For those of you who haven't heard the president will be signing into law here shortly that all public schools are to ban the sales of sugary snacks in vending machines. This is to include soda pop and other such treats. Now I know some schools have done this already but to sign into federal law seems rather idk CRAZY! We are at the worst economic recession since The Great Depression with millions of people loosing jobs every year and we are caring about what the hell our children are eating from vending machines...... REALLY!!!! I wan't to hear what you think dakka and if you agree or disagree with this law.
Believe it or not doing this would actually put more people out of work. These vending machines are privately leased and supplied so by taking away these accounts it would cause more companies to lose more money and lay off employees. I can understand why you think it is a good thing but really this is a form of the gov't telling us what we can and can't do. I welcome laws that help govern our citizens as they are needed but to regulate what I eat is utterly crazy. I say raise prices and tax the companies more makes sense to me or even ...idk...don't do it. To me this is the president trying to draw attention away fromhis crappy health care bill that keeps failing.
p.s I think porn should be sold... may keep them from having less sex with each other and more with themselfs
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jk btw
I think the UK has something similar to this already.
Eating healthy is one good step towards a better you and a better nation. Getting the right food inside you at school will help you to learn and hopefully enable you to do a better job than the current generation of leaders when you are all big and grown up
And I would imagine that it might be the only place some kids will have access to healthy food as well...
Well, where does it say in the Constitution that you can regulate what people consume? I ask this in all seriousness. Show me in the Constitution where the Federal government has that power.
Maybe not the best time (economically) but it's kinda big brother vs bad parenting... Kids eat too much sweets, become obese. So, get rid of the sweets... or teach them to eat healthy... apparently option B wasn't working, so option A kicks in.
Empchild wrote:Believe it or not doing this would actually put more people out of work. These vending machines are privately leased and supplied so by taking away these accounts it would cause more companies to lose more money and lay off employees.
... or they can fill them with healthy snacks...
Potential new market for the health food industry.
generalgrog wrote:With the obesity problem in America, I can't see how this is a bad thing. It's in schools, not everywhere else.
And how is it unconstitutional Frazz?
GG
p.s. they don't sell cigarettes or porn in schools either.
I'm sorry I missed the part where Jefferson put into the Constitution the power of the US Federal Government to regulate school lunches. Darn that 10th Amendment-how dare they have signed and ratified that!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Empchild wrote:Believe it or not doing this would actually put more people out of work. These vending machines are privately leased and supplied so by taking away these accounts it would cause more companies to lose more money and lay off employees.
... or they can fill them with healthy snacks...
Potential new market for the health food industry.
Hurah! Capitalism works!
Hell I personally eat healthy a lot( I like having low cholesterhol however that is spelled) and I work out, but I am saying the gov't has no right to govern what it's citizens eat.
I don't really care one way or the other. If it's a public school I can see the logic that "the government" shouldn't be selling something that is decidedly unhealthy to it's people (especially children). Also I think that this will help with the alarming over-prescription of Ritalin, as many children who are diagnosed as being hyperactive are probably just hopped up on sugar. When I was in school I started every day with a soda. Then I'd have another at lunch (along with my meal and a piece of cake for desert). Then I'd get my 3rd soda and a pack of Starburst on my way to the bus. Surprisingly I didn't get fat until I was out of high school, as I stopped exercising (gym class sucked but had it's benefits) and started drinking beer.
Stopping the sale of sweets in schools will help but I still blame the parents. Half of the reason I gorged myself at school is because my parents were very strict about my diet. The minute I got home the rule was no sweets (unless we had a desert for special occasion) and only a glass of soda with dinner.
SilverMK2 wrote:I think the UK has something similar to this already.
Eating healthy is one good step towards a better you and a better nation. Getting the right food inside you at school will help you to learn and hopefully enable you to do a better job than the current generation of leaders when you are all big and grown up
And I would imagine that it might be the only place some kids will have access to healthy food as well...
Automatically Appended Next Post: If the state or local school board wants to regulate it, thats their purview, not the Fed.
I feel like I'm channeling Governor Blowdry or something this morning.
I'm probably being and obtuse and ignorant Englander here, but how does the US government removing sweets from vending machines equate to an attempt on regulating school dinners? If the school was selling the sweets as school lunches then maybe but I thought these vending machines were dotted all over the school as an additional source rather than the only one. Can't the kids just bring in sweets from elsewhere anyway? Over here, the kids are all let out at lunchtimes and head straight for the local sweetshop or chip shop anyway so any attempt to promote healthy eating is invariably wasted.
As a parent I can tell you that if you've got a vending machine full of sugary sweets next to one full of healthy snacks you're going to refill the sweets weekly and you'll have to refill the healthy one when the food in it spoils. Kids and teenagers have zero impulse control.
I'm not in favor of having these kind of things on school grounds, don't get me wrong, but it's not the Federal government's job to say they can't be. Hell I don't even think its legal for the Federal government to enact such a law. Not that it'll matter of course because anyone opposing this will spend all their time fighting off "you just want to make my kids fat," protests rather than discussing the constitutionality of the thing.
I am always slightly confused with the American dislike for their government actually passing laws, especially something that would be acceptable at a local level.
And regards dictating what you can and can't eat/drink, the government already dictates that.
For example you can't go out to your local fast food joint and order 1g of coke with a side order of meths.
And I don't know if it is the same in the states, but in the UK, we have different tax rates on different kind of foods/items, as well as different levels of government subsidies for different crops/foods/etc, so again, the government is pushing for certain things to be grown, produced and sold. They will also control what can and cannot be imported for you to consume.
Its not enacting laws. It's them trying to enact laws they have no right to make. Our Constitution is the ground rules of what the Federal government can and cannot do. No where in it does it grant the Federal government the power to enact a law like this.
It's not about them making laws, its about following the ing rules.
filbert wrote:I'm probably being and obtuse and ignorant Englander here, but how does the US government removing sweets from vending machines equate to an attempt on regulating school dinners? If the school was selling the sweets as school lunches then maybe but I thought these vending machines were dotted all over the school as an additional source rather than the only one. Can't the kids just bring in sweets from elsewhere anyway? Over here, the kids are all let out at lunchtimes and head straight for the local sweetshop or chip shop anyway so any attempt to promote healthy eating is invariably wasted.
You're being obtuse and ignorant English here...
The federal government does not have the power under the US Constitution, to regulate local school matters. Their only powers are specifically granted in the Constitituion. Regulating anything other than those powers is unconstitutional.
