Again, we are talking about a legal product.
Again, it's not about public health. Who's business is public health anyway? Certainly not the business of lawyers!
What will these children drink instead? Water (I for myself am unable to drink pure water without any taste, just doesn't go down), fruit juices (they have at least double the calories of a regular Coke), milk (is associated with a high risk for cancer, contains fat)?
What educational system is this, when the only way to educate children is to remove even the most benign temptations? How will they learn to resist to other temptations, such as drugs?
What legal system is this when one can even just consider bringing forward such a ridiculous construct?
Another step towards a society were individual thinking and responsibilty for oneself are superseeded by indoctrination.
Fear and uncertainity are the worst enemies of public mental health.
Recommended reading: Michael Crichton; State of Fear, http://www.crichton-official.com...ches/
index.html
Although drinking one or two sugar filled soda pops (that's what we call them here in PA) may not be harmful to a child, drinking that much every day while at school is poor nutrition and can contribute to obesity and perhaps diabetes.
I recall that large soda pop companies pay K-12 school districts for the exclusive rights to sell only their brand (i.e. no competitive brands) to students in schools.
Thus, I'm pleased that Banzhaf notified school districts and school board members of their potential liability for selling high calorie soda pop to school children.
Would you prefer that the schools not be given prior notice before a lawsuit is filed against them?
Smokefree Pennsylvania has facilited the adoption and implementation of numerous smokefree workplace policies by providing employers with materials on dozens of lawsuits in which employers were found liable for exposing their employees to tobacco smoke pollution.
I may be a simple Citizen with no "Dr." in my name, but wouldn't this be considered "blackmail" by the current laws and handled accordingly?
...or are lawyers above the law and are free to threaten without proof or repercussions?
Bill wrote:
"Although drinking one or two sugar filled soda pops (that's what we call them here in PA) may not be harmful to a child, drinking that much every day while at school is poor nutrition and can contribute to obesity and perhaps diabetes."
I fail to see how this statement (that is 100% true BTW) could justificate in any way such a lawsuit. Almost everything, if abused, may cause a severe harm to health. It's common sense, plain and simple.
If a child drinks so much "soda pops" at school to become obese or diabetic, it seems to me that its parents are to be blamed, and not soda companies. But by suing parents you hardly can collect huge legal fees, nor you can extort billions of monetary damages in extra judiciary agreements.
"Although drinking one or two sugar filled soda pops may not be harmful to a child, drinking that much every day while at school is poor nutrition and can contribute to obesity and perhaps diabetes."
Drinking that much? How much? How do you know? And those who drink less? And those who in the future will bring their own can?
You firmly believe that our lifes can be regulated by law, and law only. What a dull life. Unfortunately, you will probably not live long enough to see the consequences of
Why don't you simply remove those children from the custody of their parents if they are seemingly not capable of educating their kids?
Public health fanatics interfere in the very heart of parental authority.
I have not yet used the comparison to Hitler's Third Reich, but I can't help it anymore. I know what I'm talking about, my parents went through it.
He cares for others, but couldn't care less for himself!
"John F. Banzhaf III, an overweight law professor at George Washington University ..."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe...the_fat?
mode=PF
Photograph: http://banzhaf.net/
What if the growing obesity was actually caused by anti-tobacco? If somebody can point me to the right figures I might try to plot smoking prevalence against obesity.
"A 1995 study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that giving up smoking was responsible for about a quarter of the increase in the number of overweight men during a preceding 10-year period; the figure for women was about one-sixth."
To be honest, I think that this lawsuit, and the threat that was passed along to all the school boards, is not only inappropriate, but may actually be detrimental to the education of our children. Schools are going to have to spend a huge amount of time and money defending themselves if this lawsuit is allowed to go through. And that is going to divert attention from what the schools should be doing - educating our kids!
School funding is already low enough, without them having to be forced to spend huge amounts of money to defend themselves against a completely frivolous lawsuit.
Hopefully, whatever judge hears this case will see fit to quash the lawsuit before it even sees the light of day.
