This House Believe That Parents Who Smoke in the Presence of Their Children Must Be Punished

8/13/2019 This House Believe That Parents Who Smoke in the Presence of Their Children Must Be Punished

1/21

THIS HOUSE BELIEVE THAT PARENTS WHO SMOKE IN THE PRESENCE

OF THEIR CHILDREN MUST BE PUNISHED

In many countries, laws now exist which prevent people from smoking in public places, sothat non-smokers can avoid breathing in secondhand smoke.[1] Those who want a law

preventing parents from smoking around their children (and punishing them if they do) see itas a natural and important next step; if we dont let people smoke in public because they

might endanger the lives of non-smokers around them, then it seems logical say those infavourto also have a law stopping parents from potentially harming their children throughsmoking in the home environment. Research has shown that second hand smoke is very badfor childrens health, and this is now widely accepted. Some medical experts believe it may

be more dangerous than actual smoking because of the larger amount of cancer-causingchemicals in this type of smoke. It can be especially harmful to babies and young childrenwho are in the early stages of their physical development. It may lead to less developed lungsand a series of respiratory (breathing) illnesses such as bronchitis, asthma and even heartconditions. Those in favour of this law see punishment (by escalating fines or maybe evenimprisonment) as the best way to discourage parents from smoking around their children.

POSITIVE

1. It is immoral to expose children to secondhand smokeChildren whose parents smoke in the home are exposed to secondhand smoke without any

choice; they cant just leave to avoid the smoky air. Many studies have found a link between

secondhand smoke exposure (through living or working with a smoker) and an increased riskof heart disease and lung cancer.[1]The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states thatEveryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being ofhimself and of his family.[2]Because their respiration is hindered and their long term healthis threatened, children who are being exposed to secondhand smoke against their will aretherefore having their human rights infringed by their parents, and this properly subjects the

parents to punishment.

2. Children who see their parents smoke are more likely to smoke themselvesStudies have found that children with parents who smoke are much more likely to use

drugs, and especially more likely to smoke cigarettes themselves.[1] Children learn about thedangers of smoking and drugs in school, and know that it can damage health, but their parentsare the most influential figures in their lives. If they see their parents, supposedly responsibleadults, constantly doing something, then they are bound to think that it is okay for them to doit too. Having a parent who smokes normalises smoking for the child, which is wrong. Inorder to prevent this from happening, it is necessary to make sure that parents do not smokein front of their children by punishing them if they do.

3. Punishing parents for smoking around their children will encourage them to quitNot being able to smoke in their home without risking punishment will make it much

more difficult for parents to continue smoking, encouraging them to smoke much less or even
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1


2/21

give up altogether, which will improve their health. This can be seen in reports which showthat there was a big decrease in the number of smokers in England after the ban on smokingin public places there,[1]presumably because they didnt want to have to go outside all thetime and be away from their friends every time they wanted to have a cigarette. Similarly,many parents will give up smoking to avoid having to leave their children every time they

want to have a cigarette or risk being punished.

NEGATIVE

1. The state has only a limited right to interfere in family lifeThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that No one shall be subjected to

arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.[1] The state shouldhave no right to interfere in family life by telling parents what they should or shouldnt do in

front of their children, or by entering into peoples private homes to investigate whether or

not they are smoking when their children are present. Parents should be trusted to do what is

best for their children; they do not have to be told how to parent properly.

Ideally, the state should be able to rely on all parents to provide their children with asatisfactory standard of life, without having to interfere. Unfortunately, that is not the case,which is why there are special units within police forces, like the Child Abuse InvestigationCommand in London,[1] which enter into childrens homes to investigate cases in whichthose children are not being treated properly.

2. Punishing parents also punishes the childNo matter how parents are punished, it will affect the child. The fact that a parent will

be left with less money to spend on their child after having to pay a fine should make themthink twice about smoking in front of their child again!

