city "bans" fast food meals w/toys

[wapiti]

In fact, I would be just fine with a blanket ban that says no marketing anything to children, regardless of the product.

How would one define "marketing to children"? Just "free" toys in boxes? what would the standard be? Do we, as a city/state/country, really want to go there? That seems like an awful lot of speech infringement - what color and font and pictures I can use on my box of cereal/soap/sauce/crayons. What about toys - should one not be allowed to sell toys at all? Or only packaged in serious, adult colors?

 

What if it were a particularly nutritious product? Would we allow organic granola to have a bear on the box or a toy inside?

 

I haven't looked at the relevant caselaw in more than 15 yrs (LOL even then I didn't exactly work hard in that class) but my gut tells me the city may have a very hard time with the first amendment.

[pqr]

So what you're saying is that we should not be able to use legislation to make our communities better places to live?

 

We have *laws* against burning people alive.

 

 

No, what I am saying is that idiocy as demonstrated in San Francisco is an infringement that is uncessary, will probably be found to be illegal, and is demonstrative of the stupidity of an element of our society that thinks it knows better than the rest of us.

 

As to laws, it appeared that your argument was that if the people want it then they can pass a law to achieve it, ergo if the people of a city decided that they wanted to impose such punishments they should be free to pass a law and do so. Mine was that this is not true.

Edited November 11, 2010 by pqr

[creekland]

And if the majority of PEOPLE of SF are for this, then I applaud them for making their lives the way they want them to be.

 

I fully disagree. The majority should not have power over the minority in matters that DO NOT affect them. "Joe & Susie" buying their child a Happy Meal to get the toy DOES NOT affect anyone else even if they do it every day.

 

What if the majority were to say no tattoos/piercings? What if the majority were to say girls must wear dresses? What if the majority were to say women shouldn't go to drinking establishments? What if the majority doesn't like ____ music? There are oodles more that could be stated.

 

NO! NO! NO! That is not the America I want to live in. I'm a minority at times and I WANT my rights. If what I am doing does not affect you or public property the majority should have NO RIGHT to say I can't do it. Kids are not public property.

[Barry Goldwater]

I fully disagree. The majority should not have power over the minority in matters that DO NOT affect them. "Joe & Susie" buying their child a Happy Meal to get the toy DOES NOT affect anyone else even if they do it every day.

 

What if the majority were to say no tattoos/piercings? What if the majority were to say girls must wear dresses? What if the majority were to say women shouldn't go to drinking establishments? What if the majority doesn't like ____ music? There are oodles more that could be stated.

 

 

Imagine the outrage if 'Frisco had voted to curtail or outlaw other, more risky lifestyle choices that directly affect its other residents...

 

NO! NO! NO! That is not the America I want to live in. I'm a minority at times and I WANT my rights. If what I am doing does not affect you or public property the majority should have NO RIGHT to say I can't do it. Kids are not public property.

 

:iagree:

 

In fact our Founding Fathers, when crafting the US Constitution, were frightfully leary of "Direct Democracy" and did quite a bit to ensure that we didn't have too much of it, for the exact reasons you cite.

[pqr]

Kids are not public property.

 

no....but some here seem to think that they are government property.

 

Your comments were very nicely put.

[wapiti]

But they are advertising the meals as healthy.

Then this is the speech that would need to be addressed, not the inclusion of the toy.

 

The city could avoid the speech issue altogether by a blanket sale of the food altogether. Or only maybe on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays if their goal is to limit consumption. Or at least it wouldn't violate the first amendment; I hadn't thought about others.

[Barry Goldwater]

no....but some here seem to think that they are government property.

 

 

 

Indeed.

[EKS]

No, what I am saying is that idiocy as demonstrated in San Francisco is an infringement that is uncessary, will probably be found to be illegal, and is demonstrative of the stupidity of an element of our society that thinks it knows better than the rest of us.

 

As to laws, it appeared that your argument was that if the people want it then they can pass a law to achieve it, ergo if the people of a city decided that they wanted to impose such punishments they should be free to pass a law and do so. Mine was that this is not true.

 

You didn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again:

 

So what you're saying is that we should not be able to use legislation to make our communities better places to live?

[wapiti]

So what you're saying is that we should not be able to use legislation to make our communities better places to live?

There are constitutional limits on what legislation can do.

