San Francisco bans 'Happy Meals' - (I'm personally conflicted)

Live_Free_Or_Die said:
I support a nationwide ban of happy meals. Every kid in Amerika should have first hand experience with benevolent government.
Click to expand...
If I may give some advice to the Liberty movement on issues like this, even though, believe it or not, I'd actually end up voting against a ban like this, the LM would sound a lot better to potential "new recruits" by saying even though this is not the proper role of government, it does bring up an issue that is plaguing our society and since the LM promotes voluntary community-based education advocacy (or whatever) over government laws concerning these types of issues, the LM movements needs to step up and start warning and educating society about the dangers of eating a bad diet, such as Happy Meals (ie slow death meals).
 
brandon said:
You seem to have an irrational fear of happy meals. Everyone I know ate happy meals growing up and we are all just fine. Life expectancy is at an all time high.
Click to expand...
Yes, life expectancy is at an all time high, BUT child obesity and people being sicker than ever is at an all high time too. I don't think the last two are much to brag about.
 
GreenLP said:
If I may give some advice to the Liberty movement on issues like this, even though, believe it or not, I'd actually end up voting against a ban like this, the LM would sound a lot better to potential "new recruits" by saying even though this is not the proper role of government, it does bring up an issue that is plaguing our society and since the LM promotes voluntary community-based education advocacy (or whatever) over government laws concerning these types of issues, the LM movements needs to step up and start warning and educating society about the dangers of eating a bad diet, such as Happy Meals (ie slow death meals).
Click to expand...

the LM has been growing exponentially for the last two years. I don't think it should adopt "a healthy diet" as a new platform.

The Liberty Movement is about one thing, Liberty. The city of San Francisco is well within the Constitution to ban Happy Meals. Libertarians may not agree with the law, but it is not unconstitutional. If the federal government decided to ban Happy Meals, that would be unconstitutional.

The Liberty Movement has stepped up and started warning society about the dangers of tyranny.

Tyranny is far more hazardous to your health than a Happy Meal.
 
To stop childhood obesity, one would imagine it would be more effective to ban the Xbox, PS3 consoles, computer games and Cartoon Network than Happy Meals. Kids do a lot of sitting.
 
I have three kids and they are not allowed to eat happy meals as long as I can stop them, ie. paying for them out of my pocket. I'm sure there will come a day when they have their own money while still a minor in the eyes of the law and have an opportunity to buy a happy meal but I'm confident that they will decline based on their education on the subject from me. Besides my kids don't like McDonalds or Burger King or Taco Bell or any fast foods now as it is. They also think cigarettes stink and alcohol tastes like shit. This is not because the government said so. What so many fail to realize is the government never just bans things you find bad it starts banning everything.

I was having lunch with a coworker yesterday and he said:

"I have noticed a direct correlation between the downfall of society and the banning of lawn jarts."

While that is far from true and I could tell he was only kidding, I could only help but think: Who has been saved by banning lawn jarts? And why not ban regular darts? I mean most people who throw darts are in bars getting drunk. It just stands on it's head as ridiculous.
 
happy meals

GreenLP said:
Kinda has a different connotation now, doesn't it?


Not a good analogy. Let's all be honest and admit McDonald's including toys in their meal boxes are akin to a drug dealer tangling a toy to entice kids to come buy their product.
Click to expand...

Mcdonalds food is crap. It is bad for you. They put toys in them to try and induce kids to eat that crap and many kids do.

So what?

It is not the proper role of government to police lifestyles. It is the proper role of government (at MOST) to prevent force and fraud.

Government probably does more to induce obesity than any other force. Public schools in which children are forced to be sedentary and drugged if they refuse, subsidies and tariffs that promote bad food and inhibit good, subsidies that cover the medical costs of the obese, rules that make medical products that could help with obesity unavailable, etc. It is rank hypocrisy for government to style itself champion of public health.
 
Nate-ForLiberty said:
Parents haven't been doing a good job on a lot of things. Government cannot save your from yourself. It has a limited role of preserving liberty.
Click to expand...

I blame public education, to a certain degree...since it's "Free" and you don't have much of a choice, it becomes a glorified babysitting service....so I'm really not surprised to see obesity and a number of other social issues really explode in recent years...it seems like a logical conclusion to public education, to me.
 
Fox McCloud said:
I blame public education, to a certain degree...since it's "Free" and you don't have much of a choice, it becomes a glorified babysitting service....so I'm really not surprised to see obesity and a number of other social issues really explode in recent years...it seems like a logical conclusion to public education, to me.
Click to expand...

i have no idea what you are saying here :D please clarify.
 
This is ridiculous. It's none of the city's business what people are feeding their children or if they get toys with their food. Parents are not simply babysitters for the state or whatever city they live in. I don't want kids eating that crap on a regular basis but it's none of my business. I DO feed my kids fast food, very rarely, and that's my business.

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.
Click to expand...

My definition of "food justice" is letting people eat whatever they want and keeping your nose out of it. Let them buy their own food and pay their own medical bills and shut up.
 
GreenLP said:
With child obesity being an epidemic, it looks like parents haven't been doing a good job lately on nutrition-related issues.
Click to expand...

... to your satisfaction.

You're also assuming the obesity epidemic would be reversed, fixed, or even slightly bettered by fast food not bringing a toy. You asked Nate earlier when the last time was that he purchased a Happy Meal just for the toy. When was the last time a child purchased a Happy Meal just for a toy? Usually it's the parents doing the buying. On the off chance there's a child who has the money to spend on a Happy Meal, the odds are they were hungry which is what led to the purchase.

There's a lot more wrong than Happy Meals, and an intrusive Government is far more hazardous to one's health than the notion that advertising and incentives might draw one to purchase a meal that's "unhealthy." As a nutrionist, you might know that there are very few foods that are just blanketly dangerous on their own. It's the frequency of the food, the combination of that food with a lifestyle of sitting around doing nothing, and the mixing of various nutritionally imbalanced foods that are the big culprits. Notice none of those things is resolved by banning Happy Meals. Notice that the parents can still buy "child-sized" meals if they'd like (the kids just won't get the awful toy inside).
 
If I am understanding this correctly -- and I'd like to think that I am -- it appears that the only part of the "happy meal" that they banned was the "happy" part, while leaving the unhealthy high levels of calories, sugar and fat "meal" portion intact and legal. Is that correct?


.
 
specsaregood said:
If I am understanding this correctly -- and I'd like to think that I am -- it appears that the only part of the "happy meal" that they banned was the "happy" part, while leaving the unhealthy high levels of calories, sugar and fat "meal" portion intact and legal. Is that correct?


.
Click to expand...

Yeah , best I can tell , San Fransisco home of Pelosi is only anti - happiness .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DamianTV
San Francisco, Oakland Mull Facial Recognition Bans
Replies
1
Views
419
pmbug
pmbug
F
McDonald's Defeats the San Francisco Happy Meal Ban
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
jkob
J
Rael
McDonald's: Apple slices in every Happy Meal
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
Freedom 4 all
Freedom 4 all
heavenlyboy34
McDonald's deep 6-ing Ronald
Replies
7
Views
291
heavenlyboy34
heavenlyboy34
R
San Fran Happy Meal Ban
Replies
2
Views
651
MelissaWV
MelissaWV
Back
Top