If they face imprisonment which might sound ridiculous but happens in states thatpunish parents of chronically truant children[1] then the situation is even worse. If theimprisoned parent is a single parent, then the child may have to go into temporary care. Evenif the child has another parent to look after them, having a parent in prison can affectchildrens health.[2]

3. We should be treating smokers as a medical (not legal) problemNicotine is highly addictive.[1]Because of this, smokers are unlikely to respond well to

this kind of incentive. They know smoking is bad for them, and possibly for their childrentoo, but they cannot stop. Instead of punishing parents who smoke around their children, thestate should provide medical help to ease their nicotine addiction. The childs interest, whichostensibly justifies this ban, would be better served through helping the parents overcome thehabit, not punishing them for succumbing to it.
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-punish-parents-who-smoke-presence-their-children#_ftn1


3/21

This House Would Implement A Fat Tax

The WHO reports that in 2008 1.5 billion adults, 20 and older, were overweight with a Body

Mass Index (a proxy measurement of body fat based on height and weight) over 25 and thatof these 1.5 billion overweight adults, over 200 million men and nearly 300 million womenwere obese (BMI > 30). Overall, more than one in ten of the worlds adult population was

reported to be obese. Once considered a high-income country problem, overweight andobesity are now on the rise in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in urbansettings. Close to 35 million overweight children are living in developing countries and 8million in developed countries.

The WHO notes that Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At

least 2.8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese. In addition,44% of the diabetes burden, 23% of the ischemic heart disease burden and between 7% and41% of certain cancer burdens are attributable to overweight and obesity.[1]

Since one of the factors that contributes to obesity is the inordinate amount of caloriesconsumed[2],and given the fact that fats have more than twice as much calories (9 kcal/g)than protein and carbohydrates (4 kcal/g) on a gram basis[3],could introducing disincentivesto fat consumption curb the obesity epidemic?

We would implement a flat tax on food items high (in excess of 20% of the dailyrequirements) on saturated fats, salt and sugar. Hungary did that and introduced a flat tax onfoods high in fat, sugar and salt in the amount of 10 forint (0.037 EUR) on the 1 stofSeptember.[4]Denmark did something similar on the 1stof October, charging 16 DKK (2.15EUR) per kg of saturated fat on domestic and imported food, not including products with

saturated fat content fewer than 2.3%.[5]There are similar initiatives and proposals in otherEU countries as well, as well as overseas in the US.[6]

An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter

Point

The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone thehealth care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have beenestimated at $147bn.[1]Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spendingin the US.[2]

The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure,asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few.

We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiringlifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic

procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergencyinterventions.[3]

Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity,and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death.
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn6http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn6http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn6http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn6http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1


4/21

Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to thesociety, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer beconsidered as solely individual in nature.[4]

Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to

try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal coststhe already obese individuals are responsible for.

There is ample precedent in the form of other sin taxes

Point

A sin tax is a term often used for fees tacked on to popular vices like drinking, gambling andsmoking. Its roots have been traced back to the 16thcentury Vatican, where Pope Leo X taxedlicensed prostitutes.[1]

More recently, and with greater success, US federal cigarette taxes were shown to havereduced consumption by 4% for every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes.[2]

Given the success achieved with uprooting this societal vice, which on a number of counts issimilar to the unhealthy food one - immense health costs linked to a choice to consume a

productwe should employ this tried and true strategy to combat the obesity epidemic.

In fact, a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed 5000 peoplefor 20 years, tracking food consumption and various biological metrics. The report states thatResearchers found that, incremental increases in price of unhealthy foods resulted in

incremental decreases in consumption. In other words, when junk food cost more, people ateit less.[3]

Thus leaning on the successful tradition of existing sin taxes and research that points out

the potential for success of a similar solution in this arena, it should be concluded that a fattax is an important part of a sensible and effective solution to the obesity epidemic.

A fat tax levels out the playing field for healthier food

Point

An important reason why people continuously turn to unhealthy, fat, sugar and salt ladenfood, is the simple fact that its often cheaper than a more wholesome meal comprised at least

in part of fresh produce.

A study done at the University of Washington found that when they compared the prices of370 foods junk foods not only cost less but junk food prices are also less likely to rise as

a result of inflation.[1]

A similar conclusion was reached by a group of Australian researchers, who found that theprices of healthy food have risen 20 per cent above inflation, while the harmful counterparthave actually dropped below inflationas much as 20 per cent below.[2]
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn4


5/21

Noting that obesity is more prevalent in groups of lower socioeconomic status, we find thatthe price of food is a substantial incentive for consumption.

A fat tax infringes on individual choice

Point

Introducing such a tax would constitute an overstepping of the governments authority. The

role of government in a society should not expand further than providing basic services suchas education, legal protection, i.e. only the services necessary for a society to function and forthe individuals rights to be protected.

