Is It Constitutional To Ban Happy Meals?

I don't think its constitutional to ban happy meals, cocaine, heroin or anything you want to put in your body. wstfld

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]They didn't ban happy meals, they just banned putting toys in kids meals that don't meet certain nutritional guidelines. Still dumb, and even most liberal journalists think its ridiculous. We don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.GabuEx

No, but given the state of parenting today I'm starting to warm up to the idea that we need the government to protect our kids from ourselves. :P

I'm not so sure about that. People bring up news stories about obesity or illiteracy and such, but I'm really sort of skeptical of the idea that kids today are getting worse parenting than the kids of 100 years ago.

I don't know if any serious objective studies have been done on this sort of thing, but it'd surprise the hell out of me if parenting today is worse than it used to be in recent history.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="dunl12496"]

Encouraged by non government organizations you mean. Mcdonalds can do whatever the heck they want with food I say.

dunl12496

So if they wanted to undercook their food to cause an ecoli outbreak that would be cool?

No, eat mcdonalds kids meal once and you won't be deathly ill. It's schools fault more than mcdonalds.

Smoke a cigarette once and it won't give you cancer. That doesn't mean that tobacco companies should be allowed to market cigarettes to kids.

For everyone voting "no," why exactly is it unconstitutional?chessmaster1989

Yes, it's constitutional, but...

no, it isn't appropriate, however...

no, I wouldn't lift a finger to protest such a ban;

nor would I lift a finger to enact such a ban.

There are real societal consequences and costs to the obesity epidemic, so society has an interest in dealing with it. I do not approve of this particular regulation, which I believe to be missing the plot, but Government not only has the right, it has the clear responsibility to regulate commerce, even and especially at the Federal level. It can be argued that regulation of commerce is one of the primary motivations for the creation of the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation failed, partly due to a lack of power to regulate commerce. Local governments have always, and will always have the right to deny anything not specifically granted as a right not to be abridged under the Constitution, and those rights are few in number, very famous, and do not include the right to buy a happy meal.

We don't ban most things in America. We just strap burdensome regulations on them until it is no longer worth partaking in said thing or activity.

quetzalcoatI

That's complete bullcrap. The government can certainly pass a regulation stating that McDonald's should list the ingredients, calories, and nutrient information for their happy meal, but they can't ban them from having a toy in it. There's no safety hazard. It's just the government trying to decide what's best for people instead of letting the people make that call. Why would anyone be for that? Are they going to ban swimming pools because people drown in them? Ban cars, because emissions are unhealthy? Ban all ice cream because it makes you fat?

I believe it is unconstitutional to ban them all together, however I believe it is perfectly constitutional to tell mcdonalds that they need to make there meals healthier if they want them to appeal to children.Shindiggah

It's not constitutional to dictate. We have laws. And as long as McDonald'sdoesn't break those laws or violate any codes they are not doing anything illegal. Maybe unethical but not illegal. McDonald's is not responsible for the choices of their customers. The food may be unhealthy but so is smokingtoo manycigarettes, consuming an excess of alcohol as welleating way too much candy and pastries. McDonald's is not Blame for gluttony and poor choices.

Sure McDonald's markets their food to children but they're not suggesting eat everyday of the week multiple times. And so what if they were. It's the parent's fault for feeding their kid too much of that stuff.

I liked McDonald's when I was a kid but my parents made sure I ate right, I rarely chose to eat at those places when I was a teenager. I'm sure I haven't eaten at McDonald's for at least a decade. Out of all of the fast food places that exist I'm sure I've only been there a total of a few weeks when combining the duration of ten years. 14 days out of 3650.

Hey, if the kid is a defiant littleturd that refuses to be reasoned with let the little brat eat as much of that crap as he or she wants. Then once they start complaining they are gaining weight or don't feel well just tell them to go eat some more McDonald's.

True, and I find that very very disturbing.

magicalclick

[QUOTE="quetzalcoatI"]

We don't ban most things in America. We just strap burdensome regulations on them until it is no longer worth partaking in said thing or activity.

magicalclick

True, and I find that very very disturbing.

Well they know they can't get their way with a direct approachso the next best thing is harassment. But the problem is people don't like being sand bagged so they will keep doing it no matter how much they are harassed. There's always someone who believes they can intimidate the will of the citizens.

The law is pointless. They don't seem to realize that it's the parents buying the Happy Meals, not the kids. These lazy cheap parents will just go to another fast food place to buy the food, since they already don't care about their kids well being.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="dunl12496"]

Encouraged by non government organizations you mean. Mcdonalds can do whatever the heck they want with food I say.

dunl12496

So if they wanted to undercook their food to cause an ecoli outbreak that would be cool?

No, eat mcdonalds kids meal once and you won't be deathly ill. It's schools fault more than mcdonalds.

Cool. Now try addressing the question I asked.

HECK NO!! This is absolutely RIDICULOUS! Freedom of business! You can't do that! ******* idiots.

What do you think? In a calmer manner.... no I do not believe so.

dunl12496

What part of the Constitution do you think is being violated with the passing of this law?

This is a local matter, the federal law does not need to be applied here. This is like asking is it unconstitutional to ban alcohol sales on Sunday morning.

