Fast food quarrel example of idiocy
By Allyson Bird
Published: Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Allyson Bird

I was embarrassed for our country when, on March 10, the House had to vote to ban lawsuits against fast food restaurants for making Americans unhealthy. I was even more embarrassed that the ban was widely reported as a partisan issue, a Republican decision that Democrats intend to stall in the Senate.

We laughed a few years back when a woman sued for her coffee being too hot; but now it’s a serious consideration that fast food is the evil responsible for making us all obese; personal responsibility seems to have fallen through the grates of the deep fryer.

This lawsuit – just like the tobacco lawsuits – isn’t really meant to help out the common man. It’s aimed at crippling big business. And if the lawsuit moves forward, it’s the common man who will be hit hardest if he is faced with extra taxes and fewer options when all he wants is a big, cheap burger – in moderation, of course.

But for the sake of discussion, let’s assume this lawsuit is for our benefit. If so, it’s even more offensive. Nowhere does the idea of “Big Brother” become more appropriate than in issues like this where the government is breathing down the neck of personal decision.

The fast food and tobacco issues might be the starkest examples of potentially intrusive legislation, but the same concept is reflected in seat belt law currently being debated in the S.C. legislature. Eyes rolled when Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, filibustered a proposed crackdown on people not wearing seat belts, a law that would undoubtedly save lives. But the nature of the legislation affords little authority over police officers issuing the tickets, which in turn could spell an abuse of power.

On a grander scale, the political pet issue of gun control comes from the same vein. While making guns illegal would certainly promote a safer society, it would also relegate guns to the black market where the “bad guys” we’re so afraid of would still have access to them. Plus, the right to bear arms is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, instituted as a means of citizen protection from – oh yeah, the government.

Guns, car crashes, cigarettes and even cheeseburgers kill people, but risk does not justify regulation. If people began suing music concerts for causing hearing damage later in adulthood, I would hope the government would not step in to regulate rock shows.

In a sue-happy society where individuals challenge Janet and Justin for their Super Bowl indiscretions which 130 million other people could have been “damaged” by as well, I shudder to think that legitimate concerns enter the same arena as these circuses.

Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock is working on a controversial documentary of his physical and mental disintegration after eating only fast food for an entire month. Obviously, eating three square meals a day at Burger King tips the good judgment balance, but at least Spurlock straightforwardly says his aim is to attack big business.

And so are these fast food lawsuits, admittedly or not. So enjoy your right to indulge on a burger, fries and a soda – ironically the meal most associated with America.