Such a specific tax is completely uncalled for and very unreasonable in the context of a fairsociety with a government that knows its place in it.

Protecting the individual should go no further than the protection against the actions of a thirdperson. For instance: we can all agree that governments should put measures in place toprotect us from thieves, scammers, etc. But should it also protect us from frivolous spending?Limit us in the number of credit cards we can own? Tell us how we can invest our money?

Of course not. But what this tax does is exactly that it is punishing the citizens for a specificchoice they are making by artificially inflating its cost.

Thus it is clear that levying such a tax against a specific choice an individual should be ableto legitimately make is a clear overstepping of the governments authority.[1]

A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity

Point

There are very legitimate concerns whether artificially increasing the cost of fatty food byspecifically targeting it with a tax would have a significant effect on the obesity trend.

In fact, research shows that a fat tax would produce only a marginal change in consumptionnot the dramatic shift in public awareness the proponents of the fat tax are hoping for. Thereason, LSE researchers believe, is simple: those on the very poorest diets will continue toeat badly.[1]

Other than the economic reasons for such behavior, it could be argued that is also a thing ofhabit and culture: fast fatty food is quick, accessible and tasty.[2]Thus while a tax might beuseful in reducing things such as the use of cigaretteswhich are at heart an unnecessaryluxury and thus more easily affected by the price eating food, whether junk or not, isnecessary. It also seems that the fast fatty kind of food is fulfilling a specific need, a need fora quick, tasty and filling meal, something people consider worth paying good money for.

The fight against obesity ought to be multifaceted, complex and well thought out and a fattax is none of those things. We should approach the issue with more cunning and introduceother programs: such as increasing the availability of healthy food by introducing healthy

vending machines;[3]increasing the amount of physics exercise by requiring it in school,improving possibilities for recreation and access to public transportation thus encouraging
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-implement-fat-tax#_ftn1


6/21


7/21

augmentation patients are four times more likely to commit suicide compared to other plasticsurgery patients raises questions about the mental health of women who choose implants 1. It'sonly a plaster patched over a much deeper problem. There are also studies that show negative

psychological effects on patients after their surgery has been completed. For example, arecent analysis 37 studies on patients' psychological and psychosocial functioning before and

after cosmetic surgery by social worker Roberta Honigman and psychiatrists KatherinePhillips, MD, and David Castle, MD, found several predictors of poor outcomes, especiallyfor those who hold unrealistic expectations or have a history of depression and anxiety. Theresearchers found that patients who are dissatisfied with surgery may request repeat

procedures or experience depression and adjustment problems, social isolation, familyproblems, self-destructive behaviours and anger towards the surgeon and his or her staff2.

The dangers involved in elective surgery are not worth the risk

Point

Sometimes we must accept those dangers, as they come in the course of necessary medicalprocedures. But with elective surgeryprocedures people dont need, but rather merely wantthe risks cant be justified. These risks apply both to the surgery itself, and to the long term.For example, leaking silicone breast implants have been a widespread problem and can leadto death. Silicone gel can leak from the implant into healthy breast tissue and go other partsof your body, such as the lungs and lymph nodes, where it could be impossible toremove. Studies published in 2001 by scientists at the National Cancer Institute raisedquestions about the long-term safety of breast implants. One study found that women whohad breast implants for at least eight years were twice as likely to die from brain cancer, threetimes as likely to die from lung cancer or other respiratory diseases, and four times as likelyto commit suicide, compared to other plastic surgery patients A second study found thatwomen with breast implants for at least eight years were 21% more likely to be diagnosedwith cancer compared to other women their age.[1] There is also the risk that the personhaving the surgery will be dissatisfied with the results.

The availability of cosmetic surgery increases pressures on women that they must look

beautiful.

