rickyp wrote:I take it that basically you guys (Steve anyways) argue for the status quo.
I don't know that banning home lunch is a great idea, (And its lousy if the food at the school isn't appetizing and healthy) but its an attempt to answer this problem.
With 34% of Americans classified as obese with another 32% deemed medically overweight, it needs to be asked where the kids are expected to learn healthy eating habits if not in school -fully two-thirds of the adults are bad role models in that regard, and simply might not know how to prepare a healthy meal without highcalorie, processed foods. Teaching the kids at a young age the fundamentals of healthy eating, and making sure they eat at least one healthy meal a day, might help to correct what is a rapidly becoming the leading public health risk in North America.
So Steve, is your "leave us alone" attitude actually going to affect positive results in this problem? Or don't you care about the problem?
You don't get it. The government contributes to the problem by refusing to let kids be kids, then decides it will correct the problem for ALL children (even those not in the 34% overweight category). This is not a serious attempt because it is one-prong: the government MUST solve the problem.
Consider the absurdity of it anyway: will the school adopt a "zero tolerance" policy on Twinkies? Will kids be selling homemade cookies on the black market?
This is idiotic--and an unconstitutional usurpation of parental authority.
We live in a country where minors can get abortions without their parents approval or knowledge, but can't buy alcohol or get married. "Kids" of 26 can stay on their parents' health-insurance policy, but they cannot be legally claimed as "dependents."
This makes as much sense as those things: it's too dangerous for kids to "play" and when they get fat as a result, the government will "solve" the problem by forcing everyone onto a diet?
Is there any limit on governmental power? I'm asking--is there any line they cannot cross?