We may end up with kids who don't have an adequate education, but at least they'll be thin!!!
Maybe you folks should read about the press release from PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III on the tobacco commentator that started it and make your own decision:
ASH PR: Philip Morris Paid Fox News Writer on Smoking
Not Fair and Balanced on Smoking, Says ASH [01/31/06]
Fox News obviously wasn't "fair and balanced" when it mocked the health risks of smoking and its dangers to nonsmokers while the writer was being paid handsomely by tobacco giant Philip Morris, says Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a national antismoking and nonsmokers' rights organization.
"Perhaps Fox should hire Jack Abramoff to provide critical commentary on efforts by public interest organizations to influence Congress, or Osama bin Laden for his impartial insights into Israeli politics," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of ASH.
Steven Milloy is the author of the FoxNews.com "Junk Science," a column which regularly mocks health warnings about the dangers of tobacco smoke to smokers and nonsmokers. But he has also taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Philip Morris during that same period, solicited money from other tobacco companies, and headed a former tobacco front organization with a long time tobacco executive serving as its secretary.
Since Fox claims that it was unaware of any of these relationships -- including those which were a matter of public record -- and has refused to fire Milloy or even apologize to its readers even after the relationships were disclosed by The New Republic, it's quite possible that many other Fox employees reporting on issues related to tobacco and health may likewise by influenced by huge payments from one or more tobacco companies, says Banzhaf.
The following are excerpts from The New Republic's article on this matter [ https://ssl.tnr.com/p/
docsub.mhtm...s=thacker020606 ]:
Milloy has been affiliated with FoxNews.com since July 2000. On March 9, 2001, he wrote a column for the website headlined "secondhand smokescreen." The piece attacked a study by researcher Stephen Hecht, who found that women living with smokers had higher levels of chemicals associated with risk of lung cancer. . . .. Later that spring, he authored another smoking -related piece for FoxNews.com. In that one, he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and concluded,
Except, all the while, he was on the payroll of big tobacco. According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year. . . . Although she couldn't comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001. Asked about Milloy's tobacco ties, Paul Schur, director of media relations for Fox News, said, " Fox News is unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."
Yet it's all in the public record. . . . According to those documents, Milloy's relationship to big tobacco goes back at least to March 1997, when he took over as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (tassc), a front group established in 1993 by Philip Morris and p.r. firm apco Associates "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states." . . . Philip Morris remained heavily invested in these efforts. A 1997 Philip Morris budget report includes a line item granting tassc $200,000. As executive director, Milloy also reached out to other allies within the industry. For instance, in September 1997, he sent a letter to Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation soliciting $50,000:
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition is now defunct. But one of Milloy's nonprofits has the same acronym and a remarkably similar name: The Advancement of Sound Science Center. His Free Enterprise Action Institute also has tobacco links, with Thomas Borelli--a longtime Philip Morris executive--serving as its secretary.
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // http://ash.org
Bill and Banzhaf's wet-dream for reform of Public Schools as vehicles for Public Health:
Step 1:
Banzhaf threatens cash-strapped and legally vulnerable school districts that unless they give up soda machines (and the revenue that they gain from them that benefits school instructional and extracurricular programs) that he will sue them on the grounds that kids might get fat if they drink too much soda at school.
Step 2:
Schools not reacting with a knee-jerk panic scratch their heads, because they're not attorneys, and Banzhaf sues the pants off of them.
Step 3:
Banzhaf pockets an obscene buttload of money. School district forgoes purchase of new textbooks, but takes out all 3 soda machines, including the one in the teacher's lounge, as part of the court settlement.
Banzhaf takes Bill out to dinner at Le Bec-Fin next time he's in Philly, to show him his new bling, never mind that people are smoking at the bar there.
Step 4:
Fat kids are still fat, because they drink pop at places other than school.
Or maybe they bring it with them to school. Or maybe because they eat at McDonalds a lot. Or maybe they eat too many Krispy Kreme donuts. Or maybe because they sit around the house too much playing Grand Theft Auto.
