Re: Vending Machines in schools

[toto]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:28:23 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> wrote:

>> >Pepsi and Coke still have bottled water and juice brands.
>>
>> Yes, and how many students do you think will bother spending their
>> money on water or juice, versus the junky stuff??
>>
>> Nan
>
>It works for other schools, my daughter's included. You've made up your mind
>and won't be confused by facts.
>
I think though it is probably dependent on having a closed campus.

At the high school my kids went to, the kids can go out for lunch
and their is a burger king, a mcdonald's and a KFC a few blocks
down the street and a grocery store even closer if they want to
just buy snack and junk food.

For the younger kids who cannot go off-campus, it will work, for
high school students. I doubt it unless we keep them from going
anywhere else and I am not in favor of closing campuses and
making teens prisoners for the entire school day as is done in
some places.



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Joni Rathbun]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Donna Metler wrote:

>
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> news:9SrOa.3991$H17.2910@sccrnsc02...
> > "Nan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:01:37 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >That last bit is my point exactly. It is not necessary to obtain
> funding
> > > >from sources that damage the health of the children. Vending machines
> can
> > > >vend healthy food and drink just as easily.
> > >
> > > I maintain that it is necessary when the funding is lacking so sorely
> > > from the other sources. Sad, but true.
> > > Let's see..... We have the Pepsi Co or Coke Co coming to the schools
> > > and saying, "we'll outfit your entire school with brand new computers
> > > if we can put some vending machines in the cafeteria".
> > > We don't have the local farmers coming in with apples and oranges, and
> > > offering to upgrade the computers in exchange for allowing a fruit
> > > stand.
> > >
> > > Nan
> >
> > And then you tell them: "Yes, that's all well and good; we accept your
> > offer. And here is the list of what we will allow you to stock in the
> > vending machines. Any deviation from the list will be cause for immediate
> > termination of power to the vending machines to prevent their further use
> by
> > students until such time as the stock is made in conformance with the
> list."
> >
> And CocaCola, at least, has no problem with this. In fact, since the price
> on bottled water and juice is higher than soda, they may even make more
> money from it. In addition, water/juice machines don't violate the USDA
> rules, so can be turned on all day, instead of only after lunch is over.
>
> Actually, the people who complained the most were the teachers who wanted
> their diet coke fix!


We have a separate vending machines in the staff mail room for staff
use. The prices are different and the selection is voted on. I suspect
that could stay the same regardless of what was made available in
student machines (hypocritcal tho that may be).

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes toto > wrote:

>>
>I think though it is probably dependent on having a closed campus.
>
>At the high school my kids went to, the kids can go out for lunch
>and their is a burger king, a mcdonald's and a KFC a few blocks
>down the street and a grocery store even closer if they want to
>just buy snack and junk food.

The high schools that my kids went to were out in the country and
they would have to drive several miles to get to anywhere where they
could buy anything. The same was even true for the suburban high
school that I went to. I could walk home, but there was nowhere else
for me to walk to where I could buy anything. And I didn't really
have the time to walk home even though my house was only about a block
from the school.

In many high schools the kids are bused in, and have no access to
their own transportation. Therefore unless they can walk to
somewhere, or they drive to school, the campus is in effect closed.
Even in one of the schools that my kids attended where there is a
small store across the street, they'd have to cross a busy highway,
and the little store probably doesn't want hordes of kids in the
store.
>
>For the younger kids who cannot go off-campus, it will work, for
>high school students. I doubt it unless we keep them from going
>anywhere else and I am not in favor of closing campuses and
>making teens prisoners for the entire school day as is done in
>some places.

I think you might rethink that if you realized that in many cases for
the kids to go off campus, they will have to get into a car and drive.
I think that having teens drive to and from school just so they can go
off campus is a bad idea and unsafe in the bargain. It's all very
well to have an open campus if there's somewhere close and safe to go
to. That isn't true in a lot of cases.

grandma Rosalie

[P. Tierney]

"Donna Metler" > wrote:
> >
> And CocaCola, at least, has no problem with this. In fact, since the price
> on bottled water and juice is higher than soda, they may even make more
> money from it. In addition, water/juice machines don't violate the USDA
> rules, so can be turned on all day, instead of only after lunch is over.
>
> Actually, the people who complained the most were the teachers who wanted
> their diet coke fix!

I wouldn't have complained, but as a heavy Coca-Cola drinker, I
would've had to make a *serious* adjustment once the no-soft drinks
rule went into effect. Luckily, I have no such rules at my house.
However, since "Coke" was about the 6th word that my child was
able to say with regular proficiency, I may have a different set
of problems down the road. We'll see. ;-)




P. Tierney

[Marnie]

"toto" > wrote in message

> For the younger kids who cannot go off-campus, it will work, for
> high school students. I doubt it unless we keep them from going
> anywhere else and I am not in favor of closing campuses and
> making teens prisoners for the entire school day as is done in
> some places.

The high school where we are moving has a closed campus ... because it's a
fairly rural community and there is nowhere close enough for the students to
get to in the 45 or so minutes they have for lunch hour. In fact, now that I
think about it, I now live the Chicago area and I don't know if the high
school campus is closed, but I do know that at the local high school, it
would be very difficult, even here in greater mega-suburbia, to get to any
of the fast-food places and get lunch and get back to school in under 45
minutes. Certainly no place is close enough to walk to.

Not exactly "making teens prisoners," don't you think? I'd say having
schools away from fast-food-ville was a good thing.
--
Marnie
--

[toto]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:03:18 -0400, Rosalie B.
> wrote:

>>For the younger kids who cannot go off-campus, it will work, for
>>high school students. I doubt it unless we keep them from going
>>anywhere else and I am not in favor of closing campuses and
>>making teens prisoners for the entire school day as is done in
>>some places.
>
>I think you might rethink that if you realized that in many cases for
>the kids to go off campus, they will have to get into a car and drive.
>I think that having teens drive to and from school just so they can go
>off campus is a bad idea and unsafe in the bargain. It's all very
>well to have an open campus if there's somewhere close and safe to go
>to. That isn't true in a lot of cases.

