For those of you who oppose the Happy Meal toy ban in SF:

[Catherine]

I saw a news story this morning about OKlahoma, Michigan, and two other states banning beverages with alcohol and caffeine mixed. Do you also oppose the beverage ban?

 

For myself, I guess I see the Happy Meal toy ban as one of hundreds of laws and local ordinances that regulate for the purpose of consumer safety (and parent sanity maybe?) and mostly, I have no problem with it. While I understand the rationale for letting people make their own decisions about food, drinking, or riding a motorocycle without a helmet, I see it as a basic question of reducing pain and suffering. MY BIL died in an motorcycle accident, of a head injury, when he was legally riding without a helmet in a state where that had recently been made legal. To my mind, the benefit to motorcycle riders of going helmet-less doesn't begin to equate to the losses of his family and the suffering they've experienced as a result of his untimely death. So I favor regulations that improve safety as long as there is no serious cost to individuals, or serious threats to the ability of businesses to function.

[Haiku]

I kinda thought that the 'no-government-intervention" folks were mostly against federal government intrusion but believed in strong local governments where the people had more voice, so this whole thing baffles me a little. If the board of supervisors in SF is elected, then they represent the people, and if the people don't like the ban, they can petition the supervisors or vote them out. No harm, no foul.

 

I suspect, though, that this is just a smokescreen for the idea that corporations should have more rights than regular people.

 

Tara

[kewb]

The ban bothers me because I see it as an infringements right of a business owner to operate as it sees fit. It is an infringement on the business owners personal freedoms. The Happy Meal is a legitimate food choice (although not a particularly healthy one). The toy is one of many ways things are marketed. If the people do not want a happy meal with a toy then they should stop buying it. If sales drop consistently the business will say "Oh, this is not selling well. Lets replace it with something more profitable." The people have the power.

 

A law banning the happy meal says "Welcome to the Nanny State. You are too stupid to make good choices and we will make them for you." I do not need the government to protect me from a poor food choice.

[pqr]

. So I favor regulations that improve safety as long as there is no serious cost to individuals, or serious threats to the ability of businesses to function.

 

While many would argue that there must be a "happy" medium the problem is that people go nuts.

 

As tou your support for regulations that improve safety, let me ask you this if we could save 50,000 lives a year by dropping the speed limit to 40 mph, by making alcohol illegal and by mandating that all new cars have governors on them that preclude speeds of over 50 mph would you support this?

 

If we could save 5,000 lives by banning motorcycles would you do that?

 

If we could save 100,000 by banning all tobacco would you do that?

 

If we could save 150,000 by banning all fatty foods, or, God Forbid, mandating that we bacome a nation of vegans would you do that? Surely giving up hamburgers poses no "serious cost to individuals." Once we have given up hamburgers do we really need those hot dogs (do you know what is in them)? Small price to pay for the lives we may save.

 

If we could save 200,000 by giving up all our freedoms would you do that?

 

Your definition of a "serious threat" may be very different from mine and the definition of the nuts in San Francisco is miles away from much of Middle America.

 

We are either free or we are not and any happy medium should come only when we limit behavior that poses a threat to others. Yes we should have speed limits in towns so that some nut can not drive through a neighborhood at 80 mph. Yes we should mandate that foods not contain diseases and not be rotten, but last time I checked people do not eat Happy Meal toys so that is not the issue.

 

MacDonalds food may not be healthy if consumed on a regular basis but that is very different from eating a meal that is laced with e'coli. It is not only the Happy Meal that is being challenged, some twits in NY proposed banning salt in food preparation (they never explained how one them makes bread).

 

The crux of the issue is that if I want to buy my child a Happy Meal WITH a toy that is absolutely no one else's business. It may seem a small thing but it is not. It is some nut deciding how I raise my children and that is outrageous.

[Catherine]

Isn't that interfering with Four Loco's owners opportunities to make money with a legal product on Oklahoma?

 

If you wouldn't mind, can you address the issue of motorcycle helmet laws too? Do you absolutely oppose helmet laws, taking into account the costs and benefits of the laws?