Meanwhile, as Banzhaf buys himself a new Mercedes, standardized test scores and literacy rates continue to decline, while the number of children without health insurance or access to medical care increases.
I almost forgot to add: Kids use the money they save from buying over-priced pop from school soda machines to purchase more cigarettes, marihuana, and beer.
Erik, your citation about Milloy (or his employer) being (very modestly and occasionally) paid a fee by Tobacco doesn't necessarily devalue his opinion. Expressing an opinion contrary to the one expressed by anti-tobacco is as respectable as any other, as long as it doesn't twist the facts.
At least you would have to admit that somebody who has put out his neck in favor of anti-tobacco, runs an anti-smoker website and makes ALL his money from anti-tobacco litigation has the same potential (and REAL) conflict of interest: He would NEVER admit any opinion, fact or idea contrary to his believe because he has to defend his image and his income.
Let me translate that for you: Banzhaf would never ever admit that a study was flawed unless he can claim (even wrongly, this wouldn't hold him back) it was payed by big tobacco.
Erik, aren't you the one who also makes his living with tobacco litigation? If yes, every word you say can be refuted on the basis that you are just his master's voice and have - by design - a limited scope of view.
But thanks for the link to ASH anyway. I discovered scary things over there: NEW BOOK TELLS HOW PROTAGONIST KILLS SMOKERS. http://ash.org/protagonist.html
Did you say public health? Does that include public mental health?
Ed, are you in Philly? Just noticed your Bec Fin comment...
As for Milloy, if he was taking money to write positive things for the tobacco companies and keeping his connections with and income from them secret then he was an idiot. If the income was open then the attack on him is poorly based other than to point out that he couldn't claim purity of podium while pontificating.
That's the problem I've had with researchers like Stanton Glantz continuing to make submissions to the BMJ while declaring no competing interests. Glantz has what I would consider to be a far more serious and complete competing interest than Milloy even if all the claims about Milloy prove true. That doesn't excuse Milloy *IF* it turns out he lied or covered up his conflict... but Glantz should be hung from the same moral tree.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" (that's *MY* putative "competing interest")
http://www.Antibrains.com
I really don't understand what Milloy has to do with this discussion. The post was about a press release that Attorney Banzhaf issued, threatening school boards with litigation. Either it stands or does not stand on its own. Milloy has nothing to do with this!!!
Michael Siegel:
I seem to recollect that the tobacco companies warned the public about this type of litigation 15 years ago. I suppose you just laughed at it then, together with a lot of other people.
I see you are not laughing now.
This is the logical consequence of all the illegal, unconstitutional and immoral tactics developed by the anti-smoking movement. Those of us who are not asleep or besotted with our own goodness recogzined this decades ago and said so. "That's ridiculous!" we were told, "Only tobacco is so terrible as to rate suspending the philosophy of individual liberty upon which this nation was founded." I knew better, and here we are.
The people are not the bricks and mortar by which to subsidize and build a society that would be acceptable to Messers Godshall, Glantz, Repace, Banzhof, and even Mr. Siegel. Leave your fellow citizens alone!
Looks like the activism by Banzhaf and others is yielding public policy fruit.
Today's NY Times reveals that the CT governor and legislature have agreed to legislation that would prohibit the sale of sugary soft drinks in K-12 public schools in that state.
And another article reveals that the NY City school district is eliminating the sale of whole milk in city schools (i.e. 1% fat and skim milk will be sold instead).
Similar measures are likely to be considered and adopted by thousands of school districts and perhaps other state legislatures in the near future.
Public opinion in support of these nutritional policies in schools appears to be strong and growing.
Looks like a winner.
tR1cKy's claim that parents are at fault for school districts selling soda pop to their children is absurd, as parents have no oversight of their children at school, but rather it's the responsibility of school administrators.
But parents are in charge! and have left it to the boards/councils and administrators. Parents elect board members. Parents elect councils. Parents elect government. Parents have chosen to not take responsiblity for themselves or their children. They have surrendered their choice and control over to the likes of Mr. Godshall-who knows how to take care of us all, for our own good. Parents have surrendered their rights for the easy way out of any uncomfortable situation. Lawsuits - Pox on 'em I say.