Well, as I said it works on any closed campus. I just am glad that we
lived where kids could walk off campus for many things.

The grocery store was right across the street. Also my kids at least
brown bagged lunch and could have brought what they wanted from
home (and yes, they might have brought soda or junk food).


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[toto]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:46:07 GMT, "Marnie" > wrote:

>Not exactly "making teens prisoners," don't you think? I'd say having
>schools away from fast-food-ville was a good thing.

For various reasons, many campuses are closed and there is nothing
close by. I prefer high schools to have an atmosphere more like that
of college campuses, however, and I don't think that it is a good
thing for students to have a lot of limitations. I realize that the
way the high school day is set up doesn't lend itself easily to what
I would like to see done, however.

It is a fact of life that most teens *are* prisoners of the school
considering that education is compulsory and many kids really
don't want to be there.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Donna Metler]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:03:18 -0400, Rosalie B.
> > wrote:
>
> >>For the younger kids who cannot go off-campus, it will work, for
> >>high school students. I doubt it unless we keep them from going
> >>anywhere else and I am not in favor of closing campuses and
> >>making teens prisoners for the entire school day as is done in
> >>some places.
> >
> >I think you might rethink that if you realized that in many cases for
> >the kids to go off campus, they will have to get into a car and drive.
> >I think that having teens drive to and from school just so they can go
> >off campus is a bad idea and unsafe in the bargain. It's all very
> >well to have an open campus if there's somewhere close and safe to go
> >to. That isn't true in a lot of cases.
>
> Well, as I said it works on any closed campus. I just am glad that we
> lived where kids could walk off campus for many things.
>
> The grocery store was right across the street. Also my kids at least
> brown bagged lunch and could have brought what they wanted from
> home (and yes, they might have brought soda or junk food).
>
When I went to high school, the campus was closed unless you were taking a
class at one of the colleges or were on a part-day work or internship
program-of course, given that the only nearby business was the farm bureau
store, I guess it didn't matter much!

My husband went to high school with an open campus for a very logical
reason-his school district, needing space and seeing the number of kids who
were leaving campus for lunch anyway, turned the cafeteria into classrooms
and stopped serving a hot lunch-you could buy a bag lunch (or get one if you
were on free lunch) brought over from another school, but if you wanted
anything else, there was McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, etc.


>
> --
> Dorothy
>
> There is no sound, no cry in all the world
> that can be heard unless someone listens ..
> Outer Limits

[R. Steve Walz]

Marnie wrote:
>
> "toto" > wrote in message
>
> > For the younger kids who cannot go off-campus, it will work, for
> > high school students. I doubt it unless we keep them from going
> > anywhere else and I am not in favor of closing campuses and
> > making teens prisoners for the entire school day as is done in
> > some places.
>
> The high school where we are moving has a closed campus ... because it's a
> fairly rural community and there is nowhere close enough for the students to
> get to in the 45 or so minutes they have for lunch hour. In fact, now that I
> think about it, I now live the Chicago area and I don't know if the high
> school campus is closed, but I do know that at the local high school, it
> would be very difficult, even here in greater mega-suburbia, to get to any
> of the fast-food places and get lunch and get back to school in under 45
> minutes. Certainly no place is close enough to walk to.
>
> Not exactly "making teens prisoners," don't you think? I'd say having
> schools away from fast-food-ville was a good thing.
> --
> Marnie
> --
-------------
All it does is cause resentment and hatred of all authority and a
consequent rebellion as an older teen or adult, which is part of why
this nation is so fat. You should see the kids race out to buy
cigarettes when they turn 18. Eating what you want follows the same
mold.
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

toto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:46:07 GMT, "Marnie" > wrote:
>
> >Not exactly "making teens prisoners," don't you think? I'd say having
> >schools away from fast-food-ville was a good thing.
>
> For various reasons, many campuses are closed and there is nothing
> close by. I prefer high schools to have an atmosphere more like that
> of college campuses, however, and I don't think that it is a good
> thing for students to have a lot of limitations. I realize that the
> way the high school day is set up doesn't lend itself easily to what
> I would like to see done, however.
>
> It is a fact of life that most teens *are* prisoners of the school
> considering that education is compulsory and many kids really
> don't want to be there.
> Dorothy
---------------
All it does is encourage dropping-out.
Steve

[P. Tierney]

"Donna Metler" > wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't have complained, but as a heavy Coca-Cola drinker, I
> > would've had to make a *serious* adjustment once the no-soft drinks
> > rule went into effect. Luckily, I have no such rules at my house.
> > However, since "Coke" was about the 6th word that my child was
> > able to say with regular proficiency, I may have a different set
> > of problems down the road. We'll see. ;-)
>
> We have quite a few teachers who have mini-fridges in their classrooms so
> they can keep sodas on hand.

Count me as a member of that group.