To the merits of the issue, on a secondary basis if the state or local school board did this I'd be ok with it. Its a local government school and they have the right to regulate the standards of local schools.
generalgrog wrote:With the obesity problem in America, I can't see how this is a bad thing. It's in schools, not everywhere else.
And how is it unconstitutional Frazz?
GG
p.s. they don't sell cigarettes or porn in schools either.
I'm sorry I missed the part where Jefferson put into the Constitution the power of the US Federal Government to regulate school lunches. Darn that 10th Amendment-how dare they have signed and ratified that!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If a public school is providing the food then regardless of what it is (healthy or otherwise) it's still being regulated by the government. The whole thing is being regulated, from the food to the curriculum. Saying the government shouldn't regulate public school lunches is like saying they shouldn't regulate which math and history books public schools use. (Regardless of whether they are doing it now - which is another conversation) Would you want your child learning from a text book which is known to have anachronisms? Selling cake in school (as was previously allowed by the government) can be considered analogous to teaching from a poorly written text book. Regardless of how you feel about diet some foods are good for you and some aren't. An occasional cigarette or beer isn't going to kill you but developing a daily habit does have health risks, the same is true of sweets.
The question isn't about whether or not the government can tell it's citizens what to eat, it's about whether or not it should enable the consumption of foods known to have negative health effects.
Tyyr wrote:Its not enacting laws. It's them trying to enact laws they have no right to make. Our Constitution is the ground rules of what the Federal government can and cannot do. No where in it does it grant the Federal government the power to enact a law like this.
It's not about them making laws, its about following the ing rules.
Exactly. We have a federal system. When the federal government oversteps its bounds it is tyranny. When the state/local government oversteps its bounds it is also tyranny.
You're seeig that now. The EU bureaucrats are busy bees, making regulations defining how you Euros live eat and sleep. Its ok. they are the government. They know whats best for you, because they've done such an awesome job in the past.
@tyyr I have to agree with you on this one as most people will se it as "you just want our kids to be fat" well lets look at the families more then the schools. The schools are their to educate not to babysit and by doing this you are saying to the kids hey this is how it is and after lunch we will have nap time. Vending machines have been their with treats for decades and only recently have we seen obesity on the rise and I blame that squarely on the parents and their lack of family orientation. Make your kids sit down for dinner at a table instead of the TV and talk with a good meal. If you don't like what the school is serving then brown bag it. If your kid is fat how about less WOW and more Football I mean COME ON. For those of you who know what I am talking about all I have to say is Freshmen 15!!!!! Kids have shown they have no self control when let on their own, but it is not the gov'ts job to control them as such. That is more of a socialist/communist theory.
generalgrog wrote:With the obesity problem in America, I can't see how this is a bad thing. It's in schools, not everywhere else.
And how is it unconstitutional Frazz?
GG
p.s. they don't sell cigarettes or porn in schools either.
I'm sorry I missed the part where Jefferson put into the Constitution the power of the US Federal Government to regulate school lunches. Darn that 10th Amendment-how dare they have signed and ratified that!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If a public school is providing the food then regardless of what it is (healthy or otherwise) it's still being regulated by the government. The whole thing is being regulated, from the food to the curriculum. Saying the government shouldn't regulate public school lunches is like saying they shouldn't regulate which math and history books public schools use. (Regardless of whether they are doing it now - which is another conversation) Would you want your child learning from a text book which is known to have anachronisms? Selling cake in school (as was previously allowed by the government) can be considered analogous to teaching from a poorly written text book. Regardless of how you feel about diet some foods are good for you and some aren't. An occasional cigarette or beer isn't going to kill you but developing a daily habit does have health risks, the same is true of sweets.
The question isn't about whether or not the government can tell it's citizens what to eat, it's about whether or not it should enable the consumption of foods known to have negative health effects.
You do understand the concept of separation of powers no? its not "the government." Its federal, state, and local, all with their own limits. This is why this crap gets through and the mess we are in.
I see. It's a whole lot of different here, EU aside. Central government has access to change and control, and indeed does control, the very minutiae of everyday life - with a sprinkling of bureaucracy thrown in at local government level.
Its all about big government. They will start off with small things like this, that sound like a good idea. That way the majority of the people sign off on it. Thats why I wanted to vote for Ron paul. But nooooooo lets all vote in the healthcare guy
@Filbert - yeah, I did not quire realise how the different layers in the Us worked. I thought it was more like our system of the guy at the top lines up the people down the chain however he likes, and anything that the central authority does not pass a view on, the local government can do whatever it likes.
KingCracker wrote:Its all about big government. They will start off with small things like this, that sound like a good idea. That way the majority of the people sign off on it. Thats why I wanted to vote for Ron paul. But nooooooo lets all vote in the healthcare guy
I first wanted huckabee.... eh lesser of two evils though seems to be the case in politics lately.
The false notion here is that if the Feds don't do something, nobody will. Hasn't anyone ever heard of a school board. You know, those local people you elect to run the district. The same people you can more easily contact at a local level or campaign to run out of office.
My kids' high school has stopped the sale of soda in school. Guess what, the 'Bamster had nothing to do with it.
Frazzled wrote:You do understand the concept of separation of powers no? its not "the government." Its federal, state, and local, all with their own limits. This is why this crap gets through and the mess we are in.
I understand. But I agree with this regulation and it isn't as if the federal government is overstepping boundaries it hasn't overstepped before. In fact you could say that a precedent has been set for this kind of thing. It doesn't make it right but it does make it business as usual.
KingCracker wrote:Its all about big government. They will start off with small things like this, that sound like a good idea. That way the majority of the people sign off on it. Thats why I wanted to vote for Ron paul. But nooooooo lets all vote in the healthcare guy
I first wanted huckabee.... eh lesser of two evils though seems to be the case in politics lately.
Isnt that the bloody truth. No joke that last 4 elections Ive seen (2 presidential, 2 locals) Its been that way. I dont like that I have to sit here for weeks pondering who I hate less
The US system is based on the idea that the local government will have a better idea of how to run things in their area than the Federal government. That aside from some major country spanning things like national defense, foreign treaties, interstate commerce, etc. the Federal government would be largely hands off and let the states handle it.
Isn't food and health a federal perogative? FDA or something (I'm not American though the flag doesn't always show Canada like it should) Wouldn't that give the fed gov't the right to control this?
