http://www.examiner.com/article/pb-j-ban-at-arkansas-school-causes-stir-sandwich-confiscated


I have to agree with the side that is really getting their heads bitten off: sorry but I'm not so sympathetic to the kids with peanut allergies that I think every other kid needs to suffer for their own problems. Their own homes are nut free, their own lunches are nut free, that should be the extent of how far it goes. What next? Are we going to tell all grocery stores they must stop selling the raw peanuts still it their shells up for grabs in the bins in the produce aisle because the next child coming in might be allergic? No we're not, because it's stupid and it wouldn't work anyway.

You can't have a peanut free world and it's stupid to make all the kids that CAN eat them suffer to accommodate the kids who most likely are NOT going to be eating the nuts anyway. And if their allergies are so severe that they can't even be in the same room with a peanut, then they have no business being in a public school, or anywhere outside of a safety bubble.

I have to agree, Super.

The thing is, some peanut allergies are severe. Like the kids are in dire straits as soon as they ingest one. So, I am all for it.

I understand it is not convenient, but it is what it is.

One kid my son has gone to school with since K is Sam. Sam is a portly dude. And last year, and years prior, my son told me that Sam begs for anybody's food that will give it to him.

I feel it is only my responsibility to a point to tell my son not to hand him over food. Granted, Sam does not have an allergy. But, if he did, how would my kid know that?

Supernova wrote:

I have to agree with the side that is really getting their heads bitten off: sorry but I'm not so sympathetic to the kids with peanut allergies that I think every other kid needs to suffer for their own problems. Their own homes are nut free, their own lunches are nut free, that should be the extent of how far it goes. What next? Are we going to tell all grocery stores they must stop selling the raw peanuts still it their shells up for grabs in the bins in the produce aisle because the next child coming in might be allergic? No we're not, because it's stupid and it wouldn't work anyway.

You can't have a peanut free world and it's stupid to make all the kids that CAN eat them suffer to accommodate the kids who most likely are NOT going to be eating the nuts anyway. And if their allergies are so severe that they can't even be in the same room with a peanut, then they have no business being in a public school, or anywhere outside of a safety bubble.

I didn't read the link because pop-ups hijacked my computer, but the whole world is not responsible to manage your particular avoidable medical problem. A child with such allergy should know what they can and cannot do. There should be ample medical alert to teachers and if there is a school nurse she should know emergency treatment. If it is so severe that even the proximity to peanuts is a problem, then the kid should be at a safe distance or another room that is peanut free. But to ban EVERYONE from a common food because ONE person has a problem with it is not fair.

Schools can't even control bullying and yet they want to control what everyone has for lunch? Wanna see bullying? Just let all the kids know why they can't eat PB&J anymore for lunch.

Shale wrote:

I didn't read the link because pop-ups hijacked my computer, but the whole world is not responsible to manage your particular avoidable medical problem. A child with such allergy should know what they can and cannot do. There should be ample medical alert to teachers and if there is a school nurse she should know emergency treatment. If it is so severe that even the proximity to peanuts is a problem, then the kid should be at a safe distance or another room that is peanut free. But to ban EVERYONE from a common food because ONE person has a problem with it is not fair.

Schools can't even control bullying and yet they want to control what everyone has for lunch? Wanna see bullying? Just let all the kids know why they can't eat PB&J anymore for lunch.

Indeeeeeeeed, I find it a little hard to believe that a child can know they have a peanut allergy and they would be stupid enough to try and eat somebody else's peanut butter sandwich. My guess is since these kids KNOW they have an allergy, then they also know what can happen, either from warnings or because they once ate them, and either way I wouldn't think they'd be too eager to see how fast they could make themselves sick at lunch time.

Now there was another case last spring I think about one girl whose allergy is so severe, specially trained dogs had to be brought into the building to make sure there was NO scent of peanuts even, and you know what? If your child is in THAT bad condition, you have no business dumping them on a public school responsible for hundreds of other kids who are NOT so deathly allergic.

RedBedroom wrote:

The thing is, some peanut allergies are severe. Like the kids are in dire straits as soon as they ingest one. So, I am all for it.

I understand it is not convenient, but it is what it is.

One kid my son has gone to school with since K is Sam. Sam is a portly dude. And last year, and years prior, my son told me that Sam begs for anybody's food that will give it to him.