P.
Tierney

[Byron Canfield]

"Nan" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:28:23 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Nan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:32:11 -0700, Joni Rathbun >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We ran a cafe in the library last year. We refused to carry
> >> >Pepsi (the soda in our district) but we did have some "designer"
> >> >sodas including a fancy root beer, an orange cream soda, and Jones
> >> >Sodas. We also had bottled water, a wide variety of juices
> >> >and some Snapple juice type drinks. We had hot cider and cocoa
> >> >in the winter. We also had Starbucks Frappucinnos.
> >> >
> >> >Everything sold well, but juices were our top sellers. Water was
second.
> >> >We have entire vending machines filled with water downstairs but they
run
> >out
> >> >often. We kept some of our water bottles in the freezer. Some kids
> >> >really liked that. Third best seller: Starbucks Frappucinnos.
> >> >
> >> >Cocoa was a big seller in the winter.
> >> >
> >> >We plan to eliminate sodas completely next year.
> >>
> >> That is surprising, and it's wonderful that your school is able to
> >> bypass the marketing hoohah and do what's better for the students.
> >> Many schools don't have that option.
> >>
> >> Nan
> >>
> >The schools DO have the option; they're just afraid to look at it.
>
> And you know this to be fact because.....
>
> Nan
>
I know the option to be a fact because my daughter's school has done so.

I know the fear to be a fact (apparently the fear of losing funding) because
you have said so yourself -- unless you were lying?


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Donna Metler]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:pROOa.15347$H17.5892@sccrnsc02...
> "Nan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:35:17 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >And then you tell them: "Yes, that's all well and good; we accept your
> > >offer. And here is the list of what we will allow you to stock in the
> > >vending machines. Any deviation from the list will be cause for
immediate
> > >termination of power to the vending machines to prevent their further
use
> by
> > >students until such time as the stock is made in conformance with the
> list."
> >
> > I suppose, if the school is *really* willing to give back all the
> > funding or computers, or whatever was provided.
> >
> >
> The school would not have to return any funding or equipment if the
> "donaters" are the ones in violation.
>
Uh, I do most of the grant writing for my school. Both sides are liable for
the outcome. UNLESS the school has specified very in depth what they will
and will not accept as part of the written agreement, and the other side has
agreed, with no weasel phrases, the school could indeed lose the equipment.

In our cases, the phrase is "in compliance with USDA regulations for
school-day food service"-so until the USDA approves sodas, they're not
allowed. But if they wanted to start stocking flavored milk in our vending
machines, they could do so.

>

[Joni Rathbun]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Donna Metler wrote:

>
> "Chookie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > toto > wrote:
> >
> > > For the younger kids who cannot go off-campus, it will work, for
> > > high school students. I doubt it unless we keep them from going
> > > anywhere else and I am not in favor of closing campuses and
> > > making teens prisoners for the entire school day as is done in
> > > some places.
> >
> > What an interesting perspective. AFAIK, children in NSW public schools
> aren't
> > allowed off-premises without parental permission (eg for a dental
> > appointment). We have a legal doctrine of "in loco parentis", meaning
> that
> > the teachers are responsible for the children's safety -- they know where
> they
> > are and that they aren't doing anything stupid. How can this be achieved
> if
> > you have students wandering all over town? And who is responsible if some
> kid
> > gets himself run over?
> >
> That's the main reason most schools don't have open campuses-because we are
> held liable if something happens. Those which do require parental
> permission, and if your child leaves without permission, they are
> theoretically able to be charged with a truancy violation (although this is
> unlikely to happen unless something bad happens and the school needs to
> cover their tracks).
>

Our district wound up with a few dead kids after their lunchtime
excursions off campus (for which we were not held liable) so public
outcry rather created a mood in which closed campuses were ...
demanded. Attendance at afternoon classes has risen dramatically.

But the mood will eventually swing the other way. Open campuses
will creep back into the system (buildings can make
their own decisions) until the Next Bad Thing.

[Byron Canfield]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> news:pROOa.15347$H17.5892@sccrnsc02...
> > "Nan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:35:17 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >And then you tell them: "Yes, that's all well and good; we accept
your
> > > >offer. And here is the list of what we will allow you to stock in the
> > > >vending machines. Any deviation from the list will be cause for
> immediate
> > > >termination of power to the vending machines to prevent their further
> use
> > by
> > > >students until such time as the stock is made in conformance with the
> > list."
> > >
> > > I suppose, if the school is *really* willing to give back all the
> > > funding or computers, or whatever was provided.
> > >
> > >
> > The school would not have to return any funding or equipment if the
> > "donaters" are the ones in violation.
> >
> Uh, I do most of the grant writing for my school. Both sides are liable
for
> the outcome. UNLESS the school has specified very in depth what they will
> and will not accept as part of the written agreement, and the other side
has
> agreed, with no weasel phrases, the school could indeed lose the
equipment.
>
> In our cases, the phrase is "in compliance with USDA regulations for
> school-day food service"-so until the USDA approves sodas, they're not
> allowed. But if they wanted to start stocking flavored milk in our vending
> machines, they could do so.
>
That's merely an issue of taking control of the contract -- do just that --
specify in great depth what is and is not acceptable and what will be the
outcome for violations on the part of the vendor. Too many think they just
have to roll over and accept the contract the vendor provides, which is
naturally slanted in their favor. Not so. Take theirs and completely rewrite
it, slanted the other way. Believe me, they want the business so bad they'll
take it anyway.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[toto]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:58:27 -0500, "Donna Metler"
> wrote:

>That's the main reason most schools don't have open campuses-because we are
>held liable if something happens. Those which do require parental
>permission, and if your child leaves without permission, they are
>theoretically able to be charged with a truancy violation (although this is
>unlikely to happen unless something bad happens and the school needs to
>cover their tracks).

Imo, though, teenagers need to be treated as young adults, responsible
for their own behavior. For younger children it makes sense to have
them on the premises all day, but for older kids, going out to lunch
is just like going out to lunch if you are an adult working on the job
and while you may not have the option if you work in some jobs, adults
can change jobs, while teens are unlikely to be able to change
schools.

It may be that the privilege should be earned. Honor students at my
high school when I grew up were allowed more privileges. Of course
kids also could walk home for lunch in my elementary school without
a big fuss being made over it. Most didn't, but some of us who lived
close did at least on occasion. The only provision was that you had
to let the teacher know you were going home for lunch that day in the
morning when she took the lunch count.

