ago, they were less than a dollar per pack. Thankfully, I kicked that habit. I think if smokers can pay the price, so should obese people who are being lazy (not disabled). Though, I don't understand why the fine wouldn't go out to people with children (as stated in the article). They should be teaching their children how to eat healthy as well. But, it would help if the food industries had not made pre-packaged food ("just add hot water" foods) cheaper than healthy vegetables. I paid almost $8 for a yellow pepper last year and $6 for a dozen eggs. That's just insane.

I guess I can really see it from both sides of the fence. But I get upset when people go off on how we're just living off of other people and blah blah blah. Do you think I enjoy having food stamps? HELL NO. It is embarrassing. Do I like it being implied that I just don't want to work? No, it really irks me. Do you think I like being compared to people who DO live off of the system? NO. But that's judgment for you.

I am on foodstamps. I can't work because of disability, and I CHOOSE to buy healthier choices. I choose to try to better my physical health. Just don't lump us all together, ok? :-)

If you are talking about me because of my previous post, I want you to be sure you read my post carefully because it clearly states there are some exceptions, including disability. But, in this case, does Arizona have the right, yes I believe they do, even for the ones, that are disabled. They are the ones that need to be making healthier decisions anyway. Because being overweight only causes more health problems for them. No one is lumping you together, it is just that the mass majority of people here that I have seen that are on welfare, are not disabled or can work. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all helping someone that truly needs the help. But, don't be spending our tax money, having a bunch of kids, smoking weed and cigs., or whatever getting medical bills paid for and food bought when you can do better if you only try. (not directed at you, just a general statement). And not allowing them to continue eatting unhealthy food is great start to help with the problem, but a better start would be drug testing for all people on welfare, no matter what their situation is. Unfortunately, I think it will be nearly impossible for Arizona to enforce the whole eat healthy or be fined, but I hope the best for them.

I guess I can really see it from both sides of the fence. But I get upset when people go off on how we're just living off of other people and blah blah blah. Do you think I enjoy having food stamps? HELL NO. It is embarrassing. Do I like it being implied that I just don't want to work? No, it really irks me. Do you think I like being compared to people who DO live off of the system? NO. But that's judgment for you.

I am on foodstamps. I can't work because of disability, and I CHOOSE to buy healthier choices. I choose to try to better my physical health. Just don't lump us all together, ok? :-)

If you are talking about me because of my previous post, I want you to be sure you read my post carefully because it clearly states there are some exceptions, including disability. But, in this case, does Arizona have the right, yes I believe they do, even for the ones, that are disabled. They are the ones that need to be making healthier decisions anyway. Because being overweight only causes more health problems for them. No one is lumping you together, it is just that the mass majority of people here that I have seen that are on welfare, are not disabled or can work. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all helping someone that truly needs the help. But, don't be spending our tax money, having a bunch of kids, smoking weed and cigs., or whatever getting medical bills paid for and food bought when you can do better if you only try. (not directed at you, just a general statement). And not allowing them to continue eatting unhealthy food is great start to help with the problem, but a better start would be drug testing for all people on welfare, no matter what their situation is. Unfortunately, I think it will be nearly impossible for Arizona to enforce the whole eat healthy or be fined, but I hope the best for them.

No no no, I wasn't talking about you at all. I read a lot of articles in newspapers about the healthcare stuff, and that is where I usually see it. It's just very frustrating to have an invisible illness, which is classified as a disability, but not enough to get anything more than food stamps and some healthcare. I am thankful for my healthcare, but the cost of this help is being told indirectly that I *should* be working because "I don't look sick" by the general public in my state. Oregon kinda sucks for this sort of thing.

It's a messed up system we're living in, and for the record, no ONE president caused it (but that is an entirely different rant about power structure) I just don't see how to really fix it. I do not think that eliminating all help will make things better because it will force a lot of people who have reasons for not working into jobs they hate, and will not perform well in, and take jobs away from people who will appreciate them more.
It isn't a right or wrong, black or white issue. Perhaps when we stop trying to solve it like one we will discover a solution that works better for everyone.

Cheers!

So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.

Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.

I'll step off my soapbox now....

If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food not junk, that would have been just fine too. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.

As for the idea of only buying "health food" the definition of "health food" varies from philosophy to philosophy, so there is no good way to determine what is "healthy" from a governmental standpoint, which honestly makes this entire subject matter moot and void because it will never come to fruition, as I said.

So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.

Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.

I'll step off my soapbox now....

If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food not junk, that would have been just fine too. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.

I wasn't specifically directing my comments at you, no need to be so defensive. Way to keep it respectful, by the way. Appreciate that. :sick: As for the idea of only buying "health food" the definition of "health food" varies from philosophy to philosophy, so there is no good way to determine what is "healthy" from a governmental standpoint, which honestly makes this entire subject matter moot and void because it will never come to fruition, as I said.

I felt you were touching on points I had written in earlier post, so I certainly got defensive. My last comment was uncalled for, you are right. Sorry about that! I just know a lot of people like what I am discribing and some are family members. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue. There a way to stop them from being able to buy junk food, like little debbies, cookies, chips, just like they do with deli or hot meals other none food products, but Arizona's way seems a bit impossible. I used to have something called Flexspending, it allowed me to buy certain medical items, but there were items that weren't allowed. Something like that would be better suited for this situation.

I totally understand your sentiment, I just think that there is a lot of unfair stigma surrounding public assistance recipients. But here in FL you cannot buy a lot of "luxury" items like soda but you CAN get certain prepared foods. For example, a grocery store here makes deli subs like Subway, and you can purchase those with FS. But you couldn't get like, prepared fried chicken from the deli. I guess because a sub is not a bad "choice." I think that my concern with regulating what is and is not "healthy" is so iffy that it would be difficult to determine what is and is not. For example, the government has websites that try to explain why Hugh Fructose Corn Syrup is not "bad" for you, but any amount of research or discussion with a physician will tell you otherwise. HFCS is linked to diabetes and other health problems, and not only that - but it is an unnecessary additive. Why on Earth is there HFCS in BREAD? I have to literally seek out and buy bread that is No HFCS for my kids! But, the government subsidizes farmers, and when their corn doesn't sell.... guess what happens to it? The government makes deals with companies to subsidize the farmers, they get the corn for a cheap price and waa-laa .... it's in EVERYTHING. So of course, if the gov't were to start regulating foods for people on assistance, they would not DARE disallow them to buy products with the HFCS in them, even though HFCS is bad for you... they have to keep the economy rolling somehow. Even if it is with fake numbers and fake products. Also, processed foods are cheaper so as a FS recipient, you can buy twice as much food if you buy processed junk instead of good, clean, products. It's a whole multi-layered issue really.