[Murphy101]

You know what absolutely kills me in these threads? How people yell that they don't want Gov being Big Brother, and yet they have happily let the Supreme Court sell their freedom to the highest payers, ( thanks to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts) with not a screech to be heard.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

 

Actually the comment section showed considerable dislike of it. I think it shouldn't have happened.

 

You didn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again:

 

So what you're saying is that we should not be able to use legislation to make our communities better places to live?

 

Only rarely. Roads? Yes. Parks? Yes. 911 and fire service? Yes. Toys banned from a box of food? No.

[Murphy101]

There are constitutional limits on what legislation can do.

 

Pesky constitution, I'm sure some think we should legislate it to a trash bin.

[EKS]

There are constitutional limits on what legislation can do.

 

We have laws against selling certain things. How is this any different?

[pqr]

You didn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again:

 

So what you're saying is that we should not be able to use legislation to make our communities better places to live?

 

Provided they do not infringe on the rights of others.... certainly we should and do. This case however infringes on the rights of a company to conduct commerce, the right of the parent to choose what their child will eat and in essence the right of a parent to raise their child without the interference of some faceless bureaucrat.

 

I answered your question so tell me do support the right of a community to ban say some books or facial tattoos or women outdoors without an escort.

 

Some could make an argument that all these all make for a better place to live. In many places on this globe the community has decided that the first and third example are necessary for a better place to live. If this is what the people want do you support it?

How about when the individual say no?

Should he be punished?

When the manager at MacDonalds says this is trip and gives a kid a toy with his meal what do we do then?

 

The law is silly and there is no solid argument to support it. The law is a feel good measure and example of unnecessary interference.

[EKS]

Only rarely. Roads? Yes. Parks? Yes. 911 and fire service? Yes. Toys banned from a box of food? No.

 

I'm guessing that the vast majority of laws around the country are aimed ultimately at making our communities better places to live.

[wapiti]

We have laws against selling certain things. How is this any different?

 

A law against selling something does not violate the first amendment, for one thing (at least inso far that such law isn't about marketing but the actual sale).

 

The closest example I can come up with so far is cigarettes. What I don't know, since I haven't bothered to look it up, is whether the cigarette companies stopped marketing to children as a result of legislation or settlement agreement. Even if it was legislation, the situation is distinguishable because there is a ban on selling cigarettes to minors.

 

In this case, there is no ban on the sale of fast food to children or any prohibition on children consuming fast food. Why is that, probably because it is unlikely to pass even the city council of SF. I think the way the city is going about this is the big problem, from a first amendment perspective.

[EKS]

Provided they do not infringe on the rights of others.... certainly we should and do. This case however infringes on the rights of a company to conduct commerce, the right of the parent to choose what their child will eat and in essence the right of a parent to raise their child without the interference of some faceless bureaucrat.

 

I answered your question so tell me do support the right of a community to ban say some books or facial tattoos or women outdoors without an escort.

 

Some could make an argument that all these all make for a better place to live. In many places on this globe the community has decided that the first and third example are necessary for a better place to live. If this is what the people want do you support it?

How about when the individual say no?

Should he be punished?

When the manager at MacDonalds says this is trip and gives a kid a toy with his meal what do we do then?

 

The law is silly and there is no solid argument to support it. The law is a feel good measure and example of unnecessary interference.

 

No, I don't support the banning of books, or tattoos, or women outdoors without an escort.

 

But there are tons of laws restricting the sale of things. For example, why is it illegal to sell marijuana, but it is legal to sell alcohol? The law is silly and there is not solid argument to support it. On both counts.

[Barry Goldwater]

You didn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again:

 

So what you're saying is that we should not be able to use legislation to make our communities better places to live?

 

Not speaking for PQR, but just me...

 

That is NOT the purpose of legislation, in a free country.

[pqr]

No, I don't support the banning of books, or tattoos, or women outdoors without an escort.

 

.

 

...but given your logic why should a community not be allowed to ban books or unescorted women. You said that a community should be able to make laws that make it a "better place." Who decides what a "better place" is? If San Francisco wants a "better place" without Happy Meal toys why should another town not want a "better place" without....say the Lady Chatterly's Lover? What is the difference?

 

The question insinuated as to why you believe this when it seems to be at odds with your logic and initial premise.

[Murphy101]

We have laws against selling certain things. How is this any different?

 

Actually very. It's not an illegal drug, nor is it a known health threat, nor it is fraudulently labeled or dangerously defective. Normally, those are the only situations that cause govt to step in on what can be sold or how it can be sold.