Kids need time to be kids

Unlike their American counterparts, most German students in both the
primary and secondary grades attend school for only half the day, and
for those in the early primary grades, the school day can end at 10:30
a.m.

But many places all over the world are becoming much more structured
in supervising even the play time of children. I don't think this is
a good thing. When are we allowing children just to be kids, to learn
how to set their own social structures and to explore the world?






--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[CBI]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
>
> Imo, though, teenagers need to be treated as young adults, responsible
> for their own behavior. For younger children it makes sense to have
> them on the premises all day, but for older kids, going out to lunch
> is just like going out to lunch if you are an adult working on the job
> and while you may not have the option if you work in some jobs, adults
> can change jobs, while teens are unlikely to be able to change
> schools.

Yes but, as you say, not all adults can leave for lunch. I think part of
growing up to be an adult is to learn that you don't always get to make the
rules you want.

--
CBI

[toto]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:01:58 -0500, "Donna Metler"
> wrote:

>The public schools walk a very thin line where litigation is concerned, and
>most will err on the side of caution.

I know. This is part of what is wrong with our society and our
schools, imho.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[CBI]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:29:01 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:
>
> >Yes but, as you say, not all adults can leave for lunch. I think part of
> >growing up to be an adult is to learn that you don't always get to make
the
> >rules you want.
>
> However, most college kids have a much better schedule. We are fools
> if we think that making high schools like primary schools works to
> produce kids who are learning to be adults.

Whatever benefit you can imagine for being able to go out for lunch on their
own can be realized at other times such as nights and weekends at the mall,
on dates, etc. If the school finds that the kids leaving campus in the
middle of the day creates problems such as them getting into trouble and
missing classes then the best move would be to keep them there. It will be
good training for when their boss makes them stay close for lunch or
required classes in college keep them from having lunch when and where they
want.

You don't always get to eat your lunch where and when you want (or at all).
I think the kids would be more poorly served if they grew up expecting that
they would.

--
CBI

[Jeff Utz]

"thumper" > wrote in message
om...
> (Cathy Weeks) wrote in message
>...
> > "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > > What drives me nuts is that the school cafeteria sells ice cream,
fruit
> > > roll-ups, cookies and similar things, so the kids end up getting their
junk
> > > food there, and a lot of their regular "food" is high carb highly
processed
> > > stuff.
> >
> > Yeah, and my stepson's school gives out candy as rewards! I just
> > can't get over that. They seize on any excuse to give out junk. The
> > afterschool program regularly gives out full-sized candy bars at the
> > end of the day. What are they thinking???
> >
>
> When my son moved into the toddler room of his daycare, they provided
> morning and afternoon snacks. They also sent a note home about
> appropriate food to send for lunch, emphasizing healthy meals. Each
> time the licensing agency comes, they ask us to be sure to send
> healthy lunches too. Sounds good, right?

Everyday should be treated like it is the day the licensing agency comes.

> So, why is it that the
> first day he started in that room the morning snack was.... Dunkin'
> Munchkins. And they never never serve 100% juice (at least it isn't
> in the refrigerator unless a parent has provided it for their child).
> I just don't get it!

No you don't. Juice is basically sugar water.

All the best,

Jeff

>
> Take care,
> Lisa
>
> > Cathy Weeks
> > Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01 - http://www.bricktopia.com/kivi
> > to reply remove the spam and Cathy isn't spelled with a K

[Jeff Utz]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
om...
> toto > wrote in message
>...
> > On 2 Jul 2003 08:19:08 -0700, (Cathy Weeks)
> > wrote:
>
> > >That's all I can think of now...I'd love more suggestions and input.
> >
> > How about vote *for* the tax increases needed to fully fund the
> > schools so they don't need extra funds from such sources.
>
> <giggle> people pass a tax levy for the schools??? Now *thats* a novel
> idea. The only time residents *ever* voted to increase taxes for the
> schools where I went was when the high school burned down.
>
> As much as I'd like people to vote that way, it doesn't seem very
> practical. (Not that many of my other ideas were practical, either).

Where I live in New Jersey, every budget must be approved by the voters,
including any new tax increases. I think this is true state wide. Where my
dad lives in PA, they just pass the budget and the tax increases along.

In Michigan, where my cousins live, the voters agreed to a tax increase so
that the kids would have a new place to play soccer and improvements in the
football stadium and a kindergarten room that was not in the high school
(unfortuantely, that was the only place in the school district with room for
the kindergarten room, something parents felt was not an ideal situation). I
am sure there were other educational things in it too. One of the big
problems is getting older voters to vote for the tax increase. I guess they
figure they or their kids won't benefit from it. However, they fail to
realize that everyone benefits from a good education, not just the kids.

All the best,

Jeff

> Cathy Weeks
> Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01 - http://www.bricktopia.com/kivi
> to reply remove the spam and Cathy isn't spelled with a K

[Jeff Utz]

"P. Tierney" > wrote in message
news:tR8Na.7473$I8.2443@rwcrnsc53...
>
> "Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > toto > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On 2 Jul 2003 08:19:08 -0700, (Cathy Weeks)
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >That's all I can think of now...I'd love more suggestions and input.
> > >
> > > How about vote *for* the tax increases needed to fully fund the
> > > schools so they don't need extra funds from such sources.
> >
> > <giggle> people pass a tax levy for the schools??? Now *thats* a novel
> > idea. The only time residents *ever* voted to increase taxes for the
> > schools where I went was when the high school burned down.
> >
> > As much as I'd like people to vote that way, it doesn't seem very
> > practical.
>
> Well sure it is. All they need to do as title the legislation
> "Legalize Casinos For Education!!!" Then, the state can create
> and promote gambling addiction (which leads to familial abuse,
> bankruptcy, etc.) so that the profits* can fund the schools. (Cue
> up the theme to The Music Man.) It's a win-win scenerio!!!

