You said you wanted a say when you advocated for that policy in the first place. To have that policy, you need that say, therefore you want it.

People of all ages make bad decisions with food and it is therefore something you'd have to enforce on people throughout life if you wanted to do it properly. That's all I and the others were trying to tell you. What you want is authoritarian, controlling food is a hallmark of an authoritarian country, and I'll say it for the third time, if that's what you want, just be honest about it.

You can say "I want an authoritarian country that controls the nutrition of its constituents for the health and betterment of all" and that would be consistent.

You can't say "I want a country that controls families to the point where we dictate what the kids can and can't eat, even against the parents' will, and still calls itself a free country" because it is not.

Getting mad at me because I want consistency and the others who rejected you outright is just silly. I have many ideas for a new country that I know for a fact will be universally rejected but I still advocate for them because I know they're ultimately better for everyone and I don't get bent out of shape when people do. Heavens above. 🤦

...I just gave them the fight that they wanted. FML