 

 

I answered your question so tell me do support the right of a community to ban say some books or facial tattoos or women outdoors without an escort.

 

The law is silly and there is no solid argument to support it. The law is a feel good measure and example of unnecessary interference.

 

Or a more direct example. They won't have the cajones to actually ban it. No, they will just say anyone who wants to sell a certain style book has to give it an unappealing cover and not advertise it or put it at eye level on the shelf.

Women can go out without an escort, but they have to take a certain extended path, or pay a tax, or use a special service.

Women can buy any clothes they want, but let's charge a huge tax on anything above the knee or elbow. Or colorful, black burkas though are going to be dirt cheap. This will encourage all the stupid poor people to dress better. Oh and it might help curb their populations too!

 

I agree. The law is silly.

 

But the implications of that mentality sure are not.

[Murphy101]

No, I don't support the banning of books, or tattoos, or women outdoors without an escort.

 

But there are tons of laws restricting the sale of things. For example, why is it illegal to sell marijuana, but it is legal to sell alcohol? The law is silly and there is not solid argument to support it. On both counts.

 

Because it is proven that every use of pot impairs the user to some extent, at least temporally.

 

Most people can have a glass of wine or a beer with their dinner and not be impaired. Thus the laws are geared towards those who use in excess, not the product itself.

[Retired]

Nanny State arriving....

 

(Is anyone shocked that San Francisco is leading this wave?)

 

 

:iagree:

[EKS]

...but given your logic why should a community not be allowed to ban books or unescorted women. You said that a community should be able to make laws that make it a "better place." Who decides what a "better place" is? If San Francisco wants a "better place" without Happy Meal toys why should another town not want a "better place" without....say the Lady Chatterly's Lover? What is the difference?

 

The question insinuated as to why you believe this when it seems to be at odds with your logic and initial premise.

 

The problem is that the issue is more complicated than that. There are tons of laws that are focused on making communities better places to live.

[creekland]

I'm guessing that the vast majority of laws around the country are aimed ultimately at making our communities better places to live.

 

Having a lot mandating stopping at stop signs betters the whole community. We can't have people making up their own road rules for public safety. Having a rule limiting business air or water output benefits the whole community. We all breathe the air and drink/bathe in the water. Having laws restricting smoking works the same way with air pollution.

 

Having a law saying a company can't put a toy in with an "unhealthy" meal does not benefit the whole community. It satisfies the desires of the majority voting. It does what THEY FEEL is right and imposes their beliefs on everyone. What the majority wants should NEVER interfere with the rights of the minority.

 

Some want to say it's a major health issue (I disagree, but anyway). Even if it were, so are tons of other things. Alcohol kills more people. Perhaps the majority should bring back prohibition (tried that once in history). Promiscuity (of all types) spreads diseases (costing health $$) and wrecks families as well as affecting job performance. Pass a law and ban it. Extreme sports put several kids in the doctor's offices or hospitals each year. Heck, so does any competitive sport. Many grown ups who were competitive as youngsters feel the pain as they get older (I do - competitive track and horseback riding here). Let's ban them. The health care involved costs too much and is bad for people. Flag football (and similar) will be the only type allowed now. White bread is unhealthy. Ban it.

 

Actually, life is 100% terminal. Should we ban that too?

 

I'd rather have fun with life and have personal "relaxed" rules. I play what I want. I eat what I want. If it takes a year or two or ten off my life I'm ok with that. I'd rather LIVE and be happy than make certain choices I don't like and live longer with them. We take some risks in our family. We scuba dive. We hike tricky trails. We ride horses. And we don't always eat healthy. And we like toys appropriate to our preferences and ages.

 

Sorry, I don't want somebody else who chooses to live their life differently telling me I can't do what I want to do or raise my kids enjoying the same things I enjoy. I don't do it to others. I might disagree, but I allow them to follow their own likes/dislikes, etc. I wish everyone would. That's what tolerance is supposed to be.

[cdrumm4448]

I fully disagree. The majority should not have power over the minority in matters that DO NOT affect them. "Joe & Susie" buying their child a Happy Meal to get the toy DOES NOT affect anyone else even if they do it every day.

 

What if the majority were to say no tattoos/piercings? What if the majority were to say girls must wear dresses? What if the majority were to say women shouldn't go to drinking establishments? What if the majority doesn't like ____ music? There are oodles more that could be stated.

