Calif. Gov. Signs Ban on School Junk Food

[ibm]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050916/...MzBHNlYwM3MDM-

never believed it when friends suggested this could actually happen. and it has happened! what are you thinking and doing over there, californians? is it a coincident that you elected a clown body-builder your ruler? :rolleyes:

[Chris]

And the problem with this is...?

If you want your kid to be a fatass pack his lunch with all the soda and ho ho's you want. No "freedoms" have been infringed here. :rolleyes:

This is an attempt to combat obesity. So what's the problem?

[ghost_stalker]

Fatasses get too much anyway,

They can get handicapped tags for their cars so they dont have to walk as far
They get to use the fuckin carts in wal-mart so they can avoid exercise even more

Just make every fatass take alot of gym classes

but dont take away something from the average person just beacuse of the fatasses!!!

[ibm]

war on obesity? by the government? are you serious? who gives the right to a government to tell its people what to and what not to eat AND REGULATE on it?

(btw, i don't believe things like soda or hamburger necessarily cause obesity. but that's another issue, at least a much more minor one here.)

[Chris]

Quote by: ghost_stalker but dont take away something from the average person just beacuse of the fatasses!!!

So you would rather pay the school $1.50 for a ho ho that your mom could pack in your lunch for something like $0.18?

How is something being "taken away" here? You still can eat shite, you just can't buy it in school.

What's the big deal?

[leftcider]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says STATE governments can't regulate whatever food in the schools (or elsewhere) that they want to (the fabricated right to privacy could probably protect you to eat whatever you want in your own home, but not buy it). They could ban rice and beans and it would be Constitutional.

[ghost_stalker]

It says schools, does this effect colleges too?

[ibm]

:rolleyes: yeah, it's all "constitutional"! next they'd regulate on how much carbs one can take in each day.

[ibm]

Quote by: |Chris| So you would rather pay the school $1.50 for a ho ho that your mom could pack in your lunch for something like $0.18? How is something being "taken away" here? You still can eat shite, you just can't buy it in school. What's the big deal?

$1.50 or $0.18, that's not the issue. and nothing, literally, is being taken away here - you can still have a can of pepsi if you want. the point is, is this supposed to be within the government's functionality boundry?

[ghost_stalker]

That law can eat dick and so can california. (or does it already?)

The government should not be allowed to control waht a person eats or what a person does, even if it is 'healthy'.
I believe the government should set a set of guidelines, but in no way should anyone be forced to abide by these guidlines.
Also, I believe that the government should provide no support for those who have made themsleves ill.

[leftcider]

Quote by: ibm :rolleyes: yeah, it's all "constitutional"! next they'd regulate on how much carbs one can take in each day.

Well, Constitutional doesn't mean they should, it just means they can. I was just answering the question of what gives the power of the government the right to regulate in this area. The carbs example probably couldn't happen because of the invasiveness any enforcement of that provision would require. I believe that the California State Constitution has a right to privacy in it, which would stop more invasive laws from being enacted. It probably has many other provisions which restrict the government in personal matters as well.

[Chris]

Quote by: ibm :rolleyes: yeah, it's all "constitutional"! next they'd regulate on how much carbs one can take in each day.

Hello Mr. Ignore. You CAN eat junk food brought from home. You CAN NOT purchase junk food from schools.

Tell me what "rights" have been infringed again???

[Chris]

Quote by: ghost_stalker That law can eat dick and so can california. (or does it already?) The government should not be allowed to control waht a person eats or what a person does,

Um it DOESN'T! Or, tell me how this law controls what a person eats or what a person does again?

Quote by: ghost_stalker I believe the government should set a set of guidelines, but in no way should anyone be forced to abide by these guidlines.

Um, show me again how people are "forced" to abide by a set of guidelines again?

Go to the goddammed grocery store and get your junk food fix! See? no "rights" being infringed. :rolleyes:

[Critter]

Hell, we didn't have pop machines in school till I got to high school...I didn't suffer any...

[ibm]

Quote by: |Chris| Hello Mr. Ignore. You CAN eat junk food brought from home. You CAN NOT purchase junk food from schools. Tell me what "rights" have been infringed again???

chris, call me whatever you want. only that doesn't change anything.

i'm not approach this from a constitution or civil rights kinda angle. but just use your common sense, please. as long as the machines don't vendor cigarettes or cocaine, why is it government's business to pass a law and regulate what can be or can't be sold? and how's it good for controling obesity? like you said, people can still eat whatever if they want. and doesn't the enforcement of this junkie law take resources like money and manpower?

the point i was trying to make is, where do we draw a line and say, "hey, this is not government's business"? i don't think government officials are elected partly to regulate what people should sell or eat.

with all due respect, i still think this one is pretty ridiculous.

[Mulkaccino]

Schools get a lot of money from the vending machine companies. If many of these machines are to be pulled, how with this affect California's already screwy school budget?

[tinybear]

Singapore had this law a long time ago, you know. Pretty surprised that California has decided to follow Singapore. Geez, what's this world coming to?

[Osborn F Enready]

I think this law is hilarious!

Why?

It is a logical extension of the logic they are using to rule the country now, and people are more upset about this, than losing their constitutional rights, their rights to a fair vote for representatives, and the vice closing on their freedom of speech.

So how do you get the sheeple to listen? Take away their twinkies and pop machines from their kids schools........

Click, Click, BOOOOOOM!

Sad people don't see the gun, even when it's pointing at them.

[Chris]

Quote by: ibm and doesn't the enforcement of this junkie law take resources like money and manpower?

How?

The vending companies haul the machines out, the school enforces the law by not selling it or allowing vending companies in.

Loads of wasting tax dollers eh?

Quote by: ibm the point i was trying to make is, where do we draw a line and say, "hey, this is not government's business"? i don't think government officials are elected partly to regulate what people should sell or eat.

The govt can regulate what govt owned schools can sell :rolleyes: and they are NOT regulating what people are eating as pointed out before, Mr. Ignore.

Quote by: ibm with all due respect, i still think this one is pretty ridiculous.

OK. The Mr. Ignore thing is just me messin with ya.

Quote by: Mulkaccino Schools get a lot of money from the vending machine companies. If many of these machines are to be pulled, how with this affect California's already screwy school budget?

Schools get a lot of money how? Source? I would think its the vending machine companies that get all the profits.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It is a logical extension of the logic they are using to rule the country now, and people are more upset about this, than losing their constitutional rights, their rights to a fair vote for representatives, and the vice closing on their freedom of speech. So how do you get the sheeple to listen? Take away their twinkies and pop machines from their kids schools........ Click, Click, BOOOOOOM! Sad people don't see the gun, even when it's pointing at them.

What are you talking about? How is this law infringing on anyone's rights? Point this out to me, I have already asked two other people in this thread to do so, and they came up empty.

[Osborn F Enready]

It is a violation of rights on principle.

It is an institution paid for by all taxpayers money, which means all taxpayers should have equal say and access, according to our rights.

If people feel kids should have access to these machines, and they have already been allowed meaning the money has already been spent to aquire, or facillitate those machines, the kids should have the right to do so.

I don't support forced public taxation for public schooling, so to me this is a laughable debate from even its conceptual start.

It is further proving the point that once your hand over your decision making power to another body, no matter how big or small, rights will be infringed to appease the majority.