Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

“Large” Restaurant Customers need special accommodation?

189111314

Replies

  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,902 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...

    I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.

    The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.

    I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.

    Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.

    I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.

    A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.

    Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.

    🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.

    Yeah, I think it can be appropriate when it's a family member or someone very close and the conversation was coming from a place of true concern. I've never been in that boat, fortunately, but if I did have a family member who was significantly over- or underweight, I would probably also talk to them.

    It was so worth it in one case, she (SiL) is now down about 30lbs...about 120 to go. My dad...well, he didn't listen. Trying was the right thing to do though.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,902 Member
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.

    Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.

    One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.

    We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.

    I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.

    Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,902 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.

    Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.

    One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.

    We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.

    I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.

    Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?

    I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.

    I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,581 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...

    I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.

    The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.

    I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.

    Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.

    I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.

    A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.

    Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.

    🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.

    Yeah, I think it can be appropriate when it's a family member or someone very close and the conversation was coming from a place of true concern. I've never been in that boat, fortunately, but if I did have a family member who was significantly over- or underweight, I would probably also talk to them.

    It was so worth it in one case, she (SiL) is now down about 30lbs...about 120 to go. My dad...well, he didn't listen. Trying was the right thing to do though.

    In situations like this, I've personally found the best way to 'help' is to lead by example.

    The overweight people in my life know they're overweight, just like I did when I was.

    The intent of my genuine concern for them aside, I know how easily that can be misinterpreted as being judgey, demeaning, or worse - seen as being self-congratulatory. The ol, "Hey, look at me! If I can do it, you can, too!" really isn't as inspirational as one might think. LOL. It can definitely backfire. ;)

    I've found that people will generally only chose to do something about their obesity when they're entirely ready to. What triggers them into finally making a change is highly individual and usually has nothing to do with 'talks' from concerned friends or family. It's most likely that - medical emergencies aside - they were simply ready to finally start doing something about a health issue they've been aware of for a long time.

    The obese people in my life have watched me lose weight. They've also watched me keep it off. We've talked about it in casual conversation, but only when they bought it up. I gave them as much (or, more importantly - as little) information as their level of interest warranted at the time. Planted a seed, if you will, and then let it go.

    When and if they're ready to make a change and want to talk to someone who's been there, they know where to find me. In the interim, it's important to me that they haven't felt judged.

    @snickerscharlie First off..I always love your responses 🙂

    I never even realized I didn't mention my weight when talking to my SiL until you just mentioned it...she had been rushed to the hospital with a variety of symptoms that screamed cardiac event, turned out to be major stress, physical and mental/ emotional. She's abused herself with food for years and we really thought we were going to lose her. Unacceptable lol. Wonderful woman, and the whole talk was basically "we love you and need you " with offers to help any way we could. Thank God she listened. I saw her a couple of weeks ago and she looks great, and maybe more importantly, Happy and determined 🙂

    You're so right In your approach though...

    Looks like she had a wake-up call, and with the suppport of those that love her, was ready to make some changes. Kudos to you and her!

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.

    Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.

    One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.

    We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.

    Are you again making an intentionally absurd argument to provoke thought and discussion?

    Here in the US (and I believe the UK, Canada, and other first-world countries) quite a lot of money and energy is spent at the societal level (both governments and non-profits) to encourage people toward a healthy weight.

    That includes creating, maintaining and publicizing excellent and useful nutritional resources; setting up food-assistance policies and practices to encourage healthy choices (here in my state, extra-money food assistance multipiers for use at farmers' markets, limitations on what products may be purchased in stores using food assistance, classes in meal-planning/cooking/preserving/gardening; etc); publicity campaigns and local-government-sponsored events to foster increased exercise; in some places, extra taxes on "bad" foods (this gets lots of push back, still); educational materials for K-12 use including fun (?) games and such; and lots more.

    No, we don't arrest people yet for eating too much. But "not confronting the problem"? That's not what's going on.

    We can argue the effectiveness, but it's not that no effort is being made.

    In addition to public efforts, there are also efforts being made in the private sector. Many businesses (including the one I work for) have programs that offer support with weight loss. There are health insurance incentives related to various lifestyle/metric changes and discounts on various services/products that support a more active life.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?

    Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?

    "But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…

    I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."

    Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?

    Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?

    It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point :) No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.

    If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?

    Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?

    Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.

    Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.

    One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.

    We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.

    Are you again making an intentionally absurd argument to provoke thought and discussion?

    Here in the US (and I believe the UK, Canada, and other first-world countries) quite a lot of money and energy is spent at the societal level (both governments and non-profits) to encourage people toward a healthy weight.

    That includes creating, maintaining and publicizing excellent and useful nutritional resources; setting up food-assistance policies and practices to encourage healthy choices (here in my state, extra-money food assistance multipiers for use at farmers' markets, limitations on what products may be purchased in stores using food assistance, classes in meal-planning/cooking/preserving/gardening; etc); publicity campaigns and local-government-sponsored events to foster increased exercise; in some places, extra taxes on "bad" foods (this gets lots of push back, still); educational materials for K-12 use including fun (?) games and such; and lots more.

    No, we don't arrest people yet for eating too much. But "not confronting the problem"? That's not what's going on.

    We can argue the effectiveness, but it's not that no effort is being made.

    In addition to public efforts, there are also efforts being made in the private sector. Many businesses (including the one I work for) have programs that offer support with weight loss. There are health insurance incentives related to various lifestyle/metric changes and discounts on various services/products that support a more active life.

    And to be fair, bars and cigarette companies (in general at least) don't limit their customers out of concern. They are required to do so either by law or in an effort to avoid being sued.

    In order to argue a parallel, you would need to be suggesting that obese people should be able to sue their favorite restaurants for over-serving them, or the government should pass a law requiring some kind of restrictions on the calorie density of meals, or perhaps need to take all customers measurements and provide them with a handout detailing their calorie needs and the dangers of exceeding them.

    I for one would not make that parallel :wink: