[smackmybishop]

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...

[Retric]

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.

[Mirioron]

Almost any kind of change starts small and then builds up. I don't see anything to indicate that banning ads isn't just the first step in the process. Cigarettes have become more and more restricted over time and they also started with banning ads. If this doesn't alarm you yet, then will you be alarmed once they start banning ads for meat?

[furyg3]

This is a ‘slippery slope’ fallacy, and your example even demonstrates its unlikelihood. Cigarettes have been around for a very long time, and the act of smoking them long-term is basically terminal behavior (which we’ve also known about for quite a while). Many countries have banned advertising or limited it, but even in many ‘progressive’ countries (eg Germany) cigarette advertisement is still alive and well. And I don’t know of a country where smoking is entirely banned.

So I don’t see any risk at all of sugary drinks going the way of schedule 1 drugs (which, themselves, are also experiencing international wave of decriminalization). Is it impossible? No; but that’s no reason to fear de-advertising as a step towards a ban.

[avar]

> And I don’t know of a country where smoking is entirely banned.

Bhutan, and the Holy See, not that the latter counts for much besides PR.

[Retric]

Making is allowed in Bhutan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Control_Act_of_Bhuta...

“Smoking areas are permitted in non-public areas of hotels (i.e., smoking floors or smoking rooms) at the discretion of the patron.”

The Holy See banned selling tobacco, but not smoking it. Considering the countries size it had minimal impact. The odd situation was prior to this it had much lower prices so people where buying them inside the Vatican for others. Which created something of a moral hazard.

[Mirioron]

>This is a ‘slippery slope’ fallacy, and your example even demonstrates its unlikelihood.

That's the point. Change happens either through a revolution or a "slippery slope". You can call it a fallacy all you want, but think about how successful political change happens. Almost every instance starts small and keeps pushing the boundaries until the political change has happened. This is how you change people's values, so calling it a fallacy as though that's supposed to invalidate it isn't enough.

>And I don’t know of a country where smoking is entirely banned.

It has just been made exceedingly expensive, just like alcohol. To the degree that the vast majority of the cost is in taxes.

Furthermore, this is a long process. Just because they haven't been banned yet doesn't mean that it's not going to happen in the future.

>And I don’t know of a country where smoking is entirely banned.

Bhutan and Turkmenistan have banned the sale of tobacco. The aims of some countries, such as Finland, is to become tobacco free.

Countries are also doing things such as banning flavorings of tobacco. So would your argument then be that it's not a slippery slope, because they aren't actually going to ban sugary drinks, they'll just ban sugary drinks with flavorings?

[dennisgorelik]

> keeps pushing the boundaries until the political change has happened

... so you made a conclusion that political change happened because of small changes? That conclusion is incorrect. The change happened because of underlying need for that change. In case of smoking, because smokers are much more likely to die from cancer.

In case of sugary drinks, the need to change is not as strong. That is why restricting advertising is sufficient. Well, may be they will tax sugary products, but banning sugary products will NOT happen.

In any case, whether we need to do the next step or not -- we will decide based on analysis of previous step. That decision is much more likely to be correct if we do small steps, instead of allowing ourselves only do big changes.

[Mirioron]

>... so you made a conclusion that political change happened because of small changes? That conclusion is incorrect. The change happened because of underlying need for that change.

But that's not true. We're talking about most cases of political change. A lot of it doesn't happen because it needs to happen, a lot of political change happens because it's beneficial (profitable?) for someone for it to happen. Do you really think that companies selling juice are unhappy with "sugary drinks" being demonized? Of course they aren't, because those sugary drinks are their competition. If society cared about the health impact of sugary drinks then juices would be right there next to soda on the chopping block, because they have the same sugar in the same amounts in the juice as the soda does. Yet essentially all of the bans on sugary drinks conveniently don't affect juice at all. The only thing juice has over soda is that it might contain vitamins. That's it. In every other aspect, even minimally processed juice (just fresh pressed fruit into juice), is as bad as soda.

When somebody tells me that this whole thing is for our benefit and that we make decisions based on analysis, then I don't believe them, because the decisions that have been made clearly aren't based on fair analysis. The decisions that have been made are clearly benefiting some people over others and crusaders carry out their will. Then decades later they will complain about how they were lied to.

>Well, may be they will tax sugary products, but banning sugary products will NOT happen.

MAYBE? This is already reality in a lot of places. That ship has already sailed years ago.

Of course they're not going to straight up ban sugary drinks, because that is literally impossible. What they can do and what they actually do, is target certain types of "undesirable" goods/vices to pick winners and losers in business.

[taffer]

> Almost any kind of change starts small and then builds up. I don't see anything to indicate that banning ads isn't just the first step in the process. Cigarettes have become more and more restricted over time and they also started with banning ads.

Cigarette commercials have been banned in the USA since 1969[1], but smoking is still allowed. So I cannot agree with your concerns. The advertising ban and taxation of unhealthy products that impose externalities on society have proved far more effective than outright bans.

> If this doesn't alarm you yet, then will you be alarmed once they start banning ads for meat?

No. I'd even welcome that. The same applies to sugar, alcohol, marijuana and salt: Don't ban them, tax them and maybe restrict advertising for them.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080305012949/http://tobaccodoc...

[Mirioron]

So you would be in favor of banning advertising of meat products and levying a sin tax on meat? While we're at it, why don't we just make being poor or sick illegal? Sorry, I mean that we should impose a tax on them, because they impose externalities on society.

