• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

California Has Gone Mad

EllyDicious

made of AMBIGUITY
V.I.P.
They are wanting to legalize marijuana....and today,
Nowadays people know what's good or bad for their health and life so if they want marijuana or any other drugs in their body then let them have it.
Bad for them.

San Fransisco has announced they want to ban the toys from McDonald's Happy Meals.
This sounds ridiculous.
Maybe the don't want the consumption level of McDonald's food to go up because they are unhealthy? If this was the reason why would they legalize marijuana?
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
Marijuana is not unhealthy, Elly. Especially not when compared to some of the pharmaceuticals that are prescribed for the same things medical marijuana is prescribed for. And especially not when compared to alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal.
------
Hybrix you talk and you talk about personal responsibility all the time but you never take into consideration the fact that some people are just far too stupid to be parents, and they will let their children eat whatever they want, especially if it comes with a shiny new toy, but what about the health effects on those kids of eating whatever they want? This falls under child protection if you ask me. We step in when kids are being physically abused, I don't see this as being all that different.
 
Last edited:

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
it's not unconstitutional. The government prohibits or reguates the sale of a lot of things.
Care to state some examples that are comparable to banning the purchase of a completely legal child's toy and completely legal food as a combo package?
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
Whether I can come up with an example that is comparable to a happy meal is irrelevant. The point is that the government can and does regulate commerce.

Take the 18th Amendment for example. The supreme law of the land prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages. Right there in the Constitution itself, dude.
 

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
Jeanie brings a valid point. The Gov't can regulate the sale of a toy just as they can alcohol.

Should they have the right to? No, I don't think its fair, but it is constitutional, and it is a good thing.

McDonalds uses toys to sell their garbage just like a pedophile would use toys to get kids in his van.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
I disagree that a local ordinance banning toys from happy meals is unconstitutional. Here is my take, but I would defer to CO regarding this topic. The constitution limits federal government from enacting such a law but it does not limit a local government from doing so. Only if such a ban was unconstitutional by limits enumerated by the bill of rights would it be unconstitutional. Otherwise the local "democratic" government can enact that local ordinance.

I think the whole idea is stupid but if that is what the locals want then it is OK by me. The world is filled with busybodies that think that they are smarter than others and, because they have righteousness on their side, feel it is their duty to intervene in the choices and freedom of those they deem to stupid to make the "right" decision. With the "end justifies the means" entitled attitude those folks will organize and pursue the use of the democratic process to force others to bend to their will. There are many examples of this type of groupthink from neighborhood association rules to city ordinances to state laws to federal law.

And the "protecting the children" trump card is laughable. Same argument as the "smoking around your children is child abuse" crowd but taking that idea even farther. (funny how many of the same people are also pro-abortion:confused:) If this protects children then anything can be rationalized by that argument. For example, I think that not teaching your child how to build shelter, start a fire, purify water, kill an animal, gut, butcher, and cook that animal is child abuse. In my opinion you are not properly preparing that child to fend for itself and you are an unfit parent. Your children should be enrolled in my summer camp at your expense, and taught these skills. You should be sent to remedial classes to improve your parenting skills, at your expense. You should be fined for not taking care of it yourself and fined again as punishment. A social worker named Ted Nugent has been assigned to your case and will be calling on you weekly in order to assure that your children are being raised properly, you will also be responsible for the costs of his visits.

I think my ridiculous proposal is at least a though out rationalization that solves a "problem" :lol: Their stupid law will have no effect whatsoever on childhood obesity. At least mine would actually accomplish something.

On marijuana legalization, I'm more libertarian and think that drug laws that punish users for simple possession are counterproductive. Resources should be redirected to more important issues or budgets cut and taxpayer savings realized.
 

oxyMORON

A Darker Knight
Don't crazy people go to California in the first place? :D

And didn't Prop 19 fail to pass anyways? All that talk about legalizing and all the talk about gaining widespread support and it still doesn't pass.

as far as McD's, those toys were a decent part of my childhood. Bad move in my opinion. The people who want to ban the toys claim it promotes unhealthy foods by giving kids prizes and that kids don't want apples, they want fries.

Instead of banning the toys, which is the main reason why kids even want a meal from McD, offer a cheaper meal if the parents choose healthier alternatives or something. Kids don't know what's going on. They're not the ones buying the meal. They'll eat anything their parents feed them as long as they get a toy.
 

Dekzper

Registered Member
LOL! :lol: It's all totally crazy! In Kentucky it's illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket. :-o I read that they did that cause it would cause horses to follow someone home and they could keep the horse. Weird! But the toys are cheap. If somebody really wanted a toy they could buy it and still have lots of money for lunch.
But i dont think the Government should be telling people not to give away toys! They can always think of reasons to keep people from doing things and I dont want them thinking of so many reasons that people cant do anything! They have food and candy and stuff at movies. Even at arcades and hs clubs like the Pulse in Oklahoma city. Is that luring kidz to do unhealthy things or to eat cheap hot dogs? Do kites and helium baloons lure kidz to climb trees and fall and kill themselves?
Parents needa be responsible. But if they aren't then they prolly feed their kidz lots of unhealthy stuff at home anyway. It's not a perfect world but adding a million more laws prolly wont fix it.
About marijuana, dunno.
 

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
Whether I can come up with an example that is comparable to a happy meal is irrelevant. The point is that the government can and does regulate commerce.

Take the 18th Amendment for example. The supreme law of the land prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages. Right there in the Constitution itself, dude.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. Ratified 1/16/1919. Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933. History

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
I am failing to see how the 18th amendment gives the government the right to regulate toys with a meal.

I might point out that the 18th amendment is the one and only amendment that has ever been repealed. Why? Because they got their act together and realized that regulating alcohol is wrong.

It's a legal toy, and it's a legal meal. It's fast food, it's going to be unhealthy get over it.

What are they going to do next ban the playplace at McDonalds because kids are STILL going to want to go there? And what about other companies that still sell toys with meals, are they going to get into trouble as well?

I don't believe that the government should have the right to regulate commerce in this fashion.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
OK if the government can't regulate commerce and say what can and can't be sold, then I'm going to start selling heroin to school kids. Or better yet, I'll go get scripts for Adderall and Ritalin and sell it to the rich kids in Grosse Pointe, they can afford it, and god knows I could use the money.

They have no right to tell me that I can't.
 
Top