 

NO! NO! NO! That is not the America I want to live in. I'm a minority at times and I WANT my rights. If what I am doing does not affect you or public property the majority should have NO RIGHT to say I can't do it. Kids are not public property.

 

I see what you are saying. And I agree. I was thinking that SF is so very different from my municipality that something like this wouldn't ever be supported here and I wouldn't have to worry about it. But, when you consider all the ways it could be expanded, it's just more control.

[Murphy101]

The problem is that the issue is more complicated than that. There are tons of laws that are focused on making communities better places to live.

 

Such as?

 

There's lots of laws for safer communities.

 

Speed regulations, animal control,..

 

There's maintenance laws..

Don't litter, don't vandalize, no graffiti

[pqr]

The problem is that the issue is more complicated than that. There are tons of laws that are focused on making communities better places to live.

 

So you are ducking the question. It seems that your premise is at odds with your belief.

 

I oppose it just as I oppose laws against facial tattoos (and I think little of tattoos) and just as I would oppose a law that did not allow an unescorted woman to leave the house. I propose that I am more consistent with my arguments.

[MelanieM]

No, what I am saying is that idiocy as demonstrated in San Francisco is an infringement that is uncessary, will probably be found to be illegal, and is demonstrative of the stupidity of an element of our society that thinks it knows better than the rest of us.

 

Not like you thinking you know better than anyone that agrees with this particular regulation, right?

 

I fully disagree. The majority should not have power over the minority in matters that DO NOT affect them. "Joe & Susie" buying their child a Happy Meal to get the toy DOES NOT affect anyone else even if they do it every day.

 

Assuming that diet does have an impact on health, which I think most everyone is in agreement over, then one could argue that it does indeed affect everyone if the masses are consuming fast food as a staple part of their diet. A slightly different issue than the one on the table here, but I think a case could be made on these grounds for eliminating fast food all together.

 

We have laws against selling certain things. How is this any different?

 

Right. I don't get the uproar around regulations for what you can and cannot market to children in a food establishment, when lots of similar regulations already exist. (Again, with understanding that some people favour no regulations on anything, which would not exhibit the same level of hipocrosy.)

 

Because it is proven that every use of pot impairs the user to some extent, at least temporally.

 

Most people can have a glass of wine or a beer with their dinner and not be impaired. Thus the laws are geared towards those who use in excess, not the product itself.

 

I respectfully disagree. Not every use of pot impairs every person, and not every person can have one drink and be fine. It simply isn't as cut and dry as that, no matter what the propoganda says.

[EKS]

Such as?

 

 

 

Noise ordinances

Laws regarding debt

Prostitution laws

Laws against theft

Zoning regulations

School attendance laws

[cdrumm4448]

This is one of the most interesting threads I have ever read on this board.

[EKS]

So you are ducking the question. It seems that your premise is at odds with your belief.

 

I oppose it just as I oppose laws against facial tattoos (and I think little of tattoos) and just as I would oppose a law that did not allow an unescorted woman to leave the house. I propose that I am more consistent with my arguments.

 

Perhaps you are. But consistency isn't necessarily superior.

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

No, what I am saying is that idiocy as demonstrated in San Francisco is an infringement that is uncessary, will probably be found to be illegal, and is demonstrative of the stupidity of an element of our society that thinks it knows better than the rest of us.

Not like you thinking you know better than anyone that agrees with this particular regulation, right?

.

 

No, as I care not a whit if YOU buy a Happy Meal of not. It is the element that cares if I buy buy one that I have an issue with.

 

I do know that I have a right to raise my children without interference from those who deem themselves my betters.

[LibraryLover]

I was really hoping the reason they were banned was because they were trying to save the planet from polluting factories that make crap, and/or some city was taking a stand against child slave labor.

 

Not so.

[Barry Goldwater]

Originally Posted by pqr

No, what I am saying is that idiocy as demonstrated in San Francisco is an infringement that is uncessary, will probably be found to be illegal, and is demonstrative of the stupidity of an element of our society that thinks it knows better than the rest of us.

 

 

No, as I care not a whit if YOU buy a Happy Meal of not. It is the element that cares if I buy buy one that I have an issue with.

 

I do know that I have a right to raise my children without interference from those who deem themselves my betters.

 

 

Not to mention, liberty WORKS BETTER than centralized control...the historical evidence is overwhelming.

