Santa Clara votes 3-2 to ban Happy Meals

[bushwacked]

Stupid, but since I don't live in Santa Clara I could really give a flying F. It is kind of humorous that many of the people here who routinely champion local governmental rights are now offended.

Edited June 4, 2010 by bushwacked

[MikesVikes]

How far is the nearest town that has a McDonalds?

[Big John]

how long have happy meals been around? 50 years? longer?

1979 - 31 years

[Azazello1313]

It is kind of humorous that many of the people here who routinely champion local governmental rights are now offended.

 

the only thing stupider than this stupid local law would be if the obama administration were to step in and try and coerce santa clara into changing or not enforcing it.

 

it is my understanding that supporting federalism and localism does not make one ideologically committed to thinking that every state or local law is a good one. please let me know if that has changed, because I've got a lot of state and local laws to read up on before I can decide if I think they should have any legislative power.

[TimC]

First they came for the Happy Meals, and I did not speak out--

because I was not Ronald McDonald;

Then they came for the foot long BMTs loaded with mayo and cheese, and I did not speak out--

because I was not Jared;

Then they came for the two dogs on a bun, and I did not speak out--

because I was not in North Carolina;

Then they came for the KFC Double Down, and I did not speak out--

because I was dead from the cholesterol hit;

Then they came for me--

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Azazello1313]

1979 - 31 years

 

I knew it was all jimmy carter's fault

[detlef]

no. a frigging cheeseburger is not going to kill a kid. (comparing this to smoking and drinking? really?? is that the best you can come up with to contort yourself into justifying this nanny-state absurdity?) however, if a parent is taking their kid every day, forgoing the apple sices and milk, and getting them the same cheap toy they got the day before....you're goddam right the issue is bad parenting, not the evil enticement of mcdonalds marketing.

 

if people like you had their way, I can't take my kid out once a month to eat some chicken nuggets, apples, chocolate milk, the cheap little toy she gets excited about and some fun in the jungle gym -- all because some irresponsible morons use the crap as a diet staple, and because you and some other nanny scolds think the answer is banning the cheap toy by government fiat?

 

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A F'ING HAPPY MEAL HERE. how long have happy meals been around? 50 years? longer? and they've never been anything but a happy meal. now they are an evil corporate marketing ploy whose power of suggestion parents are powerless against. please protect us against the evil happy meals, government lords!1!!

 

sickening.

First off, do I need to, yet again, explain that I'm actually not in favor of the government stepping in here? Or does it just make it easier for you to argue against me when you pretend I do?

 

At any rate, no a cheese burger won't kill a kid. Of course, neither will one cigarette. However, you do realize that there are as many deaths related to obesity as there are smoking, so enough cheeseburgers, or at least, a lifestyle rooted in bad dietary habits will. So it's really not such a stretch after all. It's just that smoking is icky and cheeseburgers are tasty. That is actually the issue at hand.

 

My point is simply to illustrate the hypocrisy. See, people get all up in arms when McDonalds is pointed out to be bad because, well, McDonalds is tasty and they like to think of it as their guilty little pleasure. Meanwhile, cigarettes are vile and evil because they stink and most of us don't smoke, so we could care less how much that is restricted. And again, nearly every argument made in this thread is basically saying that Santa Clara wants to outlaw hamburgers, which is not what is going on. Again, it sure is much easier to make a strong point when you pretend you're arguing against something more outlandish than what is actually being said.

 

It's the same with random drug testing. People don't give a crap because, hey, if you're not smoking pot (which is illegal) you've got nothing to worry about. However, if your boss put a device on your car that alerted them every time you went over the speed limit, you'd be crying bloody murder. Because, unlike drug use, speeding is a law that you don't happen to think is much of a big deal if you break it.

 

So you can pretend that it's lame to compare poor eating habits to smoking in as much as how they affect the individual that does it, but the numbers don't support your argument.

Edited June 4, 2010 by detlef

[SEC=UGA]

First off, do I need to, yet again, explain that I'm actually not in favor of the government stepping in here? Or does it just make it easier for you to argue against me when you pretend I do?