Deminyn wrote:Isn't food and health a federal perogative? FDA or something (I'm not American though the flag doesn't always show Canada like it should) Wouldn't that give the fed gov't the right to control this?
Help me out here, aren't there a lot of laws that have been made, that are "not in the constitution"? The federal govt. has been given the right to make laws by..... guess what? "The constitution"
Help me out here, aren't there a lot of laws that have been made, that are "not in the constitution"? The federal govt. has been given the right to make laws by..... guess what? "The constitution"
GG
Ok so lets be fair then... first hey we don;t like trans fats..okok lets outlaw those. Now we don't want sweets in school okok lets outlaw those. OOO HEY HOW MUCH PEANUT BUTTER DO YOU EAT BECAUSE PEANUT OIL IS FILLED WITH BAD STUFF. next lets get rid of fast food because oo wait it's unhealthy. How about people just take responcability for their own faults. PUT THE BURGER DOWN BOB!!!!
Help me out here, aren't there a lot of laws that have been made, that are "not in the constitution"? The federal govt. has been given the right to make laws by..... guess what? "The constitution"
GG
Ok so lets be fair then... first hey we don;t like trans fats..okok lets outlaw those. Now we don't want sweets in school okok lets outlaw those. OOO HEY HOW MUCH PEANUT BUTTER DO YOU EAT BECAUSE PEANUT OIL IS FILLED WITH BAD STUFF. next lets get rid of fast food because oo wait it's unhealthy. How about people just take responcability for their own faults. PUT THE BURGER DOWN BOB!!!!
Lets keep this in perspective shall we? We are talking about schools. You think it's ok to peddle unhealthy stuff to kids on school campuses?
@gneral: they have been doing this for decades and people were fine. Also snacks only do so much as lets look at their lunches they are serving. The gov't does not hold the right to police its citizens in this capacity. If your kid is fat then it is not the snacks fault it's the parents because they aren't keeping their children proactive.
Empchild wrote:@gneral: they have been doing this for decades and people were fine. Also snacks only do so much as lets look at their lunches they are serving. The gov't does not hold the right to police its citizens in this capacity. If your kid is fat then it is not the snacks fault it's the parents because they aren't keeping their children proactive.
I'm not disagreeing with the notion of parental responsibility, however I do disagree with the notion that "people were fine". Childhood obesity is an acknowledged problem in America, and I appluad the govt. for being proactive here.
sooo during the 60's, 70's,80's,90's we were all fat? far from it. Towards the mid to late 90's as family values changed america changed and thats when teenage obesity really came into play. I think personal responcability needs to be taken but eliminating/cntroling inthis nature is not gonna change things lets be honest here.
Help me out here, aren't there a lot of laws that have been made, that are "not in the constitution"? The federal govt. has been given the right to make laws by..... guess what? "The constitution"
GG
They were not constitutional. Just because the federal Government did or tried to do something does not make it Constitutional.
I weep for this nation. Is this the standard of education now?
I'm all for junk food and vending machines. I'm just not supporting them being allowed to function in a government (federal, state, local, whatever) institution. What we do in our day to day lives is all fine and dandy. If someone wants to drink themselves into a stupor while watching UFC and eating a deliciously unhealthy pizza, more power to 'em and I'll be right next to them taking my share. But to allow the sale of undeniably unhealthy foods (to children) in a public school setting isn't right. What about the parents that choose to be dietary nazis? The ones who absolutely refuse to allow their child to have any candy or soda? Having vending machines in public schools takes that choice out of their hands and puts it squarely into the child's. Which is why I say this issue isn't about the government's (federal or otherwise) right to ban said foods but rather their right to enable their sale on government-run public property.
dreadlord wrote:I'm all for junk food and vending machines. I'm just not supporting them being allowed to function in a government (federal, state, local, whatever) institution. What we do in our day to day lives is all fine and dandy. If someone wants to drink themselves into a stupor while watching UFC and eating a deliciously unhealthy pizza, more power to 'em and I'll be right next to them taking my share. But to allow the sale of undeniably unhealthy foods (to children) in a public school setting isn't right. What about the parents that choose to be dietary nazis? The ones who absolutely refuse to allow their child to have any candy or soda? Having vending machines in public schools takes that choice out of their hands and puts it squarely into the child's. Which is why I say this issue isn't about the government's (federal or otherwise) right to ban said foods but rather their right to enable their sale on government-run public property.
Taking the federal issue out of it, I'm much more open to this line of thought.
Zad Fnark wrote:The feds do not run local schools. Don't like current policy? Attend the next school boarding meeting and say something.
ZF-
So when we have a national health care problem the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. Ok. I didn't realize that. I don't really care anyway. I've always been in favor of people making their own choices for better or worse. I just think that if we're going to be discussing national issues then we should be more proactive nationally. But I commonly teeter between libertarianism and socialism. A balance would be nice but doesn't seem possible.
To me it would make sense to develop a national plan regarding diets etc in the school system (do they have one for prisons? Or is that a local lead thing too?), as diet and fitness is a national concern, rather than attempting to legislate a load of different local responces.
After all, how will your be able to fight off the commie invaders if you are all too unhealthy to do anything?
Incredibly unhealthy foods should've been banned years ago from public schools. Especially caffeinated sodas - that gak is just an awesome tasting and addicting drug in a can after all.
Too many kids are too damn fat ESPECIALLY here in Texas. If corporations want to make a quick buck exploiting kiddo's than do it in a way that doesn't screw over their health and society's future.
What the hell is the point of teaching this and having posters of the following all over campus if vending machines are going to be loaded with nearly nothing but fats and sweets:
The issue is not is it a good idea to ban junk food from schools. The issue is who has the authority to enact such laws. According to the constitution it is not the Federal Government. The power resides with the State/local government.
Just because the government has done things in the past it should not have, does not give them permission to keep doing it. Even if you agree with this law you should oppose it because what happens when they enact an unconstitutional law you do oppose.
I can't stand this whole, "Lets tie the both govt's hand's behind their back" mentality when it comes to passing meaningfull legislation.
The only thing I am hearing from the naysayers is, "It's good to cut down on unhealthy foods for kids on school property, but I oppose it because I don't like THE WAY this was done, even though I really think it's a good idea"
jbunny wrote:Even if you agree with this law you should oppose it because what happens when they enact an unconstitutional law you do oppose.
"Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
Tyyr wrote:The US system is based on the idea that the local government will have a better idea of how to run things in their area than the Federal government. That aside from some major country spanning things like national defense, foreign treaties, interstate commerce, etc. the Federal government would be largely hands off and let the states handle it.
