School is a place where kids go to school to learn.
And also a place where kids may go to play (during off time for school) or to meet up, or to dance, or to graduate, or to do other things that kids do. We are clearly talking about place while you are attempting to pigeon-hole it into an event (only for learning).
And adults go here to teach, to meet up, to vote, to reminisce, and perhaps dozens of other things.
To me, the irony in this is that teaching/learning isn't being allowed to occur for as long as there is this policy that bans. Admittedly, that assertion is debatable for it is plausible to teach/learn about something while a ban is in place, but I'd be surprised if anyone (of the anti crowd) wanted that learning set up unless it was entirely one sided. This is how I recall it being when I was in school as a student. All one sided, and all determined to be biased lies by peers after the little seminar that you could tell the adult authority figure was bored by and just going through motions of explaining what must be conveyed to student body.
Here is where reasons (from students) could easily be provided, if the biases against weren't so heavy.
Yes, there is no reason for children to drink soda or any sugary substance
as part of the official school lunch.
Nor is there any reason for them or anybody to be dancing to any kind of rhythm.
Again, you are pigeon-holing this to the event of school time. Check the law from OP that is in question or any similar law in all other jurisdictions. It is about 'school grounds' and not (only) about 'school time.'
Even with what you are stating, I can think of many reasons why the items could be allowed. Would be very easy to do. So easy that I'm certain you could come up with those reasons. The real point would be whether or not you, or anyone else would agree with those. I take it you would not, even while I'm thinking you would readily concede that many schools do allow for soda, sugary substances and danceable music on their property - during hours of learning/teaching. Thus, why your post deserves multiple quote-responses, as if you are the one speaking in various ways that at one point seem not so serious in what it is considering and at other points....
Yes, let's.
Rather than compare apples to oranges ( sugar and rock and roll to nicotine )...
Have you forgotten your childhood? Don't you realize that kids are going to "do this but don't get caught" anyway?
I don't see where that has a bearing in the argument because the law surely doesn't say
"do this but don't get caught". It says *don't do this here because this is a school and there is a time and a place for everything.*
If they make an exception for nicotine gum, which I don't think they should
it would be only because gum doesn't pose an insurance or second hand effect issue.
I believe it will mostly be because gum would be so ridiculously hard to enforce whereas exhale of vapor/smoke is easier to detect. If gum were treated in way that smoking is, it wouldn't be impossible to enforce, but it would mean that for a little while and likely at random points over a school year, the grounds would become a temporary police state to make the point as clear as possible that gum is not to be chewed here (even outside of school hours). And then a whole bunch of taxpayers would be wondering why this is so much more important than umpteen other things that 'go wrong' in the local community. In which case anti-crowd would have tough time backing things up unless propaganda remained unquestionable.
The law surely implies, "don't get caught." I agree it doesn't imply "do this" but that is where the whole irony of this being a teaching/learning institution is fully realized. The issue is obviously bigger than vaping/smoking at this point and from what I remember about childhood, it struck me as really immature way to go about things. I'm thinking back to grade school when this stuff would come up and how students then would openly mock what was being conveyed and how authority figure doing the conveying literally had zero passion for what was to be conveyed to the student body.
In all seriousness, it just works as yet another way to discriminate against minors. To indoctrinate them into propaganda that a certain segment of adults seeks to convey to kids in a way that isn't about teaching/learning, but is about control/forbiddance. On hindsight, I'm glad it gets exploited. At the time of my being a student, I thought it funny when the 'cool kids' would blatantly exploit it, and yet confused by how easy it was given how forbidden it was supposed to be. I would say on hindsight, that taught me more about 'how life really works in society' than 'what was Prussia up to in 1641.'
And the way that worked, probably still does, suggests immaturity toward childhood concerns (from adults) shall reign supreme.
Furthermore, no. There is no reason for anybody to drive over the speed limit on a highway.
In the first place, that it is a highway already provides access to higher speeds than a typical street.
In the second place, there are reasons for speed limits, safety reasons.
A speeder with an emergency creates a safety problem for many
innocent drivers; even if the would be speeder is a police officer or emergency vehicle driver
the driver should observe and obey all traffic and safety regulations for
the welfare of the majority of the citizens.
Flow of traffic would easily dispel whatever it is you are thinking is convincing argument here. Sometimes, in order to not get into an accident, one must drive over the speed limit on a continual basis, or get off the highway and find another route.
Which, incidentally, does have some connection to one of many reasons why a kid might consider vaping/smoking on school property, during school hours.
I don't see what the big deal is nor do I see what the issue is with
prohibiting the use of nicotine (or sugary drinks...) on school grounds.
The "prohibiting" part ought to be the red flag that helps see what the big deal could be. That this prohibition would apply to adults regardless of time and only based on "grounds" really ought to have any reasonable person (adult or minor) realize this is a very big deal. Whatever that justification is about, could then serve as propaganda to disallow what is being forbidden, everywhere else in that community. Might not play out that way, but if no one is questioning the prohibition, then that jurisdiction will likely have bigger fish to fry that may appear to people who are asleep at the wheel as having nothing to do with vaping/smoking on school property. I honestly believe kids ought to be questioning the prohibition and a teaching/learning situation ought to be in place just for that purpose, to encourage kids to question that policy.
I don't see what the big deal would be for that. Plausible it could lead to children all now understand/fully agree with (self imposed) ban of that on school property and/or be able to overcome peer issues that seek to consider circumventing the policy. While also plausible it goes the other way, and the draconian measure is seen for what it is - discrimination against the people, by the statists.