[Haiku]

A law banning the happy meal says "Welcome to the Nanny State. You are too stupid to make good choices and we will make them for you." I do not need the government to protect me from a poor food choice.

 

This isn't about food choices, it's about marketing. And I find it interesting that the day this story broke, another story also broke about how, even though the fast food industry pledged to reduce its marketing to children, said marketing has actually increased.

 

The government isn't protecting people from poor food choices. It is regulating marketing to children. I can choose what my kids eat, and to some degree I can reduce their exposure to marketing, but marketing is every.where.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

I often think Californians don't get how some of the other parts of the country live with regards to food.

 

Which kinda underscores my thinking on this. This is not a national law. It's not a state law. It's a city law (or ordinance or whatever). If that's what people in SF want, more power to them. It has nothing to do with what people in NY want.

 

Tara

[Tea Time]

I saw a news story this morning about OKlahoma, Michigan, and two other states banning beverages with alcohol and caffeine mixed. Do you also oppose the beverage ban?

 

For myself, I guess I see the Happy Meal toy ban as one of hundreds of laws and local ordinances that regulate for the purpose of consumer safety (and parent sanity maybe?) and mostly, I have no problem with it. While I understand the rationale for letting people make their own decisions about food, drinking, or riding a motorocycle without a helmet, I see it as a basic question of reducing pain and suffering. MY BIL died in an motorcycle accident, of a head injury, when he was legally riding without a helmet in a state where that had recently been made legal. To my mind, the benefit to motorcycle riders of going helmet-less doesn't begin to equate to the losses of his family and the suffering they've experienced as a result of his untimely death. So I favor regulations that improve safety as long as there is no serious cost to individuals, or serious threats to the ability of businesses to function.

 

I do not think that there is anywhere near as much risk involved in a happy meal as there is in the things that your are comparing. Nowhere near. Maybe none. The health problems that people are talking about take years to develop, and they take bad habits across the board. Being sedentary is the problem, and this does not address that. It give false ideas about food, ie. you can eat a carrot with your junk and all will be well.

 

The purpose of government is not to ensure the perfect safety of all individuals. It is to maintain order so that people can manage their own lives (at least in the USA). When laws become so oppressive and invasive that people or even corporations cannot follow them or begin to lose money, then innovation and growth are deterred, and small businesses suffer far, far more than corporations when regulations become strangling. This is economics. Government is becoming more and more intrusive at all levels. Laws can be good, yes, but there is reason to believe that some laws are not about ensuring public safety but more about setting up public officials to have power over other people's lives.

 

If parenting is to a point where this law is needed so that parents can say to their kids, "No, Johnny, we can't go to McD to get you a toy because it is illegal." (Whew, I don't have to bend to my child's will thanks to the government!), then things are pretty far beyond bad, IMHO. No, "parent sanity" is not really the issue nor is protecting kids (as demonstrated by the other thread on this board).

 

It is human nature to over eat. It is also human nature to seek power and influence. How 'bout some laws that limit the toys (funds) of politicians??? I think the public just said that it is in favor of THAT. Was anyone listening?

[regentrude]

Cars kill 36,000 people each year. Should the government ban cars?

 

Should the givernment ban motorcycles all toghether? Rock climbing? Red wine? chocolate?

 

Whether to feed your kind junk or not is the parent's choice. (And yes, the parent should have to face the resulting health bills and shoulder responsibility and NOT blame it on the big bad McD).

But the government's job is not to protect people from their own stupidity.

[Catherine]

that would truly limit individual freedoms and pose some cost to individuals that is real. I'm not convinced that local limits on marketing practices are a big step in that direction.

 

But when I look at the history of American efforts to regulate, reasonably, free markets, I don't see disaster looming, far from it. Do you favor eliminating child labor laws? Don't those laws place limits on businesses doing what they need to do to make money? For every extreme example you can cite, there is another that I can cite that makes the opposite point. Why not eliminate the drinking age? Doesn't that place a huge barrier for beer makers and sellers?

 

What I'm saying is that some regulation of free markets is neither new or unreasonable.

[Haiku]

I hope. These things have a way of catching on (especially in NY where they love to make laws).