[Barry Goldwater]

This is one of the most interesting threads I have ever read on this board.

 

2nd day in a row that I'm craving a Big Mac meal...Heading to the drive-thru again, anyone want anything?:D

[Murphy101]

Assuming that diet does have an impact on health, which I think most everyone is in agreement over, then one could argue that it does indeed affect everyone if the masses are consuming fast food as a staple part of their diet. A slightly different issue than the one on the table here, but I think a case could be made on these grounds for eliminating fast food all together.

 

And you know what? If they could develop SOLID science study that that is in fact the case, then I'd respect that more than this backdoor bs. But they can't. Because truth is there's nothing wrong with having a big Mac. Even once a week. Science doesn't support that. The science says it isn't about what you eat even as frequently as twice a week. It's about a lifestyle, an ongoing daily problem.

 

I respectfully disagree. Not every use of pot impairs every person, and not every person can have one drink and be fine. It simply isn't as cut and dry as that, no matter what the propoganda says.

 

Bullchips. Every use of pot at least temporarily affects the user.

I didn't say every person can have a drink and be fine. I said MOST people can have a glass of wine or beer with their dinner and be fine.

 

When it affects people nearly every time, esp if even in small amounts, it makes sense to target the product.

When it affects a minority or it only has an affect when over consumed, it makes sense to target the irresponsible users.

 

Thus alcohol is legal, but being drunk in public or while driving is not.

[creekland]

2nd day in a row that I'm craving a Big Mac meal...Heading to the drive-thru again, anyone want anything?:D

 

Nah, today we're doing a pizza buffet for lunch. It's probably worse for me health-wise and I DON'T CARE! It'll taste good and mean I don't have to cook supper as we won't be hungry. I'll probably peel a couple of pomegranates for supper. Then the kids will have snack at youth group. I seriously doubt that will be healthy either - and I hope they have a good time enjoying it!

 

Enjoying life is FAR more important than living forever around here.

 

That said, yes, some of our meals are healthy and we enjoy them too. The ONLY thing I do for health that I don't like is drink fresh brewed green tea for most lunches when I'm home. It's as far as I'll go with doing things I don't like as far as eating is concerned.

[pqr]

Nah, today we're doing a pizza buffet for lunch. It's probably worse for me health-wise and I DON'T CARE! It'll taste good and mean I don't have to cook supper as we won't be hungry. I'll probably peel a couple of pomegranates for supper. Then the kids will have snack at youth group. I seriously doubt that will be healthy either - and I hope they have a good time enjoying it!

 

Enjoying life is FAR more important than living forever around here.

 

That said, yes, some of our meals are healthy and we enjoy them too. The ONLY thing I do for health that I don't like is drink fresh brewed green tea for most lunches when I'm home. It's as far as I'll go with doing things I don't like as far as eating is concerned.

 

See the powers that be are passing these laws to protect your children from YOU!!!!! You, Creekland, should fall on your knees and thank them, they are so much smarter than you, or I, ever could be. Just ask them, they will tell you.

 

I think I will move to San Francisco today.

Edited November 11, 2010 by pqr

[Murphy101]

Noise ordinances

Laws regarding debt

Prostitution laws

Laws against theft

Zoning regulations

School attendance laws

 

With the exception of school attendance, which i don't think should exist, every one of those directly affect everyone in the community. Debt assures we don't relive 17th century debtors prisons, slave or indentured servitude, and that lenders, in theory, operate ethically. Tho I'd argue debt laws usually are framed to protect against huge financial losses in communities. I think it is reasonable to expect the police to deal with theft. Unless you are pro theft I guess. For the most part, those are clear cut issues of public protection.

 

I'd be willing to cross prostitution off tho. Not because I'm for it, but bc the notion that being a slut is okay unless you make $20 seems ridiculous to me. It's a nasty business tho and I can understand the many reasons why it is made illegal or regulated.

 

Perhaps you are. But consistency isn't necessarily superior.

 

:lol: actually, yes it is. Otherwise you are pro random whatever the heck feels right that day law making. Which you might be. Idk. But I know I am not.

 

 

2nd day in a row that I'm craving a Big Mac meal...Heading to the drive-thru again, anyone want anything?:D

 

Ick. I actually have never in my life eaten McD unless having a pregnancy craving. I think it's nasty. Except for their fries, but I'm not going someplace just for fries. Too lazy. :) But when pregnant, I LOVE an order of fries and a cheeseburger. I hate those cheeseburgers, but baby loves the nasty things.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Martha

[creekland]

See the powers that be are passing these laws to protect your children from YOU!!!!! You, Creekland, should fall on your knees and thank them, thay are so much smarter than you, or I, ever could be. Just ask them, they will tell you.

