Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
A good buddy of mine is severely allergic, and he's in his 30s. So not just kids.
A point I brought up last time we had this debate, what about the families below the poverty line. The ones who cannot afford no-name balogna so to ensure the kid gets nutrition they want to send him with PB&J sandwiches to school. Or what about kids who won't eat other things? I know at one point as a kid I ate PB almost exclusively, and into junior high I would usually throw out what my mom made and go hit Burger King for lunch. Other kids would sometimes just throw out their lunch and go without.
So in my examples above, the peanut ban puts the needs of the few above the needs of the many; as I imagine there are more poor families and fussy kids than kids with allergies.
I'm not saying there is no need to be insensitive, but an all out ban seems excessive to me. And who is going to speak up and say "But we are too poor to feed our kids meat for lunch."?
|
Here in Red Deer the poor kids have some charitable organization drop off lunches for them everyday. Too me your argument for the poor kids is similar to the argument for banning nuts at school. The majority has to be inconvenienced for the few when it comes to nut allergies, I do admit that (although it is more of a litigation thing for the schools than it is about making concessions for kids with spacial needs). Still only a handful of kids attending schools in Alberta would be so poor that they couldn't afford any other protein source other than peanut butter (assuming these kids don't receive some sort of charitable lunch). Should the lives of the few kids with nut allergies be put at risk so that the few poor kids that don't like bologna can eat peanut butter? Seems like basically the same argument with the difference being possible death for the kids with nut allergies.