In PA, I think all the sales tax is supposed to go to education.

And all of the money from the lotery goes to benefit senior citizens. A lot
of the buses that transport seniors are marked so that people can see the
benefits from the lotery (I would like to personally benefit from the
jackpot).

All the best,

Jeff

(...)

[Byron Canfield]

"Nan" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:44:36 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Nan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:28:23 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >The schools DO have the option; they're just afraid to look at it.
> >>
> >> And you know this to be fact because.....
> >>
> >> Nan
> >>
> >I know the option to be a fact because my daughter's school has done so.
> >
> >I know the fear to be a fact (apparently the fear of losing funding)
because
> >you have said so yourself -- unless you were lying?
>
> Oh, now you're putting words in my posts for me. Nope, I never said
> anything of the sort, Byron. And absolutely not as *fact*.
>
> What I *have* said is that schools need funding. I *have* said that
> major corporations also come in and offer to put the vending machines
> in, as an exchange for either money, or supplies, or whatever.
>
> I *have* said that healthy alternatives probably aren't as lucrative
> to the school as the junky ones. Some have offered anecdotal evidence
> to the contrary.
>
> You're the one that made the assertion that schools have the option.
> You only factually know that your daughter's school has chosen that
> option. You don't factually know that all other schools (as was
> implied in your response) also have that option.
> But I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and go along with you
> because the corporations do have water and other beverages available,
> so it makes sense that it may be offered as an option to each
> school/district.

That is HAS been done is proof enough that it can be done.
>
> You also asserted that the schools were "afraid to look at it", but
> you haven't backed that up. I've not made such a statement, so it's
> not mine to back up.
>
Every excuse you have provided for not looking into the options has
demonstrated fear of looking at options.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[toto]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:43:01 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:

>
>"toto" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:29:01 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:
>>
>> >Yes but, as you say, not all adults can leave for lunch. I think part of
>> >growing up to be an adult is to learn that you don't always get to make
>the
>> >rules you want.
>>
>> However, most college kids have a much better schedule. We are fools
>> if we think that making high schools like primary schools works to
>> produce kids who are learning to be adults.
>
>Whatever benefit you can imagine for being able to go out for lunch on their
>own can be realized at other times such as nights and weekends at the mall,
>on dates, etc. If the school finds that the kids leaving campus in the
>middle of the day creates problems such as them getting into trouble and
>missing classes then the best move would be to keep them there. It will be
>good training for when their boss makes them stay close for lunch or
>required classes in college keep them from having lunch when and where they
>want.
>
>You don't always get to eat your lunch where and when you want (or at all).
>I think the kids would be more poorly served if they grew up expecting that
>they would.

I think you don't give kids credit for being able to understand
differing situations.

I ate my lunch when and where I wished in college. I ate on my bosses
schedule when I worked for a large company. I ate on my own schedule
when I owned my own business and when I was at home with my own
children. Schools should give kids a chance to learn how to schedule
their own time, imo.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[ben121]

I may be the lone voice here, but i think vending machines are not the
issue. Most schools dont let them eat or drink during class anyways.
What needs to change is going to be a shock to everyone here....
parents. there i said it. Parents need to teach their kids how to
eat properly. the vast majority of kids should have very good
metabolisms (meaning they can eat anything and everything and it
doesnt catch up to them) These kids are gaining so much weight
because they have never learned how to eat right. Parents (becaue of
todays econonmy) rarely have time to cook a good meal for their
families. so kids get used to frozen meals and take out. How should
they no that eating snacks at school or after school is any diferent?
and why would they choose the old green beans from the cafeteria, when
they can have luchables....because they have never been tought the
diference. they are also never encouraged to exersize....... these
are much bigger issues that will affect these kids for their WHOLE
LIFE..

[P. Tierney]

"ben121" > wrote in message
om...
> I may be the lone voice here, but i think vending machines are not the
> issue. Most schools dont let them eat or drink during class anyways.

Not from my experience. Nor should they, imo, if they are
going to have the things in the halls. At my last school, they
were turned off during the only non-class time (lunch) because
of the contracts with those who sold school lunches. So why
have the stuff in the hallways at all if the kids can only eat
it by binging?

> What needs to change is going to be a shock to everyone here....
> parents. there i said it. Parents need to teach their kids how to
> eat properly.

Yes they do, but schools do not need to make it more difficult
by adding to the temptation. And if eating properly is important,
then why should schools offer vending items to kids, none of which
would be considered good for a "proper" diet?

Schools cannot control what kids learn, and don't learn,
outside of schools. But they can once they are inside, and offering
junk food in the machines (the school approves of it, so it must
be okay) is most certainly sending a message.

A biology teacher went against the grain and allowed students
to eat in the class, but only if it was fruit, or some other healthy
snack. He had to approve of it to the class, and it ended up being a
good learning experience for the students, consistent with his
curriculum. It's a good example to follow.



P.
Tierney

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
toto > wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:43:01 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"toto" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:29:01 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Yes but, as you say, not all adults can leave for lunch. I think part of
>>> >growing up to be an adult is to learn that you don't always get to make
>>the
>>> >rules you want.
>>>
>>> However, most college kids have a much better schedule. We are fools
>>> if we think that making high schools like primary schools works to
>>> produce kids who are learning to be adults.
>>
>>Whatever benefit you can imagine for being able to go out for lunch on their
>>own can be realized at other times such as nights and weekends at the mall,
>>on dates, etc. If the school finds that the kids leaving campus in the
>>middle of the day creates problems such as them getting into trouble and
>>missing classes then the best move would be to keep them there. It will be
>>good training for when their boss makes them stay close for lunch or
>>required classes in college keep them from having lunch when and where they
>>want.
>>
>>You don't always get to eat your lunch where and when you want (or at all).
>>I think the kids would be more poorly served if they grew up expecting that
>>they would.
>
>I think you don't give kids credit for being able to understand
>differing situations.
>
>I ate my lunch when and where I wished in college. I ate on my bosses
>schedule when I worked for a large company. I ate on my own schedule
>when I owned my own business and when I was at home with my own
>children. Schools should give kids a chance to learn how to schedule
>their own time, imo.