I am a parent and have not/will not surrender my right and choice to any other parent to take full responsibilty for my sons screwups or life choices or magnificent humanity- as my parents did for me, as theirs did for them.
Has no one any backbone anymore?
Theories, statistics, lawsuit mumbo-jumbo, behaviorists...smoke and mirrors to cover ourselves for hypocrisy and hypocondriacs.
I am disgusted.
Apparently, Bill prefers to ridiculize himself rather than admitting that someone who disagrees with him may be right:
"tR1cKy's claim that parents are at fault for school districts selling soda pop to their children is absurd, as parents have no oversight of their children at school, but rather it's the responsibility of school administrators."
The absurd is in this statement, and it's so evident that it hardly needs any comment. It's obvious that parents have a duty to educate properly their kids, and in the specific to teach them that abusing soda pops is quite a bad thing that is likely to give them serious health problems, not limited to obesity or diabetes.
Frankly, it's hard to imagine Bill as a real person, rather that a fictional character made up by Big Tobacco in an attempt to make a mockery out of the anti-smoking movement.
I have to wonder when does the suing end?
Do we sue Walmart for selling ipods that damage hearing?
Do we sue gov't for allowing alcohol sales, when it kills people?
Do we now stop bake sale fund raisers as well?
Now how does a person who doesn't even know the children in this school decide what is right for all the students?
We have to limit the abuse of health prevention principles!
Limitless ability to apply blame shouldn't be allowed. Will health prevention stop when we are forced to eat soy, and rice cakes? Sorry it wont, cause there the danger of disease from fermented soy.
What's wrong with giving these children better choice and teaching them the right food options instead of banning sodas?
I don't think prohibition/ elimination helps society. Maybe some of those children that only have the 1% option won't be drinking milk anymore. I know that when even 2% offered to me I won't drink milk. Although maybe that's because I weigh 125 and 5'8, and may need the fat.
There's never one policy of elimination of choice that will suit everyone. Education of options cures the ills long term, and helps more people then stopping options with no education. Shouldn't food education promotion been the letter that was sent to the school board, not ban or else?
I'd bet that the vast majority of parents support efforts by Banzhaf and schools to prevent obesity in children. Otherwise, policies and legislation wouldn't pass so swiftly.
According to Capri and tR1cKy's logic, cigarette vending machines should also be in K-12 schools, and parents (not school administrators) should be blamed if/when students buy cigarettes from those machines.
Similarly, if the school districts put beer cans in the soda machines,
Capri and tR1cKy would blame parents if their children bought beer from those machines.
Bill,
You're joking, right?
How do you go from sodas, to cigarettes and beer? In a *grade school* no less.
Are you trying to be funny, or are you completely batty?
The real funny part is that he, apparently, is not joking.
Bill, at least you have courage. But i would suggest a better tactic than putting in the mouths of mine and Capri things we never said and arguing on them.
In case you didn't figure it out yet, cigarettes and alcoholics are adult's product. Their sale to minors is prohibited. Hello! Is anyone in?!?
Bill said: "I'd bet that the vast majority of parents support efforts by Banzhaf and schools to prevent obesity in children. Otherwise, policies and legislation wouldn't pass so swiftly."
With the swift passage of a bill, etc. comes the lack of parent having all the information and ability to debate, as well.
In January the local city council was thinking of passing the smoking bylaw. By August of that same year it was decided, with no publicity till it was passed. Many smokers didn't even realize it was being considered.
In other words just because it was passed quickly doesn't always correlate to information being sent out to concerned people. Actually I would propose it would go against it. Discussion of any decision leads to education, and knowledge of details, which take time. I ask how many of those affected know, spoke about, and understood the decision, not how fast was this passed!
Soren-
You are exactly right. I did laugh when it was suggested years ago that fast food and soda would be next, after tobacco litigation.
And you are also exactly right that I'm not laughing now.
