This is NOT a health incentive. It's an authoritarian ban on an otherwise legal substance. It's a drink...available EVERYWHERE. I'm all for real health and fitness education, but banning soft drink sales is not a solution. Kids can just bring these drink to school with them. Kids can drink all the soft drinks they want anywhere else.
Whatever happened to centrist political views and common sense?
Authoritarian Ban
Available Everywhere
Some ban, huh?
YOU have the extreme view on this subject, so stop trying to act like everyone else does.
Tobacco products are illegal in schools. Is that an authoritarian ban too?
This is all about putting the decision back into the parents' hands on what their children eat and drink. If parents allow them to drink soda...Fine. But I don't know that you can trust a first grader to make healthily nutritional decisions-- nevermind know what the words "healthy, nutrional, and decisions" even mean.
This a good common sense move that I wish all states followed.
Now, I'd like a turn at being extreme... Let's ban fast food advertising to children.
EDIT: Eugene's right. It is an authoritarian ban...just like the authoritarian ban on tobacco products, etc. but NOT like this:
of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
Yes, because it's an edict...statewide, with no discretion. It strikes me as an insufficiently serious problem to take out of the hands of local schools and districts. I had no opinion on this subject when it was limited to PTAs and districts making the decision. Did I post about this when the SF Unified District took it upon itself to enforce this? No.
Quote:
YOU have the extreme view on this subject, so stop trying to act like everyone else does.
I only seem extreme because you're so far to the left, Mr. GWB Shot Down Columbia.
Quote:
Tobacco products are illegal in schools. Is that an authoritarian ban too?
And second-hand smoke kills people. Soft drinks aren't illegal in schools, and still won't be after this legislation is passed.
Quote:
This is all about putting the decision back into the parents' hands on what their children eat and drink. If parents allow them to drink soda...Fine. But I don't know that you can trust a first grader to make healthily nutritional decisions-- nevermind know what the words "healthy, nutrional, and decisions" even mean.
Precisely the opposite, the state has taken it out of the parents and district's hands.
Quote:
This a good common sense move that I wish all states followed.
It's not common sense to skip ahead of all the other problems to get to this first. And it's not common sense for the state to meddle in what would more easily be handled on the local level anyway.
Yes, because it's an edict...statewide, with no discretion. It strikes me as an insufficiently serious problem to take out of the hands of local schools and districts. I had no opinion on this subject when it was limited to PTAs and districts making the decision. Did I post about this when the SF Unified District took it upon itself to enforce this? No.
I only seem extreme because you're so far to the left, Mr. GWB Shot Down Columbia.
And second-hand smoke kills people. Soft drinks aren't illegal in schools, and still won't be after this legislation is passed.
Precisely the opposite, the state has taken it out of the parents and district's hands.
It's not common sense to skip ahead of all the other problems to get to this first. And it's not common sense for the state to meddle in what would more easily be handled on the local level anyway.
hey leave my paranoid conspiracy theories out of this!
Well, the state is acting in the parents interests. You suggest that all parents mount anti-soda-in school campaigns to individually decide whether they want their kids to drink soda on their own recognition? Hmm...I can see now that your opinions on this really aren't as extreme as they are libertarian/ conservative. So maybe it actually is authoritarian in a technical sense (not the negative connotation of the word. I guess that's what I meant.)
Because Soda is soooo addictive that they need to take the machines out of schools.
Please. looks like people are riding the party line on this and not looking at what it really is. I suppose if some idiot became governor and tried to pass a no meat sales law because it makes you fat that would be ok? How about a no pasta sales law? A serving of pasta is much worse than several cans of Pepsi.
No, a libertarian stance would probably prohibit any sort of regulation, statewide or local. This is simply about scope. Yes, if a PTA decides against such restrictions, who should stop them? It's Coke and Mountain Dew, sheesh.
Yes. This is NOT and issue of Health but of Government Scope. Many people simply do not think that States should be dictating the menu for schools. It's a slippery slope.
We wonder why Parents have given up control to Schools. Why Parents blame schools for their children not being well rounded. Why should they? The Government seems to want to manage every portion of our lives. As a Parent..perhaps I should just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Governments make laws to govern issues that they deem the typical Citizen cannot manage on their own.
A serving of pasta is much worse than several cans of Pepsi.
More calories, not "worse". There is nothing good about drinking several cans of Pepsi. If more kids had something like pasta for lunch, we'd see less fat little bastards running around.
How about a no pasta sales law? A serving of pasta is much worse than several cans of Pepsi.
Now that's just silly and it's wrong, no matter how you look at it - calories, nutrients, how much it fills you up, etc.
Look, the state, which runs the schools last I checked, has said let's not allow corporations to sell crud to our kids. Good for them.