The European system is supposed to be the same, but it never works like that.
If it is against the constitution for the government to ban vending machines in schools, as soon as they do, a vending machine company will sue them and win.
generalgrog wrote:I can't stand this whole, "Lets tie the both govt's hand's behind their back" mentality when it comes to passing meaningfull legislation.
The only thing I am hearing from the naysayers is, "It's good to cut down on unhealthy foods for kids on school property, but I oppose it because I don't like THE WAY this was done, even though I really think it's a good idea"
Bah...I say...Bah!
GG
So you're ok with breakig the law as long as you agree with the outcome? That's nothing more than rationalizing your actions. It's the same thing as a criminal rationalizing it's ok to rob a bank cause I need to feed my kids. Trust me the American people are being robbed when the government acts like this. They are robbing our freedoms which were given to us in the Constitution.
generalgrog wrote:I can't stand this whole, "Lets tie the both govt's hand's behind their back" mentality when it comes to passing meaningfull legislation.
The only thing I am hearing from the naysayers is, "It's good to cut down on unhealthy foods for kids on school property, but I oppose it because I don't like THE WAY this was done, even though I really think it's a good idea"
Bah...I say...Bah!
GG
So you're ok with breakig the law as long as you agree with the outcome? That's nothing more than rationalizing your actions. It's the same thing as a criminal rationalizing it's ok to rob a bank cause I need to feed my kids. Trust me the American people are being robbed when the government acts like this. They are robbing our freedoms which were given to us in the Constitution.
Except that I don't believe it's really against the law.
Tyyr wrote:The US system is based on the idea that the local government will have a better idea of how to run things in their area than the Federal government. That aside from some major country spanning things like national defense, foreign treaties, interstate commerce, etc. the Federal government would be largely hands off and let the states handle it.
The European system is supposed to be the same, but it never works like that.
If it is against the constitution for the government to ban vending machines in schools, as soon as they do, a vending machine company will sue them and win.
Hopefully someone will, but considering the amount of money it takes to get a case like that heard in court and worked all the way to the Supreme Court would cripple most companies. We are not talking about Multi-National companies. Most vending machine companies covers 1-2 Cities at most and propable has less than 50 employees.
Edit: I refer to the candy vending machines and not the Cokes and Pepsis. They can afford the case.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Here you go. The 10th Ammendment is a good place to start. Also please show me when they have the power. Since the 10th says if they don't have it spelled out then they don't have the power.
Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That "proves" nothing.
What powers? How do I know that this power to ban these vending machines wasn't given to the fgederal govt? Are the state prohibiting this action?
I need more info than 1 sentence.
Also the consitution isn't the Bible, it's not some "Holy book" that can't be changed.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That "proves" nothing.
What powers? How do I know that this power to ban these vending machines wasn't given to the fgederal govt? Are the state prohibiting this action?
I need more info than 1 sentence.
Also the consitution isn't the Bible, it's not some "Holy book" that can't be changed.
GG
If you had read your Constitution like all Americans should, then you would know what powers. The Constitution can be changed, but it is not an easy thing to do. And while it is not the Bible, it is the foundation of our Government and our laws. When the government stops following it's laws, it becomes a Tryanny
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That "proves" nothing.
What powers? How do I know that this power to ban these vending machines wasn't given to the fgederal govt? Are the state prohibiting this action?
I need more info than 1 sentence.
Also the consitution isn't the Bible, it's not some "Holy book" that can't be changed.
GG
here's the part where I facelpalm, but its so bad I am going to rock back and forth for a while, quietly sobbing. Then I'll remember I need coffee.
Tyyr wrote:The US system is based on the idea that the local government will have a better idea of how to run things in their area than the Federal government. That aside from some major country spanning things like national defense, foreign treaties, interstate commerce, etc. the Federal government would be largely hands off and let the states handle it.
The European system is supposed to be the same, but it never works like that.
If it is against the constitution for the government to ban vending machines in schools, as soon as they do, a vending machine company will sue them and win.
Hopefully someone will, but considering the amount of money it takes to get a case like that heard in court and worked all the way to the Supreme Court would cripple most companies. We are not talking about Multi-National companies. Most vending machine companies covers 1-2 Cities at most and propable has less than 50 employees.
Edit: I refer to the candy vending machines and not the Cokes and Pepsis. They can afford the case.
Coke will do it. They must make a fortune from vending machines.
ShumaGorath wrote:Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?
No Child left behind is not the same thing. NCLB established rules for schools to follow if they want to accept Federal Dollars. But here is the kicker. The schools had to test students, and they had to meet minimal levels, but the Federal government did not set the min levels. The States set those levels so that the states still had the power.
Since the Federal government does not have to give states money for school, it can set standards inorder to receive that money. It's like how we do not have a federal Drinking age, but inorder to get Federal Hwy money, states had to make 21 the State drinking age.
generalgrog wrote:I can't stand this whole, "Lets tie the both govt's hand's behind their back" mentality when it comes to passing meaningfull legislation.
No one is suggesting tying the government's hands behind its back in this. We're suggesting that the appropriate level of government, which has the authority to do this, enact it if anyone is going to.
The only thing I am hearing from the naysayers is, "It's good to cut down on unhealthy foods for kids on school property, but I oppose it because I don't like THE WAY this was done, even though I really think it's a good idea"
Bah...I say...Bah!
GG
And I say Bah to the idea that the government is allowed to do as it pleases so long as some people like the final result.
ShumaGorath wrote:Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?
No Child left behind is not the same thing. NCLB established rules for schools to follow if they want to accept Federal Dollars. But here is the kicker. The schools had to test students, and they had to meet minimal levels, but the Federal government did not set the min levels. The States set those levels so that the states still had the power.
Since the Federal government does not have to give states money for school, it can set standards inorder to receive that money. It's like how we do not have a federal Drinking age, but inorder to get Federal Hwy money, states had to make 21 the State drinking age.
