In a move that many conservatives would consider furthering the "nanny state", this week Michigan representative Brian Calley (R) introduced legislation that would keep Michigan establishments from selling energy drinks to underage children.
According to the article at the Ionia Sentinal Standard web site:
"those younger than 17 would be prohibited from purchasing energy drinks with a caffeine content exceeding 71 milligrams per one 12-ounce serving, as well as containing taurine and glucuronolactone."
In an effort to bolster his opinion that such legislation falls into the mainstream, he points to the fact that children are already prohibited from purchasing music, movies and video games, and that his intent is put the decision in the hands of parents as to whether or not their children should be allowed to have access to what many say may be dangerous substances, especially when overly used by developing children.
To be against protective legislation such as this would be against everything that I believe to be true. Government must be able to protect it's citizens from harm, and government has to be a firewall between its citizens looking for safe products that enhance their lives, and corporations who's inherent goal is to make money.
Yet somehow I am apprehensive about the goal in this case. Mr. Calley claims that his intent is "to give more control to area parents, who can make choices for their developing children". The implication in such a sentence (that parents have no control over the buying habits of their children) gives me pause. While claiming control issues for parents on one hand , and writing state legislation that places said control, (and the repercussions of infringement) in the hands of the clerk at the quickie mart, in the other... seems to be a bit disingenuous.
If we find that these drinks have a detrimental effect on the people for who they are intended, and they contain large amounts of drugs that neither you, or I know the effects of, should we not consider more stringent legislation? They are either safe for use, or not. Until this can be determined, maybe these drinks should be under the control of the FDA, clearly labeled as dangerous, or outlawed all together. Pushing the myth that parents have no control over their children's buying habits, sidesteps the point that these drinks may be dangerous.
As I have said, (and as Rep. Calley apparently believes) government must help protect it's citizens. If in fact these drinks are that dangerous, any legislation regarding them, should do much more than merely allow the government to supersede parenting choices.
Posts
14 comments:
My first reaction to any "effort" toward new legislation is to wonder who will benefit from the pandering.
My second reaction is to look for a special interest that is being punished by the panderees.
In this case, the focus on "energy drinks" that contain caffeine seems particularly flagrant. Beyond my opinion that most of those drinks taste like what I would expect from dog piss, the inclusion of caffeine hardly fits my definition of a source of "energy".
If the problem is really the caffeine, then the regulation might also prohibit the favorite beverage of adult drywallers and painters, "Mountain Dew", and my special favorite "Organic Costa Rican Coffee"!
At the risk of reducing the socialistic control of Big Brother in this country I would suggest that the contents be clearly labeled and intelligent parents could then make adult decisions about what their children should be fed. It might also give the school boards something productive to consider when they are offered lucrative deals for their vending machines, etc.
Children of parents who have so little capacity as to require government supervision should be allowed to poison themselves before they become inspired to run for political offices.
Perhaps the solution is to allow Rep. Calley to have his legislation, but attach a self-destruct mechanism to it to have it erased in a few months. That way he could collect his fee from whomever he is pandering to and we wouldn't be burdened with this nonsense.
Maybe when Rep.Calley has solved this urgent "energy drink crisis" (perhaps we need a "War Against Energy Drinkers") he could be persuaded to address a real situation before it becomes a "crisis".
One that comes to mind is the ludicrous bureaucratic mess the State has made of the "socialized transit bus fiasco". Joe Bleam has performed miracles within the ridiculous barriers imposed by the legislature, but the time is soon coming when bus transportation will replace our energy guzzling car dependency.
Wishful-thinkers continue to rant about better batteries and solarmobiles, but the fact remains obvious that as fossil-fuel energy sources are depleted (with tax rewards) we will need to share our space with other people to make transportation affordable. People who live in more urban environments already understand the options.
Maybe Mike Callton could get the ball rolling at the County level, since we have started to subsidize this program with County Taxes
This might cause 17's and under to protest by walking our streets with cans tied to their waist.
There goes Calley's support from the Bottler's Association.
I find it silly to put more regulation on business over a product which is perfectly legal for underage to buy if it is in Cola, Mountain Dew, Jolt or Coffee, but to say in "energy drink" form it might be dangerous, and we need to regulate it?
If these drinks were found to be as potent as crystal meth, then Calley would have a point, but this is caffeine. Let's get our financial house in order before we worry that we have a bunch of energy drink-heads terrorizing the neighborhoods.
PW:
You may want to take off the link to David's blog. He has packed up his toys and went home.
In case you were wondering which country without sin threw the first stone:
(AP)"Russian troops last week drove Georgian forces out of South Ossetia, where Georgia on Aug. 7 launched a heavy artillery barrage in the separatist Georgian province with close ties to Russia. Fighting also has flared in a second Russian-backed separatist region, Abkhazia."
In case you weren't certain, that's the Georgia overseas and not the one in the USA where red-necks come from.
The "heavy artillery barrage" came slightly after the 2000 USA Marines departed from teaching Georgia how to invade their neighbors.
Unfortunately, our Marines left so quietly that they forgot a few HumVees that have just been recovered by Russia before they could get loaded on a ship for return to the USA. What Russia thinks they are going to do with those worthless gas-suckers is beyond me.
