[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Now tell me. If I'm old enough to have an 8 hour school day with half of my classes being college credit courses, plus homework, plus 20+ hours a week on the job, why can't I have a fucking red bull? [/quote]
Because self-righteous big government nannies know what’s better for you than you and your parents do.
BTW, welcome to the Libertarian Party. 
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Kids are just little people are they not?
No… they aren’t.
[/quote]
What are they, goats?
Parents being responsible for their children is the most natural thing in the world. Having the government raise kids is all very platonic and all, but very dangerous too. People are always going to do stupid shit and hurt themselves. You outlaw one thing, it will just be another. Sorry, but I consider myself a much smarter parent than the government. Government intervention in our lives should be minimal, not maximal.
Again, my kids don’t drink it because I don’t let them. If somebody’s kid drinks an energy drink is it a parental responsibility or a governmental responsibility?
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
So, what constitutes being an adult? I’m not talking about what the gov’t says either. I’m less of a moron then most of the adults I come across in day to day life. If wisconsin enacts something like that I guarentee I will have no problem getting my hands on it, just like I’d have no problems with any other controlled substances. All this does is create an illegal market for red bull of all things. I’m totally capable of making my own decisions. I work, and I am going to spend the money I earned on whatever I damn well please. My parents raised me not to be a moron. If yours don’t that’s not anyone elses problem.
Now tell me. If I'm old enough to have an 8 hour school day with half of my classes being college credit courses, plus homework, plus 20+ hours a week on the job, why can't I have a fucking red bull? [/quote]
If it’s ok with your parents, it’s ok with me…
You are an adult when you are eligible to die for your country. But trust me, being an adult is much harder than being a kid/teenager…You’ll soon see.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Does anyone really think it is good for minors to purchase or use energy drinks?[/quote]
Yes - especially if they lift or train for a sport.
I see many that aren’t physically active drinking energy drinks very often as well, but that’s more of a waste of money than a reason for concern.
Does anyone know if this bill also bans a parent giving a minor an energy drink? Can a parent still buy them at least? If so, this bill doesn’t piss me off nearly as much. But I’m still at a loss - why energy drinks? Seems really random? Did some kid in main shotgun a case of Red Bull and die recently?
[quote]Magnate wrote:
Does anyone know if this bill also bans a parent giving a minor an energy drink? Can a parent still buy them at least? If so, this bill doesn’t piss me off nearly as much. But I’m still at a loss - why energy drinks? Seems really random? Did some kid in main shotgun a case of Red Bull and die recently?[/quote]
I think it does, which is stupid. Kids should be able to drink beer w/ parental consent and supervision.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Does anyone know if this bill also bans a parent giving a minor an energy drink? Can a parent still buy them at least? If so, this bill doesn’t piss me off nearly as much. But I’m still at a loss - why energy drinks? Seems really random? Did some kid in main shotgun a case of Red Bull and die recently?
I think it does, which is stupid. [/quote]
Then I guess it’s a good thing that’s nearly unenforceable.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
So, what constitutes being an adult? I’m not talking about what the gov’t says either. I’m less of a moron then most of the adults I come across in day to day life. If wisconsin enacts something like that I guarentee I will have no problem getting my hands on it, just like I’d have no problems with any other controlled substances. All this does is create an illegal market for red bull of all things. I’m totally capable of making my own decisions. I work, and I am going to spend the money I earned on whatever I damn well please. My parents raised me not to be a moron. If yours don’t that’s not anyone elses problem.
[/quote]
The age is almost arbitrary. Obviously some people are not “adults” at 18, and some people are “adults” at 15 or 16. The alternative is to have some sort of exam… and I am sure the ACLU would not like that very much.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Does anyone really think it is good for minors to purchase or use energy drinks?
Yes - especially if they lift or train for a sport.
[/quote]
I disagree. Who cares if they lift or train for a sport? Eat and get plenty of sleep. If a teenager can’t lift or train by following those two simple steps, he should see a doctor.
[quote]pat wrote:
What are they, goats?