I just don't get this attitude that corporations should have absolute freedom to do anything they want. They have no fundamental or civil right to sell whatever they want in our schools. The state runs the schools, and they are responsible for what happens in them. No one's rights are being infringed here.
[edit]murbot:
More calories, not "worse".
You know, it's actually not even close to being more calories, unless you put some kind of super duper cream sauce on your pasta and then count that too.
Look, the state, which runs the schools last I checked, has said let's not allow corporations to sell crud to our kids. Good for them.
I just don't get this attitude that corporations should have absolute freedom to do anything they want. They have no fundamental or civil right to sell whatever they want in our schools. The state runs the schools, and they are responsible for what happens in them. No one's rights are being infringed here.
The legislation does not distinguish between corporate contracts and casual sales WRT to soft drinks. The hell I care about my 'empty calorie' intake. I'm not fat. Soft drinks didn't make me fat.
You know, I don't think we ever had soft drinks (or vending machines at all) in my middle or elementary schools. Is this a relatively new thing? Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly. It was almost 20 years ago.
Davis is expected to sign this new legislature soon.
What...the...heck?! Okay, first, why only in elementary and middle school? Does obesity disappear once you enter high school and college? Why are there exceptions for after-hours events and such?
And since so many soft drinks are caffeinated, doesn't caffeine INCREASE your metabolism / muscle-activity?
And how the hell is this going to reduce obesity in children when all they need to do is bring the soda from home? How the hell does this teach kids balanced dietary habits?
And why can anybody get a driver's license in this state while kids ca't even buy a damned Coke at school?
Why not just ban soft drinks and unhealthful foods altogether in California?
This is california, Illegal Alien kids will be allowed to sell soda at the school, just not citizens.
Now that's just silly and it's wrong, no matter how you look at it - calories, nutrients, how much it fills you up, etc.
Look, the state, which runs the schools last I checked, has said let's not allow corporations to sell crud to our kids. Good for them.
I just don't get this attitude that corporations should have absolute freedom to do anything they want. They have no fundamental or civil right to sell whatever they want in our schools. The state runs the schools, and they are responsible for what happens in them. No one's rights are being infringed here.
[edit]murbot:
More calories, not "worse".
You know, it's actually not even close to being more calories, unless you put some kind of super duper cream sauce on your pasta and then count that too.
You're right, it is silly. Those schools still serve milk too but I'm sure some parents will have a problem with their kids drinking milk all the time. Water is really the only safe thing i guess. Point is, Soda is a snack-drink, and banning snacks is downright criminal
You want to slow the rate of child and teen obesity? Throw their friggin Nintendo consoles in the attic, kick their ass off the sofa and make them join a soccer team or something. In school, there used to be this horrible thing called GYM CLASS where students were MADE to partake in athletic activities every day.
But then someone's feelers got hurt and their parents sued and now many kids don't have to participate in Gym if they don't want to. I'm so glad this is a sensitive nation that we live in.
Maybe this could be seen as a prelude to "developing good eating habits", so I can understand to some degree, but common. America is so fixated on "carbs and protein and fat" and so NOT fixated on doing anything that requires a little effort (like walking a flight of stairs) that this is like putting a bandaid on a gaping head wound.
Now "pass" the Reality TV with people lying, subverting and otherwise abusing their fellow man to make some good hard cash. Gotta get my fill!
You want to slow the rate of child and teen obesity? Throw their friggin Nintendo consoles in the attic, kick their ass off the sofa and make them join a soccer team or something. In school, there used to be this horrible thing called GYM CLASS where students were MADE to partake in athletic activities every day.
But then someone's feelers got hurt and their parents sued and now many kids don't have to participate in Gym if they don't want to. I'm so glad this is a sensitive nation that we live in.
Not in my province, man. They're going to be sweating it up every day.
I think its a good idea purely to stifle the attempt to market to kids in school. Its awful that Pepsi or Coke offer schools lucrative deals to only sell their product. Schools should be a place for the kids to learn, not another place to be bombarded with advertising. What's next some company will pay the school x amount of dollars to plaster ads on the backs of seats so the kids have to look at them all day? I'm all for not having the government overregulate things, but keeping big corporations ad compaigns out of schools is a good thing.
I think its a good idea purely to stifle the attempt to market to kids in school. Its awful that Pepsi or Coke offer schools lucrative deals to only sell their product. Schools should be a place for the kids to learn, not another place to be bombarded with advertising. What's next some company will pay the school x amount of dollars to plaster ads on the backs of seats so the kids have to look at them all day? I'm all for not having the government overregulate things, but keeping big corporations ad compaigns out of schools is a good thing.