 

At any rate, no a cheese burger won't kill a kid. Of course, neither will one cigarette. However, you do realize that there are as many deaths related to obesity as there are smoking, so enough cheeseburgers, or at least, a lifestyle rooted in bad dietary habits will. So it's really not such a stretch after all. It's just that smoking is icky and cheeseburgers are tasty. That is actually the issue at hand.

 

My point is simply to illustrate the hypocrisy. See, people get all up in arms when McDonalds is pointed out to be bad because, well, McDonalds is tasty and they like to think of it as their guilty little pleasure. Meanwhile, cigarettes are vile and evil because they stink and most of us don't smoke, so we could care less how much that is restricted. And again, nearly every argument made in this thread is basically saying that Santa Clara wants to outlaw hamburgers, which is not what is going on. Again, it sure is much easier to make a strong point when you pretend you're arguing against something more outlandish than what is actually being said.

 

It's the same with random drug testing. People don't give a crap because, hey, if you're not smoking pot (which is illegal) you've got nothing to worry about. However, if your boss put a device on your car that alerted them every time you went over the speed limit, you'd be crying bloody murder. Because, unlike drug use, speeding is a law that you don't happen to think is much of a big deal if you break it.

 

So you can pretend that it's lame to compare poor eating habits to smoking in as much as how they affect the individual that does it, but the numbers don't support your argument.

 

Ok, say that you wanted to include a free cab ride home to all your patrons that had a $100+ bar tab at your restaurant and the city banned your practice of doing this on the basis that you were promoting drunkeness in adults. Say that this was a big draw and directly/indirectly accounted for 30% of your sales, how would you feel about them banning your activity?

[bushwacked]

First off, do I need to, yet again, explain that I'm actually not in favor of the government stepping in here? Or does it just make it easier for you to argue against me when you pretend I do?

 

This tact is completely out of character for Az.

[Azazello1313]

At any rate, no a cheese burger won't kill a kid. Of course, neither will one cigarette. However, you do realize that there are as many deaths related to obesity as there are smoking, so enough cheeseburgers, or at least, a lifestyle rooted in bad dietary habits will. So it's really not such a stretch after all. It's just that smoking is icky and cheeseburgers are tasty. That is actually the issue at hand.

 

My point is simply to illustrate the hypocrisy. See, people get all up in arms when McDonalds is pointed out to be bad because, well, McDonalds is tasty and they like to think of it as their guilty little pleasure. Meanwhile, cigarettes are vile and evil because they stink and most of us don't smoke, so we could care less how much that is restricted.

 

actually, as I've argued many times, as much as I hate smoking, I think government bans on that are really stupid too.

 

but this comparison is a really stupid red herring. the whole logic of cigarette bans is that there are EXTERNAL effects -- health risks from second hand smoke, the smell and irritation many people find annoying. and try as you might, I think you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that eating a 300 calorie cheeseburger once in a while is as bad for your health as taking up the habit of smoking.

[detlef]

Ok, say that you wanted to include a free cab ride home to all your patrons that had a $100+ bar tab at your restaurant and the city banned your practice of doing this on the basis that you were promoting drunkeness in adults. Say that this was a big draw and directly/indirectly accounted for 30% of your sales, how would you feel about them banning your activity?

So I now have to add you to the list of otherwise intelligent people who seem incapable of understanding that, no matter how many times I say it, I am not in favor of the government stepping in here?

 

Regardless, in terms of the unsavory nature of McDonalds tactics and the one you mention above, there is a very clear distinction. One is being aimed at adults, the other is at kids. If there's one thing that Nanny staters and libertarians can agree on, it's that we need to have different standards for what can and can't be done with regards to how one relates to kids. You can't sell a kid booze, but you can to an adult. You can't have sex with a kid, but you can with an adult. The list is actually pretty long.

 

So, despite the fact that I would not advocate government disallowing either McDonalds campaign or the one you describe. I am capable of recognizing that one is actually a responsible move directed towards adults and one is a rather unsavory campaign aimed at a vulnerable and impressionable demographic.