 

And I'd say that if thy catch on, it's because it's what people want.

 

Tara

[creekland]

I saw a news story this morning about OKlahoma, Michigan, and two other states banning beverages with alcohol and caffeine mixed. Do you also oppose the beverage ban?

 

 

 

I just saw this one yesterday on our local news and it appears that the problem is the excessive content of alcohol in these drinks compared to what people are used to or expecting. Many kids (teens) are getting very sick after just one (generally illegal) party. So yes, I'm in favor of banning them as it is amounting to a quick acting poison (alcohol poisoning).

 

I've yet to see a kid get sick off eating Happy Meals (barring specific allergies). I don't even place the diabetes increase on Happy Meals. Personally, I think it's more due to excessive starches of all sorts and lack of exercise. Happy meals may be a part of that - or not - but they are just a small part. It's not like getting hospitalized ill off one party as with the new drinks. It's not even like getting hospitalized ill off a "normal" party with beer bongs and the like.

 

With respect to helmets, seat belts, and other issues with personal vehicles? I'd leave those all up to the individual. We always wear seat belts, but it's my choice. It's not up to the gov't to protect me in my car.

[kewb]

This isn't about food choices, it's about marketing. And I find it interesting that the day this story broke, another story also broke about how, even though the fast food industry pledged to reduce its marketing to children, said marketing has actually increased.

 

The government isn't protecting people from poor food choices. It is regulating marketing to children. I can choose what my kids eat, and to some degree I can reduce their exposure to marketing, but marketing is every.where.

 

Tara

 

 

Marketing to children is awful, but I still stand by my Nanny State comment. As a parent it is my responsibility to teach my children about advertising. Maybe it is because I worked in advertising for so many years, but I spent a ton of time with my kids when they were little talking about the commercials they saw. What the goals were. How they made the product look so cool. We went to the toy store and looked at the toy they wanted. Was it a quality toy? Did it really look as fun as they showed in the commercial? Marketing is a part of life. There is no escaping it and as a parent it is my job, not the governments, to teach them how not to fall for it.

 

When my kids were in elementary school there was a coco-cola machine in the lobby. I spent over a year trying to get that free advertising out of the lobby. I lost. The principals stance was that the students were not allowed to use it during school hours. Advertising to kids on the school bus and in the public schools should be banned.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

A law banning the happy meal says "Welcome to the Nanny State. You are too stupid to make good choices and we will make them for you." I do not need the government to protect me from a poor food choice.

 

 

I suspect, though, that this is just a smokescreen for the idea that corporations should have more rights than regular people.

 

Tara

 

I think that kewb has pretty much summed it up-laws like this are the creation of a "nanny state". They basically are telling parents that they no longer have the right to make/control/advise their children's food choices. That the government knows better than the parents what is right for the children. I happen to believe that the slow degradation of parental rights is far more harmful to society than allowing a company to sell a cheap plastic toy as marketing for a less than nutritious meal.

 

Corporations absolutely do not have more rights than regular people. However, I should have the right to raise my kids without unnecessary regulation by any level of government.

 

Quite frankly I don't care if there are plastic toys sold at fast food chains or not-I have a strong dislike of those nasty wastes of valuable landfill space. I am perfectly aware that fast food is not nutritious food. I do resent the growing amount of legislation that implies that I don't know how or shouldn't have the right to make decisions for and with my children.

[Meriwether]

Isn't that interfering with Four Loco's owners opportunities to make money with a legal product on Oklahoma?

 

If you wouldn't mind, can you address the issue of motorcycle helmet laws too? Do you absolutely oppose helmet laws, taking into account the costs and benefits of the laws?

 

 

I don't drink alcohol. At all. I had a cousin killed in a drunk driving accident. I think alcohol does more damage to society than Happy Meals. I still wouldn't be in favor of banning a legal substance.

 

Motorcycle laws: I am saying this gently because I know you have been hurt. If he was an adult, the law or absence of a law did not kill your brother. He made a choice. Please don't think I say that callously. I am very sorry for your loss.

[Parrothead]

I'm sorry your brother died. I'm sorry he did not have his helmet on. But he chose not to wear the helmet.

