Collegiate Times

I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Sean Simons’ column in the Nov. 30 issue of the Collegiate Times. Some of what was said really bothered me, and in the end, coerced a necessary response to the ignorance expressed in the column as a whole.

The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sean asked, “Who doesn’t want to be healthier?” I’d venture to say there are plenty of people out there who are perfectly content with themselves and the level of health they have achieved. Why should he or she be made to change? And why, of all things, should the government be the entity to change him or her? I’ll give you a hint of what that sounds like to me: It starts with a “T” and ends with “-otalitarian state.”

The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t
want that.”

The solution to our country’s health issues will not come by regulation. It will not come by bans. It will not come by limitations. It will come by the recognition and adherence to a two-word phrase that seems to be on the verge of extinction across our nation: personal responsibility.

Parenting is a position of great responsibility. To raise a child is an incredible feat in and of itself, and to instill values and responsibility in that child is just an added level of tremendous difficulty. Therefore, I would maintain that the health, fitness and well-being of a child is in the hands of the parents, not the government. Parents who care about the aforementioned subjects will take any step necessary to ensure the child is well-taught and instructed on appropriate food choices, the importance of exercise and the consequences of making poor decisions. Banning items from schools, or anywhere for that matter, takes away learning opportunities for our children and further limits life experience.

Take a military obstacle course for example: A well-trained soldier will be taught how to negotiate the obstacles. The obstacle will not be moved, changed, or taken away. If it is removed, how can the soldier learn? Life works in the same way. If all of your obstacles are taken away, you have nothing to learn, nothing to experience, and nothing for which to live. Challenges are presented in order to give people the opportunity to better themselves, give them the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, and the liberty of pursuing what makes them happy.

Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms.

A version of this article appeared in the Dec 8 issue of the Collegiate Times.