I suppose when the citizens are property of the state, the state knows best. Gotta keep those sheep nice and healthy so they can live a long life generating tax revenue!
This is so so weird. The HN hive mind wants government to let businesses do whatever harmful thing they want without restriction, and wants businesses which do harmful things they’re permitted to do seen as evil pariahs.
I am an individual, not some nameless entity that can only think as a collective. I, personally, don't believe that a free society should be told what kind of merchandise they can sell or not sell at a checkout line. That goes for literally anything.
A business that does "harmful things", such as stocking chocolate bars next to customers while they are idle in a queue (Shocking! How dare they commit such a heinous act! This is a public health atrocity!), clearly sees a mutually beneficial arrangement in where they put what merchandise. The customer has a need fulfilled (They see something they want and agree to purchase it for a marked price), and the business generates revenue. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Do you people really sit there and think anyone that buys something because they want it and it's readily available is too stupid to know the dangers of eating too much unhealthy food? Do you think that they are being physically manipulated into buying it? Yes, unhealthy foods generally stimulate the brain and create a desire for more, but the same justification can be used to go the full mile and ban them outright if you are so concerned. That'll probably happen eventually anyways, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of history!
I agree with you 100%, Regulations are typically never the answer. However sugar is so damn bad for not only the user, but the economy as well, that I'd be willing to limit the impressions sugar gets when every parent brings their kids through a check out.
If you're interested at how bad sugar is all in, check out Robert Lustigs "Hacking of the American Mind" on youtube.
There are plenty of ways to limit the public's consumption of processed foods and sugar in particular. There are other means to achieve this goal than making every shop jump through hoops to comply with this legislation that doesn't (at least from what I can find in the article) have any empirical evidence that these areas of the store account for a significant portion of sales of these items and puts stores in a bind to fill that space with other goods. I mean what are they supposed to do, put flax seed and vegetables at the end of every aisle and checkout lane?
> I am an individual, not some nameless entity that can only think as a collective.
Yes. We all are. That’s why rules need to be made.
> I, personally, don't believe that a free society should be told what kind of merchandise they can sell or not sell at a checkout line. That goes for literally anything.
That seems... pretty extreme, and probably not shared by most people.
> A business that does "harmful things", such as stocking chocolate bars next to customers while they are idle in a queue (Shocking! How dare they commit such a heinous act! This is a public health atrocity!), clearly sees a mutually beneficial arrangement in where they put what merchandise. The customer has a need fulfilled (They see something they want and agree to purchase it for a marked price), and the business generates revenue. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Most places, at least in the parts of the US I’ve lived (major cities on both coasts) and visited (roughly 2/3 of the country) don't offer a choice at all, so it’s hard to ascertain how many of their customers find it mutually beneficial. In the few places I’ve seen that offer a mix, I’ve seen people intentionally queue up in those non-junk stocked aisles. Often they’re parents shopping with their children. So it seems likely at least some people would prefer this change.
> Do you people really sit there and think anyone that buys something because they want it and it's readily available is too stupid to know the dangers of eating too much unhealthy food?
Why does it have to be a matter of intelligence? I’m plenty smart but still make a variety of decisions that are bad for my health. I drink and smoke for example, and I’d likely at least never have started smoking if anti-smoking efforts had been employed more aggressively when I was a teenager.
> Do you think that they are being physically manipulated into buying it?
Do... you not even know what marketing is? Of course people are being manipulated to buy products they otherwise wouldn’t buy.
> Yes, unhealthy foods generally stimulate the brain and create a desire for more, but the same justification can be used to go the full mile and ban them outright if you are so concerned. That'll probably happen eventually anyways, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of history!
What a silly slippery slope argument. If there was any interest in actually banning these products, they would have levied a sin tax and added labeling requirements indicating their health impact. All they’re doing is removing the impulse marketing.
I agree. If we time travel and erased Mountain Dew from our collective history, we would be living in a different world. Possibly a significantly relatively Luddite one.
My suspicion has always been that people would probably rarely chew gum from single small packets if it wasn't there where you line up for checkout. Instead, they'd buy the same-size packets that come in bunches of 5 or whatever, and usually cheaper per pack anyway.
You often see batteries there along with them with the gum and chips/crisps. At least batteries practical sense - the last moment things people tend to forget, but actually do need or want.
Great example of excessive government control in the name of "saving you from yourself", or trying to look like they're doing something without actually doing anything.
This seems like exactly the kind of thing government should do.
