Lockers and school and drugs and drugs and drugs

[El Twid]

Are those good and plenties or are scarfing down your friends ritalyn?

[V3X]

Well, not strictly accurate.  They write nice letters and communicate.  And their politicians and appointed officials LISTEN to them, just as the nice children in the schools hang on every word put forth by drug prevention professionals.

And phone calls, and going to the state house, and organising grass root campaigns, etc., etc.   There is no silver bullett and takes quite a bit of persistence and we, of course, don't always win.

Strangely, it was so much easier to convince them to fill schools with drug dogs, metal detectors, and State thugs than it is to convince them to cut back on the amount of highly damaging bullshit that is fed to children in schools, from junk food to advertising. So much easier to punish than to nurture. I wonder why that is.

Need new books? Healthy food? Don't have the budget! Sorry!

Need cops, dogs, warrantless searches? Body scanners? No problem - just sign here!

Hmmm.

[Misery's Fred Trough]

PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, ARTIFICIAL COLORS, NOT DRUGS.

 

In any case isn't sugar addictive? Or you know, that highly concentrated sugar with the caffeine in the 20 oz bottle in the vending machines that all over the place in schools now, which is totally not at all like other drugs, and in no way impact their thinking or their learning.

Or, maybe, we work on both?  Crazy idea, I know.  I mean, fuck multi-tasking health, broad-based, comprehensive health coalitions, am I right?

Why would you discourage kids from those things, I mean all those unhealthy ingredients were approved by the Holy and Infallible FDA.

It would be more about providing them information on healthy eating andthe science behind the benefits along with the costs of unhealthy eating.  But this isn't my area so I don't do any of this stuff.

If you're discouraging them because they're bad for you, shouldn't we outlaw them, you know, for the children?

No.  Let's see if everyone can figure out the difference between the two ideas.  Any takers?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

3:45 And Nigel instructed the multitudes, saying, "The only animal you may not fuck is the chicken; for it alone among beasts cannot return your love.  Likewise, the only facility that is banned unto thee is the port-a-potty, for man was not meant to shit in a smelly closet.  So go hence, and shatter them with your hammers and adzes and mattocks, that thou might make a big blue lake for the betterment of all."

[stelz]

3:45 And Nigel instructed the multitudes, saying, "The only animal you may not fuck is the chicken; for it alone among beasts cannot return your love.  Likewise, the only facility that is banned unto thee is the port-a-potty, for man was not meant to shit in a smelly closet.  So go hence, and shatter them with your hammers and adzes and mattocks, that thou might make a big blue lake for the betterment of all."

Somebody needs to WOMP a Nigel on the Mount. 

[stelz]

PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, ARTIFICIAL COLORS, NOT DRUGS.

 

In any case isn't sugar addictive? Or you know, that highly concentrated sugar with the caffeine in the 20 oz bottle in the vending machines that all over the place in schools now, which is totally not at all like other drugs, and in no way impact their thinking or their learning.

Or, maybe, we work on both?  Crazy idea, I know.  I mean, fuck multi-tasking health, broad-based, comprehensive health coalitions, am I right?

Why would you discourage kids from those things, I mean all those unhealthy ingredients were approved by the Holy and Infallible FDA.

It would be more about providing them information on healthy eating andthe science behind the benefits along with the costs of unhealthy eating.  But this isn't my area so I don't do any of this stuff.

It was the FDA that approved all the garbage in the first place.

Do you really think they're going to instruct the kids that government agencies are profit-driven and you have to TFYS?

If you're discouraging them because they're bad for you, shouldn't we outlaw them, you know, for the children?

No.  Let's see if everyone can figure out the difference between the two ideas.  Any takers?

[/quote]

Nabisco and Kraft have more clout here than we do.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No.  Let's see if everyone can figure out the difference between the two ideas.  Any takers?

Nabisco and Kraft have more clout here than we do.

RWHN doesn't get funding for junk food.

[El Twid]

I got this. Sugar makes you fat. Drugs make you skinny.

[Misery's Fred Trough]

Nobody's got it yet.

[stelz]

Nobody's got it yet.

Yes, somebody did:

No.  Let's see if everyone can figure out the difference between the two ideas.  Any takers?

Nabisco and Kraft have more clout here than we do.

RWHN doesn't get funding for junk food.

[V3X]

Nobody's got it yet.

I KNOW! I KNOW!

"Encouraging good nutrition can give young people the motivation they need to make positive choices with their lives! Drugs on the other hand are a menace and must be proactively irradicated!"

OR
It's because junk food isn't ILLEGAL, and it's taxable, AND schools can make $$REAL$$MONEY$$ from it.

Drugs, on the other hand, make you do strange and dangerous things like question the validity of the authority structure.

[Misery's Fred Trough]

Nope.  Oh darn it ,training is starting back up again.  I shall make the big reveal later.   HINT, The answer is in a previous thead. 

[stelz]

Nope.  Oh darn it ,training is starting back up again.  I shall make the big reveal later.   HINT, The answer is in a previous thead post. 

RWHN doesn't get funding for junk food.

[Misery's Fred Trough]

Well, that's the answer to the question of why I don't work on those initiatives.  Others in my agency are funded to do that work.

But I think the question was why do I support drugs being illegal, in part, to promote health and wellness amongst our youth, but I don't advocate for banning high fructose corn syrup, sugar, etc., etc.,

Let's just skip over the whole discussion about how using something like, say heroin, isn't really equivalent with eating, say, a sugary breakfast cereal. 

Let's instead go to the mechanics of this.  The simple fact is that (aside from alcohol and tobacco) the other drugs ARE currently illegal for anyone to possess, distribute, etc. 

My argument is about how it would create a net negative for society to legalize all drugs.  Whatever benefit you gain in terms of adults being able to freely abuse cocaine and heroin, are far outweighed by the consequences to society in terms of increased health costs, lower productivity, and having more youth addicted to drugs.  Use is linked to access.  Simple economic theory tells you that.  If you made drugs legal, it would increase access which would impact use. 

I can agree with a philosophy and the theory of adults being able to freely destroy their bodies as they see fit.  However, when we talk about the practical, the actual, it is a different story, and is thus why I simply cannot be on board with legalization.  It's what is in place now and if it goes away things get worse.

The high fructose corn syrup, etc., is NOT currently illegal.  And while banning it would certainly have an impact on youth obesity and other issues, I would rather see efforts focused on education, awareness, etc.,   

Now, I can hear you all screaming COGNITIVE DISSONANCE! but I am looking at the practical mechanics and not solely a philosophy and theory.  If I thought you could legalize drugs and there would be NO increase in youth use, I'd be on board.  But I know differently, and thus, I'm not on board and never will be. 

[six to the quixotic]

I think we need a chicken fuckin' emote.