 

I think I will move to San Francisco today.

 

Yep, that is their intent, but they won't succeed. I've already had my kids long enough to teach why I believe what I believe (a LIVED life is better than a LONG life) and they agree with it. I think we first had that discussion shortly after 9/11 when we hopped on an airplane. Later it was re-visited when a friend of theirs asked them if they knew how many helicopters crashed right before we were to take a helicopter tour. Then we get warnings about sharks in the ocean whenever we talk about diving and all sorts of things that could go wrong. Let's not even start with the fact that we have 16 ponies here on our farm and what could happen there.

 

You know what? Those things might happen to us someday. If so, so be it. I don't want to sit at home eating healthy ALL THE TIME while getting exercise in a gym watching TV or listening to an Ipod. I want to LIVE by MY definition of living, not someone else deciding it for me.

 

My oldest is in college now and thoroughly enjoying hiking/caving and similar things there too. He plans to live in an underdeveloped country when he graduates. It's what he wants to do. I say, GO FOR IT. The Happy Meals he ate and toys he played with as a kid will have no bearing on his planned future. The "live your life" philosophy will.

[cdrumm4448]

2nd day in a row that I'm craving a Big Mac meal...Heading to the drive-thru again, anyone want anything?:D

 

Actually, we've already been to McDonald's this week. DD got a Happy Meal and DS got a McRib (which he now asks for every day-guess what I tell him.)

[Impish]

I haven't read all 25 pages, but would just like to say that here, I can buy the toy regardless of what meal I'm getting. Is $2 more or some jazz, but its not like the toy isn't available.

 

That being the case, all I forsee is more profits to McDs, as the parents continue to buy the toy that used to accompany the meal.

[MelanieM]

Originally Posted by pqr

No, as I care not a whit if YOU buy a Happy Meal of not. It is the element that cares if I buy buy one that I have an issue with.

 

 

You know, I am actually quite happy to hear your stance on this, pqr. I would have pegged many people here as being against gay marriage, or legalized marijuana, a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, legalized prostitution...etc. I'm quite happy to learn that you're only actually concerned with what directly impacts you and don't give a hoot what someone else does in their own lives. Good stuff.

 

2nd day in a row that I'm craving a Big Mac meal...Heading to the drive-thru again, anyone want anything?:D

 

We went to McDonalds yesterday where the kids got Happy Meals and toys, so we're good. It really is true that there's no such thing as bad publicity, eh?

 

And you know what? If they could develop SOLID science study that that is in fact the case, then I'd respect that more than this backdoor bs. But they can't. Because truth is there's nothing wrong with having a big Mac. Even once a week. Science doesn't support that. The science says it isn't about what you eat even as frequently as twice a week. It's about a lifestyle, an ongoing daily problem.

 

I think there's a lot of research to support the idea that a regular fast food diet is unhealthy, and also that marketing to kids is problematic in general. However, I'm not committed enough to trying to "win" this debate to go and dig up all sorts of statistics. Also, I usually don't hold with statistics much so I'd be a hypocrit to walk down that road in any case.

 

Bullchips. Every use of pot at least temporarily affects the user.

I didn't say every person can have a drink and be fine. I said MOST people can have a glass of wine or beer with their dinner and be fine.

 

When it affects people nearly every time, esp if even in small amounts, it makes sense to target the product.

When it affects a minority or it only has an affect when over consumed, it makes sense to target the irresponsible users.

 

Thus alcohol is legal, but being drunk in public or while driving is not.

 

Sorry, this just isn't true. There are many ways to partake of marijuana and not all of them impact a user in the way you're inferring. For example, it can be a wonderful pain medication that has no impact at all on cognitive abilities, response time, etc. There are lots of reasons why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't, but what you're suggesting here isn't *accurately* one of them.

 

I haven't read all 25 pages, but would just like to say that here, I can buy the toy regardless of what meal I'm getting. Is $2 more or some jazz, but its not like the toy isn't available.

 

That being the case, all I forsee is more profits to McDs, as the parents continue to buy the toy that used to accompany the meal.

 

 

True story.