 

actually, as I've argued many times, as much as I hate smoking, I think government bans on that are really stupid too.

 

but this comparison is a really stupid red herring. the whole logic of cigarette bans is that there are EXTERNAL effects -- health risks from second hand smoke, the smell and irritation many people find annoying. and try as you might, I think you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that eating a 300 calorie cheeseburger once in a while is as bad for your health as taking up the habit of smoking.

As you may recall, but have likely chosen not to because it is inconvenient, I actually addressed the issue of second hand smoke. However, if you're concerned about second hand smoke, why would you be any more so if it comes from a kid than if it comes from an adult? The difference is that we're trying to protect our kids from starting a habit that is not good for them. Which is exactly the motive here.

 

Do you actually not believe that obesity is as big a cause of death and health costs in the US as smoking?

 

And why do you insist upon comparing the health issues of eating a cheeseburger "every now and then" to habitual smoking? Damned you're getting lazy.

Edited June 4, 2010 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

wow detlef, for someone who doesn't agree with this law, you sure are using a lot of breath defending its contorted logic.

 

let me put it this way. do you really think that for someone who eats unhealthy fast food several times a week, whether the prompting is being made by a kid or an adult, the stupid little toy is the frigging draw? the TOY is the sinister corporate plot to draw in the unsuspecting tots into a life of addiction and obesity? you realize that if you go into mcdonalds 10 times this week and order 10 happy meals, you get the same friggin cheap little toy every time? is the toy really the reason the crappy parent drags their kid to mcdonalds 10 times a week? or is the toy really the reason the little fatty nags their mom to take them to mcdonalds 10 times a week? man, those little shrek 4 donkeys sure are ADDICTING!

[detlef]

wow detlef, for someone who doesn't agree with this law, you sure are using a lot of breath defending its contorted logic.

 

let me put it this way. do you really think that for someone who eats unhealthy fast food several times a week, whether the prompting is being made by a kid or an adult, the stupid little toy is the frigging draw? the TOY is the sinister corporate plot to draw in the unsuspecting tots into a life of addiction and obesity? you realize that if you go into mcdonalds 10 times this week and order 10 happy meals, you get the same friggin cheap little toy every time? is the toy really the reason the crappy parent drags their kid to mcdonalds 10 times a week? or is the toy really the reason the little fatty nags their mom to take them to mcdonalds 10 times a week? man, those little shrek 4 donkeys sure are ADDICTING!

Um, I'm guessing McDonalds wouldn't be using them as a marketing gimmick if they weren't effective. I do recall that every McDonalds ad I saw as a kid was 100% about the toys and 0% about the food. So, yeah, I guess I do believe that the toys are sort of figuring into the equation here.

 

As for your first "point". Did you get hit with an idiot stick today? Am I not allowed to think that it's sleazy as hell that McDonalds goes after kids and yet also think that it's not a government issue?

Edited June 4, 2010 by detlef

[Avernus]

Um, I'm guessing McDonalds wouldn't be using them as a marketing gimmick if they weren't effective. I do recall that every McDonalds ad I saw as a kid was 100% about the toys and 0% about the food. So, yeah, I guess I do believe that the toys are sort of figuring into the equation here.

 

As for your first "point". Did you get hit with an idiot stick today? Am I not allowed to think that it's sleazy as hell that McDonalds goes after kids and yet also think that it's not a government issue?

 

no, it makes perfect sense....but this is Az we're talking about

 

he means well, but.....

[Azazello1313]

Um, I'm guessing McDonalds wouldn't be using them as a marketing gimmick if they weren't effective.

 

effective at getting people in once in a while, as a "treat". again, it's hard for me to see how getting 10 copies of the same cheap toy is the lure for people who eat there frequently. and eating there frequently is what is unhealthy. and the draw there is the laziness, gluttony and irresponsibility of the parents.

 

anyway, you know what we should really go after is ice cream trucks. evil industrial pied pipers of profit, drawing fat little hansels and gretels out into the streets to meet their sugary death in the form of pretty rocket pops full of empty calories. we must shut them down next!