Technically the gov't itself deciminates the fundage to the states and the states hand out the molla to the school. This overall is the gov't sticking their nose into peoples lives once again. I agree that these kids shouldn't eat to many damn sweets, but you know what I garuntee they eat a ton more at home and by changing out pop or the once or in some cases twice a day candy bar is going to do little to help our teenage obesity problem as it stands. These kids go home and play computers all day long once their out of class that is the cause of the problems. How many active kids do you see FAT that play sports after school or are in some physical activity slim to none really. I am sure these kids have earned the right "to feel like a nut. Instead we are blaming the product and not the comsumer on this. "I eat cause I'm fat; I'm fat cause I eat" is what it comes down too. These kids need to become more proactive and less WOW. Families should go to the damn park or go rock climbing something fun on the weekends instead of sitting around watching T.V . The machines aren't the problem its people trying to pass the buck. YOU ARE FAT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOU MORON. If it put a gun infront of you loaded would youuse it on somone knowing the consequence NO because youknow it's a bad idea and you will have to live with the ramifacations of it. So why is it we blame the candy when the kids don't ahve to eat it. Their are granola bars in those machines eat those.
ShumaGorath wrote:Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?
No Child left behind is not the same thing. NCLB established rules for schools to follow if they want to accept Federal Dollars. But here is the kicker. The schools had to test students, and they had to meet minimal levels, but the Federal government did not set the min levels. The States set those levels so that the states still had the power.
Since the Federal government does not have to give states money for school, it can set standards inorder to receive that money. It's like how we do not have a federal Drinking age, but inorder to get Federal Hwy money, states had to make 21 the State drinking age.
Technically the gov't itself deciminates the fundage to the states and the states hand out the molla to the school. This overall is the gov't sticking their nose into peoples lives once again. I agree that these kids shouldn't eat to many damn sweets, but you know what I garuntee they eat a ton more at home and by changing out pop or the once or in some cases twice a day candy bar is going to do little to help our teenage obesity problem as it stands. These kids go home and play computers all day long once their out of class that is the cause of the problems. How many active kids do you see FAT that play sports after school or are in some physical activity slim to none really. I am sure these kids have earned the right "to feel like a nut. Instead we are blaming the product and not the comsumer on this. "I eat cause I'm fat; I'm fat cause I eat" is what it comes down too. These kids need to become more proactive and less WOW. Families should go to the damn park or go rock climbing something fun on the weekends instead of sitting around watching T.V . The machines aren't the problem its people trying to pass the buck. YOU ARE FAT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOU MORON. If it put a gun infront of you loaded would youuse it on somone knowing the consequence NO because youknow it's a bad idea and you will have to live with the ramifacations of it. So why is it we blame the candy when the kids don't ahve to eat it. Their are granola bars in those machines eat those.
I'm sure its fun to grandstand, but the psychology of product placement is a well documented and utilized effect. Brand loyalty is created at young ages, and soft drinks and candy are specifically targeted and marketed to children. It's unrealistic to expect children to have the mental fortitude or presence of will to resist colorful imagery and good tasting sweets. It's unrealistic because their psychology is specifically geared towards being curious of the colorful, and their biology is geared towards preferentially eating sweet foods. You can not expect kids to simply buck up and not eat it, if that were a solution then we wouldn't have this problem.
No one is suggesting tying the government's hands behind its back in this. We're suggesting that the appropriate level of government, which has the authority to do this, enact it if anyone is going to.
I believe that this is an appropriate course of action. The fundamental concept of state controls on local issues, even those pertaining to federal funding is an incredibly complex and muddy one, and I find myself often siding with the nation when the state doesn't really care either way.
And I say Bah to the idea that the government is allowed to do as it pleases so long as some people like the final result.
Isn't that the entire point of having a government? To maintain the health and safety of it's citizens?
Ok when I think of all this though shuma I have to run off personal experience. How many elementary schools, and middle schools sold stuff out of vending machines. None where I grew up. Most of this didn't occur until the highschool and college time frame. I have walked back through these schools nowadays for friends childrens concerts and what nots and still not seen vending machines in the younger schools. I understand your point on the children and inquizative nature of them but I feel this has little to pertain to the overall magesty of the situation at hand. The Gov't is now assuming control of what you eat as oppossed to parents. A child in middle school or elementary school will not have the money to purchase said products unless their parents give it to them were as a teenager would, and that is what I feel the president is trying to target.
Ok when I think of all this though shuma I have to run off personal experience. How many elementary schools, and middle schools sold stuff out of vending machines. None where I grew up. Most of this didn't occur until the highschool and college time frame.
I had a mountain dew, sprite, or pepsi every schoolday for eight years. The juices were more expensive, and the lunch item drinks were small.
I have walked back through these schools nowadays for friends childrens concerts and what nots and still not seen vending machines in the younger schools. I understand your point on the children and inquizative nature of them but I feel this has little to pertain to the overall magesty of the situation at hand.
The big issue here, is that while you may not have experienced it, there are still a significant number of schools that have local fast food opt ins for meals or who gain small amounts of funding via vending machine sales. I happened to live in one such state.
The Gov't is now assuming control of what you eat as oppossed to parents. A child in middle school or elementary school will not have the money to purchase said products unless their parents give it to them were as a teenager would, and that is what I feel the president is trying to target.
How do parents govern what their children get from school vending machines? My schools lunch program was based off of money, we payed for lunches, and that money was just as good in a vending machine as it was at the food counter. I never told my mother where that dollar went. If anything, while this takes a small amount of choice from parents, it also gives many back a choice that they didn't possess.
So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
GG
There goes the thread. I'm staying out of this one.
So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Technically it's irrelevant. The government does unconstitutional things constantly, it would take quite a bit more than the observation that this is questionably unconstitutional for it to be stopped. Were that possible we wouldn't be waterboarding people, guantanamo bay would have been closed decades ago, we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq, we wouldn't be getting wiretapped, and social security wouldn't exist.
generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
GG
I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?
generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
GG
I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?
People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.
generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
GG
I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?
Parents controll it by how much they give their kids for lunch. They controll it by talking to their kids about what to eat, and what not to eat. If you talk to your kids, they will listen to you. But you have to be an active part of their life.
Personally I could careless if they are in the schools or not. Elementry did not have them, while Jr. high and High School had them. I ate several pieces of candy and several cokes everyday growing up. I graduated Highschool at 6'1" and 145lbs. Why was I small? Cause I played sports, was in band, worked a phsycally demanding job and me and my friends hardly ever sat around on the couch. We were alwasys doing something outside.
It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.
The thing I hate is the Federal Government over stepping its bounds on this and other matters. If a state or a city wants to ban the machines then I am all for it.
generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
GG
I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?
People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.
Thats a trolling statement. You give situational awareness to that.
It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.
