California Legislature Bill SB-1192 Children’s meals. Say hello to more nanny-state.

Hello!!

This should come as a shock... Should, but doesn't, really. It is California, after all.

Read it, and weep...literally, you should be weeping.

Ah, me... I could go on a multi-page rant, well...multi-paragraph, anyway, but why bother?

Too many are going to think this not only a good idea, but a great idea. We are, apparently, incapable of deciding what we'll even order at McDonalds...or Burger King. That choice must, in large part, be made by a state legislature, if you're so unfortunate to live in the formerly great state of California.

Isn't it nice to know that they, the State Legislature, feel that you are incapable of making your own choices, or choices for your kids?? So incapable, in fact, that they'll make it for you.

...and, yes, I'm aware that you are allowed, wasn't that nice of 'em, to choose something else, so long as you want to pay extra for it...

Once more, with feeling now:


HOO-RAY for the Nanny-state.

a reply to: seagull

What's the bill say?

a reply to: seagull

This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a children’s meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.

So technically it is a bill that does nothing at all but make the people that voted for it feel good.

They are not prohibiting the sale of a soda or juice.

Just making water or milk a default.

I'm so happy I moved away from Kalifornia years ago...

I truly don’t understand why any freedom loving American would still live in the Progressive cesspool of a State. Maybe their goal is to drive out as many people as possible so they can protect the environment. I really can’t think of any logical reason to inflict this much Government on American citizens.

ETA: personally I only drink bottled water, but that isn’t the governments business.

This just doesn't fire me up. They're changing the default beverage to water in kids' meals because of all the fat children. Should have done it a long time ago. If you still want fat children, you can still legally give them candywater.

a reply to: Metallicus

that sounds... anti-statist

a reply to: seagull

But it doesn't say that. It says that the default beverage for a child's meal should be a healthy form of water or milk. Default. That means that you can order any other thing. It only applies to children's meals.

From the bill, which you neglected to post:

This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a children’s meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.

Only kids. Not adults. It appears to have the intention of defaulting to healthy drinks for kids. Not carbonated, suger-laced drinks that are proven to have serious heath repercussions on all humans.

What is your problem with this?

It looks like you are trying to make it somehow bad that democratically elected body is helping to insure that children are healthy? Nanny state? Like banning Asbestos in schools, or child labor laws, or taking lead of of baby funiture?

This gives the children an alternative to forced sugar drinks at a child meal menu at restaurant, rather then having to pay more for a healthy alternative. So it costs the parents less, is healthier, and does not addict children at a young age to sugar. I really can't see how anyone could be against this.

Oh yes, the nanny state. Give that tired meme a rest. Children need nannys, or at least a sensible adult who can make the choice between a healthy beverage and some packaged crap that industry wants you to drink.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

There's a link in the OP.

a reply to: JasonBillung

If you can't see the problem here, then I really don't know what to tell you.

...and the bill, in its entirety, is linked. So spare me the veiled accusations of lying. I'm doing nothing of the sort. You don't agree with my take on it, fine.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

So you're OK with a legislature doing your thinking for you? OK.

No, this isn't world shaking in and of itself. Why would it be? It's only fast food choices, right? Going along with state mandated insurance, and many another infringement upon our choices in life.

Just a symptom of a much larger issue. You don't agree, fine.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: JasonBillung

If you can't see the problem here, then I really don't know what to tell you.

...and the bill, in its entirety, is linked. So spare me the veiled accusations of lying. I'm doing nothing of the sort. You don't agree with my take on it, fine.

Yes, you don't have anything to tell me, because you really said nothing except to cry "nanny state" about children, who need supervision (often called nannys) or adults to make decisions for them. You were not honest, and now you are running away from my logical argument into the realm of throwing up your hands and leaving the room.

No game?

None.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

So you're OK with a legislature doing your thinking for you? OK.

No, this isn't world shaking in and of itself. Why would it be? It's only fast food choices, right? Going along with state mandated insurance, and many another infringement upon our choices in life.

Just a symptom of a much larger issue. You don't agree, fine.

Yeah, leave it to parents to decide if the kids should have lead paint on their toys and work 14 hours a day in the mines. Not all parents are smart or have the best interests of their children at heart. That is why we have laws. To protect children.

a reply to: seagull

So you're OK with a legislature doing your thinking for you? OK.

Are you okay with soda pop lobby making the decision for you?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: seagull

What's the bill say?

It says that when a restaurant offers children's meals that include a drink, the provided drink has to be either water or milk, unless the parent asks for something else. A parent could go in and ask for 10 large sodas for their kid if they wanted.
So basically, parents are free to order whatever they want for their kids. The OP completely blew this out of proportion.

I think this is a good idea, because there's nothing wrong with a kid drinking water or milk instead of soda, and nothing is stopping that kid from drinking soda anyway. This just prevents restaurants from giving soda to kids without the parents actually requesting it. Isn't that how restaurants should work? If you want something to eat or drink, you specifically order it, right?

originally posted by: seagull
So you're OK with a legislature doing your thinking for you? OK.

What thinking exactly would the legislature be doing for me if they make it so that I'm free to order whatever I want at a restaurant? I think I'd much rather decide for myself if I want to order a soda than have the restaurant give me one without asking and charge me for it. It's basically the opposite of what you're implying.

a reply to: trollz

Exactly, rather then the restaurant choosing the default (unheathy) drink for your kid, you get to choose. I wish they did that for me as an adult. Soda is horrible with a meal. I would rather have water or milk.

So a bill requiring a restaurant to make water the primary beverage is bad? It says that if you specify a different drink other than water then you can get it. No one is making a choice for you.

Did you even read the bill? Because it doesn't sound like you did. You make it sound like the government is forcing your kids to drink water. They're not, not even close.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Soda pop lobby? Seriously?

That's original, anyway. No, you see, I can make up my own mind, I don't need a legislature, at any level, deciding what's in my best interests.

The choice is still there. My question is why would the legislature, in its infinite "wisdom" waste time with something so banal?

If I want my kid to have something other than soda with his/her Happy Meal, then I am perfectly capable of handling that my own little ol' self. Done it many times with various nieces and nephews, and cousins, etc...

Do you feel the need to have a legislature make your decisions for you? Or even the Soda Pop Lobby?

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Under existing law, a person who violates any provision of the code is guilty of a misdemeanor with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a children’s meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one. The bill would make a violation of its provisions an infraction, but would make the first violation subject to a notice of violation. Under the bill, the 2nd and 3rd violations would be punishable by fines of not more than $250 and $500, respectively. By imposing additional duties on local enforcement agencies and by creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

So if the restaurant served a coke they'd get fined more than $1000 and JAIL TIME for six months.



Oh and what the EFF is the difference between water and 'sparkling' water?

Commies live up to their names.

The food police!

a reply to: neo96

Ah, yes... The fines. Good of you to mention those.

Fines and jail time. So, who is it that gets to pay the fine? That poor 16 year old part time worker, the manager, who might not even be at work that day, the CEO of the company? All of 'em?

I wonder what happens if you give 'em a straw, too?? Oh, dear...