I feel it is only my responsibility to a point to tell my son not to hand him over food. Granted, Sam does not have an allergy. But, if he did, how would my kid know that?

Some kids in fact have died as a result of merely being near peanut butter. Many schools are outlawing peanut butter, and I agree however there is the problem of peanuts being in so many prepared foods that we don't even think about until the label tells us there might be peanuts in the products, or screams peanut free. Are all children allowed to go to public schools or do we tell every child with any allergies to go somewhere else?

Suzi wrote:

Some kids in fact have died as a result of merely being near peanut butter. Many schools are outlawing peanut butter, and I agree however there is the problem of peanuts being in so many prepared foods that we don't even think about until the label tells us there might be peanuts in the products, or screams peanut free. Are all children allowed to go to public schools or do we tell every child with any allergies to go somewhere else?

Well if their allergies are so severe that they'll die from being NEAR a peanut or peanut butter...how do they live in our society? Can they go to the movie theater and sit next to somebody who is eating peanut butter cups in a dark room so they don't know it? What about in a break room and somebody gets a Baby Ruth from the vending machine? Do they clear out then? How do they go into a grocery store? Produce aisle has bins of unpackaged nuts freely exposed out in the open. If it's that bad, exactly how can they survive in a peanut loaded world but need a peanut free school? That's what I don't get. Can they be in the same room as somebody eating rocky road ice cream or will that kill them too?

Suzi wrote:

Some kids in fact have died as a result of merely being near peanut butter. Many schools are outlawing peanut butter, and I agree ... Are all children allowed to go to public schools or do we tell every child with any allergies to go somewhere else?

Children with special needs should be REASONABLY accommodated in the public schools, just as the ADA law here in the states indicate.

But, reasonable does not mean to infringe on the daily activities of EVERYONE ELSE, to accommodate one person with a problem. That is unreasonable.

Remember the "boy in a bubble?" Kid born with no immune system so he had to isolate himself from everyone else who might be carrying a pathogen. Nows by the reasoning here, that boy would be able to walk outside because everyone else would be required to go about in a plastic bubble.

Shale wrote:

Children with special needs should be REASONABLY accommodated in the public schools, just as the ADA law here in the states indicate.

But, reasonable does not mean to infringe on the daily activities of EVERYONE ELSE, to accommodate one person with a problem. That is unreasonable.

Remember the "boy in a bubble?" Kid born with no immune system so he had to isolate himself from everyone else who might be carrying a pathogen. Nows by the reasoning here, that boy would be able to walk outside because everyone else would be required to go about in a plastic bubble.

Exactly, at this rate peanut butter is going to become thew new cigarettes, not allowed anywhere because sabes que it may endanger somebody's health.

Now, somebody else brought up a point, peanuts are not the only things kids are allergic to. What about kids who are allergic to bees? The one sure way to make sure they're protected would be to kill off all the bees, and nature or something seems to have already tried starting that process but everybody knows we wouldn't do it because for one it's impossible and for another we can't live without them pollinating the plants from which our food grows. So as a second best option, everybody who is allergic will just have to take the REASONABLE precautions against being stung, instead of expecting somebody else to completely accommodate them by wiping out all the little suckers.

Shale wrote:

But, reasonable does not mean to infringe on the daily activities of EVERYONE ELSE, to accommodate one person with a problem. That is unreasonable.

Remember the "boy in a bubble?" Kid born with no immune system so he had to isolate himself from everyone else who might be carrying a pathogen. Nows by the reasoning here, that boy would be able to walk outside because everyone else would be required to go about in a plastic bubble. [/size][/color]

How does everyone in the world equate to students in a lunch room? Far fewer kids are affected by the peanut thing than would "everyone" in a bubble so that boy could walk among the general population.

RedBedroom wrote:

How does everyone in the world equate to students in a lunch room? Far fewer kids are affected by the peanut thing than would "everyone" in a bubble so that boy could walk among the general population.

It was an extreme allegory, not to be taken literally.

However, depending on the venue, whether grade school lunch room or high school you could be affecting hundreds of other students to accommodate one person's allergy. That, to me is unreasonable.

It is up to each of us to get around our individual disability. Either eat in a special room if proximity to airborne peanut essence is the problem or just know not to eat other ppls PB&J sandwiches.