 

I live in a state with no helmet law. I see about 3/4 of the bikers wearing helmets. They have made the choice to be as safe as they can on their machines. The other quarter? Well, they are adults that one can pretty safely assume that unless they live under a rock know the dangers of going without one.

 

For what it is worth I lost two close friends due to motorcycle accidents. Both had helmets on.

 

 

As for the alcohol mixed with caffeinated beverages, I think it is absolutely ridiculous. I don't much like rum and Coke, but to ban it out right is just plain stupid. Seriously how are they going to enforce it?

[Murphy101]

Well it's a bit more complicated than that, tho I don't agree with it.

 

The particular beverage in question is a single drink with the alcohol level of an ENTIRE bottle of wine and 4 red bulls. People drink it because the get the mental affect of lots of drinking, without the passing out stupor. The danger is that by just having two of these drinks, they could be FAR past toxic alcohol blood level and literally die from it.

 

The beverage in question does not label it's product to reflect this. It doesn't say the alcohol equivalent or the caffeine equivalent on the label. So someone goes off and has one or two drinks and thinks no big deal, not knowing they in fact just consumed the equal to at least two 6 packs of imported beer or 2 whole bottles of merlot.

 

To me, I don't care if they ban it, but I absolutely think it should have a clear warning and content label. Yes, some people over drink and that's an issue, but in this case someone could just have one and be seriously at risk.

 

Especially as many of those people might have one of this drinks and then a glass of wine or a beer. Nevermind the variety of drinking at college parties.

[creekland]

The particular beverage in question is a single drink with the alcohol level of an ENTIRE bottle of wine and 4 red bulls. People drink it because the get the mental affect of lots of drinking, without the passing out stupor. The danger is that by just having two of these drinks, they could be FAR past toxic alcohol blood level and literally die from it.

 

The beverage in question does not label it's product to reflect this. It doesn't say the alcohol equivalent or the caffeine equivalent on the label. So someone goes off and has one or two drinks and thinks no big deal, not knowing they in fact just consumed the equal to at least two 6 packs of imported beer or 2 whole bottles of merlot.

 

 

:iagree: There is just a huge difference with this product. If people knew exactly what it was and what the effects were I might not mind so much, but it's new, people don't know (or think it's cool in that teenaged "can't actually process reason yet" stage), and therefore, an actual poison to many not unlike more dangerous illegal drugs. It's not "just" another drink.

[LND1218]

I don't like the government thinking that we can't possibly make informed choices, so the government must step in and regulate everything. I think it creates a society that can't think for themselves and is dependent on the government to tell them what is safe and what isn't. This is why I oppose this sort of government regulation.

 

We are either free or we are not and any happy medium should come only when we limit behavior that poses a threat to others. Yes we should have speed limits in towns so that some nut can not drive through a neighborhood at 80 mph. Yes we should mandate that foods not contain diseases and not be rotten, but last time I checked people do not eat Happy Meal toys so that is not the issue.

 

The crux of the issue is that if I want to buy my child a Happy Meal WITH a toy that is absolutely no one else's business. It may seem a small thing but it is not. It is some nut deciding how I raise my children and that is outrageous.

 

Seems to me the toy may be the healthiest part of the meal :001_huh: It's insane to ban it. (I don't buy them - I hate the toys. And I teach my kids it's a waste to get a happy meal - between the fried chicken paste pieces and the cost...)

 

But it's my choice!

 

I'm sorry your brother died. I'm sorry he did not have his helmet on. But he chose not to wear the helmet.

 

:iagree:

My husband's hobby has a dangerous element to it where he is kept safer by wearing a harness. It's not required by law - nor do I want it to be. But he wears a harness because it's safer. It's a personal choice.

[mcconnellboys]

Why are they banning a combination of alcohol and caffeine? Do they think this will attract underage drinkers who are already addicted to caffeine drinks? Or is there some danger involved in mixing them? I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the ban.... And wouldn't think be exactly the same thing as having any type of coffee and liquer drink after dinner, such as Kahlua and coffee, Irish Creme and coffee, etc., etc.?