I don't think that they should if it is not safe for them to do so.
And while I think kids should learn how to schedule their own time, it
isn't necessary that they do the lunch part of it in high school.
That's a really minor part of scheduling time.

I'm sorry Dorothy, but as a former high school teacher, I see very
little benefit in letting the kids leave the campus for lunch unless
there are good safe places for them to go where it is easy for them to
get back in the time allowed.

It's not a high priority with me that they not be restricted or have a
chance to schedule their lunch. They will have plenty of time to do
that later when they actually are adults, and they have plenty of
things that the can schedule while in hs without scheduling lunch.
And if they have to drive a vehicle to get off campus, I absolutely am
adamant that they should NOT be doing that to go to lunch.


grandma Rosalie

[Joni Rathbun]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Rosalie B. wrote:

> x-no-archive:yes
> toto > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:43:01 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"toto" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:29:01 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Yes but, as you say, not all adults can leave for lunch. I think part of
> >>> >growing up to be an adult is to learn that you don't always get to make
> >>the
> >>> >rules you want.
> >>>
> >>> However, most college kids have a much better schedule. We are fools
> >>> if we think that making high schools like primary schools works to
> >>> produce kids who are learning to be adults.
> >>
> >>Whatever benefit you can imagine for being able to go out for lunch on their
> >>own can be realized at other times such as nights and weekends at the mall,
> >>on dates, etc. If the school finds that the kids leaving campus in the
> >>middle of the day creates problems such as them getting into trouble and
> >>missing classes then the best move would be to keep them there. It will be
> >>good training for when their boss makes them stay close for lunch or
> >>required classes in college keep them from having lunch when and where they
> >>want.
> >>
> >>You don't always get to eat your lunch where and when you want (or at all).
> >>I think the kids would be more poorly served if they grew up expecting that
> >>they would.
> >
> >I think you don't give kids credit for being able to understand
> >differing situations.
> >
> >I ate my lunch when and where I wished in college. I ate on my bosses
> >schedule when I worked for a large company. I ate on my own schedule
> >when I owned my own business and when I was at home with my own
> >children. Schools should give kids a chance to learn how to schedule
> >their own time, imo.
>
> I don't think that they should if it is not safe for them to do so.
> And while I think kids should learn how to schedule their own time, it
> isn't necessary that they do the lunch part of it in high school.
> That's a really minor part of scheduling time.
>
> I'm sorry Dorothy, but as a former high school teacher, I see very
> little benefit in letting the kids leave the campus for lunch unless
> there are good safe places for them to go where it is easy for them to
> get back in the time allowed.
>
> It's not a high priority with me that they not be restricted or have a
> chance to schedule their lunch. They will have plenty of time to do
> that later when they actually are adults, and they have plenty of
> things that the can schedule while in hs without scheduling lunch.
> And if they have to drive a vehicle to get off campus, I absolutely am
> adamant that they should NOT be doing that to go to lunch.
>

I'm usually pretty "liberal" in my positions but I don't have a problem
with closed campuses either. We were an open campus before last year
and many students used that time to cause trouble. And a good chunk
of them didn't came back after lunch. Afternoon attendance was half
of what morning attendance was. Our school isn't within walking
distance of any place useful so the parking lot emptied out at
lunch too. Lots of kids on the road....

Perhaps it could be a privilege earned for seniors and maybe juniors.
I'd hate to have to deal with supervising exits under those conditions
but it seems a possible compromise.

[toto]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:59:30 GMT, "P. Tierney"
> wrote:

> A biology teacher went against the grain and allowed students
>to eat in the class, but only if it was fruit, or some other healthy
>snack. He had to approve of it to the class, and it ended up being a
>good learning experience for the students, consistent with his
>curriculum. It's a good example to follow.

And again, I see a need to allow students some freedom to eat and
drink in class given the knowledge that teenage bodies need more
food than average to sustain their brains and bodies. Water, btw,
is particularly important to this, imo, as hydration allows brains to
make connections more efficiently.

Bathroom breaks are also another area where schools *control* the
students or attempt to. I think that we believe that kids will take
advantage of this and constantly interrupt class, but if we trusted
kids more, I think that they would act up to our expectations.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes toto > wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:06:03 -0400, Rosalie B.
> wrote:
>
>>I don't think that they should if it is not safe for them to do so.
>>And while I think kids should learn how to schedule their own time, it
>>isn't necessary that they do the lunch part of it in high school.
>>That's a really minor part of scheduling time.
>>
>Yes, it is somewhat minor. OTOH, kids in high school have so
>little freedom to schedule anything that I do think this one would
>be helpful.
>
>>I'm sorry Dorothy, but as a former high school teacher, I see very
>>little benefit in letting the kids leave the campus for lunch unless
>>there are good safe places for them to go where it is easy for them to
>>get back in the time allowed.
>>
>I taught HS too. I agree that it does depend on where the campus
>is in relation to the places that would offer lunch. OTOH, I think
>that in many places this is already in place. My high school in the
>town I grew up in is within walking distance of the downtown area.
>So is the high school my own kids attended. And so are most
>suburban and city schools at least.