[detlef]

no, it makes perfect sense....but this is Az we're talking about

 

he means well, but.....

in fairness, it is a bit of a gray area. For instance, I also think it was sleazy that Camel made ads aimed at kids and was hardly up in arms about the government saying they had to stop. Even though, technically, society on a person by person basis should have executed judgment on tobacco rather than having the government step in. I suppose I'm in the same boat here. Not particularly pleased that we're leaning on government but not exactly shedding a tear for the "victim".

 

Almost all of us are guilty of this whenever it's convenient. It's just that some of us like to pretend otherwise.

[Azazello1313]

Not particularly pleased that we're leaning on government but not exactly shedding a tear for the "victim".

 

the "victim" is anyone who likes to be able to make their own choices in life.

[detlef]

the "victim" is anyone who likes to be able to make their own choices in life.

Which is something I'm sure you defend without exception.

[SEC=UGA]

So I now have to add you to the list of otherwise intelligent people who seem incapable of understanding that, no matter how many times I say it, I am not in favor of the government stepping in here?

 

Regardless, in terms of the unsavory nature of McDonalds tactics and the one you mention above, there is a very clear distinction. One is being aimed at adults, the other is at kids. If there's one thing that Nanny staters and libertarians can agree on, it's that we need to have different standards for what can and can't be done with regards to how one relates to kids. You can't sell a kid booze, but you can to an adult. You can't have sex with a kid, but you can with an adult. The list is actually pretty long.

 

So, despite the fact that I would not advocate government disallowing either McDonalds campaign or the one you describe. I am capable of recognizing that one is actually a responsible move directed towards adults and one is a rather unsavory campaign aimed at a vulnerable and impressionable demographic.

 

 

As you may recall, but have likely chosen not to because it is inconvenient, I actually addressed the issue of second hand smoke. However, if you're concerned about second hand smoke, why would you be any more so if it comes from a kid than if it comes from an adult? The difference is that we're trying to protect our kids from starting a habit that is not good for them. Which is exactly the motive here.

 

Do you actually not believe that obesity is as big a cause of death and health costs in the US as smoking?

 

And why do you insist upon comparing the health issues of eating a cheeseburger "every now and then" to habitual smoking? Damned you're getting lazy.

 

Sorry, I failed to read the entirety of your responses. Thank you for the concise clarification. I'll go away now...

 

ETA: Please replace "entirety" with "any"

Edited June 4, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[Azazello1313]

Which is something I'm sure you defend without exception.

 

I wouldn't say "without exception", but I would certainly draw the line a LOOOOOOOOONG way apart from being able to take a kid to mcdonalds for a happy meal.

[bpwallace49]

On a side note I was pissed when they started taking out playsets and sticking in those gawd damn video game systems for kids.

 

Please carry on with your righteous indignation Az . . .

[keggerz]

quick someone make a patch that makes you stop wanting to eat fatty greasy food and you can be rich.

 

and I agree strongly with a couple of people here and someone else makes me shake my head so bad I don't even

have the energy to call out how stupid some of what he has written is.

[detlef]

quick someone make a patch that makes you stop wanting to eat fatty greasy food and you can be rich.

 

and I agree strongly with a couple of people here and someone else makes me shake my head so bad I don't even

have the energy to call out how stupid some of what he has written is.

[Big John]

Um, I'm guessing McDonalds wouldn't be using them as a marketing gimmick if they weren't effective. I do recall that every McDonalds ad I saw as a kid was 100% about the toys and 0% about the food. So, yeah, I guess I do believe that the toys are sort of figuring into the equation here.

I remember that the kids ads were Ronald McDonald and his buddies before they started the Happy Meals.

[Big Country]

I know burgers are tasty, but I am unaware of any chemically addictive properties in cheap ground beef and processed cheese product. To me, that is a major distinction between the restrictions on cigarette and other tobacco products and what is being discussed here.

 

 

Oh, and I have just scored dibs on the franchise rights along the entire border of Santa Clara.... I'm gonna be rich bitch.