View Single Post
Old 10-06-2008, 01:04 PM   #72
ken0042
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
 
ken0042's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn View Post
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.
Well, according to the CBC, 11.7 per cent of children under 18 are living below the low-income cut-off line.

So a significant number; at least more significant than the numbers that have been thrown around for nut allergies. Never mind those who are trying to save money, or those who may be vegitarians.

It's not like I'm saying the allergic kids should be put at risk, I'm just questioning if banning peanuts is the best course of action. If they had separate lunch rooms, the risk would be reduced significantly.
ken0042 is offline   Reply With Quote