[Perry]

They basically are telling parents that they no longer have the right to make/control/advise their children's food choices. That the government knows better than the parents what is right for the children. I happen to believe that the slow degradation of parental rights is far more harmful to society than allowing a company to sell a cheap plastic toy as marketing for a less than nutritious meal.

 

Corporations absolutely do not have more rights than regular people. However, I should have the right to raise my kids without unnecessary regulation by any level of government.

But the deliberate marketing to young children by corporations interferes with my ability to parent the way I want. I don't want the corporations making my children's food choices. They market this way because it WORKS.

 

(I still parent my way. But this kind of marketing makes it so much harder than it ought to be.)

[OnTheBrink]

I think that kewb has pretty much summed it up-laws like this are the creation of a "nanny state". They basically are telling parents that they no longer have the right to make/control/advise their children's food choices. That the government knows better than the parents what is right for the children. I happen to believe that the slow degradation of parental rights is far more harmful to society than allowing a company to sell a cheap plastic toy as marketing for a less than nutritious meal.

 

Corporations absolutely do not have more rights than regular people. However, I should have the right to raise my kids without unnecessary regulation by any level of government.

 

Quite frankly I don't care if there are plastic toys sold at fast food chains or not-I have a strong dislike of those nasty wastes of valuable landfill space. I am perfectly aware that fast food is not nutritious food. I do resent the growing amount of legislation that implies that I don't know how or shouldn't have the right to make decisions for and with my children.

 

I agree with this, especially the bolded part.

 

As I said in the other thread, no one is forcing a parent to buy a Happy Meal. If a child has so much power in a family that their demands for crap food are always met, then the family has larger problems than nutritional issues.

 

I'd rather see the government, if it has to be involved at all, require full disclosure of the nutritional aspects of all restaurant foods, including beverages. I don't mean simply make it available, but have it posted, either in menus or on the wall or on the food wrapping itself. I think, maybe, if more people really knew the calorie and fat content of most restaurant foods, they'd think twice. I know that when I joined WW and was forced to examine what I was eating and how many calories and fat was in the food, it really opened my eyes. I had no idea the extent of how bad fast food really is. With that new info, I'm able to make better choices.

 

Anyway, regarding safety laws, I'm ok with them, but I'd like to see some consistency. In my state, there's a seat belt law, but no helmet law. That makes me nuts. I think they should either repeal the seat belt law or enforce a helmet law. It makes no sense to require one and not the other.

[Impish]

The labels I've seen clearly say DO NOT MIX WITH ALCOHOL. Then you can hit the bar and pay for the mix.

 

Its a dumb ack idea some moron dreamed up, and its dangerous. The caffeine overload can cause heart attacks.

[pqr]

But the deliberate marketing to young children by corporations interferes with my ability to parent the way I want. I don't want the corporations making my children's food choices. They market this way because it WORKS.

 

(I still parent my way. But this kind of marketing makes it so much harder than it ought to be.)

 

So you would prefer that the city of San Francisco make your decisions for you???

 

I will take the influence of McDaonalds and Tony the Tiger over some interfering, know it all civil servant any day of the week.

 

The "It Takes a Village" crowd is far more harmful than a thousand Lucky Charms Leprechauns

[Melinda in VT]

I'd rather see the government, if it has to be involved at all, require full disclosure of the nutritional aspects of all restaurant foods, including beverages. I don't mean simply make it available, but have it posted, either in menus or on the wall or on the food wrapping itself. I think, maybe, if more people really knew the calorie and fat content of most restaurant foods, they'd think twice. I know that when I joined WW and was forced to examine what I was eating and how many calories and fat was in the food, it really opened my eyes. I had no idea the extent of how bad fast food really is. With that new info, I'm able to make better choices.

 

 

I kind of like this idea. McDonald's could print the calories and fat grams right on the wrappers/boxes/cups.

[chiguirre]

I kind of like this idea. McDonald's could print the calories and fat grams right on the wrappers/boxes/cups.

 

They do. Or at least, they do on some things. I know I've read the nutrition info on a box of fries and a cheeseburger wrapper, although I'm not sure they're on everything. We live in TX, so I doubt it's a local law.

