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.

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.

tuck shop, good
Graba loada sugary fatty crap from a machine whenever, very very bad

the bossman done right

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?

No. Its not in the Constitution.

Frazzled wrote:No. Its not in 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

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No. Its not in 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!!!!

America has an obesity problem. If kids have access to junk food on demand, it'll just get worse. The less, the better.

Empchild wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No. Its not in 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!!!!

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?

GG

Guess it will give you something to do with your vast millitary anyway... retask it to fast food interception duties

"We have suspected terrorists plotting a BBQ"

"OMG! Once the bacon and cheese go on there, who knows what damage they could do to their arteries! - better bring the attack choppers just in case!"

@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.

GG

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.

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No. Its not in 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

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.

The feds do not run local schools. Don't like current policy? Attend the next school boarding meeting and say something.

ZF-

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-

And there's the answer.

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.

About time I think, Would love to see the same thing here in Norway, we could use a ban like that indeed

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

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.

You have a government perfectly able to deal with this -- the local school board.

ZF-

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.

jbunny wrote:

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.

Prove it's against the law.

GG

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

10th Amendment:

"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."