[BarbecueMom]

Haven't read the whole thread, so likely someone has brought up these points. I thought of this as I was listening to the radio this morning.

 

1) The only people I know who buy Happy Meals for the toys are the people that try to sell them on eBay when they become "rare". Do parents really buy Happy Meals because of the toy, or because the kids are hungry and it's easier to say "Happy Meal" than order each specific meal item? Is the toy even an issue?

 

2) The Double Cheeseburger Extra Value Meal is $2.99, cheaper than a Happy Meal. If parents really ARE buying H.M.'s because of the toys, and the toy is no longer part of the equation, will they just start buying junior the larger, higher-calorie value meals? Could the toy actually be an incentive to get children to eat the smaller portions?

 

and 3) If the toy isn't the prize in the meal, will McDonald's just replace it with a freshly-baked chocolate chip cookie, McFlurry, or milk shake? Because I'm pretty sure a plastic toy has less fat and sugar than a shamrock shake!

 

That being said, and slightly off topic, what the heck is up with restaurants automatically assuming kids are getting fries as their side dish? We don't get fries for the kids (they're toddlers!) and choose an alternative side, like applesauce or green beans. Every single time, they bring out the kids' meals... either with just fries, or fries IN ADDITION TO whatever side we ordered. Good grief.

[Murphy101]

Haven't read the whole thread, so likely someone has brought up these points. I thought of this as I was listening to the radio this morning.

 

1) The only people I know who buy Happy Meals for the toys are the people that try to sell them on eBay when they become "rare". Do parents really buy Happy Meals because of the toy, or because the kids are hungry and it's easier to say "Happy Meal" than order each specific meal item? Is the toy even an issue?

 

2) The Double Cheeseburger Extra Value Meal is $2.99, cheaper than a Happy Meal. If parents really ARE buying H.M.'s because of the toys, and the toy is no longer part of the equation, will they just start buying junior the larger, higher-calorie value meals? Could the toy actually be an incentive to get children to eat the smaller portions?

 

and 3) If the toy isn't the prize in the meal, will McDonald's just replace it with a freshly-baked chocolate chip cookie, McFlurry, or milk shake? Because I'm pretty sure a plastic toy has less fat and sugar than a shamrock shake!

 

That being said, and slightly off topic, what the heck is up with restaurants automatically assuming kids are getting fries as their side dish? We don't get fries for the kids (they're toddlers!) and choose an alternative side, like applesauce or green beans. Every single time, they bring out the kids' meals... either with just fries, or fries IN ADDITION TO whatever side we ordered. Good grief.

 

:iagree: right down to the fries in restaurants. Even in the nicer ones. In fact, we have taken to ordering off the adult menu and splitting it among two of the kids bc the childrens menu is crap pretty much everywhere.

[TXMary2]

Get me a super sized double quarter pound meal with a diet coke. ;)

 

The Diet Coke is a MUST - it washes away all the fat and calories of the meal. It's true.:D

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

No, as I care not a whit if YOU buy a Happy Meal of not. It is the element that cares if I buy buy one that I have an issue with.

 

You know, I am actually quite happy to hear your stance on this, pqr. I would have pegged many people here as being against gay marriage, or legalized marijuana, a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, legalized prostitution...etc. I'm quite happy to learn that you're only actually concerned with what directly impacts you and don't give a hoot what someone else does in their own lives. Good stuff.

 

 

So now I am some sort of troglodyte because I don't care if someone buys a Happy Meal. Now that is an odd way of looking at it.

[Lolly]

I'm beginning to be of the opinion that our lawmakers are in need of something to do. All the important laws are on the books, so they just make up stupid ones to fill their time and make it look like they, the lawmakers, need to be there. Sometimes, the laws they come up with are so dumb that it makes us think the other way.:glare:

[justamouse]

*snirk*

[mo2]

See the powers that be are passing these laws to protect your children from YOU!!!!! You, Creekland, should fall on your knees and thank them, thay are so much smarter than you, or I, ever could be. Just ask them, they will tell you.

 

I think I will move to San Francisco today.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Mejane]

 

So now I am some sort of troglodyte because I don't care if someone buys a Happy Meal. Now that is an odd way of looking at it.

 

 

 

I believe what MelanieM is saying is that some people have a huge problem with the government interfering in the private lives of its citizens unless those citizens happen to be doing something said people find unsavory. Then it's everybody's business.

 

Not saying YOU, of course. Just some people. ;)