Yes, the article mentions corporate contracts. I know that. But that's tangential to the issue at hand. Soft drinks sales are going to be banned statewide at schools WITH or WITHOUT the contracts and marketing.
the more i think about this, the worse the idea seems. schools are a place for kids to learn the right way of doing things. sell milk, sell OJ, sell other juices. but soda? it's completely worthless. by selling it thei're endorsing it. to endorse it is just wrong. it' scrap.
there's more to teaching than what goes on in the classroom.
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
This is NOT a health incentive. It's an authoritarian ban on an otherwise legal substance. It's a drink...available EVERYWHERE. I'm all for real health and fitness education, but banning soft drink sales is not a solution. Kids can just bring these drink to school with them. Kids can drink all the soft drinks they want anywhere else.
Whatever happened to centrist political views and common sense?
Authoritarian Ban
Available Everywhere
YOU have the extreme view on this subject, so stop trying to act like everyone else does.
Tobacco products are illegal in schools. Is that an authoritarian ban too?
This is all about putting the decision back into the parents' hands on what their children eat and drink. If parents allow them to drink soda...Fine. But I don't know that you can trust a first grader to make healthily nutritional decisions-- nevermind know what the words "healthy, nutrional, and decisions" even mean.
This a good common sense move that I wish all states followed.
Now, I'd like a turn at being extreme... Let's ban fast food advertising to children.
EDIT: Eugene's right. It is an authoritarian ban...just like the authoritarian ban on tobacco products, etc. but NOT like this:
of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
I'll leave my original post intact.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Authoritarian Ban
Available Everywhere
Yes, because it's an edict...statewide, with no discretion. It strikes me as an insufficiently serious problem to take out of the hands of local schools and districts. I had no opinion on this subject when it was limited to PTAs and districts making the decision. Did I post about this when the SF Unified District took it upon itself to enforce this? No.
YOU have the extreme view on this subject, so stop trying to act like everyone else does.
I only seem extreme because you're so far to the left, Mr. GWB Shot Down Columbia.
Tobacco products are illegal in schools. Is that an authoritarian ban too?
And second-hand smoke kills people. Soft drinks aren't illegal in schools, and still won't be after this legislation is passed.
This is all about putting the decision back into the parents' hands on what their children eat and drink. If parents allow them to drink soda...Fine. But I don't know that you can trust a first grader to make healthily nutritional decisions-- nevermind know what the words "healthy, nutrional, and decisions" even mean.
Precisely the opposite, the state has taken it out of the parents and district's hands.
This a good common sense move that I wish all states followed.
It's not common sense to skip ahead of all the other problems to get to this first. And it's not common sense for the state to meddle in what would more easily be handled on the local level anyway.
Originally posted by Eugene
Yes, because it's an edict...statewide, with no discretion. It strikes me as an insufficiently serious problem to take out of the hands of local schools and districts. I had no opinion on this subject when it was limited to PTAs and districts making the decision. Did I post about this when the SF Unified District took it upon itself to enforce this? No.
I only seem extreme because you're so far to the left, Mr. GWB Shot Down Columbia.
And second-hand smoke kills people. Soft drinks aren't illegal in schools, and still won't be after this legislation is passed.
Precisely the opposite, the state has taken it out of the parents and district's hands.
It's not common sense to skip ahead of all the other problems to get to this first. And it's not common sense for the state to meddle in what would more easily be handled on the local level anyway.
hey leave my paranoid conspiracy theories out of this!
Well, the state is acting in the parents interests. You suggest that all parents mount anti-soda-in school campaigns to individually decide whether they want their kids to drink soda on their own recognition? Hmm...I can see now that your opinions on this really aren't as extreme as they are libertarian/ conservative. So maybe it actually is authoritarian in a technical sense (not the negative connotation of the word. I guess that's what I meant.)
I don't how to respond yet. I'll be back later!
Please. looks like people are riding the party line on this and not looking at what it really is. I suppose if some idiot became governor and tried to pass a no meat sales law because it makes you fat that would be ok? How about a no pasta sales law? A serving of pasta is much worse than several cans of Pepsi.
We wonder why Parents have given up control to Schools. Why Parents blame schools for their children not being well rounded. Why should they? The Government seems to want to manage every portion of our lives. As a Parent..perhaps I should just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Governments make laws to govern issues that they deem the typical Citizen cannot manage on their own.
Originally posted by Outsider
A serving of pasta is much worse than several cans of Pepsi.
More calories, not "worse". There is nothing good about drinking several cans of Pepsi. If more kids had something like pasta for lunch, we'd see less fat little bastards running around.
Originally posted by Outsider
How about a no pasta sales law? A serving of pasta is much worse than several cans of Pepsi.
Now that's just silly and it's wrong, no matter how you look at it - calories, nutrients, how much it fills you up, etc.
Look, the state, which runs the schools last I checked, has said let's not allow corporations to sell crud to our kids. Good for them.