Significant sugar intake during puberty and early childhood development is being linked to several mental ailments, and has been directly linked (along with sleep deprivation) to depression and a few other social maladies. Dietary issues have always been known to be linked to mental wellbeing though. Proper exercize and lifestyle can overcome it, keep in mind though, the declining amount of exercise modern youths receive is also a major issue with the childhood obesity epidemic.
Is the government doing nothing, better than doing something simply because it could questionably be overstepping bounds? Is it worth the inaction for the symptom to continue simply to make government functionality prettier in liu of a questionably relevant document thats already being skirted in much bigger and more damaging ways?
generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
GG
I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?
People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.
Thats a trolling statement. You give situational awareness to that.
It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.
Significant sugar intake during puberty and early childhood development is being linked to several mental ailments, and has been directly linked (along with sleep deprivation) to depression and a few other social maladies. Dietary issues have always been known to be linked to mental wellbeing though. Proper exercize and lifestyle can overcome it, keep in mind though, the declining amount of exercise modern youths receive is also a major issue with the childhood obesity epidemic.
Is the government doing nothing, better than doing something simply because it could questionably be overstepping bounds? Is it worth the inaction for the symptom to continue simply to make government functionality prettier in liu of a questionably relevant document thats already being skirted in much bigger and more damaging ways?
So instead of blaming the schools lets blame World of Warcraft.. and oo ya LAZY PEOPLE!!!!!!!! In high school I did crew, I wrestled, I was in theater the band, weight lifting I did a ton and stayed busy and oo ya I smoked!!! Sugar did little to deter my persona, also we teach our kids to work out and be physically fit but was shown that inpuberty if you do work out a lot it can stunt growth and cause other physical ailments....(see what I did their ) . The vending machiens are not to blame and it is not the Gov'ts job to regulate this. A lot of our problems comes from all the toxins we ingest from other foods, and not paying attention to what we eat. Be more proactive in school and less lazy and you won't be fat.
generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?
Gentle encouragement?
That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.
GG
I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?
People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.
Thats a trolling statement. You give situational awareness to that.
generalgrog wrote:Frazz just PM me if you want, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.
By the way, I've voted for,
Bush-92,
Dole-96,
Bush-00,
Bush-04,
Mccain-08.
My voting record is hardly liberal.
GG
Its my understanding Beck's Schtick is limited government (actually that government is out to get you). I blieve you're espousing government-and federal if OP is correct-control down to the smallest detail and equating that with the US Civil Rights movement. thats a Jump the shark moment (Wee I get two internet cookies for that analogy). Please reconcile this for moi por favor.
dreadlord wrote:
Not people, Frazzled. There's a difference.
People
Frazzled
Hey! what do you know..I have a T-shirt with Frazz on it..pretty sweet. And speaking of sweets,I'm a bit confused as to where Glenn Beck or various "political leanings" have anything to do with the topic.
It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.
Significant sugar intake during puberty and early childhood development is being linked to several mental ailments, and has been directly linked (along with sleep deprivation) to depression and a few other social maladies. Dietary issues have always been known to be linked to mental wellbeing though. Proper exercize and lifestyle can overcome it, keep in mind though, the declining amount of exercise modern youths receive is also a major issue with the childhood obesity epidemic.
Is the government doing nothing, better than doing something simply because it could questionably be overstepping bounds? Is it worth the inaction for the symptom to continue simply to make government functionality prettier in liu of a questionably relevant document thats already being skirted in much bigger and more damaging ways?
So instead of blaming the schools lets blame World of Warcraft.. and oo ya LAZY PEOPLE!!!!!!!! In high school I did crew, I wrestled, I was in theater the band, weight lifting I did a ton and stayed busy and oo ya I smoked!!! Sugar did little to deter my persona, also we teach our kids to work out and be physically fit but was shown that inpuberty if you do work out a lot it can stunt growth and cause other physical ailments....(see what I did their ) . The vending machiens are not to blame and it is not the Gov'ts job to regulate this. A lot of our problems comes from all the toxins we ingest from other foods, and not paying attention to what we eat. Be more proactive in school and less lazy and you won't be fat.
As soon as every child in America starts being you, you're personal anecdotes about how everything is ok will begin to be relevant. As it is, this is an issue, states seem ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, parents see ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, and it's the governments job to do what it's citizens can't when it is necessary.
Frazzled wrote:Its my understanding Beck's Schtick is limited government (actually that government is out to get you). I blieve you're espousing government-and federal if OP is correct-control down to the smallest detail and equating that with the US Civil Rights movement. thats a Jump the shark moment (Wee I get two internet cookies for that analogy). Please reconcile this for moi por favor.
I used to listen to Beck on the radio all the time, before he went off the deep end. I only occasionally watch his show. Like once a month....max.
Anyway... I just don't see making a good faith effort to improve the health of school kids, that attend government financed schools as "control down to the smallest detail". I just think you're over reacting a bit. It's not like they are making the kids eat soylent green on mondays and soylent yellow on tuesdays.
The civil rights comment was using that issue as an analogy, for the federal govt taking charge, when the states weren't.
As soon as every child in America starts being you, you're personal anecdotes about how everything is ok will begin to be relevant. As it is, this is an issue, states seem ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, parents see ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, and it's the governments job to do what it's citizens can't when it is necessary.
Are you really trying to head down that road on this one? No were did I say HEY YOU ARE ALL LIKE ME.. nope I said place the blame were it belongs and fix it. It is not the Gov'ts job especially in this recession to regulate what we eat. The gov't is not your nanny they are a controling body placed their for larger decission such as global economics. If parents won't fix it then thats their choice. Last I looked children are for the better part property until the age of 18 yep I said it property. The parent is responcible to guide and raise them how they see fit, and now adays if a kid breaks the law a parent can be held accountable for it with them so why not do so for this too.
Bad analogy I wouldn't go there. proportionality is akin to godwin's law.
Again I have to bifurcate. Fed stating this-no way.
Local or state saying this-yea WTF are there vending machines there in the first place? I had to crap everyone else should have to eat crap too. You want a drink bring it.
As soon as every child in America starts being you, you're personal anecdotes about how everything is ok will begin to be relevant. As it is, this is an issue, states seem ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, parents see ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, and it's the governments job to do what it's citizens can't when it is necessary.
Are you really trying to head down that road on this one? No were did I say HEY YOU ARE ALL LIKE ME.. nope I said place the blame were it belongs and fix it. It is not the Gov'ts job especially in this recession to regulate what we eat. The gov't is not your nanny they are a controling body placed their for larger decission such as global economics. If parents won't fix it then thats their choice. Last I looked children are for the better part property until the age of 18 yep I said it property. The parent is responcible to guide and raise them how they see fit, and now adays if a kid breaks the law a parent can be held accountable for it with them so why not do so for this too.