[/quote]
They are children. Not “little people.” They are incomplete people. Babies cannot make reasoned choices. As children age, their capacity to reason increases, as does their capacity to weigh the consequences of their actions.
Children are growing, and have special biological requirements that adults do not have. Why does a child go to a pediatrician as opposed to a GP? They are just “little people,” right?
I have already addressed this.
Well, by putting children in public school… you are having the government raise children. As such, in loco parentis applies.
[quote]
Again, my kids don’t drink it because I don’t let them. If somebody’s kid drinks an energy drink is it a parental responsibility or a governmental responsibility?[/quote]
No offense, but you don’t know this, unless you home school your children.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Does anyone know if this bill also bans a parent giving a minor an energy drink? Can a parent still buy them at least? If so, this bill doesn’t piss me off nearly as much. But I’m still at a loss - why energy drinks? Seems really random? Did some kid in main shotgun a case of Red Bull and die recently?
I think it does, which is stupid. Kids should be able to drink beer w/ parental consent and supervision.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Magnate wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Does anyone really think it is good for minors to purchase or use energy drinks?
Yes - especially if they lift or train for a sport.
I disagree. Who cares if they lift or train for a sport? Eat and get plenty of sleep. If a teenager can’t lift or train by following those two simple steps, he should see a doctor.[/quote]
It’s not valid to use as a supplement BECAUSE it is supplemental? Lift, Eat, and Sleep are necessary, no shit - but supplements have their place too. Being a level 5, you appear to know that. A teenage athlete has a valid reason to use them assuming all other aspects of training are in line, whether or not it is “good”, i don’t even know how to evaluate that. If they use them safely, I would say they certainly aren’t “bad”.
I’ve never used any caffeine supplements or energy drink to train (I do want to try Spike sometime though, just have never gotten around to it), but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used effectively and safely for that purpose.
That being said, I am in favor of parents having oversight over their child’s diet & supplements IF THAT PARENT IS WELL INFORMED. My mother freaked out when I bought creatine from GNC when I first started lifting, she has no clue about diet or training at all. I have to explain what every supplement I use does to her otherwise she thinks I’ll get cancer. Whenever I come inside from my garage (home gym), if I’m out of breath, she’ll say I should take a week off or that I’m training too hard. Because I’m short of breath after 60min or more of lifting. Expecting that this woman should be in charge of my diet, training, or supplementation is ridiculous.
But maybe that raises the point that if the child cannot at least tell their parent what a supplement does and the basics of how it goes about it, maybe they shouldn’t have it until they learn about it themselves and how to most effectively and safely use it. If this bill accomplishes that, I’m more than happy about the outcome regardless of how I feel about the means. If this bill doesn’t even allow a parent to buy these for their kids, that is a big problem with me however.
1st paragraph edited.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
It’s not valid to use as a supplement BECAUSE it is supplemental? Lift, Eat, and Sleep are necessary, no shit - but supplements have their place too. Being a level 5, you appear to know that. A teenage athlete has a valid reason to use them assuming all other aspects of training are in line, whether or not it is “good”, i don’t even know how to evaluate that. If they use them safely, I would say they certainly aren’t “bad”.
[/quote]
I never said it wasn’t “valid.” I do, however, think it is a little silly for teenagers to spend money on supplements - especially if we are talking about energy drinks. Are energy drinks really the sine qua non of high school sports? Look - I really don’t care if drinking a red bull or a Spike Shooter improves your jump shot. If you want to drink them, drink them. What I am disputing is the claim that high school athletics legitimizes supplement use in teenagers - especially, again, when we are talking about energy drinks.
And this worries me, because the priority students and parents ascribe to high school athletics is already disproportionate and to the detriment, in many cases, of their studies. And it worries me even more that someone thinks high school athletics are so important - so serious - that not being able to drink a Spike Shooter is a serious impingement upon their human rights.
No, it doesn’t mean that. And I never argued otherwise.
Good luck on both counts - parents either being informed or having oversight.
When 7-11 sells all sorts of stimulants over the counter, how could a parent reasonably be expected to have oversight?
