There is a lot more to this story…

Everyone is up in arms about the new school regulation banning bake sales in MA. The parents that usually use these sales to raise money for school sports and other such activities are incensed.

Bake sales, the calorie-laden standby cash-strapped classrooms, PTAs and booster clubs rely on, will be outlawed from public schools as of Aug. 1 as part of new no-nonsense nutrition standards, forcing fundraisers back to the blackboard to cook up alternative ways to raise money for kids.

At a minimum, the nosh clampdown targets so-called “competitive” foods — those sold or served during the school day in hallways, cafeterias, stores and vending machines outside the regular lunch program, including bake sales, holiday parties and treats dished out to reward academic achievement. But state officials are pushing schools to expand the ban 24/7 to include evening, weekend and community events such as banquets, door-to-door candy sales and football games.

Everyone but the bureaucrats and the schools pushed by those bureaucrats thinks the rule is dumb. Basically the schools are using a SCOTUS decision about allowing schools to regulate or punish behavior outside of school, some guy that held up a “Bongs for Jesus” sign was basically told in one of the most ridiculous rulings that his out of school activity impacted students, and hence the school could punish em, to justify this nonsense.

The angle nobody pushes is that schools are all under tremendous pressure from the MA politicians to change eating habits. And that drive is primarily because the MA politicians are first and foremost concerned with controlling healthcare costs. Obesity and medical complications caused by obesity, seems to be one of the primary drivers of medical costs these days.

Whether you believe obesity is a problem or not, the bigger issue this brings to the forefront is whether we have freedom to determine what we eat or not. The big government controlled healthcare types tell us constantly they wouldn’t do shit like this, but have no doubt they are behind this effort, be it directly or indirectly, to control what people eat, because they see that as a critical step towards controlling government run healthcare costs. Sooner than later, for our own good they will tell us too, of course, they will start controlling not just what we eat, but everything else we do. Of course big nanny state lovers will see very little wrong with that until they tell them they can’t do something they want to do, or have to do something they don’t, death panels come to mind, but by then it will already be too late.

Comments are closed.

  1. Mook

    I’ve read that smokers, as unhealthy as they may be, save taxpayers a TON of money because, on average, they die in their mid-60’s before they can collect Social security, medicare, and/or pension benefits that they’ve paid into, they have fewer lifetime healthcare visits, and their end of life healthcare costs are little different than say, an 88 yr old dying of cancer or heart problems… and they smokers pay countless amounts of ‘sin’ taxes on their smokes. From a cost standpoint, our govt. should subsidize smokers.

    I would imagine obese people have similar lifetime cost “savings” on average from dying younger, although I’ll bet obese people are more likely to collect SSDI, which may add to costs. Somebody should study that

    With liberals, it’s all about control. THEY know best for you and the other rubes.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    Basically the schools are using a SCOTUS decision about allowing schools to regulate or punish behavior outside of school, some guy that held up a “Bongs for Jesus” sign was basically told in one of the most ridiculous rulings that his out of school activity impacted students, and hence the school could punish em, to justify this nonsense.

    I don’t know the details of that one, but when some students from our local high school beat up someone at the local mall while in their school uniform, their activities out of school certainly impacted on other students. The school took it extremely seriously, as they should – they have a reputation to uphold.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10717145

    However in terms of outlawing bake-sales because of nutritional concerns – that’s ridiculous. Parents should be keeping tabs (as much as possible) on what their kids eat. Education on food should happen at home and at school. But one-off bake sales aren’t going to make any more than a negligible impact in an overall diet.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Seattle Outcast

    The school took it extremely seriously, as they should – they have a reputation to uphold.

    However, a school is not the same thing as a business, military service, or police, etc.

    It was, quite honestly, none of the school’s fucking business what happens with the students off campus unless it is a school function. The next logical step is the school informing the students what it considers to be acceptable behavior in all functions at all times and locations, who they can associate with, what they can eat, what web sites they are allowed to visit, etc.

    The school’s only concern is what happens within its walls.

    Thumb up 3

  4. CM

    It was, quite honestly, none of the school’s fucking business what happens with the students off campus unless it is a school function.

    If the kids are in school uniform I think it matters. In the example I gave they were able to be identified by their uniform.
    But yeah, otherwise I agree.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Mississippi Yankee

    While my youngest was still in school here every time they needed to raise money I would get a call to see if my cotton candy machines were available. My wife and I never turned them down but I don’t think you can find a more sugary treat than cotton candy.
    My how time have changed.

    CM, you should really google “Bongs for Jesus” . Your analogy couldn’t be further off the mark.

    Thumb up 4

  6. InaneGoldfish

    “Bongs for Jesus” sign was basically told in one of the most ridiculous rulings that his out of school activity impacted students, and hence the school could punish em, to justify this nonsense.

    if you’re claiming that they are using the Morse decision (“bong hits for jesus”)i’m not sure what you read that I didn’t. Morse allows schools to punish (regulate) students’ SPEECH that looks like it is advocating illegal drug use (NOTE: does not allow for censoring of advocating the legalization of drugs). I’m not trying to say that what MA has done is right, but please dont go spewing off about horrible SCOTUS decisions when you are SO wrong about the holding

    Thumb up 0