Happy Meals illegal?

[CyberManectric]

Honestly I could care less about McDonald's and the crud they call food, and for that matter BK, DQ, and Wendy's. This ban on Happy Meals makes me wonder why the Government needs to be this much involved. Are people really that unwilling to make healthier decisions on their own? Sure fastfood is cheap and you get it in a few minutes but people pay for it in other ways in the long run. I still feel like banning the Happy Meals won't do any good, and Burger King also has the Kid's Meals With toys (and let's not forget when they had Pokemon cards) so I wonder if they're next on the Government's hit list. On the other hand their ads are not as prominent as McDonalds.

The real problem is dietary habbits are hard for a lot of people to change. I remember having a hard time giving up soda for about 2 months but now I haven't had a sip of soda for over three years. When I try to help someone find healthier food options they always say something like "oh you can do it because you're a health nut. I can't." What a sad excuse. Fastfood just has a tight grip on many communities and the situation can only get better when people decide that they've had enough and want a change in the meals offered to them. Although if people want to eat healthier the simplist solution is to cook their own meals.
~Cyber~

 

[StarrySora]

clarified that description...

'mom

But it's still in California . Anyway providing kids with home cooked meals is usually cheaper than getting a meal at a fast food joint anyways. Sure the toys promote the meal, but by the end of the day, it's still up to the parents to say no and not give their kids the food that's bad for them. They make the decision, the fast food joints just sell the product.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

That is pretty much my opinion on it.
If the kids want food, do you think the parents are more likely to say, "wait until we get home and I'll make something good" or, "you guys want burgers or pizza?"

Banning toys from happy meals is kind of silly and pretty much just some politician grandstanding without honestly doing anything.
I would like to see the obesity issues properly addressed, but people have to want to be healthy.

This is coming from a guy who did some crazy exercise for a number of years (iron mikes, mule kicks, and burpees oh my!).
If you ban unhealthy food, people will just eat an unhealthy amount of healthy food.
If people don't want to be healthy, you can't force them to be healthy.

 

[Mushiking]

i'm just happy to eat a meal

 

[Asrialys]

Aw, but I'll miss the Pokemon toys if the meals become illegal (I'd probably buy the toys separately regardless)...

 

[z-man]

IMO, that's just wrong. I am big in the fight for healthier foods, but not when it involves governmental action like this. Why just happy meals? If that's their reason, why don't they ban all fast food places that gives kids toys for eating their meals? That bans quite a few places from doing that type of thing. IMO, they should just make it clear how horrible McDonalds happy meals really are. I mean, all they are are basically fat in oil.

Even so, its (kinda) a step in the right direction. At least health has become an issue. I love California... they are always one step ahead of the rest of the US. When I was there for regionals/states, I was able to eat 100% vegan and ENJOY my food, rather than just having salad after salad.

 

[bullados]

It's not the Happy Meals themselves that are illegal. Just the toys that come with them. you can still purchase a Happy Meal, just not with the toy that it comes with.

 

[TheGeneral]

No toy = Unhappy meal

 

[CheeseEX]

ok so what about allcahol pepole get killed in drunk driver accidents plus it can kill you from overdose liver problems

what if i drink a bottle of bleach that wont do any good for me

what if i drink a bottle of drainoid thatll kill me lets make that illeagal 2

just my 2 cents

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

ok so what about allcahol pepole get killed in drunk driver accidents plus it can kill you from overdose liver problems

what if i drink a bottle of bleach that wont do any good for me

what if i drink a bottle of drainoid thatll kill me lets make that illeagal 2

just my 2 cents

Misuse of household chemicals is illegal in every state that I know of actually.

As far as banning the products, they aren't banning the food, just the toy.
If a kid is shouting that they want chicken nuggets, they are still probably going to get them, they just won't get the beanie baby with it.

Just political grandstanding by a state with much bigger issues to worry about.

 

[kwisdumb]

Not saying that I agree with this, but this thread title is mad lame.

HAPPY MEALS ILLEGAL.

YES, IN CA THEY ARE ILLEGAL~!

Means:

Happy Meals no longer come with toys in one county in CA.

=\

 

[Sabett]

The point isn't how far spread this has been done, it is the act. This is blatant slap in the face to the responsibility of parents and rights of the fast food industry. All you're seeing is a simple matter that doesn't affect you, so why not let it happen? Who cares? It's little things like this, that if you notice, are slowly being taken away from us as time passes. What's to stop this idea from spreading? What's to stop this idea from branching out? What's to stop them from saying what books they can read? Oh wait... What's to stop them from choosing what history they get to be told (truth or lie)? Oh wait... Guess this idea's already thriving, seems like this is just another extension of that idea.