In fact, I was laughing, literally, when THE ONION put out a farcical piece after the Engle verdict about how a jury awarded a class of plaintiffs $145 billion for fast food-induced obesity:
http://www.theonion.com/content/...tent/node/
28407
"I'd bet that the vast majority of parents support efforts by Banzhaf and schools to prevent obesity in children."
You must be kidding! Parents you said? Parents? You must have asked brain dead parents. I wouldn't even trust the pope to educate my children. After all, I they are my children, not Banzhaf's (my wife shudders at the thought of it).
By the way, Banzhaf is overweight himself!
""I'd bet that the vast majority of parents support efforts by Banzhaf and schools to prevent obesity in children. Otherwise, policies and legislation wouldn't pass so swiftly."
Are the parents involved in the decision process at all? Before taking a decision, they would evaluate all the facts at hand, one of them being the health state and behavior of their own children.
If their children are not obese, the subject is not even relevant for them, they need not vote the law. And the health state of other children is the least of their concerns.
If their children are obese and the only cause is drinking too much soda, they should already have taken appropriate measures. Waiting until a law dictates the behavior of their children is like handing parental authority over to the public.
But they still have no control over the behavior of their children outside of the schoolyard. The obvious solution would be to ban soda sales to minors (hint to Banzhaf: go after the supermarkets, there's money!). That still doesn't solve the problem, because once they are grown up, they still haven't learned how to control bad habits.
Bill, the problem you have is that you think laws can regulate human behavior. As somebody who allegedly studied public health, you have an extremely narrow vision regarding the complex matter of human behavior.
The fact that I'm not a criminal is not because laws sanction criminal behavior.
benpal wrote:
"That still doesn't solve the problem, because once they are grown up, they still haven't learned how to control bad habits."
Many folks who post on this blog have that same problem.
But we public health advocates will continue advocating measures to help cigarette addicts and obese people control their bad habits.
"But we public health advocates will continue advocating measures to help cigarette addicts and obese people control their bad habits."
Bill, I herewith publicly declare that I don't need and don't want your help.
Bill, apart from the fact that i'll hardly define you as a public health advocate, it is my honest opinion that your so-called public health efforts, combined by some absurd claims and initiatives made by ASH & al, are contributing to make a mockery out of the whole anti-smoking movement.
Although it's good to see that those people are finally showing off for what they really are, the public is likely to not distinguish between Banzhaf and the few that, in good faith, try to help the public to improve their health.
In a free country, the opinion of the majority is irrelevant. A right, after all, is a non-negotiable claim against the majority.
The opinion of the intelligentsia is irrelevant, too. They have every right to express it, and the individual has every right to ignore it. That is why endless legislation is inimicable to liberty.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't understand what liberty is, (freedom of action free from intervention), and of those who do, most hate it. The founders understood this, which is why they did not create a democracy, but a representative republic based on individual rights.
The last three generations, over-schooled and deluded by visions of immortal security, hate liberty. Our intelligentsia has become our most consistent violators of rights in our history.
I wish they had the gumption to say what they really stand for, rather than turning every proposition on its head, as Soviet Communists used to do.
I shouldn't be surprised: Collectivists always change their label ("democratic socialist" becomes "progressive" becomes "public health advocate" in a vain attempt to deny that their political philosophy is opposed to every principle this nation was founded upon.
They may convince themselves, but never the astute.
School districts are made up from elected school boards (and those they hire)-parents vote those school boards into their positions. Parents vote in those who set policy for school agendas, funding, and everything else that "touches" our children while at school. Parents abdicate their "control" over their children to those who they ultimately voted into(and hired down to the janitor) their board positions. Parents vote their choices who will best represent themselves and their children while at school. Parents do have daily influence on their children while at school.
You get what you vote for.
Take responsibility for your vote=power=control=choice.
I am a parent and have taken responsibility for my sons actions while at school, good or bad. Happily when the "good" stuff happened, sucked it up and taken the consequences when "bad" stuff happened. I blamed no one. It was/is my personal responsibility. No one elses. As a parent.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