[Perry]

On the other hand, we are bombarded with all of the marketing our entire lives. Either we get rid of all of it (I don't see that happening) or we teach our kids how to navigate through the garbage.

It's the marketing directly to kids that bothers me. That is a relatively new approach.

[AngelBee]

So would that count Bailey's and coffee?

 

I drink RARELY, but that is one thing I would order. Or a Mudslide (caffine from chocolate count? :) )

[Perry]

So you would prefer that the city of San Francisco make your decisions for you???

 

But they aren't. :confused:

I can still buy a Happy Meal if I want. I can still buy the toy if I want. It doesn't change my ability to feed my kids the way I want. It just makes them unable to tempt my kids with something I don't want them to have.

[AngelBee]

But they aren't. :confused:

I can still buy a Happy Meal if I want. I can still buy the toy if I want. It doesn't change my ability to feed my kids the way I want. It just makes them unable to tempt my kids with something I don't want them to have.

How can they tempt them though if you are the parent?

 

You control going to McD's, watching TV, discussions about food choices, etc.

 

I am asking honestly. I truly don't get it. :confused:

[MelanieM]

I suspect, though, that this is just a smokescreen for the idea that corporations should have more rights than regular people.

 

 

Ding ding ding! I wouldn't say that most people even realize this is what is happening when they resist this, but it does appear that people are getting the rights of individuals and the rights of corporations confused. Businesses aren't people, and there's no reasons they should be afforded rights as such.

[MelanieM]

How can they tempt them though if you are the parent?

 

You control going to McD's, watching TV, discussions about food choices, etc.

 

I am asking honestly. I truly don't get it. :confused:

 

Do you really believe that you control every influence on your children? Even if you tell them they can't have that toy/candy/hamburger, that doesn't mean the marketing for that item hasn't left an impact on the child. It seems evident that all this "gotta have it" marketing shapes our society in a big way. Why would kids be immune to that?

[OnTheBrink]

Here they even print the calories on the menu board.

 

I think Texas is a test-marketing area for McD's. I remember when lived in Texas, they had menu items no other area had. Here, there are no nutritional values on wrappings or on the menu boards at all. So, I'm thinking that maybe that idea is being tested there? Not sure, but I do know that no McD's here has that info on the wrappings at all.

[wapiti]

It's the marketing directly to kids that bothers me. That is a relatively new approach.

 

I disagree that this is anything new. Marketing to kids has been going on for decades. Well over 50-60-70 years.

[OnTheBrink]

Do you really believe that you control every influence on your children? Even if you tell them they can't have that toy/candy/hamburger, that doesn't mean the marketing for that item hasn't left an impact on the child. It seems evident that all this "gotta have it" marketing shapes our society in a big way. Why would kids be immune to that?

 

One way to limit the marketing geared to children is to turn off the TV. I'm not implying that you do nothing but watch TV all day ;) , but I noticed that when I canceled cable, my dd's desires for the latest anything all but disappeared. It's been wonderful! LOL

 

So, I don't think you can really blame marketing; marketers use what works. If you remove or avoid many avenues marketers use, it doesn't cross the radar. Although, even if you (general you) are still plagued by advertisements, you (general) are still the parent and can still say no.

[AngelBee]

Do you really believe that you control every influence on your children? Even if you tell them they can't have that toy/candy/hamburger, that doesn't mean the marketing for that item hasn't left an impact on the child. It seems evident that all this "gotta have it" marketing shapes our society in a big way. Why would kids be immune to that?

They are not immune, but I believe that the responsibility lies on my shoulders to ensure that my children are educated to our families beliefs.

 

You will never remove all negative influences, whether through legislation, avoidance, ignoring....

 

So you better equipt your children with the ability to handle those influences wisely.

[Greta]

It's the marketing directly to kids that bothers me. That is a relatively new approach.

