Quote :

"No, they aren't. This doesn't prevent anyone from buying large sodas in stores or gas stations. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting refills. It's certainly not going to prevent them eating a shitload of food and still getting fat."

I just said a lot of people would drink a lot less soda. I didn't say it was going to cure obesity or stop people from choosing to drink fuck-tons of soda. The whole point of the law was to make people choose to drink more than 16 oz, instead of habitually slurping until their straw pulls air.

3/11/2013 8:57:43 PM

Quote :

"Over the past 10 years, I believe the obesity rate among kids has dropped"

in what country?

3/12/2013 11:30:45 AM

^ no numbers, but this was in the new recently:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/03/08/us-childhood-obesity-fight-sees-some-success-group-says/

3/12/2013 11:33:21 AM

Next we'll have government taking away homemade turkey sandwiches and giving kids cafeteria chicken nuggets.

Oh wait, that already happened.

The government knows best.

3/12/2013 12:03:05 PM

Children belong to the state, not the parents. They are just temporary caretakers.

[Edited on March 12, 2013 at 12:09 PM. Reason : selective service]

3/12/2013 12:05:26 PM

what schools prevent bagged lunches, is that really a thing?

3/12/2013 12:13:47 PM

To receive federal $$$, schools must offer healthy food to every student. Healthy food is expensive and the kids won't eat it, so it goes to waste. To combat this, many schools require the kids to eat cafeteria food. They prohibit outside food(just like any restaurant) and disable snack machines(although that might be mandated by federal guidelines for financial assistance as well).

[Edited on March 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2013 12:26:05 PM

where does that happen, where are "many schools"?

3/12/2013 12:26:40 PM

^^^ The specific incident he's referring to appears to be this one: http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8762

There was also that TV show that Jamie Oliver did where the school in WV decided his lunch didn't meet the federal health guidelines and replaced it with pizza. Obviously that was a "reality" TV show so take it for what it's worth, but I don't put such things past bureaucrats either, especially when their job would be on the line from some higher level bureaucrat.

[Edited on March 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM. Reason : sdh]

3/12/2013 12:27:13 PM

Sources are for the weak.

3/12/2013 12:30:05 PM

was there ever a follow up that explained who was expecting lunches? it also appears the school is completely overstepping the state regulation, nothing about the regulation should have made them replace her lunch. all the regulation says is that if her lunch is lacking, they must provide what is missing. so this is really on the school, not the state.

3/12/2013 12:35:55 PM

The financial incentive is present in every school though, so it's a phenomenon that you will see repeated. And it's a situation created by the state, through "voluntary" grants that are anything but.

3/12/2013 12:43:11 PM

well that requirement is for pre-k and not all schools, and it also doesn't prohibit outside food. so you still haven't supported your point.

where are schools prohibiting outside food? it wouldn't be okay if they did, but i think people are upset about something that isn't happening.

3/12/2013 12:58:26 PM

I agree. I think all children should receive all three meals from the government each day. It will make them better soldiers. A good investment.

3/12/2013 1:07:40 PM

agree with who? 0 people are saying that.

go away troll

3/12/2013 1:11:10 PM

3/12/2013 1:13:33 PM

Quote :

"where are schools prohibiting outside food? it wouldn't be okay if they did, but i think people are upset about something that isn't happening."

Apparently in Chicago:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chicago-school-bans-homemade-lunches-latest-national-food-20110411-092947-380.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school

Some schools are doing it they claim because of allergies, though even there they talk about "making people healthier": http://www.peanutallergy.com/news/food-allergy-news/more-schools-ban-all-outside-food-in-effort-to-avoid-allergens

3/12/2013 1:24:19 PM

I wonder how long that lasted, that's crazy

3/12/2013 1:26:31 PM

I agree, dtown. It's the schools' responsibility to look after these children's diets when the parents are incapable. There is no more noble goal of government than to shepherd the citizens.