There are many things wrong with this decree.

1. Parent's are the one's who should be held responsible for their children's diet, it's their child, no one makes them buy their child junk food to the degree that it makes them obese. McD's may be large, as well as few kids, but it doesn't have the omnipotent power to make you buy their product, at the end of the day, no matter what McD's does, it was your decision and you have nobody but yourself to blame.

2. The Government shouldn't be involved in such a personal matter. It isn't the Government's place for them to make parenting decisions for them. What, is this supposed to be like smoking? Small children are sneaking behind parent's backs and helplessly falling spell to McD's villainous advertisement? Those darn fast food restaurants, with their parks and their toys playing bait to the evil that resides in each and every happy meal, obesity? Thank goodness the government has the ability to prevent such atrocities? Is this what I'm supposed to believe? Shoot, while we're at it, why don't we just hand the children into an orphanage, that way the government can make all the decisions for them, certainly if they know how to protect them from harmful diets, they can give them prosperous lives of success by themselves. But I digress. The point is that the government shouldn't play the role of parents for them, this is why we have parents.

3. This greatly infringes on the fast food industry (within this county) to advertise, I mean god forbid McD's advertise kid meals to..... KIDS!! This is a completely fair way to advertise to, and insensitivise little youngsters to ask their mommy for a happy meal, because at the end of the day, once again, it is their decision, not the child's, so it really doesn't matter how engorging McD's can make their product to kids, they're technically not even the consumer (ok well literally they may be). The rebuttal to this could be that the children will keep on bothering their parents forcing them to buy it for them. I'm sorry but if you're a parent, and your children, at such a young age, is deciding on what they get to eat (to such a degree that they become obese), than that's called bad parenting. Which means, as I once again say, like a broken record, brings the parents to blame.

4. One thing that seems to be severly overlooked, places like McD's are actually creating their meals to healthier, idk if you've looked at that part of the menu, but you should, they've got strips of apples as a side order for kids in a FAST FOOD restaurant. Look, I know McD's is pretty bad for you, but apples are a pretty frickin healthy replacement for fries. They're also advertising their salads, and parfaits more and more. So not only can the parents decide to feed their kids McD's, but they can also decide to feed them a less fattening meal than the typical Happy Meal.

In short, parents need to be parents and not asking the government make them be, it's not only wrong for the responsibility of a parent, rights of advertisement, but also affects all of us, in that it is another subtle step into taking civil rights from each and everyone of us.

 

[pat460]

The point is how far spread this has been done, it is the act. This is blatant slap in the face to the responsibility of parents and rights of the fast food industry. All you're seeing is a simple matter that doesn't affect you, so why not let it happen? Who cares? It's little things like this, that if you notice, are slowly being taken away from us as time passes. What's to stop this idea from spreading? What's to stop this idea from branching out? What's to stop them from saying what books they can read? Oh wait... What's to stop them from choosing what history they get to be told (truth or lie)? Oh wait... Guess this idea's already thriving, seems like this is just another extension of that idea.

There are many things wrong with this decree.

1. Parent's are the one's who should be held responsible for their children's diet, it's their child, no one makes them buy their child junk food to the degree that it makes them obese. McD's may be large, as well as few kids, but it doesn't have the omnipotent power to make you buy their product, at the end of the day, no matter what McD's does, it was your decision and you have nobody but yourself to blame.

2. The Government shouldn't be involved in such a personal matter. It isn't the Government's place for them to make parenting decisions for them. What, is this supposed to be like smoking? Small children are sneaking behind parent's backs and helplessly falling spell to McD's villainous advertisement? Those darn fast food restaurants, with their parks and their toys playing bait to the evil that resides in each and every happy meal, obesity? Thank goodness the government has the ability to prevent such atrocities? Is this what I'm supposed to believe? Shoot, while we're at it, why don't we just hand the children into an orphanage, that way the government can make all the decisions for them, certainly if they know how to protect them from harmful diets, they can give them prosperous lives of success by themselves. But I digress. The point is that the government shouldn't play the role of parents for them, this is why we have parents.

3. This greatly infringes on the fast food industry (within this county) to advertise, I mean god forbid McD's advertise kid meals to..... KIDS!! This is a completely fair way to advertise to, and insensitivise little youngsters to ask their mommy for a happy meal, because at the end of the day, once again, it is their decision, not the child's, so it really doesn't matter how engorging McD's can make their product to kids, they're technically not even the consumer (ok well literally they may be). The rebuttal to this could be that the children will keep on bothering their parents forcing them to buy it for them. I'm sorry but if you're a parent, and your children, at such a young age, is deciding on what they get to eat (to such a degree that they become obese), than that's called bad parenting. Which means, as I once again say, like a broken record, brings the parents to blame.