I attended a suburban school in the county seat very near to the city.
There was no place to go from there to eat. I could have walked home
for lunch but I didn't have TIME. I can't understand how anyone can
have time to go to lunch with the schedules that we have/had for
lunch. I barely had time to go through the cafeteria line and eat let
alone go home. Had I gone home, I'd have had to run both ways and I
only lived two short blocks from the school.

None of the schools that my kids ever attended had any place to go for
lunch. I think that the places where there is somewhere reasonable to
go for lunch off campus without driving a car is far less than your
experience would have you think. IME the hs where this is a viable
proposition are by far in the minority.
>
>>It's not a high priority with me that they not be restricted or have a
>>chance to schedule their lunch. They will have plenty of time to do
>>that later when they actually are adults, and they have plenty of
>>things that the can schedule while in hs without scheduling lunch.
>>And if they have to drive a vehicle to get off campus, I absolutely am
>>adamant that they should NOT be doing that to go to lunch.
>
>Well, I agree that it is a risk to let kids drive off campus for
>lunch, but no more so than allowing them to drive to school or
>to the mall after school.

When kids must be bused to school their driving privileges are
restricted anyway. They are not allowed to drive to school unless
they are in some activity (such as sports or band) which requires them
to stay after school.

Our parking lots are quite restricted and the kids who are allowed to
drive have to have a permit, and the parking lots are locked during
the school time so that cars cannot be taken off the grounds. Around
here we have no malls to drive to unless you go 40 miles or so up the
road. Driving TO school is not the problem so much as driving away
from school.

I live across the street from a parochial HS at which my SIL taught.
They do the same - kids who are allowed to drive park in an impound
lot and the gates are locked until school is dismissed. Parents who
pick up kids are restricted as to where they can park and wait for
kids.

I've seen too many accidents out in front of my house, and too many
friends of my kids have been in accidents or been maimed or paralyzed
to think that kids driving to lunch is a right and that they need to
do it in order to learn scheduling. They DON'T.

>I think we are far too *risk-averse* as a society in general.
>People who cannot take risks, cannot learn anything.

But the risks they take should be ones that they can recover from.
Car accidents are often not risks of that type.


grandma Rosalie

[toto]

On 11 Jul 2003 03:34:09 GMT, (H Schinske) wrote:

wrote:
>
>>Perhaps it could be a privilege earned for seniors and maybe juniors.
>>I'd hate to have to deal with supervising exits under those conditions
>>but it seems a possible compromise.
>
>My high school did that -- seniors could go off campus, lower grades could not.
>Oh, and relating to another thread (I think it was another thread), my sisters'
>school allowed seniors to drink coffee :-)
>
>--Helen

My own high school also had various privileges for honor students even
when they were freshman on the theory that kids who were doing well
were probably mature enough to handle those privileges.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[dragonlady]

In article >,
toto > wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2003 03:34:09 GMT, (H Schinske) wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> >>Perhaps it could be a privilege earned for seniors and maybe juniors.
> >>I'd hate to have to deal with supervising exits under those conditions
> >>but it seems a possible compromise.
> >
> >My high school did that -- seniors could go off campus, lower grades could
> >not.
> >Oh, and relating to another thread (I think it was another thread), my
> >sisters'
> >school allowed seniors to drink coffee :-)
> >
> >--Helen
>
> My own high school also had various privileges for honor students even
> when they were freshman on the theory that kids who were doing well
> were probably mature enough to handle those privileges.


The one I remember most was that the honor society kids had a special
room they could go to to study during study hall, where smoking was
permitted.

Now, the main reason I think my daughters try to get off campus is to
have a cigarette during the day. Of course, if they get caught they get
suspended.


So what used to be an adult privilege reserved for the smartest kids is
now an illegal activity, punishable by suspension.

How times have changed!

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>My own high school also had various privileges for honor students even
>when they were freshmen on the theory that kids who were doing well
>were probably mature enough to handle those privileges.

Oh, we didn't have honor students. Grades were considered private :-)

--Helen

[P. Tierney]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:59:30 GMT, "P. Tierney"
> > wrote:
>
> > A biology teacher went against the grain and allowed students
> >to eat in the class, but only if it was fruit, or some other healthy
> >snack. He had to approve of it to the class, and it ended up being a
> >good learning experience for the students, consistent with his
> >curriculum. It's a good example to follow.
>
> And again, I see a need to allow students some freedom to eat and
> drink in class given the knowledge that teenage bodies need more
> food than average to sustain their brains and bodies. Water, btw,
> is particularly important to this, imo, as hydration allows brains to
> make connections more efficiently.
>
> Bathroom breaks are also another area where schools *control* the
> students or attempt to. I think that we believe that kids will take
> advantage of this and constantly interrupt class, but if we trusted
> kids more, I think that they would act up to our expectations.

I agree on both counts.


P.
Tierney

[Banty]

In article >, "P. says...
>
>
>"Rosalie B." > wrote:
>>
>> >I think we are far too *risk-averse* as a society in general.
>> >People who cannot take risks, cannot learn anything.
>>
>> But the risks they take should be ones that they can recover from.
>> Car accidents are often not risks of that type.
>
> So they shouldn't be allowed because they might get in a car
>accident? If so, then maybe they shouldn't even come to school!
>I'd place time restraints, lack of accessible places (for many schools),
>truancy problems (for my last school) as concerns over fear of car
>accidents.

The problem is also the impact of loitering on local businesses. The pizza
joint might like the HS students hanging round, but he drugstore next door
doesn't like their patrons going elsewhere rather than to find their way among
weirdly (to the patrons) dressed, smoking youths.

