[doctor_eval]

> so the question becomes whether people should be allowed to spend money any way they see fit, even if that spending isn't great for themselves.

This is an incredibly simplistic view of the problem, on multiple dimensions.

On one dimension, a question of to what length should we give companies the right to harm people. Because if something is knowingly designed to take advantage of the study of psychology to hurt people then that’s what this is.

On another dimension, the person spending the money is typically hurting others (spouse, kids... business partners) at least as much, but frequently more, than they hurt themselves.

Giving companies the freedom to do things like this takes away our freedom to live without others harming us. Its really hard to understand why this is even debatable.

[mensetmanusman]

I agree with you, but it’s interesting that everything you say applies to the sugar industry, and that industry has harmed far more people (and our healthcare system).

[ZeroGravitas]

Sugar taxes are a thing for this very reason:

https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-fr...

It wasn't liked by the right-wing government, even though they implemented it in the first place. They financed a report that investigated it's effectiveness, and then tried to bury it because it showed it worked as intended.

[kergonath]

> It wasn't liked by the right-wing government, even though they implemented it in the first place.

Quite the conundrum. On one hand, it’s a neat tool for class warfare, an occasion to have a laugh about those bums who cannot control themselves, and drone on about Protestant values and work ethic. On the other hand, some chums would make less money, and we cannot have that.

[kergonath]

And it should be regulated as well, for the reasons you mention. At the very least a tax to partially offset its effects on public health.