3/12/2013 1:33:48 PM

Clearly anarchy is preferable. No middle ground is acceptable.

(banning all lunches is fucking nuts, and school-age peanut allergy kids should be able to avoid other people's lunch)

3/12/2013 1:58:14 PM

Why is it nuts? Schools are controlled environments. The courts have ruled again and again that schools may control what students wear, what they do, and even their speech. Why should food be any different? Schools are our last, best hope to save the next generation. We can't risk losing them to ignorance just because of some "freedoms".

3/12/2013 3:38:43 PM

People have a tendency to eat and drink everything in front of them, regardless of whether or not they're full.

If you force them to get a refill, it psychologically deters them from getting more, and thus they consume less calories.

3/12/2013 6:08:10 PM

Exactly! It's the smart man's burden to save these cows from their own simple habits. Obesity is one of the few epidemics that can very easily be legislated away. Just like color-blindness.

3/12/2013 6:39:44 PM

Are you saying that obesity is solely caused by genetics? I didn't know you could go color-blind from watching too much TV. Obesity actually IS one of the easiest epidemic to legislate away. It is a public health issue. Government has every right to try to deal with it, the only question that is even up for debate is where the government's reach end.

3/12/2013 7:13:11 PM

Mandatory rationing for obesity, selective female castration for R/G color-blindness. Problems solved.

3/12/2013 7:37:25 PM

Quote :

"Clearly anarchy is preferable. No middle ground is acceptable. "

3/12/2013 8:09:28 PM

Middle ground becomes anarchy.

[Edited on March 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM. Reason : Or tyranny, more likely.]

3/12/2013 8:13:58 PM

No it doesnt

3/12/2013 9:20:40 PM

smc is a troll, ignore him

3/12/2013 11:06:24 PM

I figured as much

3/12/2013 11:58:57 PM

Why is it the schools' job to provide food for school children? If the parents of the children can't provide appropriate FOOD for their children then social services should take their children away from them.

Use the government money on something more beneficial.

3/13/2013 11:50:16 AM

Are you equally opposed to free/reduced cost lunch programs?

3/13/2013 11:51:10 AM

yes. why is it the government's job to provide a bare necessity for someone's child?

3/13/2013 11:56:46 AM

You're objection isn't that its not always applied well, and probably has some fraud, your objection is that the program's very intention is bad? Wow dude, that's dumb. Child nutrition is linked to learning, kids need to eat or they can't learn. It's why one of the first things you do at a school in a developing country is start a lunch program.

3/13/2013 12:04:22 PM

i'm not disagreeing that proper nutrition is important. I'm failing to see why children remain in the custody of their parents if they can't even provide the most basic of necessities for them.

3/13/2013 12:36:43 PM

why are you limiting it to assistance at schools, by your logic no one receiving SNAP or any government aid should keep their children

3/13/2013 12:39:29 PM

Quote :

"i'm not disagreeing that proper nutrition is important. I'm failing to see why children remain in the custody of their parents if they can't even provide the most basic of necessities for them."

I think you're just being argumentative for the sake thereof.

You can't honestly think it would be easier for society to take children away from parents who don't provide them with healthy lunches than to spend some money making sure an optional healthy lunch is available if they need it.

3/13/2013 1:03:47 PM

But fostering children doesn't cost the government anything!

3/13/2013 1:30:34 PM

In unrelated sugar news:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/big-sugar-bailout-usda-to-buy-400000-pou

3/13/2013 5:44:09 PM

Quote :

"This isn't ideal because we as a society share health resources (and would under any system)."

We share health resources because of gov't action and interference.

Also, if we got rid of the corn sugar subsidy, then this would be a non-issue, as the cost of the HFCS would be much higher, removing the incentive to stick it in every damned thing the food companies can find. Yet, as usual, liberals can't see the forest for the trees and instead offer intrusive solutions to fix the problems created by their previous "great ideas."

3/14/2013 6:49:53 PM