Yes. To say no would be to say that no product should be able to be banned. We have regulations. Many products have been banned such as Marijuana.

Now does that make it right? No. Does it make sense to ban happy meals? No. Will it do even .0000001% of a difference in obesity rates? No. Do I support banning them? No.

I'm pretty sure the regulation of commerce is constitutional.

If theyre going to ban Happy meals, than they might us well should ban, guns cigarettes, and alcohol.-Big_Red-

They're not banning Happy Meals, simply putting a certain regulation over them. Much like guns, cigarettes and alcohol have.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"]If theyre going to ban Happy meals, than they might us well should ban, guns cigarettes, and alcohol.worlock77

They're not banning Happy Meals, simply putting a certain regulation over them. Much like guns, cigarettes and alcohol have.

No it's not constitutional, and it's a stupid question. It's a "goodwill" law that has no founding in any sort of constitutional basis. The constitution never grants the privilege of restricting trans fats or deciding what is right or wrong for parents to buy for their children. It's idiotic and, quite frankly, un-American.

No it's not constitutional, and it's a stupid question. It's a "goodwill" law that has no founding in any sort of constitutional basis. The constitution never grants the privilege of restricting trans fats or deciding what is right or wrong for parents to buy for their children. It's idiotic and, quite frankly, un-American.

ptree01

It's not unconstitutional.

I think it makes more sense to regulate the food industry so you can't sell crap processed food to kids than it is to ban happy meals. Ninja-Hippo

I agree. If anything should be banned/regulated it's coca-cola, pepsi, dreyers, and frito lay.

Yes. To say no would be to say that no product should be able to be banned. We have regulations. Many products have been banned such as Marijuana.

Now does that make it right? No. Does it make sense to ban happy meals? No. Will it do even .0000001% of a difference in obesity rates? No. Do I support banning them? No.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Yes. To say no would be to say that no product should be able to be banned. We have regulations. Many products have been banned such as Marijuana.

Now does that make it right? No. Does it make sense to ban happy meals? No. Will it do even .0000001% of a difference in obesity rates? No. Do I support banning them? No.

jeremiah06

It still becomes the choice of the parent. If the kid is able to get his way and force the parent to get the toy he will likely be able to get his way and get the meal that doesn't taste like crap.

And when will you start regulating places like black angus, red robin, etc? Their food has far higher fatty content than mcdonalds.

Resturaunts are not the problem. People do not go to mcdonalds every day especially not in the current economic situation. Kids do not go obese from eating happy meals. If you want to stop obesity then aim it at some place that makes sense. Kids eat bags of doritos every day for months. A bag of doritos probably has around an equal fat content as a happy meal. Add in the coke that kids drinking ('round an extra 300 calories) and then ask your self "Which is the problem? The one a week happy meal or the multi-a day coke with doritos?".

Put penalties and regulations on super markets if you care so much. As it is you're doing nothing but peeing in the wind to make one feel like they "did something" when you didn't do anything.

I also don't think the average kid in the modern world cares about cheap chinese iron man toys when most kids have Ipods and a Nintendo DS. I'd rather play Pokemon Platinum instead of my cheap breaks in a second swapmeet level spiderman.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Yes. To say no would be to say that no product should be able to be banned. We have regulations. Many products have been banned such as Marijuana.

Now does that make it right? No. Does it make sense to ban happy meals? No. Will it do even .0000001% of a difference in obesity rates? No. Do I support banning them? No.

Pixel-Pirate

It still becomes the choice of the parent. If the kid is able to get his way and force the parent to get the toy he will likely be able to get his way and get the meal that doesn't taste like crap.

And when will you start regulating places like black angus, red robin, etc? Their food has far higher fatty content than mcdonalds.

Resturaunts are not the problem. People do not go to mcdonalds every day especially not in the current economic situation. Kids do not go obese from eating happy meals. If you want to stop obesity then aim it at some place that makes sense. Kids eat bags of doritos every day for months. A bag of doritos probably has around an equal fat content as a happy meal. Add in the coke that kids drinking ('round an extra 300 calories) and then ask your self "Which is the problem? The one a week happy meal or the multi-a day coke with doritos?".

Put penalties and regulations on super markets if you care so much. As it is you're doing nothing but peeing in the wind to make one feel like they "did something" when you didn't do anything.

I also don't think the average kid in the modern world cares about cheap chinese iron man toys when most kids have Ipods and a Nintendo DS. I'd rather play Pokemon Platinum instead of my cheap breaks in a second swapmeet level spiderman.

Question given: Is it constitutional to ban happy meals?

Question most people are answering: Do you agree with banning happy meals?

Oh OT, please change soon, you're dire.

they aren't banning happy meals :roll:

No it's not constitutional, and it's a stupid question. It's a "goodwill" law that has no founding in any sort of constitutional basis. The constitution never grants the privilege of restricting trans fats or deciding what is right or wrong for parents to buy for their children. It's idiotic and, quite frankly, un-American.

ptree01

I agree. Should we not sell metal rulers too? That would save more lives.

The Constitution is so overrated.

Robbazking

No, it's why you're here.

No, this law is completely unconstitutional. It violates the 9th amendment in several different ways.hokies1313

Agreed.