I just don't get this attitude that corporations should have absolute freedom to do anything they want. They have no fundamental or civil right to sell whatever they want in our schools. The state runs the schools, and they are responsible for what happens in them. No one's rights are being infringed here.
[edit]murbot:
More calories, not "worse".
You know, it's actually not even close to being more calories, unless you put some kind of super duper cream sauce on your pasta and then count that too.
Originally posted by murbot
If more kids had something like pasta for lunch, we'd see less fat little bastards running around.
Exactly. They'd all be dozing off in the shade under a tree having a nice siesta.
I crack myself up sometimes.
Originally posted by BRussell
Look, the state, which runs the schools last I checked, has said let's not allow corporations to sell crud to our kids. Good for them.
I just don't get this attitude that corporations should have absolute freedom to do anything they want. They have no fundamental or civil right to sell whatever they want in our schools. The state runs the schools, and they are responsible for what happens in them. No one's rights are being infringed here.
The legislation does not distinguish between corporate contracts and casual sales WRT to soft drinks. The hell I care about my 'empty calorie' intake. I'm not fat. Soft drinks didn't make me fat.
Originally posted by Eugene
Link
Davis is expected to sign this new legislature soon.
What...the...heck?! Okay, first, why only in elementary and middle school? Does obesity disappear once you enter high school and college? Why are there exceptions for after-hours events and such?
And since so many soft drinks are caffeinated, doesn't caffeine INCREASE your metabolism / muscle-activity?
And how the hell is this going to reduce obesity in children when all they need to do is bring the soda from home? How the hell does this teach kids balanced dietary habits?
And why can anybody get a driver's license in this state while kids ca't even buy a damned Coke at school?
Why not just ban soft drinks and unhealthful foods altogether in California?
This is california, Illegal Alien kids will be allowed to sell soda at the school, just not citizens.
Originally posted by BRussell
Now that's just silly and it's wrong, no matter how you look at it - calories, nutrients, how much it fills you up, etc.
Look, the state, which runs the schools last I checked, has said let's not allow corporations to sell crud to our kids. Good for them.
I just don't get this attitude that corporations should have absolute freedom to do anything they want. They have no fundamental or civil right to sell whatever they want in our schools. The state runs the schools, and they are responsible for what happens in them. No one's rights are being infringed here.
[edit]murbot:
More calories, not "worse".
You know, it's actually not even close to being more calories, unless you put some kind of super duper cream sauce on your pasta and then count that too.
You're right, it is silly. Those schools still serve milk too but I'm sure some parents will have a problem with their kids drinking milk all the time. Water is really the only safe thing i guess. Point is, Soda is a snack-drink, and banning snacks is downright criminal
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It would like to vote for a total starvation in california
nah, there are enough washed up hippies and wanna be hippies in cali, let's just say the demographic majority here would change.
But then someone's feelers got hurt and their parents sued and now many kids don't have to participate in Gym if they don't want to. I'm so glad this is a sensitive nation that we live in.
Maybe this could be seen as a prelude to "developing good eating habits", so I can understand to some degree, but common. America is so fixated on "carbs and protein and fat" and so NOT fixated on doing anything that requires a little effort (like walking a flight of stairs) that this is like putting a bandaid on a gaping head wound.
Now "pass" the Reality TV with people lying, subverting and otherwise abusing their fellow man to make some good hard cash. Gotta get my fill!
Originally posted by Moogs
You want to slow the rate of child and teen obesity? Throw their friggin Nintendo consoles in the attic, kick their ass off the sofa and make them join a soccer team or something. In school, there used to be this horrible thing called GYM CLASS where students were MADE to partake in athletic activities every day.
But then someone's feelers got hurt and their parents sued and now many kids don't have to participate in Gym if they don't want to. I'm so glad this is a sensitive nation that we live in.
Not in my province, man. They're going to be sweating it up every day.
Gym to be mandatory in Alberta schools
Province hopes policy will help reduce obesity in children
So the devil's advocate question is, what if all the soft drink companies declare they will only sell diet soda in the schools?
No caloric concerns there.
Nick
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
I think its a good idea purely to stifle the attempt to market to kids in school. Its awful that Pepsi or Coke offer schools lucrative deals to only sell their product. Schools should be a place for the kids to learn, not another place to be bombarded with advertising. What's next some company will pay the school x amount of dollars to plaster ads on the backs of seats so the kids have to look at them all day? I'm all for not having the government overregulate things, but keeping big corporations ad compaigns out of schools is a good thing.
Yes, the article mentions corporate contracts. I know that. But that's tangential to the issue at hand. Soft drinks sales are going to be banned statewide at schools WITH or WITHOUT the contracts and marketing.
there's more to teaching than what goes on in the classroom.