11–20 of 302 posts
Initiatives like this has always appeared to me as a cheap way for societies to improve the health of their population. Perhaps better done in the form of a tax - in the sense that junk food causes an externality in the form of health problems, that does seem warranted. The underlying problem is that the incentives are not aligned.
Because all of the laws prohibiting alcohol to minors has worked so well, or preventing minors from viewing pornography. Like this sounds like an SNL skit, "Hey I'm going to need to see some ID before you can get those Doritos." Cut to outside the shop he's handing it to a 14 year old suddenly lights sirens "PUT THE DORITOS ON THE GROUND AND PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD!". Another cut to a prison courtyard. "Hey m…
What makes you think that laws prohibiting alcohol to minors aren't useful? Those laws don't have to completely eliminate alcohol consumption by minors to be successful, they just have to make it less likely to happen. My gut feeling is that alcohol consumption among teenagers would be higher if it wasn't banned, though I don't have any data to back my claim.
Frankly, often when I hear somebody like the commenter above I think they may have had some rowdy teenage years in the 80s or thereabouts and is kind of projecting that onto today's youth. "The laws don't work!" Maybe it wouldn't have worked for them. But in the time since...
Although, I don't think it's realistic to expect the laws to get consumption to zero. Maybe it's not even strictly the goal. Reduction, or mild taboo, is not the same as total elimination. People can still buy their kids sugary snacks. I give my kids sugary snacks in small amounts, but might support such a ban, because childhood and adult obesity is a pretty serious problem.
Initiatives like this has always appeared to me as a cheap way for societies to improve the health of their population. Perhaps better done in the form of a tax - in the sense that junk food causes an externality in the form of health problems, that does seem warranted. The underlying problem is that the incentives are not aligned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that laws prohibiting alcohol to minors aren't useful? Those laws don't have to completely eliminate alcohol consumption by minors to be successful, they just have to make it less likely to happen. My gut feeling is that alcohol consumption among teenagers would be higher if it wasn't banned, though I don't have any data to back my claim.
My impression is that teenage drinking and smoking was really huge in say, the 80s compared to today. Frankly, often when I hear somebody like the commenter above I think they may have had some rowdy teenage years in the 80s or thereabouts and is kind of projecting that onto today's youth. "The laws don't work!" Maybe it wouldn't have worked for them. But in the time since... Although, I don't think it's realistic to…
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic...
This law is way way way overdue. American Corporations are killing Mexico's youth with junk food. I know kids who exclusively drink soda. Healthy, beautiful kids who deserve to go out and play and live their best lives.
Because all of the laws prohibiting alcohol to minors has worked so well, or preventing minors from viewing pornography. Like this sounds like an SNL skit, "Hey I'm going to need to see some ID before you can get those Doritos." Cut to outside the shop he's handing it to a 14 year old suddenly lights sirens "PUT THE DORITOS ON THE GROUND AND PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD!". Another cut to a prison courtyard. "Hey m…
Obesity is an external cost that just doesn't get accounted for in a free market. So far, regulation is a blunt tool, but still a lot more effective than other tools we have to deal with this. For instance, in Indonesia, it's common for Big Tobacco to sell cheap cigarettes near schools [1]. This is insane, but from a purely free market perspective it makes perfect sense. Get your product in peoples hands as early as…
We've chosen to have the taxpayer bear the cost, which is very probably good and right, but I think we should be careful using that fact to make decisions about other people's body's.
I think this can be distinguished from other externalities like smoking, where other people have to smell the smoke, or pollution that other people have to smell, or that kills their plants or animals. Some externalities can't be opted out of, but some can, and that fact greatly reduces the case for regulation, in my opinion.
more info on Chile, mentioned in article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/health/chile-soda-warning... it's probably safe to say that this is a global public health imperative, given the suffering/costs/economic loss around the world that these beverages and food-like products cause. would also like to see some money from things like corn driven to healthy food subsidies e.g. spinach (or pick your favorite) to off…
Sugar is an addictive poison. These products should be outright banned. Folks can make wonderful pastries at home. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM