Alright. Let me start by saying that I am not questioning the intelligence of any of the participants of this debate. I would actually like to compliment both sides for raising insightful points. My passion for this subject may motivate me toward imflamatory language, but whatever happens just remember . . . You're all very inteligent.

<finishes gushing>

People who eat unhealthy foods do cause detriment to our society at large. Fast food restaurants such as McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell, et al, have revolutionized the entire meat and poultry industries as we knew them (read "Fast Food Nation"). These entities have placed a demand on meatpacking facilities for huge quantities of meat at the lowest price possible. Their (fast food) business has grown so large, that over time the success of your business in this field (meatpacking) is dependent upon how well you cater to that demand.

That means cutting your own production costs which has involved negative change on many levels. For one, there has been a shift in diet from grass to corn and wheat. Second, since the cows no longer eat grass, there is no need to own hundreds of acres of pasture, and the cows are kept in very close quarters. Third, they are pumped full of growth hormones to increase the yield of meat per animal and fertility hormones to increase the yeild of animals per animal. Fourth, they are pumped full of insane levels of antibiotics, whether or not they show signs of sickness, in order to decrease the number of lost head of cattle (cash cows, if you will). Fifth, the slaughterhouse has been turned into a marvel of modern technology, complete with an assembly-line cow killer that uses a state-of-the-art drainage system to catch the blood and undesirable innards (of which there aren't many after the hot dog people's needs are met) and channels them into a huge retension pond. The combination of poor diet, extreme inactivity in captivity, a flood of foreign chemicals and the unsanitary killing floor culminate in two results that are negative for everybody (healthy and unhealthy eaters alike).

The first drawback is to our environment. The retension pond (which houses the waste of the cows in addition to their blood and entrails) is an unholy mass of shit, blood, urine and guts that is saturated in hormones and antibiotics. This mass that really should not be is assimilated into the groundwater supply through direct transfer with the ground in the immediate vicinity and also scattered throughout the region through evaporation, condensation and finally, percipitation. Ever wonder why the onset of puberty is coming earlier and earlier with each new wave of children? Maybe it's got something to do with fertility hormones in the water supply. Also, the compromised diet for the cows increases the methane content of their farts, thus adversely effecting the quality of our air (funny but relevant).

The second drawback comes as the supply of the meatpacking industry has finally caught up with the demand of the fastfood industry; in fact, the supply has surpassed the demand. Now (and by now, I mean since the early to mid 80's), our grocery stores no longer have access to meat that is not mass-produced in factory farm conditions. We all are forced to avail ourselves of third- and fourth-rate, fast food meat products- even when we cook it in our own homes. That is unless you live in an urban center with a good concentration of yuppies (which is costly to both the pocketbook and the soul- ugh, fuckin' A Whole Foods, GAG), or up the road from an organic or natural livestock producer (which describes a very small portion of our population). Thus, it can be said that people who have funded the meat revolution by supporting its proponents- or people who eat unhealthy foods- are doing harm to a very large portion of society. I should mention that I am a vegetarian (for the sake of disclosure and transparency) because of this phenomenon, and because of the cruelty involved (on a case by case basis and on the whole).

Do I think that unhealthy foods merit severe regulation? No. I do believe that the there should be some serious reform in the USDA- and by reform I mean they should no longer be staffed by "ex"-lieutenants of major livestock conglomorates- but I digress . . . I merely point out that you are standing on a slippery slope (law school phrase) with your argument about the violence of drug addicts. Arguments can be made about the negative, externalized implications of the most seemingly benign things and activities- and many of them are valid.

But I can poke holes in it from many other angles. Recent studies have shown that the majority of violent drug addicts are people who have proven themselves predisposed to violence before they were addicts. Conversely, most non-violent people who develope habits that outgrow their means tend to start selling drugs to increase their means. Criminal? Yes, but that's kinda circular now, isn't it? Furthermore, in Switzerland, the problem of random violence and street crime associated with rampant cocaine addiction has been alleviated by a social program that both legalized cocaine and compelled the government to supply it- free of charge- at medical facilities. Street crime has all but disappeared, the police are free to pursue serious crime, and usage has actually declined. By their constitution (or whatever they call their defining document), the Swiss people had to vote on (I believe it was) five, semi-annual continuations before the program became permanent- which they did.