Banty

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"Donna Metler" > wrote:

> "Joni Rathbun" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, dragonlady wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > toto > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 11 Jul 2003 03:34:09 GMT, (H Schinske) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Perhaps it could be a privilege earned for seniors and maybe
> juniors.
> > > > >>I'd hate to have to deal with supervising exits under those
> conditions
> > > > >>but it seems a possible compromise.
> > > > >
> > > > >My high school did that -- seniors could go off campus, lower grades
> could
> > > > >not.
> > > > >Oh, and relating to another thread (I think it was another thread),
> my
> > > > >sisters'
> > > > >school allowed seniors to drink coffee :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >--Helen
> > > >
> > > > My own high school also had various privileges for honor students even
> > > > when they were freshman on the theory that kids who were doing well
> > > > were probably mature enough to handle those privileges.
> > >
> > >
> > > The one I remember most was that the honor society kids had a special
> > > room they could go to to study during study hall, where smoking was
> > > permitted.
> > >
> > > Now, the main reason I think my daughters try to get off campus is to
> > > have a cigarette during the day. Of course, if they get caught they get
> > > suspended.
> > >
> > >
> > > So what used to be an adult privilege reserved for the smartest kids is
> > > now an illegal activity, punishable by suspension.
>
> For most high school students, purchasing cigarettes is an illegal activity,
> punished by more than suspension.
>

Yes, both of my daughters have been arrested for being in possession of
cigarettes. All it means is they lose a Saturday to a "smoking
education" program.

Frankly, I think the law is worthless; I don't see it making any
difference, and, in general, am opposed to criminalizing this sort of
thing; as far as I've been able to tell, there is no evidence that it
actually changes behavior.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Donna Metler]

"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Donna Metler" > wrote:
>
> > "Joni Rathbun" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, dragonlady wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > toto > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 11 Jul 2003 03:34:09 GMT, (H Schinske) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Perhaps it could be a privilege earned for seniors and maybe
> > juniors.
> > > > > >>I'd hate to have to deal with supervising exits under those
> > conditions
> > > > > >>but it seems a possible compromise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >My high school did that -- seniors could go off campus, lower
grades
> > could
> > > > > >not.
> > > > > >Oh, and relating to another thread (I think it was another
thread),
> > my
> > > > > >sisters'
> > > > > >school allowed seniors to drink coffee :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--Helen
> > > > >
> > > > > My own high school also had various privileges for honor students
even
> > > > > when they were freshman on the theory that kids who were doing
well
> > > > > were probably mature enough to handle those privileges.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The one I remember most was that the honor society kids had a
special
> > > > room they could go to to study during study hall, where smoking was
> > > > permitted.
> > > >
> > > > Now, the main reason I think my daughters try to get off campus is
to
> > > > have a cigarette during the day. Of course, if they get caught they
get
> > > > suspended.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So what used to be an adult privilege reserved for the smartest kids
is
> > > > now an illegal activity, punishable by suspension.
> >
> > For most high school students, purchasing cigarettes is an illegal
activity,
> > punished by more than suspension.
> >
>
> Yes, both of my daughters have been arrested for being in possession of
> cigarettes. All it means is they lose a Saturday to a "smoking
> education" program.
>
> Frankly, I think the law is worthless; I don't see it making any
> difference, and, in general, am opposed to criminalizing this sort of
> thing; as far as I've been able to tell, there is no evidence that it
> actually changes behavior.
>
But, as long as the law is written in that way, schools aren't going to be
too receptive to students smoking on campus, or leaving campus for the
express purpose of doing so.


> meh
> --
> Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
>

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Nan > wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2003 04:40:59 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>
> >In article >, "P. says...
> >>
> >>
> >>"Rosalie B." > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >I think we are far too *risk-averse* as a society in general.
> >>> >People who cannot take risks, cannot learn anything.
> >>>
> >>> But the risks they take should be ones that they can recover from.
> >>> Car accidents are often not risks of that type.
> >>
> >> So they shouldn't be allowed because they might get in a car
> >>accident? If so, then maybe they shouldn't even come to school!
> >>I'd place time restraints, lack of accessible places (for many schools),
> >>truancy problems (for my last school) as concerns over fear of car
> >>accidents.
> >
> >The problem is also the impact of loitering on local businesses. The pizza
> >joint might like the HS students hanging round, but he drugstore next door
> >doesn't like their patrons going elsewhere rather than to find their way
> >among
> >weirdly (to the patrons) dressed, smoking youths.
> >
> >Banty
>
> A lot of local stores have a "2 students in the store at a time" rule,
> so that isn't very conducive to the kids being able to purchase what
> they want in a timely manner if they're running against the clock.
>
> Nan
>

It isn't the kids in the store so much, as the ones hanging outside.

I've stopped at the local 7-11 several times either just before school
starts or just after it gets out. There's a middle school down the
street, and the store does a brisk business with those kids. There are
only a few kids in at a time, but it can be a pain to try to get IN to
the store, what with the crowd of kids waiting by the door to get in and
the bicycles and skateboards that have been abandoned in front of the
door. It doesn't stop me, but I'm not particularly weirded out by kids,
but I know there are others who don't want to walk through a gaggle of
teens or preteens. (I've also been known to remind kids that they
shouldn't leave their transportation mode where I might trip over it;
mostly, the kids apologize and move it; I like to think they think
twice before doing it again.)

meh

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[CBI]

"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, both of my daughters have been arrested for being in possession of
> cigarettes. All it means is they lose a Saturday to a "smoking
> education" program.
>
> Frankly, I think the law is worthless; I don't see it making any
> difference, and, in general, am opposed to criminalizing this sort of
> thing; as far as I've been able to tell, there is no evidence that it
> actually changes behavior.
>

Making it illegal to smoke probably does little to change the behavior of
the teens who want to do it. However, making it illegal to sell to minors
does change the behavior of the guy at 7-11 if the penalty is severe enough.
There is a reason tobacco companies target kids.

--
CBI