Point

There is considerable evidence that women's attractiveness is judged more harshly thanmen's. For example, in a study by Adams and Huston, 1975, participants were asked to ratethe attractiveness of photographs of people of varying ages. They found that althoughattractiveness ratings of both men and women declined with age, the rate of decline forwomen was greater.[1]Researchers report that womens magazines have ten and one-half times more ads and articles promoting weight loss than mens magazines do, and overthree-quarters of the covers of womens magazines include at least one message about how tochange a womans bodily appearanceby diet, exercise or cosmetic surgery.[2]These viewsabout appearance are damaging because it leads to seriously unhealthy lifestyles that womenthink they need to look beautiful. For example, in 2003, Teen magazine reported that 35 percent of girls 6 to 12 years old have been on at least one diet, and that 50 to 70 per cent of

normal weight girls believe they are overweight.[3]Cosmetic surgery sends the message thatthe prejudices some have about appearance are valid.
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3


8/21

Show less

Banning cosmetic surgery would not prevent it occurring, better for it to be legal and

performed properly

Point

If banned, cosmetic surgery will flourish on a black market. Of course cosmetic surgery isalready available on the black market but if banned then potentially all the customers whohave legal cosmetic surgery will become customers for black market cosmetic surgery. Thiswill drive the prices up and it will be much more dangerous as it will be done byunscrupulous doctors and outside all the safety precautions the legal environment provides.Examples such as that of 46 year old Maria Olivia Aguirre-Castillo died as a result of a blackmarket cosmetic procedure in which cooking oil was injected into her buttocks by anunlicensed practitioner who promised a cheap alternative to legitimate procedures. Afterspending a week in a coma following the procedure, Ms. Aguirre-Castillo succumbed tomultiple organ failure due to fat embolization, as the oil injected into her buttocks attackedher body functions1. Examples such as this would become much more of a commonoccurrence if cosmetic surgery was banned due to the increase in black market surgeries.

Women have the right and freedom to choose how they look

Point

The freedom to change their body if they wish is important to women who have historicallybeen subjugated by men, their bodies regarded as owned and for the use of men. Cosmeticsurgerythe ultimate control over ones body, perhaps is the latest stage in theemancipation of women and their ability to decide what happens to their bodies. The French

performance artist Orlan, for example, sees plastic surgery as a path towards self-determinationa way for women to regain control of their bodies. Instead of having her

body rejuvenated or beautiful, she turns the tables and uses surgery as a medium for adifferent project.[1]Orlan designs her body, orchestrates the operations and makes the finaldecision about when to stop and when to go on. She is the creator, not just the creation; theone who decides and not the passive object of another's decisions that many people viewrecipients of cosmetic surgery to be.[2]Feminists have often envisioned a future wheretechnology has been seized for women for their own ends. Take, for example, ShulamithFirestone'sDialectic of Sex(1970) in which she fantasies a world in which reproductivetechnology frees women from the chores and constraints of biological motherhood.[3]

Given that the reality is that we're judged on our appearance all the time, it's perfectly

rational to want to look good.
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1


9/21

Point

Nobody's forcing anyone to have cosmetic surgerythe market is driven by demand.Attractiveness is greatly affects first impressions and later interpersonal relationships. In aclassic study entitled 'What is Beautiful is good', psychologists Kenneth Dion, Ellen

Berscheid and Elaine Hatfield asked college students to rate photographs of strangers on avariety of personal characteristics. Those who were judged to be attractive were also morelikely to be rated intelligent, kind, happy, flexible, interesting, confident, friendly, modest,and successful than those judged unattractive[1].Teachers rate attractive children morehighly on a variety of positive characteristics including IQ and sociability, and attractive

babies are cuddled and kissed more often than unattractive babies[2].

This House Would Ban junk food from schools.

Junk food is defined by Segens Medical Dictionary as A popular term for any food which is

low in essential nutrients and high in everything elsein particular calories and sodium. Junkfoods are often highly saltede.g., potato chips/crisps, pretzelshigh in refinedcarbohydrates (empty calories)e.g., candy, soft drinksand high in saturated fatse.g.,cake, chocolates.[1]Individual school governing bodies are however likely to come up withtheir own definitions of what exactly constitutes junk food for their ban.