 

I think that depends on what you mean by relatively new. One of my mental images of the 1950's is packs of baseball cards with bubble gum. (Though I wasn't actually there, so I'm not sure if my image of that being a big part of pop culture is accurate or not). One of my memories from my own childhood is sugary breakfast cereal with a prize (toy) in the box. I don't think that the combination of things kinds are interested in and junk food is anything all that new. I'm not necessarily saying that makes it right. I'm just saying it has been around for a few generations now.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

But the deliberate marketing to young children by corporations interferes with my ability to parent the way I want. I don't want the corporations making my children's food choices. They market this way because it WORKS.

 

(I still parent my way. But this kind of marketing makes it so much harder than it ought to be.)

 

It's the marketing directly to kids that bothers me. That is a relatively new approach.

 

But ultimately this would lead to corporations not being able to advertise, period. What is next-pull all TV and print ads aimed at kids, radio ads, billboards, in store displays? There is very little that is marketed towards children that is not, in some parents' eyes, bad for children.

 

A corporation doesn't make your children's food choices-you do. Unless you are the sort of parent that gives in to every whim. Yes-plenty about marketing makes parenting harder. One is forced to say no quite often and is forced to teach their kids about the value of a product, nutrition, diet, smart consumerism. Imagine if we could eliminate all those parental responsibilities through legislation. Our little lives would be so much easier. But what would our children's lives be like when the reached adulthood and had never been taught to analyze advertising, read the intent behind marketing ploys and promotions and practice caveat emptor. Or worse, how to make choices about healthy lifestyles. Rather they will have learned to be dependent on some government entity to tell them what is right or wrong, a pattern that need not end with childhood.

 

I don't need the government, at any level, to make any more decisions for me or make my life easier by thinking for me-either as an individual or as a parent. The government doesn't exist (in the US) to make my choices for me, the exist to mediate between me and the other individuals in the country. [A gross over simplification but...]

 

Furthermore, marketing directed at child consumers has been around since at least the end of WWII. Happy Meals were introduced in 1979. This is hardly a new phenomenon considering the ages of those here on the board. Of course the cereal box prize has been around much longer, since the 1950s and Cracker Jack had prizes before then. There is nothing essentially new in this type of marketing. What is newer is the sort of legislation that tries to remove all responsibility from parents and thereby also some of their rights.

 

ETA: Seems several of us posted at the same time but yes-trading cards with candy, movie tie in toys, plenty of marketing at kids. My mom still remembers the copies of Shirley Temple dresses in department stores when she was young. Every little girl wanted one of those I bet. The difference is that my grandparents and parents taught their kids responsible consumerism. That applies to every purchase from toys to shoes to food. And in that fine tradition I try to teach my kids much of the same.

Edited November 11, 2010 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[AngelBee]

I think that depends on what you mean by relatively new. One of my mental images of the 1950's is packs of baseball cards with bubble gum. (Though I wasn't actually there, so I'm not sure if my image of that being a big part of pop culture is accurate or not). One of my memories from my own childhood is sugary breakfast cereal with a prize (toy) in the box. I don't think that the combination of things kinds are interested in and junk food is anything all that new. I'm not necessarily saying that makes it right. I'm just saying it has been around for a few generations now.

:iagree:Cracker Jacks. Only reason I ate them was for the prize.

[MelanieM]

I guess I just don't understand why corporations hould have the right to market to children, making money however they can, but children (and their parents) shouldn't have the right to not be marketed to constantly. Really, are most kids in a position to get away from marketing? No, they are not. It's in the schools, on their clothing, on the sides of the streets, everywhere in our media-rich society. And regardless of whether or not you think it should be the right of the parent to make choices for their child, I don't see how clawing back on marketing aimed at children could ever be a bad thing.

 

And please don't anyone bother to reply with the nanny state argument again. Establishing rules for how corporations are required to operate does not a nanny state make.

[bookfiend]

We are either free or we are not and any happy medium should come only when we limit behavior that poses a threat to others.

 

The crux of the issue is that if I want to buy my child a Happy Meal WITH a toy that is absolutely no one else's business. It may seem a small thing but it is not. It is some nut deciding how I raise my children and that is outrageous.

 

I think this is the true target of this legislation. Your first point is the one that those in favor of the ban use - the Happy Meal poses a threat, a threat to poor, defenseless children. You, the parent, could not possible choose correctly for your child. We, the state, will intervene because we have a vested interest and legislative right over your children. See where this is going?