4. One thing that seems to be severly overlooked, places like McD's are actually creating their meals to healthier, idk if you've looked at that part of the menu, but you should, they've got strips of apples as a side order for kids in a FAST FOOD restaurant. Look, I know McD's is pretty bad for you, but apples are a pretty frickin healthy replacement for fries. They're also advertising their salads, and parfaits more and more. So not only can the parents decide to feed their kids McD's, but they can also decide to feed them a less fattening meal than the typical Happy Meal.

In short, parents need to be parents and not asking the government make them be, it's not only wrong for the responsibility of a parent, rights of advertisement, but also affects all of us, in that it is another subtle step into taking civil rights from each and everyone of us.

This is just one of those posts that has to be pointed out as amazing. This /thread. Just the right balance of substance and sarcasm, and really gets the message of the post across well.

 

[Box of Fail]

It is better to have the ability to make a bad lifestyle choice than to have the government make a good one for you. We're not robots.

 

[Jaeger]

I can really see some similiarties between this and tobacco companies not being allowed to advertise using cartoon characters.

 

[turhatar]

(Sabbet: should've left the intro out, a little too much propaganda there.. reduces the speaker's credibility a bit)

But wow, this is pretty.. wow. Don't feel necessary to post points that have already been posted, but it seems odd that this kind of thing happens in America, I thought Americans feel individualism, the ultimate freedom, is just about the highest of all values

Jaeger: Just to compare things, I think in Finland advertisin tobacco in any form is not even allowed Also the advertising of alcohol is very strict. But that's just because Finns are such drunks lol.

Hard questions.. Immanuel Kant would have told a murderer (or his theory would've) where his children were when the murderer came to ask for them, holding an axe. That is because Kant feels that it is everyone's responsibility to take care of his/her own actions, the murderer is a moral agent of himself, and in Kant's opinion can only do the decision by himself, not by guided by anyone. So it wouldn't be Kant's job to tell the murderer what to do or lie to him.

Well, most of us think a bit different than Kant, that's easy to see. Harder is just to tell where to draw the line between restricting people to do things like murdering and eating happy meals, and where does the "own consideration" start.

 

[Sabett]

(Sabbet: should've left the intro out, a little too much propaganda there.. reduces the speaker's credibility a bit)

Propaganda involves spreading the idea, this is a part of the idea, it doesn't fall under propaganda. Also the point of propaganda is that it does the opposite of what you've said it does.

I can really see some similiarties between this and tobacco companies not being allowed to advertise using cartoon characters.

Cigarettes are like happy meals to you?

Well, most of us think a bit different than Kant, that's easy to see. Harder is just to tell where to draw the line between restricting people to do things like murdering and eating happy meals, and where does the "own consideration" start.

There's also a big difference between those to things, one involves the choice of the "victim" per se and the other does not.

 

[Box of Fail]

^Don't say 'per say', misusing Latin is practically asking for prodigal_fanboy to come.

Frankly, if what you are doing adversely affects yourself, and nobody else, you should be permitted to do it. Getting fat doesn't incovenience others much (I would hope). It's just like how the government shouldn't force you to wear a seatbelt or smoke; people should be allowed to do what they'd like at their own peril. The government is not meant to babysit us.

 

[Jaeger]

^Don't say 'per say', misusing Latin is practically asking for prodigal_fanboy to come.

Frankly, if what you are doing adversely affects yourself, and nobody else, you should be permitted to do it. Getting fat doesn't incovenience others much (I would hope). It's just like how the government shouldn't force you to wear a seatbelt or smoke; people should be allowed to do what they'd like at their own peril. The government is not meant to babysit us.

What about our government paying for health care for obese people with health problems?

 

[Sabett]

^Don't say 'per say', misusing Latin is practically asking for prodigal_fanboy to come.

Frankly, if what you are doing adversely affects yourself, and nobody else, you should be permitted to do it. Getting fat doesn't incovenience others much (I would hope). It's just like how the government shouldn't force you to wear a seatbelt or smoke; people should be allowed to do what they'd like at their own peril. The government is not meant to babysit us.

I didn't misuse it, I misspelled it though.

What about our government paying for health care for obese people with health problems?

What about it? That's what it's there for. They pay taxes, they get to use it. just like anyone else....not that government provided health care is in effect in America right now.....