Sorry! Back to the more serious issue of regulating the sale of caffienated "energy" drinks to sub-minors with illiterate parents.
Breaking news. Michigan Court of Appeals denies right of RMGN to have their ballot initiative approved by the State Board of Canvassers.
Today, the Michigan Court of Appeals just usurped the people's right to referendum and petition initiatives with a decision to have the State Board of Canvassers cease and desist from voting upon the RMGN proposal at Thursday's meeting. This is after the State Bureau of Elections recommended that it be approved arguing there are too many changes proposed.
Our constitution sets NO LIMITS as to how much of it may be changed through a petition initiative. The Court of Appeals ignored our constitution, and made defacto amendments themselves without a vote of the people. We all lost in that decision. The staus quo has won. Its a very sad day for Michigan.
[sniff] Poor Democrats... ;)
Funny that a proposal that will usurp the powers of the people's representatives in the legislature claims that they are being usurped now. The RMGN is a supra-constitutional piece that will actually limit the people's say. The entire goal of this proposal is to rig the courts and gerrymander the legislature, but they threw in some nuggets (part-time legislature) to get populist support. Face it RMGN, this proposal will not see the light of day.
rmgn,
Keep up the determination to eliminate waste and corruption in our outmoded system of government. Obviously, the existing bloated consumers of tax and spend bureaucracy are not going to regulate their own wasteful behavior.
The subject of this thread is a perfect example of people with too much time on their hands trying to justify their positions by passing ridiculous and silly laws to increase the amount of enforcers beyond the overlapping uniformed and armed forces we are already burdened with.
We would pass legislation to establish a "thought police" department, except there would be very little work for them to inspect.
"Children of parents who have so little capacity as to require government supervision should be allowed to poison themselves before they become inspired to run for political offices." El Grillo
My first reaction is similiar to yours and on top of that I am opposed to the government getting too much in my face.
The suggestion that the ridiculous FDA could possibly be NOT influenced by the drug companies, insurance groups and special interest bozos is like saying the CDC really has our best interests at heart.
This is horribly indicative of the generation we have somehow spawned. It is easy to say that the parents of today are paying attention....many are....and they don't see a problem. They also don't see how the eating and physical inactivity and excessive OTC drug use of our children is having a negative impact on our youths overall well being.
El - I would totally agree letting these parents who don't know any better because they don't want to pay attention fail their families health but that will just create sick welfare recipients not politicians.
I can't say that energy drinks are "poison" but they fail to provide enough nutrition to pass my test.
And Brian Calley may have a good point but he is wasting my good money
Actually, he doesn't have a good point.
He probably isn't wasting any more of your money while he is distracted by this idea, than he would be wasting anyway. He gets a salary.
Jay, First, the RMGN proposal must be approved by voters. So, I am not sure how it usurps the power of the people as you say, whey they are the ones who would vote it up or down. It is in fact, this people's power of referendum and initiative that has been usurped. Three justices on the State Court of Appeals just decided that the 500,000 people who signed the legal RMGN petition no longer have the right to exercise constitutional change through a petition initiative. And, its very clear you have not taken the time to read the state constitution nor the RMGN proposal. The part-time status of our legislature is already codified in the state constitution. They must have a minimum of 90 sessions per year with no time limit on the sessions, some of which last less than an hour. To me, that's already part time. The RMGN proposal says nothing of full time/part time legislature. Jay, to have an intellectual conversation on gerrymandering, you must first acknowledge that our existing legislative districts are heavily skewed (gerrymandered). There is a huge partisan divide in this state which contributed to our state's fall from world prominence. If you cannot accept that, then its pointless to discuss how our proposal levels the playing field making each and every race competitive minimizing the effect of incumbency and money.
Jay, be truthful to yourself. The rest of us recognize you've made your mind up without knowing anything about the RMGN proposal. You obviously have no interest in democracy as you continue to protect a failed status quo which is anything but democratic.
I didn't hear all the same people complaining when the gay marriage amendment was a blatantly Republican funded and approved bit of get out the vote strategery to bring religious radicals to the polls to save traditional marriage (still waiting for the ban on divorce, by the way).
No one has even laid out a coherent case of how Democrats are advantaged if the RMGN proposal passes. I do see how common citizens benefit, which is surely what the Chamber of Commerce lobbyists, the Mackinac Center and Michigan's radical right seem to have a problem with. This proposal is an end-around their plan to gridlock Lansing so only their bloated pork projects and tax cuts for the wealthy can make it through and that's obviously something they'll spend millions to defend.
Small business owners around the state should be asking why their Chamber dues are going to fight this proposal instead of helping them fight trade deals that give the farm to China and multinational corporations and make it harder for Michigan companies to stay afloat.
It is a little known fact that local Chambers do not always support their state and federal organizations.
Somehow, the conservative right seems to be focused on bragging to the rest of the folks partying on the main deck that they have the privilege of being on the best boat in the harbor. Any voices heard complaining about the rising water down below decks is considered divisive and whining negativity.
Apparently, the drinks being served aren't as good as Mom used to make.
Post a Comment