 

I believe this is actually a subtle attack against parental rights.

[Excelsior! Academy]

I haven't read any of the responses, so I don't know if I am repeating. I am from Oklahoma and I think the beverage in question is marketed to children in a round about way and 1 can contains the same amount of alcohol as a 6 pack of beer and enough caffine to equal 2 cups of coffee. There have been many instances of minors under drinking age being hospitalized because of them. I am not arguing one way or the other, just stating the facts as I know them.

[Murphy101]

Sometimes I feel like I'm on every single persons invisible setting.

 

This drink is not like adding some Bailey to your coffee.

And I don't think the drink is marketed towards minors either.

 

And this law is not about corporations.

 

I agree far too often corporations have far more freedoms than individuals and I agree that that is WRONG.

 

But are we saying these things are okay as long as big business doesn't do it?

 

What about mom and pop shops giving suckers? Is it okay as long as they can't afford to advertise that they are doing it?

 

So me, that makes no sense.

 

Parenting has always been hard.

Advertising to kids is NOT new at all.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

that would truly limit individual freedoms and pose some cost to individuals that is real. I'm not convinced that local limits on marketing practices are a big step in that direction.

 

But when I look at the history of American efforts to regulate, reasonably, free markets, I don't see disaster looming, far from it. Do you favor eliminating child labor laws? Don't those laws place limits on businesses doing what they need to do to make money? For every extreme example you can cite, there is another that I can cite that makes the opposite point. Why not eliminate the drinking age? Doesn't that place a huge barrier for beer makers and sellers?

 

What I'm saying is that some regulation of free markets is neither new or unreasonable.

:iagree::iagree:

[Elaine]

I disagree that this is anything new. Marketing to kids has been going on for decades. Well over 50-60-70 years.

 

:iagree:

 

And it is the job of the parent to say no to the child. To make sure that the child does not over eat or become obese, not the government. Parents need to be parents.

 

It is a little thing we in our home like to call personal responsibility.

[Elaine]

They are not immune, but I believe that the responsibility lies on my shoulders to ensure that my children are educated to our families beliefs.

 

You will never remove all negative influences, whether through legislation, avoidance, ignoring....

 

So you better equipt your children with the ability to handle those influences wisely.

 

:hurray:

[AngelBee]

Sometimes I feel like I'm on every single persons invisible setting.

 

This drink is not like adding some Bailey to your coffee.

And I don't think the drink is marketed towards minors either.

 

And this law is not about corporations.

 

I agree far too often corporations have far more freedoms than individuals and I agree that that is WRONG.

 

But are we saying these things are okay as long as big business doesn't do it?

 

What about mom and pop shops giving suckers? Is it okay as long as they can't afford to advertise that they are doing it?

 

So me, that makes no sense.

 

Parenting has always been hard.

Advertising to kids is NOT new at all.

Not invisible and :iagree:

 

I am a private business owner and give out suckers after dance class. :001_huh:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Sometimes I feel like I'm on every single persons invisible setting.

 

This drink is not like adding some Bailey to your coffee.

And I don't think the drink is marketed towards minors either.

 

And this law is not about corporations.

 

I agree far too often corporations have far more freedoms than individuals and I agree that that is WRONG.

 

But are we saying these things are okay as long as big business doesn't do it?

 

What about mom and pop shops giving suckers? Is it okay as long as they can't afford to advertise that they are doing it?

 

So me, that makes no sense.

 

Parenting has always been hard.

Advertising to kids is NOT new at all.

 

I had a dentist once that gave out water, tea/coffee, juice, fresh cookies and bread to those leaving and waiting. (In addition to the brush, paste, floss pack.) Is that just working on making sure all patients have to return because they have just rotted their teeth or is it just being nice?

[hsbaby]

Is this a bad time to say I just finished eating my chicken nugget happy meal? It's possible my kids had one too.....with the toy. :tongue_smilie:

[Excelsior! Academy]

Here's a link to the drink in question.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/teen-ya/2010-11-10-alcoholic-energy-drinks_N.htm