However, I do have one question for the legal eagles out there, in regards to a quote in this article:
"As one judge put it, if a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of super-sized McDonald's products is unhealthy and could result in weight gain, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses," said James Sensenbrenner, chairman of Judiciary Committee.If any variant of this logic ends up in the actual bill, could that then be used to argue for things like drug legalization? I am not saying that I'm necessarily for or against it -- I'm not a proponent of recreational pharmaceuticals, but neither am I a fan of excessive legislation. But the statement "it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses" could certainly apply to something like marijuana use. Is there a legal difference between "if you're dumb enough to pig out, you can't sue them because the purpose of law is not to protect you from your own stupidity," and "if you're dumb enough to waste your life being stoned, it's not illegal because the purpose of law is not to protect you from your own stupidity"?
For that matter, how does one reconcile this law with the lawsuits that the government has upheld against the tobacco industry? (Secondhand smoke being a potential argument here, yes...)