+1 for parental responsiblity.
I see nothing benificial in allowing Gvt,to make even more decisions for the public.
ShumaGorath wrote: we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq, and social security wouldn't exist.
The Iraq war was voted on so it's not unconstitutional, and I have no problem getting rid of SS.
Also just because the government does one thing wrong does not give it permission to do more things wrong.
You're right, I meant to say Afghanistan. My bad, slip of the tongue there. It's funny how the better regarded war is the less legal one.
sighs....should I reply to this...should I ummm ya. WAR IS NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL when it comes down to it. All our conflicts fall under the "War on Terrorism" ergo they are deemed "legal" to many whether you like it or not. Also who cares as soldiers are dieing and all we can say is LEGALALITY COME ON>>>>> now back to subject please!!
WAR IS NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL when it comes down to it.
Actually, the U.S. has a legal framework for the declaration of war. By our own laws there is both such a thing as a legal and illegal war.
All our conflicts fall under the "War on Terrorism" ergo they are deemed "legal" to many whether you like it or not.
No, just the war in afghanistan, and strikes within pakistan. Most other forms of militaristic intervention we are involved in are classified as multinational police operations (such as the war on drugs) or standard wars (Iraq). Whether I like it or not has no bearing, all that matters is the reality.
Also who cares as soldiers are dieing and all we can say is LEGALALITY COME ON
I don't remember bringing that up, do you? And here I thought this thread was all about unconstitutional abuses of power.
Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.
What I do know, and no offence intended here, come the next election I'm going to ask Mr. GG who he's going to vote for and then put money on the other guy to win. Statistically I'll be quids in.
Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.
Alcohol and Tobacco aren't sold in schools, and they aren't banning the sale of candy. The comparison is pretty irrelevant.
Empchild wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Sorry im lost again where were we?
Are sweets banned from illegal War schools in Iraq wasnt it?
shuma and another ran the thread of in a new direction. Not suprised but is the nature of the beast.
I drew a parallel to much bigger, and better accepted breaches in the constitution in a thread where we were talking about the methodology of breaches in the constitution. You're the one that decided to hit caps lock and turn it into an argument.
What I do know, and no offence intended here, come the next election I'm going to ask Mr. GG who he's going to vote for and then put money on the other guy to win. Statistically I'll be quids in.
Actuall he is 3-2 over the past 5 elections, hardly even money on either side.
InfernalMajesty wrote:Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.
I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.
Bureaucracy: Let's just assume everyone is stupid just to cover all our asses.
InfernalMajesty wrote:Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.
I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.
Bureaucracy: Let's just assume everyone is stupid just to cover all our asses.
So why not just put warnings on it and do as we do with cigarettes and not allow media braodcasting of candy.
InfernalMajesty wrote:Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.
I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.
Bureaucracy: Let's just assume everyone is stupid just to cover all our asses.
So why not just put warnings on it and do as we do with cigarettes and not allow media braodcasting of candy.
Not sure. Maybe no one thinks children will bother to read warnings on candy? Hell, adults rarely read warnings on cigarettes and alcohol. I'm not saying it's the answer to the problem... just that it is an interesting correlation.
Alcohol and Tobacco aren't sold in schools, and they aren't banning the sale of candy. The comparison is pretty irrelevant.
Are you trying to start issues with people? Nothing you said in here was relevant to what the topic was about, yet you gladly rambled on. I shall do the same.
I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.
Well hell, if we use that logic, than why should parents be able to teach their children religion? Please don't start a religious argument. But in the same sense, its the same thing. Children don't know better.
Are you trying to start issues with people? Nothing you said in here was relevant to what the topic was about, yet you gladly rambled on. I shall do the same.
How is anything I've said, excluding my defense of the war comparison Irrelevant?
Well hell, if we use that logic, than why should parents be able to teach their children religion? Please don't start a religious argument. But in the same sense, its the same thing. Children don't know better.
Wait, nevermind, you're trying to start arguments then attempting to abdicate yourself of responsibility.
How is anything I've said, excluding my defense of the war comparison Irrelevant?
"Nothing you said" was an exaggeration. But you have said irrelevant things, yet your quick to jump on someone who says something relevant. Yes, what I said is relevant regardless of your opinion.
Wait, nevermind, you're trying to start arguments then attempting to abdicate yourself of responsibility.
What arguments am I trying to start arguments? Please point them out. It seems you want to start an argument, by commenting plain rude responses to others comments. How am I trying to abdicate myself from responsibility?
Im not going to go back and forth with you. Back on topic.
I think, if kids want to eat candy and get fat, that is their problem. They don't need schools to baby sit. If parents don't want their kids to get fat then thats their job. Besides, spending money helps the economy. Also, Our vending machines don't work till after 2 (when we get out of school) and then no one buys anything from them and I really don't see many morbidly obese people. I don't see how it is become a super bad problem. Honestly, AIDS is a hell of a lot more of a problem and a hell of a lot more deadly. Even if schools sold a lot from vending machines, that helps the school with funding Lets say schools make 200 bucks a year from vending machines, well, no more becuase you can;t see an good gak from them anymore and look, thats 200 extra dollars ALL schools could use that they don't get anymore.
I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.
Well hell, if we use that logic, than why should parents be able to teach their children religion? Please don't start a religious argument. But in the same sense, its the same thing. Children don't know better.
LOLWUT? Religion =/= candy. One is debatable and the other is known to be bad for you. While I would love to keep that statement ambiguous, as I am not a religious person, I should conclude that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone defend the nutritional value of candy. So no, it is not in any way the same thing.
LOLWUT? Religion =/= candy. One is debatable and the other is known to be bad for you. While I would love to keep that statement ambiguous, as I am not a religious person, I should conclude that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone defend the nutritional value of candy. So no, it is not in any way the same thing.
I really don't want to start a religious argument, and I know that is what is going to come out of this. So im not going to bother explaining. It will only turn into a heated argument I don't want to deal with atm. I need to get my mind set for a 1k match in about an hour
LOLWUT? Religion =/= candy. One is debatable and the other is known to be bad for you. While I would love to keep that statement ambiguous, as I am not a religious person, I should conclude that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone defend the nutritional value of candy. So no, it is not in any way the same thing.