I'm just wondering, are you in favor of such schemes that would target things you like and enjoy too? Say, computer use. Extended computer use is harmful to people's health, so we should levy a tax on it.

[nothrabannosir]

This conversation has completely gone down its own slippery slope and I shouldn’t be piling on, but: if the choice is between taxing income (which is literally people contributing to society in the most direct way) and something like meat or, hell, unhealthy amounts of computer use (whatever that is) then yes please.

Don’t forget we’re currently taxing income at obscene levels, in absolute terms. It means we disincentivise people from working, which is absolutely wild, considering. If you could start with a clean slate and tax anything, what would you choose? Sin taxes or income taxes?

Government revenue is fungible, and the more income from other sources, the less is needed from income. Until we have income tax (at least lowest bracket) down to 0%, I say tax the hell out of everything actually unwanted.

(Signed: a meat eater who would gladly pay meat tax)

[bbanyc]

Singapore is famously the country that banned chewing gum. Personal freedom has never been a priority there.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or a good thing, it's just different. There are a number of ideas they've successfully implemented there that would never fly in other countries - ethnic housing quotas, for instance. It undoubtedly works in reducing residential segregation, but I don't know if it's worth the cost in not letting people live where they want.

[9nGQluzmnq3M]

While the stated goal is indeed reducing residential segregation, it also has the suspiciously convenient side effect of ensuring that every voting district has a Chinese majority.

[audiometry]

The population is something like 70% Chinese. How are you going to randomly assign locations and NOT have a Chinese majority............

[avar]

They banned the sale of chewing gum, they didn't outright ban it. You can still chew gum there and bring it into the country.

It's a useful distinction because they've really banned some other things, and they're much more serious about those.

[friendlybus]

Erm, we just killed the food pyramid which was held up as a standard of health for 30 years. Are you sure you want to enact bans on what the government thinks is unhealthy?

There are a whole bunch of materials in the natural world that we just assume are safe because they've been around 'forever'. If you're going to use science as your standard for bans, there are billions of dollars of tests to do.

There's some dark math to be done on the benefit of a human life vs the cost of saving it. Maybe ten guys drinking infinite soda are keeping 100 at work in soda companies, providing for their families.

[soulofmischief]

The poster was making a point that this kind of ban is a huge slippery slope. They were not speaking in support of the ban.

[friendlybus]

Ok, fair enough

[smackmybishop]

Just to be clear, I'm against universal healthcare for this reason.

I think we should pay for the consequences of our own choices, and agree the government is terrible at deciding what's unhealthy.

[belorn]

Banning advertisement is the nice way to reduce the social costs of universal healthcare as it only act as a industry regulation.

What follows is usually not bans but taxes. As an example, Sweden uses a rather significant tobacco tax helps to offset the increased healthcare costs. Same for alcohol and now they are considering the same strategy for sugary drinks and sweets.

Once culture has change and almost no one buys it anymore, and the cost makes the product completely uninterested for new customers, then politicians can start to discuss bans of the product itself.

[undefined3840]

In SF sugary drinks are taxed extra.

There are signs that demand for sugary drinks are on the decline naturally e.g. demand for sparking water has increased as people look for alternatives to drinking a coke. And there was a recent article on how juice consumption has dropped to new lows...

[nitrogen]

One of the unfortunate side effects of the SF tax though is that an $8 canister of sports drink powder (essential to provide calories and minerals during longer periods of exertion) has a $7 tax. I don't think a tax approaching 90% is in any way just.

[CameronNemo]

> I don't think a tax approaching 90% is in any way just.

For this specific case, or in general? Because there are certainly externalities that are larger than the internalized cost of a good.

[nitrogen]

In this specific case. The drink facilitates athletic activity, and taxing it as if it harms health is ludicrous. Honestly I think the whole sugared drink tax is a bit ridiculous, but taxing a sports drink mix at 90 effing percent when a soda is taxed at a few percent can't be the true intent.

[BubRoss]

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.

[ApolloFortyNine]

Personally I believe that this is the end state of socialized health care, and I'm afraid we'll see it implemented on a wide scale within the next 20 years. It'll likely start with a hate tax, which is already in affect in a handful of locations.

The only real question to me is which will be banned 'for the good of society' first: sugar, or meat? Meat has the extra argument going around of having an impact on the climate, and some studies say it can be bad for health. Sugar of course is bad for health in large quantities.

[jakelazaroff]

The U.S. already has plenty such laws without socialized healthcare: cigarette ads are banned, in some places you’re not allowed to sell sugary drinks that are too large etc. Drug prohibition is probably the most prominent example, but we’re seeing efforts to decriminalize those concurrent with efforts to socialize healthcare. I think your concerns are unfounded.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>I think your concerns are unfounded.

> cigarette ads are banned, in some places you’re not allowed to sell sugary drinks that are too large

It sounds to me the slippery slope has already started? Hate taxes on cigarettes are a thing everywhere, some places have a sugar tax already. It's not banned, but it is controlled already.

[jakelazaroff]

I thought your concerns were that this is the end state of socialized healthcare? I’m simply saying that they’re uncorrelated.

[Viliam1234]

> The only real question to me is which will be banned 'for the good of society' first: sugar, or meat?

At this moment, there are more countries that subsidize them than countries that ban them or tax them extra.

So my tax money first goes to allow people eat more meat and sugar, and then to pay their medical expenses caused by excessive meat and sugar consumption.