Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

See its important to sign at least one unconstitutional thing a day to keep the Founding Fathers at bay.

You say you want a revolutionnnnn wellll you knnoooww

Frazzled wrote:See its important to sign at least one unconstitutional thing a day to keep the Founding Fathers at bay.

You say you want a revolutionnnnn wellll you knnoooww

hahahha not really sure how to respond to that except I agree.

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.

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.

Hurah! Capitalism works!

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.

SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Viva la Revolution!

Yes, this has very little to do with interstate commerce.

"We're from the government. We're here to help."

ZF-

@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.

dreadlord wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

ZF-

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.

Empchild wrote:

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