I really don't want to start a religious argument, and I know that is what is going to come out of this. So im not going to bother explaining. It will only turn into a heated argument I don't want to deal with atm. I need to get my mind set for a 1k match in about an hour
Ooook. I understand what you were implying with your statement and, personally, I even agree with the insinuation. But it is ultimately a ludicrous analogy. Especially when you take the deeply valued religious freedom inherent in American ideals. Your statement is in no way analogous to the topic at hand.
Well of course religion & candy are two different extremes. But if you people assume children cannot make decisions for themselves, then that is, in my opinion another issue. Hell, religion will shape a child just as much as candy will, if not more. I just don't think our government should worry about candy, in todays world. Never mind that it will be removing millions of dollars from the economy.
What arguments am I trying to start arguments? Please point them out. It seems you want to start an argument, by commenting plain rude responses to others comments. How am I trying to abdicate myself from responsibility?
I really don't want to start a religious argument, and I know that is what is going to come out of this. So im not going to bother explaining. It will only turn into a heated argument I don't want to deal with atm. I need to get my mind set for a 1k match in about an hour
Im not going to go back and forth with you. Back on topic.
Luckily it doesn't even need to be a back and fourth.
InfernalMajesty wrote:Well of course religion & candy are two different extremes. But if you people assume children cannot make decisions for themselves, then that is, in my opinion another issue. Hell, religion will shape a child just as much as candy will, if not more. I just don't think our government should worry about candy, in todays world. Never mind that it will be removing millions of dollars from the economy.
My only point is that religious freedom is staunchly protected by our government whereas "dietary freedom" is not. This is evident when you consider the regulation on things like alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which are analogous to junk food in that they have little to no health benefits, can be addictive/habitual, and are only consumed for pleasure. Candy is just more publicly acceptable because it's effects are less psychological.
To be fair reds, GG got it right a few times, especially that second Bush one that not many people expected! I think the next republican primary is gonna suck though, as i said, i liked McCain and i dislike Obama, but who can they pick to run against him?
It seems to be Mormon weirdo (Romney), Not too psychotic Creationist weirdo (Huckabee), Absolutely slowed fethed in the head Creationist Weirdo (Palin) Bushes slightly less slowed brother and Ron Paul.
Cant they just get some techmarines to work on McCain so he is in shape for 2012? I really liked that guy..
Doesn't surprise me really that Obamanation wants to ban vending machines in schools.
I really think the Feds just need to leave this issue alone. Discourage obesity by maybe offering extra funding or something for schools that promote healthier eating or that offer healthier choices in foods.
I remember back in HS the lunches themselves being worst than the junk that came out of vending machines. Pizza and chicken that ran with so much grease you could wring it out like a mop and have a puddle of it on your tray; artificial potatoes with gravy so loaded with fat it wasn't gravy but more the consistency of paste. The ala carte` line (the one you paid for your lunch and it had the fancier foods) was a lot healthier than the "poor kids lunch lines".
I say, let the parents control their kids eating habits and let the schools decide for themselves (or at least the States) decide what should or should not be in schools. Kids being obese is not directly linked to school vending machines. As someone pointed out earlier vending machines have existed in schools since probably the 60's. When I graduated HS I was 5'11 and 160 pounds. I was obviously by no means "super fat" or "obese" nor was I a skinny lad but that is because I and my friends biked 60+ miles a week (rode the bike trails a lot as a kid) and of course had gym class and I was NOT allowed to sit and watch tv or play Nintendo 8+ hours a day. I did homework when I got home, played outside till dinner, ate a healthy (reasonably healthy) dinner and then if it was still light out when and played outside until it started getting dark.
Now it's kids get home from school, watch tv while doing homework, parents either eat out or bring fast food home, kids than go to their rooms and watch tv or sit on Facebook or Twitter or play WoW until bedtime while munching on chips or candy and drinking large amounts of soda.
Banning vending machines at school will NOT help solve the obesity problem. The only way that will work is to pass laws saying you MUST be 18+ to order from McD's or BK or order pizza from Dominoes and Pizza Hut and to outlaw stores and gas stations from selling candy. Basically to put a prohibition on candy and other greasy foods.
If kids can't get candy from vending machines they'll go to Walmart and buy it a lot cheaper and depending on the candy can get it in like 2 pound bags or packages of like 8-10 bars in one package.
Let parents deal with what their kids do in school on their own. We don't need Obamanation telling our schools what they can and cannot do as far as our kids health. I don't have kids but if I did I'd still be against this idea.
Luckily it doesn't even need to be a back and fourth.
Dude, are you kidding? What I said was to NOT start an argument, yet you think im trying to start an argument? You went off about the War in Iraq, and you want to claim I want to start an argument? Right.
People like you are the reason why I don't stay on any forum to long. Thanks.
Infernal your better off doing what we all do and putting shuma on ignore. Works great as little what he says pertains to the situation at hand. Now back on topic I agree with fate as really the vending machines did little to curb against the sugary sweets and fatning foods. Really the lunch line did more to fuel that then anything.
Infernal your better off doing what we all do and putting shuma on ignore.
You've responded to me in virtually every thread we've both posted in, and in this thread our conversation was pretty civil. I don't see why you are both lying about putting me on ignore and telling other people to do so.
I will give you credit shuma you have improved on this one... cyber cookie to you dear chap I still have you on ignore I think you can look it up in my user profile. I just choose to click and read what you say sometimes
The Federal Gov't has no business with regulating schools and I see no reason to start now. I'll repeat that, NO business. They set no standards, no texts, and no funds. All US schools are regulated by local and state policies. Even COLLEGES are not Federally regulated. Try using a basic trig or physics book from one college to another and you'll be told to buy a different one.
Now a state can get a loan to help a state's budget BUT it is usually earmarked for such-a-such dept. And even then I know in Georgia they still take the money for other projects.
States have residents pay property taxes and other tax programs and THAT funds most if not all shool programs. Things like music and theater are the first school budgets to get cut if there's a State budget crisis. Guess what my old high school uses that vending machine money for? Music and theater supplement.
If the local or state changes what is or is not in vending machines THAT is what I will vote on. The Federal won't give me that choice because they have such a great track record on what's best for me and the rest of the world.
ing rules.
) 
. The vending machiens are not to blame and it is not the Gov'ts job to regulate this. A lot of our problems comes from all the toxins we ingest from other foods, and not paying attention to what we eat. Be more proactive in school and less lazy and you won't be fat.
I'll get down now