- it doesn’t take away meaningful freedom (you can still buy the product)
- it regulates the right entity (the business is restricted but the individual isn’t)
- it’s at least a minor public good (fewer people will buy trash on impulse, probably resulting in at least a small public health improvement)
- there’s no moral hazard (no one can complain that it’s motivated by tax revenue)
- parents will have an easier time making healthy decisions for their kids
In my opinion, your response is an example of why the libertarian impulse is absurd. The only loser in this scenario is manufacturers who frankly prey on unhealthy impulses, and they deserve to lose.
Why work on hard problems and tough issues when you can pad your resume with these little laws that end up only creating more regulation, red tape and accomplish nothing of value?
25 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 73.0 ms ] threadA business that does "harmful things", such as stocking chocolate bars next to customers while they are idle in a queue (Shocking! How dare they commit such a heinous act! This is a public health atrocity!), clearly sees a mutually beneficial arrangement in where they put what merchandise. The customer has a need fulfilled (They see something they want and agree to purchase it for a marked price), and the business generates revenue. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Do you people really sit there and think anyone that buys something because they want it and it's readily available is too stupid to know the dangers of eating too much unhealthy food? Do you think that they are being physically manipulated into buying it? Yes, unhealthy foods generally stimulate the brain and create a desire for more, but the same justification can be used to go the full mile and ban them outright if you are so concerned. That'll probably happen eventually anyways, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of history!
If you're interested at how bad sugar is all in, check out Robert Lustigs "Hacking of the American Mind" on youtube.
Yes. We all are. That’s why rules need to be made.
> I, personally, don't believe that a free society should be told what kind of merchandise they can sell or not sell at a checkout line. That goes for literally anything.
That seems... pretty extreme, and probably not shared by most people.
> A business that does "harmful things", such as stocking chocolate bars next to customers while they are idle in a queue (Shocking! How dare they commit such a heinous act! This is a public health atrocity!), clearly sees a mutually beneficial arrangement in where they put what merchandise. The customer has a need fulfilled (They see something they want and agree to purchase it for a marked price), and the business generates revenue. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Most places, at least in the parts of the US I’ve lived (major cities on both coasts) and visited (roughly 2/3 of the country) don't offer a choice at all, so it’s hard to ascertain how many of their customers find it mutually beneficial. In the few places I’ve seen that offer a mix, I’ve seen people intentionally queue up in those non-junk stocked aisles. Often they’re parents shopping with their children. So it seems likely at least some people would prefer this change.
> Do you people really sit there and think anyone that buys something because they want it and it's readily available is too stupid to know the dangers of eating too much unhealthy food?
Why does it have to be a matter of intelligence? I’m plenty smart but still make a variety of decisions that are bad for my health. I drink and smoke for example, and I’d likely at least never have started smoking if anti-smoking efforts had been employed more aggressively when I was a teenager.
> Do you think that they are being physically manipulated into buying it?
Do... you not even know what marketing is? Of course people are being manipulated to buy products they otherwise wouldn’t buy.
> Yes, unhealthy foods generally stimulate the brain and create a desire for more, but the same justification can be used to go the full mile and ban them outright if you are so concerned. That'll probably happen eventually anyways, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of history!
What a silly slippery slope argument. If there was any interest in actually banning these products, they would have levied a sin tax and added labeling requirements indicating their health impact. All they’re doing is removing the impulse marketing.
You often see batteries there along with them with the gum and chips/crisps. At least batteries practical sense - the last moment things people tend to forget, but actually do need or want.
The UK government is regulating Twinkies. Lol.
- it doesn’t take away meaningful freedom (you can still buy the product)
- it regulates the right entity (the business is restricted but the individual isn’t)
- it’s at least a minor public good (fewer people will buy trash on impulse, probably resulting in at least a small public health improvement)
- there’s no moral hazard (no one can complain that it’s motivated by tax revenue)
- parents will have an easier time making healthy decisions for their kids
In my opinion, your response is an example of why the libertarian impulse is absurd. The only loser in this scenario is manufacturers who frankly prey on unhealthy impulses, and they deserve to lose.
So, great example of capitalism then? ( I'm just giving the same type of response as you did)
https://obesity.procon.org/global-obesity-levels/
Why work on hard problems and tough issues when you can pad your resume with these little laws that end up only creating more regulation, red tape and accomplish nothing of value?
Listen to yourself ...
So now it’s a good thing for a strict nanny state to tell us how to get to our candy. What’s next? A whack on the knuckles?
Altho’ this does seem like a very English thing to do. (Ok. Now say that again with an Etonian inflection.)