[FillardMillmore]

You're about 100 years too late.

Yes, I realize you're being sarcastic (at least I think you are), illustrating the point.

A government which bans things because they aren't deemed "healthy" (by said government) is not the right course of action (in my humble opinion). When it comes to something like alcohol, it's only "unhealthy" when its consumption is not moderated. Not to mention, what nutritionists recommend (and subsequently, what governments adopt) as health guidelines for food consumption is widely subject to change. The food pyramid that some of us were taught in the '90s is greatly recognized as being largely incorrect and is no longer taught.

Of course, the question becomes, where do we draw the line? Is it better for society for something like cocaine to be outright banned by the government or is it better for society that the government legally allows its distribution but regulates it similar to the way that it does tobacco and alcohol (effectively cutting out the market share and profits of the black market and cartels)? I don't have the answer to this question.

[filleduchaos]

My point was that society/people by and large don't care about unhealthiness and/or the negative effects of addition, they simply want things that they dislike or disagree with (usually from a weird moral or intellectual high horse) to be banned. Else Americans would all be on the streets protesting the continued legality of alcohol consumption or the ridiculous amount of sugars pumped into so much of their food and drink; why the pearl-clutching over teenagers being teenagers and fooling around on a frivolous app compared to the monumental damage to society those two things inflict?