Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 197 posts

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#11

Post by mellosouls »

scarmig wrote: post #8
mellosouls wrote: post #7

I'm not opposed to this but it strikes me as somewhat weak - if you think something is bad enough to ban visibility of it, why not just go all the way and ban the thing itself. Same with smoking, alcohol, etc. Of course, prohibition doesn't have a terribly successful history but the whole approach seems odd and inconsistent to me. I guess the rationale is a pragmatic de-normalising of toxic and addictive but currentl…

Banning advertising here just restricts the freedom of corporations. Banning the item itself means individuals who want it can't get it.

And corporations can't vote .. :)

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#12

Post by undefined3840 »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

It’s a “friendly authoritarian” surveillance state. It’s great if you obey the rules, but you sound like you lean toward libertarianism...Singapore is the complete opposite.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#13

Post by mellosouls »

xwdv wrote: post #9
mellosouls wrote: post #7

I'm not opposed to this but it strikes me as somewhat weak - if you think something is bad enough to ban visibility of it, why not just go all the way and ban the thing itself. Same with smoking, alcohol, etc. Of course, prohibition doesn't have a terribly successful history but the whole approach seems odd and inconsistent to me. I guess the rationale is a pragmatic de-normalising of toxic and addictive but currentl…

You don’t ban things all at once, you do it in small steps.

Yeah, I suggest that in my last sentence. I think it's a bit dishonest but I guess practical.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#14

Post by squarefoot »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

"This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets."

Which is the case in many countries including mine. When they enacted the law I was still a youngster driving his motorcycle, constantly speeding and doing those things people do in their 20s. I hated that law, then a few accidents and fractures later I realized that the "stupid" law probably saved my parents from the horror of outliving me. I'm also for 100% freedom of choice but it must not impact others and must be accompanied by 100% information about the consequences. Back to the topic, if I drink shitty sugary drinks for years becoming fat and one day I get a fatal stroke, that's an error that can't be undone, so I'm all for limitation of freedom in this and similar cases.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#15

Post by tootie »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

I've spent time there as well. It's a great place but very authoritarian. Also seems to be a lot of endemic racism that is just considered acceptable.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#16

Post by BubRoss »

smackmybishop wrote: post #5
mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

There's a point there that I don't think gets enough discussion: As healthcare becomes increasingly socialized, personal unhealthy choices become an attack on society at large. Why wouldn't we ban sugary drinks altogether? Motorcycle riding even with a helmet? Maybe get rid of pasta. It's not clear to me where we should stop, if medical costs to society are a valid justification for reducing personal freedom...

I'm not sure how banning advertising for something destructive and unhealthy is nearly as much of a slippery slope as you are implying.

Does it really seem like someone violating your choices because you aren't being fed certain advertisements? I haven't heard of anyone complaining that they never see ads for cigarettes anymore.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#17

Post by noir_lord »

squarefoot wrote: post #14
mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

"This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets." Which is the case in many countries including mine. When they enacted the law I was still a youngster driving his motorcycle, constantly speeding and doing those things people do in their 20s. I hated that law, then a few accidents and fractures later I realized that the "stupid" law probably saved my parents from the horror of outliving me. I'm also for 100%…

It's weird, I rode motorbikes off road as a teenager and wouldn't have dreamed of not wearing a helmet, heavy boots and gloves etc.

Just bought a new bike to commute to new job (starting on a 125 and working my way up since not been on a bike for 20 odd years) and while a helmet was thrown in it'll be the first upgrade after proper jacket/pants.

I still don't get why it's even a debate, I've cracked two bicycle helmets from accidents that weren't my faults in impacts that without them would have been vastly worse.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#18

Post by srl »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

> This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets.

Maybe this is a petty, pointless distinction, but I think they're quite different. Singapore banned the ads, not the actual consumption. Not wearing a helmet chiefly harms yourself, and it's hard to argue that it's immoral. Encouraging others not to wear a helmet, though... that seems pretty objectionable, just like ads for tobacco etc.

(Of course there are plenty of caveats needed to avoid a slippery slope, like drawing a distinction between advertisements and opinion pieces saying "helmets are bad".)

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#19

Post by BubRoss »

mellosouls wrote: post #11
scarmig wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning advertising here just restricts the freedom of corporations. Banning the item itself means individuals who want it can't get it.

And corporations can't vote .. :)

Corporations are a centralization of power that has obligations to money above all else.

Also if you give me the choice between being able to vote and being to to hire a lobbying firm, I know which would have more influence.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#20

Post by Retric »

smackmybishop wrote: post #5
mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

There's a point there that I don't think gets enough discussion: As healthcare becomes increasingly socialized, personal unhealthy choices become an attack on society at large. Why wouldn't we ban sugary drinks altogether? Motorcycle riding even with a helmet? Maybe get rid of pasta. It's not clear to me where we should stop, if medical costs to society are a valid justification for reducing personal freedom...

Banning advertising is very different from banning the products themselves. The intent of advertising is to increase consumption so the impact is more widespread than personal choices. It’s in effect a form of meme pollution.
Post reply on HN