Shale wrote:

It was an extreme allegory, not to be taken literally.

My bad. I guess I'm just used to people using logical comparisons to support an argument.

Supernova wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/article/pb-j-ban-at-arkansas-school-causes-stir-sandwich-confiscated


I have to agree with the side that is really getting their heads bitten off: sorry but I'm not so sympathetic to the kids with peanut allergies that I think every other kid needs to suffer for their own problems. Their own homes are nut free, their own lunches are nut free, that should be the extent of how far it goes. What next? Are we going to tell all grocery stores they must stop selling the raw peanuts still it their shells up for grabs in the bins in the produce aisle because the next child coming in might be allergic? No we're not, because it's stupid and it wouldn't work anyway.

You can't have a peanut free world and it's stupid to make all the kids that CAN eat them suffer to accommodate the kids who most likely are NOT going to be eating the nuts anyway. And if their allergies are so severe that they can't even be in the same room with a peanut, then they have no business being in a public school, or anywhere outside of a safety bubble.

Perhaps I've gotten the wrong idea from some of the opinions I've read here but it seems that people are saying, "why should they accomodate kids with a potentially life threatening allergy in school if they have to also survive in the real world?" I guess because school is one of the few places parents feel they have some peace of mind about leaving their children. At least they used to. Another point is that, you home schoolers notwithstanding, most people have to send their kids to school. They don't have to send them to ball games or movie theaters or amuesment parks where the dreaded Snickers bar may be lurking.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Perhaps I've gotten the wrong idea from some of the opinions I've read here but it seems that people are saying, "why should they accomodate kids with a potentially life threatening allergy in school if they have to also survive in the real world?" I guess because school is one of the few places parents feel they have some peace of mind about leaving their children. At least they used to. Another point is that, you home schoolers notwithstanding, most people have to send their kids to school. They don't have to send them to ball games or movie theaters or amuesment parks where the dreaded Snickers bar may be lurking.

No but at some point these kids ARE going to have to go to the grocery store, and then what?

Supernova wrote:

No but at some point these kids ARE going to have to go to the grocery store, and then what?

Maybe they have to wear rupper gloves and a surgical mask? Maybe they have their food delivered?

Alan Smithee wrote:

Maybe they have to wear rupper gloves and a surgical mask? Maybe they have their food delivered?

So maybe they should just wear gloves and a mask for school too, that way nobody who CAN eat peanuts has to have their lunch confiscated like it's a switchblade, and the allergic kids will be as safe as they would in the supermarket.

Supernova wrote:

So maybe they should just wear gloves and a mask for school too, that way nobody who CAN eat peanuts has to have their lunch confiscated like it's a switchblade, and the allergic kids will be as safe as they would in the supermarket.

Yeah, I was waiting for that. You think school is disrupted by not allowing PB&J sandwiches? Think about what the staff would have to deal with to keep the whole school off the kid wearing the gloves and mask.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Yeah, I was waiting for that. You think school is disrupted by not allowing PB&J sandwiches? Think about what the staff would have to deal with to keep the whole school off the kid wearing the gloves and mask.

Well I think the fact that it can get so many people riled up on this subject says plenty about what a lot of the kids in those schools are still eating for lunch every day. So is it reasonable that we tell all those kids no you can't have your regular lunch so it'll convenience this kid who won't even be eating your sandwich?

Whatever

Alan Smithee wrote:

Whatever

I'm just saying, you can argue that they can have their food delivered so they don't have to set foot in a grocery store in their whole lives, you can argue they don't need to go to the movie theater or a ball game, or anywhere else that somebody could be eating a peanut related product. And you can argue they can work out of their home when they grow up. But if you're going to take those many measures to ensure you never set foot out of your house to risk coming across a nut, WHY go to a public school that is responsible for hundreds of students, including hundreds of potential peanut eaters, just so you can shut it all out a few years later?

You know, it's like if you have a depressed and suicidal teenager, you would NOT let them go online and chat with the most spiteful creatures who ever lived, or else they may hang themselves in the closet like that one girl, and likewise if your kid is that deathly allergic, you would have to take on extra parental responsibility to coincide with their needs and find a way to keep them from all kids who can eat peanut butter sandwiches, instead of telling all those kids give up your lunch to benefit this kid.