I agree generally. While I am in favor of granting wide latitude to parents, I do wonder about, for example, cigarettes; should a parent really be allowed to give a child a substance which is known to cause addiction and cancer? You can make the argument that at 17 the child is as capable of making that decision as he or she would be at 18. What about at age 8? Is there ever an age at which a child is so vulnerable that the state has an obligation to protect him or her from egregious abuse of parental authority?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
What are they, goats?
They are children. Not “little people.” They are incomplete people. Babies cannot make reasoned choices. As children age, their capacity to reason increases, as does their capacity to weigh the consequences of their actions.
Children are growing, and have special biological requirements that adults do not have. Why does a child go to a pediatrician as opposed to a GP? They are just “little people,” right?
[/quote]
Well my kids, at least are complete people. I cannot speak for anybody else. Having different attribute does not make them less of a person.
[quote]
Parents being responsible for their children is the most natural thing in the world.
I have already addressed this.
Having the government raise kids is all very platonic and all, but very dangerous too. People are always going to do stupid shit and hurt themselves. You outlaw one thing, it will just be another. Sorry, but I consider myself a much smarter parent than the government. Government intervention in our lives should be minimal, not maximal.
Well, by putting children in public school… you are having the government raise children. As such, in loco parentis applies.
Again, my kids don’t drink it because I don’t let them. If somebody’s kid drinks an energy drink is it a parental responsibility or a governmental responsibility?
No offense, but you don’t know this, unless you home school your children.[/quote]
I don’t believe you have to be up your kids ass all the time to ensure they do what they are told. If my kids do go behind my back and stuff I will but up there ass so far they’d think I grew there.
Can you provide a single shred of evidence that prohibition of any kind has ever been effective?
[quote]pat wrote:
Can you provide a single shred of evidence that prohibition of any kind has ever been effective?[/quote]
First, it depends what you mean by prohibition.
A complete ban on consumption (to either adults or just minors)? Or restriction of sale to minors?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Can you provide a single shred of evidence that prohibition of any kind has ever been effective?
First, it depends what you mean by prohibition.
A complete ban on consumption (to either adults or just minors)? Or restriction of sale to minors?[/quote]
Either…Cigarette sales to minors was prohibited and I still smoked at 16. Fat load of good that did.
[quote]pat wrote:
nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Can you provide a single shred of evidence that prohibition of any kind has ever been effective?
First, it depends what you mean by prohibition.
A complete ban on consumption (to either adults or just minors)? Or restriction of sale to minors?
Either…Cigarette sales to minors was prohibited and I still smoked at 16. Fat load of good that did.[/quote]
OK.
I can provide a shred of evidence. Not much more than that, but a shred.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/Synar94b1.pdf
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Can you provide a single shred of evidence that prohibition of any kind has ever been effective?
First, it depends what you mean by prohibition.
A complete ban on consumption (to either adults or just minors)? Or restriction of sale to minors?
Either…Cigarette sales to minors was prohibited and I still smoked at 16. Fat load of good that did.
OK.
I can provide a shred of evidence. Not much more than that, but a shred.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/Synar94b1.pdf[/quote]
It’s a shred. But here is what it said:
[i]Results: This study finds that teens are less likely to smoke and smoke fewer cigarettes where:
prices are higher; states earmark cigarette excise tax revenues for tobacco control activities; there are stronger restrictions on smoking in public places; and states adopt comprehensive and aggressive approaches to measuring retailer compliance with youth access laws.[/i]
There are to many variables along with the unspoken variable of social pressure to not smoke determine whether or not not selling to minors was statistically significant in reducing youth smoking.
[quote]pat wrote:
There are to many variables along with the unspoken variable of social pressure to not smoke determine whether or not not selling to minors was statistically significant in reducing youth smoking.[/quote]
I agree, but you are going to always have that problem with social research, especially when changes like price, regulations, and social attitude changes are coincident, and when more or less uniform regulations are applied nationwide.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
and when more or less uniform regulations are applied nationwide.[/quote]
This is why strong local gov’t and limited central gov’t is so attractive. Local gov’ts can try different things and compare results to other local gov’ts. They can also compete with each other for citizenship which should encourage them to be more proactive and inovative.