Childhood obesity- defined as a body-mass index at or above the 95th percentile for childrenof the same age and sex, was diagnosed among approximately 15 percent of children andadolescents in the United States in the period from 1999 through 2002. According to the

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, the prevalence of overweight childrendoubled between 19761980 and 19992002. Although the prevalence of overweight among

blacks, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans exceeds that of other ethnic groups,obesity has increased among both sexes and among all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomicgroups.[2]

Childhood obesity is associated with a variety of adverse consequences. Type-2 diabetes nowaccounts for up to 45 percent of all newly diagnosed diabetic disorders in pediatric patients.Conditions associated with excess weight, such as sleep apnea and gallbladder disease, tripledin children and adolescents between 19791981 and 19971999. Although childhood-onsetobesity accounts for only 25 percent of adult obesity, overweight that begins before age eightand persists into adulthood is associated with a mean body-mass index of 41 in adulthood, ascompared with a body-mass index of 35 for adult-onset obesity.1

Researchers and public health officials are currently at a loss to explain the rapid rise in

weight problems among children and adolescents that began in the 1980s. Concerns about the
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-cosmetic-surgery#_ftn1


10/21

long-term health consequences of being overweight have ignited a debate about schoolpolicies that make junk food available to students in school.[3]

The proponents of the idea that school lunches are inexorably linked to the childhood obesityepidemic rally behind much publicized campaigns, such as the one initiated by the first ladyMichelle Obama called Lets Move. Even though this seems to be a popular and intuitively

appealing notion, there are two important questions being raised by its opponents: is thenotion correct and are the schools, or rather school lunches, really the ones we should betargeting?

In September 2006, partly influenced by the campaigning activities of celebrity chef JamieOliver, some schools in the United Kingdom implemented a new approach to preparing and

sourcing pupils meals. This policy requires that caterers ensure that high -quality meat,poultry or oily fish is provided with each meal, alongside at least two servings of fruit andvegetables.[4]

Another approach to banning junk food is also the banning of vending machines with junkfood. The new dispensers in the UK, through a government funded project, switched fromsweets and junk in the vending machines (which is present in 95 per cent of secondaryschools) to milk, fruit, water and other healthy products to buy.[5]

Schools need to practice what they preach

Point

Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools arebeing called upon to take up arms against childhood obesity, both by introducing morenutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offeringin their cafeterias.[1]

Never before has school been so central to a childs personal and social education. Accordingto a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spendin school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week7.5 hours more, than 20 yearsago[2].School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships andcitizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly hasalready been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out freemilk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in casethey are not getting enough at home[3].
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3


11/21

While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up[4],revampingthe school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. Limited resources and budget cuts

hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical educationprograms, says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher.[5]

With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account thecomplex nature of the obesity epidemic[6],especially the interplay of biological and socialfactors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments tourge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allowsthem to make the healthy choices they learn about in class.

Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes.

Point

Schools are playing an increasingly formative role, in the sense that theyre being tasked with

not only knowledge transfer, but also the creation of behaviors and placing emphasis onteaching students how to apply their knowledge.[1]

Given this expanded mandate, the schools are not only obliged to therefore offer choices thatwould go hand in hand with healthier behavior, but also the perfect pressure point forlawmakers to go about introducing healthier lifestyles.

The simple reason is that our kids are increasingly looking not to their parents, but schoolsand the environments they provide, for advice on how to live their lives. They are also thetraditional environments for youth to continuously invent and reinvent themselves andtherefore hold immense potential for behavior modification.

Better nutrition leads to better students.

Point

There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequatenutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic

performance.[1]A study has shown that when primary school students consume three ormore junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% comparedto the average.[2]

This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools fortwo reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her

improved upward mobilityespecially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by theobesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status.
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn6http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn6http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn6http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4


12/21

The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reducedabsenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with lowacademic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and

performance of students.[3]

Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students behalf.

Point

Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem ofchildhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make,this is the wrong way of going about doing it.

The purpose of schools is educationthe genesis of active and useful members of society. Alarge extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most westerncountries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. Theother side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history,

but also of biology, health and nutrition.

We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it

choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses,and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.



low in essential nutrients and high in everything elsein particular calories and sodium. Junkfoods are often highly saltede.g., potato chips/crisps, pretzelshigh in refinedcarbohydrates (empty calories)e.g., candy, soft drinksand high in saturated fatse.g.,cake, chocolates.[1]Individual school governing bodies are however likely to come up with

their own definitions of what exactly constitutes junk food for their ban.



blacks, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans exceeds that of other ethnic groups,obesity has increased among both sexes and among all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic

groups.[2]
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3


13/21

Childhood obesity is associated with a variety of adverse consequences. Type-2 diabetes nowaccounts for up to 45 percent of all newly diagnosed diabetic disorders in pediatric patients.Conditions associated with excess weight, such as sleep apnea and gallbladder disease, tripled

in children and adolescents between 19791981 and 19971999. Although childhood-onsetobesity accounts for only 25 percent of adult obesity, overweight that begins before age eightand persists into adulthood is associated with a mean body-mass index of 41 in adulthood, ascompared with a body-mass index of 35 for adult-onset obesity.1

