Should pop/soda machines be allowed in schools?

[John Dibble]

Not healthy doesn't equal deadly.

Okay, except it is deadly, if you consume it enough, which I can assure you many of these kids do.

So is water.

I've never heard any case of someone dying from drinking soft drinks. Especially not a teenager.

You seem to be confusing direct and indirect effects. While soft drinks won't directly kill you, overconsumption (which is common among today's youth) is understood as a major component in today's obesity problems. Obesity is a condition which puts you at higher risk for deadly problems.

[Ebowed]

I've never heard any case of someone dying from drinking soft drinks. Especially not a teenager.

I've never heard of a teenager dying from smoking cigarettes, either.

Anyway my high school was right next to a gas station, so if you ever wanted one you just had to go to the gas station and buy it. By this sort of logic that gas station shouldn't be allowed to be next to the school.

Then they can go to the trouble of going to the gas station.  This isn't an attempt to restrict students from ever consuming soft drinks.  On school grounds, they should simply be encouraged to drink juice or dairy products instead.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've never heard any case of someone dying from drinking soft drinks. Especially not a teenager.

I've never heard of a teenager dying from smoking cigarettes, either.

No, but just about every adult who dies from them got hooked as a teenager. and it's a commonly accepted fact that if no teenagers smoked, the tobacco companies would soon have no adult customers either, and go out of business.

Then they can go to the trouble of going to the gas station.  This isn't an attempt to restrict students from ever consuming soft drinks.  On school grounds, they should simply be encouraged to drink juice or dairy products instead.

If soft drinks are THAT bad, why shouldn't they be restricted from being EVER consumed? It's not like banning them from school even cuts consumption. And why not ban them from colleges too? Argument-wise there's no really much of a difference.

[Inverted Things]

A high school has no excuse to be selling McDonald's.

Agree with the above statement? Then replace "McDonald's" with "soft drink," and tell me how the argument changes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I agree not because of the McDonald's food, but because there's no point in a private chain opening up inside a high school. I'd have absolutely no problem though with a McDonald's opening up right next to a high school though. (Hell there was one only about three blocks from mine and kids went there to eat on their lunch breaks all the time)

[Gabu]

I agree not because of the McDonald's food, but because there's no point in a private chain opening up inside a high school. I'd have absolutely no problem though with a McDonald's opening up right next to a high school though. (Hell there was one only about three blocks from mine and kids went there to eat on their lunch breaks all the time)

What's the difference between Coke and Pepsi machines inside a school and a McDonald's in a school?  Both are effectively a private vendor selling their product in the school.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because they're actually sold products, not prepared food. Now an appropriate analogy is if McDonald's started to sell frozen versions of their foods like White Castle does now. In that case I wouldn't have a problem with it being sold in school vending machines if it were possible to prepare the food somehow for the kids, though it wouldn't be, making it pointless.

To put things more simply, the issue with McDonald's to me is not the health one. People have a right to eat unhealthy food.

[Inverted Things]

Because they're actually sold products, not prepared food. Now an appropriate analogy is if McDonald's started to sell frozen versions of their foods like White Castle does now. In that case I wouldn't have a problem with it being sold in school vending machines if it were possible to prepare the food somehow for the kids, though it wouldn't be, making it pointless.

To put things more simply, the issue with McDonald's to me is not the health one. People have a right to eat unhealthy food.

First, food is a product. This renders your first paragraph incorrect.

Second, children do not have rights. This renders your second paragraph incorrect.

The issue at hand is a simple ethical question: Should a school, entrusted with the daytime care of minors, who are (essentially) legally required to be there, be allowed to profit by encouraging its students to make unhealthy choices?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

First, food is a product. This renders your first paragraph incorrect.

True, but the preparation can be an issue.

Second, children do not have rights. This renders your second paragraph incorrect.

Hardly true. You can't throw a kid in jail for writing something that would be under an adult's protected free speech. And people in high school are hardly "children".

The issue at hand is a simple ethical question: Should a school, entrusted with the daytime care of minors, who are (essentially) legally required to be there, be allowed to profit by encouraging its students to make unhealthy choices?

I don't see why not. It's not even really encouragement, just giving the option. Should my high school have banned eating lunch off-campus because kids could've gone to McDonald's?

[John Dibble]

First, food is a product. This renders your first paragraph incorrect.

True, but the preparation can be an issue.

How would McDonald's preparing food be any more of an issue than the school cafeteria workers preparing food?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's not, but the school cafeteria is there for a purpose, not making a profit.

I should clarify that I'd have no problems with McDonald's in high schools if it was part of some giant food court similar to what colleges have. But no high school should support such a thing, and no one company should be given a monopoly on the school lunch for that high school. So keep the companies out of it altogether.

[John Dibble]

It's not, but the school cafeteria is there for a purpose, not making a profit.

I should clarify that I'd have no problems with McDonald's in high schools if it was part of some giant food court similar to what colleges have. But no high school should support such a thing, and no one company should be given a monopoly on the school lunch for that high school. So keep the companies out of it altogether.