Researchers and public health officials are currently at a loss to explain the rapid rise inweight problems among children and adolescents that began in the 1980s. Concerns about thelong-term health consequences of being overweight have ignited a debate about school

policies that make junk food available to students in school.[3]


appealing notion, there are two important questions being raised by its opponents: is thenotion correct and are the schools, or rather school lunches, really the ones we should betargeting?

In September 2006, partly influenced by the campaigning activities of celebrity chef JamieOliver, some schools in the United Kingdom implemented a new approach to preparing andsourcing pupils meals. This policy requires that caterers ensure that high -quality meat,

poultry or oily fish is provided with each meal, alongside at least two servings of fruit andvegetables.[4]

Another approach to banning junk food is also the banning of vending machines with junk

food. The new dispensers in the UK, through a government funded project, switched fromsweets and junk in the vending machines (which is present in 95 per cent of secondaryschools) to milk, fruit, water and other healthy products to buy.[5]

Such an approach, where the government takes care of the meals and also preventing theoffer of junk in schools is a way how to do it also in other countries.

[1]Junk Food Segen's Medical Dictionary, 2011,http://medical-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Food,accessed 20 September 2011
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3


14/21

[2]Dietz, W. H., Robinson T. N., 'Overweight Children and Adolescents', 19 May 2005,http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052 ,accessed 9/11/2011

[3]Gorman, L., 'Junk Food Availability in Schools Raises Obesity', 5 September 2011,http://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.html ,accessed 9/11/2011

[4]BBC News, 'Junk food to be banned in school meals', 19 May 2006http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stm ,accessed 09/08/2011

[5]Hope J., 'Vending machines banned', The Daily Mail,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.html ,accessed09/08/2011

Show less

Discuss this

Points For Points Against


Point


The purpose of schools is educationthe genesis of active and useful members of society. Alarge extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most westerncountries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The

other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history,but also of biology, health and nutrition.

We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be itchoices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses,and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.

What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of theimportance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref2http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref3http://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.htmlhttp://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.htmlhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref4http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stmhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref5http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.htmlhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.htmlhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref5http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stmhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref4http://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.htmlhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref3http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref2


15/21

of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short,this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity,

balanced meals and indulging in moderation are.

They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity,making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they shouldalso focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility fortheir choices in such a society.

Improve this

Counterpoint

We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isnt very well aware of all the reasonswe call certain food junk food and what the consumption of those does to the human body.

We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many verypublicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we dont have

are the resultsobviously educating the public is not enough.

When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we trulymust face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principledargumentssuch as the one proposed by the opposition.

What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, wenow know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.

Improve this

Targeting schools will be an ineffective strategy.

Junk food sales are animportant source of funding for schools.

Point

An important issue to consider in this topic is the constellation of incentives that actually got

us to the place where we are at today.
http://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/login


16/21

With the environment designed to incentivize improving schools performance onstandardized tests, there is absolutely nothing that would motivate them to invest their verylimited resources into non-core programs or subjects, such as PE and sports and other

activities.[1]

Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase theirdiscretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD,which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drinkcompany and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. Thealmost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional usessuch as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs andfield trips.

Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrablydetrimental to schools and by extension their pupils.



low in essential nutrients and high in everything elsein particular calories and sodium. Junkfoods are often highly saltede.g., potato chips/crisps, pretzelshigh in refinedcarbohydrates (empty calories)e.g., candy, soft drinksand high in saturated fatse.g.,cake, chocolates.[1]Individual school governing bodies are however likely to come up withtheir own definitions of what exactly constitutes junk food for their ban.



blacks, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans exceeds that of other ethnic groups,obesity has increased among both sexes and among all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomicgroups.[2]

Childhood obesity is associated with a variety of adverse consequences. Type-2 diabetes nowaccounts for up to 45 percent of all newly diagnosed diabetic disorders in pediatric patients.Conditions associated with excess weight, such as sleep apnea and gallbladder disease, tripled

in children and adolescents between 19791981 and 19971999. Although childhood-onsetobesity accounts for only 25 percent of adult obesity, overweight that begins before age eight
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1