Monopoly? Who ever said anything about a monopoly? Nobody said the cafeteria wouldn't be there. The issue of monopoly has nothing to do with preparation anyways.

Speaking of monopolies, I'd imagine only one brand of soda machine would be present in a high school - why no problem with that monopoly? And aren't they there to make a profit? Isn't that their purpose?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There shouldn't be only one brand.

Other issues come from space. Is there enough room for the cafeteria and McDonald's? It's just not feasible.

I doubt McDonald's would even want to do so, they can just set up right next to the high school.

[John Dibble]

There shouldn't be only one brand.

Well there usually is as far as I know. I'd venture to guess that soda companies actually make the schools contractually obligated to keep it that way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither of those issues are necessarily reasons to oppose it as a general concept.

[Inverted Things]

First, food is a product. This renders your first paragraph incorrect.

True, but the preparation can be an issue.

Second, children do not have rights. This renders your second paragraph incorrect.

Hardly true. You can't throw a kid in jail for writing something that would be under an adult's protected free speech. And people in high school are hardly "children".

Legally speaking, people in high school are children (excepting the driving privileges the over 16s get). And children do not have, for example, the right to enter into a contract. Or the right to work excessively. Or even the right to free speech--see Morse v. Frederick.

The issue at hand is a simple ethical question: Should a school, entrusted with the daytime care of minors, who are (essentially) legally required to be there, be allowed to profit by encouraging its students to make unhealthy choices?

I don't see why not. It's not even really encouragement, just giving the option. Should my high school have banned eating lunch off-campus because kids could've gone to McDonald's?

I'll answer your question first: my high school did, and I broke that rule nearly every day during my senior year of high school. But your question in itself is flawed--my question above asks about schools profiting, and your question has a situation in which the school wouldn't profit.

And it IS encouragement. It says to students "We would be very pleased if you drank these grossly unhealthy beverages."

And Dibble's right: Companies will often get exclusive deals. My high school sold Pepsi products and no Coke products.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I oppose such monopolies. However Dibble's second point applies this type of argument as well.

To answer his second point: As I said, I don't necessarily oppose it as a general concept, but I simply don't see any feasible way it can happen. That's not true with soft drink machines.

You can't get McDonald's from an inanimate machine. It has to be prepared in some way. Not true with soft drinks.

Legally speaking, people in high school are children (excepting the driving privileges the over 16s get). And children do not have, for example, the right to enter into a contract. Or the right to work excessively. Or even the right to free speech--see Morse v. Frederick.

That case dealt with speech on schools. The equivalent would be an adult being fired for speech at a work event.

If I were a minor, and raised the money necessary to publish a newspaper, I could say whatever I wanted in it, and could not be arrested for what I published. Minors also can't be arrested for anything they say on the internet that adults can't (that being published threats and the like, etc.)

I'll answer your question first: my high school did, and I broke that rule nearly every day during my senior year of high school. But your question in itself is flawed--my question above asks about schools profiting, and your question has a situation in which the school wouldn't profit.

The school isn't a for-profit organization, so that shouldn't even be a consideration.

And it IS encouragement. It says to students "We would be very pleased if you drank these grossly unhealthy beverages."

It's a neutral stance. Students aren't penalized for not drinking them. I'd also say "grossly unhealthy" is going quite too far, but that's not really the point.

And is this the case with the sale of such beverages at school sporting events?

And Dibble's right: Companies will often get exclusive deals. My high school sold Pepsi products and no Coke products.

Which I said, I don't support, but as stated above, that's not a reason to oppose it as a general concept.

[John Dibble]

You can't get McDonald's from an inanimate machine. It has to be prepared in some way. Not true with soft drinks.

He's wondering how the hell the need for preparation makes any difference in why the food sale should or should not be allowed in school, not what you meant by preparation. You still haven't made what appears to be anything resembling a coherent argument as to why.

It's a neutral stance. Students aren't penalized for not drinking them.

It's called advertisement - you know, a form of encouragement to buy a certain product. The machines themselves contain ginormous logos for the products contained within.

The school isn't a for-profit organization, so that shouldn't even be a consideration.

The end objective is still to make money, isn't it? If the Red Cross wanted to open a McRedCross in schools that sold products identical to McDonald's foods would it really be any different?

[Ebowed]

A lot of schools only sell Pepsi products or Coke products.  Usually because the company in question has sponsored the school in some way or provided educational materials (featuring product placement) which the impoverished districts desperately need.

[Reignman]

I say no machines, but don't ban soda within the walls of a school.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I say no machines, but don't ban soda within the walls of a school.

That's where I'm at, though I might make an exception for, say, a bottled water vending machine.

My main concern is health, not anti-corporate BS.  Schools do a terrible job with nutrition.  In many cases, even if a student wanted to eat healthy, they couldn't with the standard school cafeteria choices.

[nclib]

I suppose it should be allowed, though for health reasons it would be good to also have a juice vending machine.

[Eraserhead]

Of course they should be allowed. The left really loses me on stuff like this.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Of course they should be allowed. The left really loses me on stuff like this.

Then stop being liberal. The left is inherently authoritarian. Join NDN and I on the dark side.