17/21

and persists into adulthood is associated with a mean body-mass index of 41 in adulthood, ascompared with a body-mass index of 35 for adult-onset obesity.1

Researchers and public health officials are currently at a loss to explain the rapid rise inweight problems among children and adolescents that began in the 1980s. Concerns about thelong-term health consequences of being overweight have ignited a debate about school

policies that make junk food available to students in school.[3]


appealing notion, there are two important questions being raised by its opponents: is the

notion correct and are the schools, or rather school lunches, really the ones we should betargeting?

In September 2006, partly influenced by the campaigning activities of celebrity chef JamieOliver, some schools in the United Kingdom implemented a new approach to preparing andsourcing pupils meals. This policy requires that caterers ensure that high -quality meat,

poultry or oily fish is provided with each meal, alongside at least two servings of fruit andvegetables.[4]

Another approach to banning junk food is also the banning of vending machines with junkfood. The new dispensers in the UK, through a government funded project, switched fromsweets and junk in the vending machines (which is present in 95 per cent of secondaryschools) to milk, fruit, water and other healthy products to buy.[5]

Such an approach, where the government takes care of the meals and also preventing the

offer of junk in schools is a way how to do it also in other countries.

[1]Junk Food Segen's Medical Dictionary, 2011,http://medical-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Food,accessed 20 September 2011

[2]Dietz, W. H., Robinson T. N., 'Overweight Children and Adolescents', 19 May 2005,http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052 ,accessed 9/11/2011

[3]Gorman, L., 'Junk Food Availability in Schools Raises Obesity', 5 September 2011,http://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.html ,accessed 9/11/2011
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref2http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref2http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref3http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref3http://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.htmlhttp://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.htmlhttp://www.nber.org/digest/sep05/w11177.htmlhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref3http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp043052http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref2http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Junk+Foodhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn5http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn4http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn3


18/21

[4]BBC News, 'Junk food to be banned in school meals', 19 May 2006http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stm ,accessed 09/08/2011

[5]Hope J., 'Vending machines banned', The Daily Mail,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.html ,accessed

09/08/2011

Show less

Discuss this

Points For Points Against


Point


The purpose of schools is educationthe genesis of active and useful members of society. Alarge extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most westerncountries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. Theother side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history,

but also of biology, health and nutrition.

We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it

choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses,and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.

What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of theimportance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consistsof more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short,this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity,

balanced meals and indulging in moderation are.
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref4http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stmhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref5http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.htmlhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schoolshttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205212/Vending-machines-banned.htmlhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref5http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4995268.stmhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref4


19/21


20/21

Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase theirdiscretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD,which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drink

company and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. Thealmost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional usessuch as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs andfield trips.

Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrablydetrimental to schools and by extension their pupils.

[1]Anderson, P. M., 'Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Childrens

Obesity?', National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005,

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11177.pdf,accessed 9/11/2011

Improve this

Counterpoint

There is absolutely nothing stopping the schools from finding ventures that are just asprofitable with companies that offer healthy drinks and snacks. In fact, most of the existingcontracts could simply remain in place, since most of the firms are conglomerates that could

just as easily offer healthy alternatives to soda pops and cookies.

Where that would prove impossible, it is simply a question of priorities: how many childrenafflicted by diabetes type 2 are worth a field trip? How many a new sports program or new

equipment?

Improve this

Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools.

Point

Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest inthe things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1http://www.nber.org/papers/w11177.pdfhttp://www.nber.org/papers/w11177.pdfhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://idebate.org/user/loginhttp://www.nber.org/papers/w11177.pdfhttp://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftnref1


21/21

everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try toacquire the banned thing through other means.

Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasiveadvertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restricttheir dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vendingmachines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools

attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision.

Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply withdisciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours.

When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, thedemand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. Theycreated a candy cart which now brings them income for sports equipment or othernecessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: If I couldnt

buy it here, Id bring it from home.[1]
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-ban-junk-food-schools#_ftn1

This House Believe That Parents Who Smoke in the Presence of Their Children Must Be Punished

Documents

Transcript of This House Believe That Parents Who Smoke in the Presence of Their Children Must Be Punished