4 ms·

Why? They're a net negative to society (soft drinks themselves, that is)

by jniedrauer 7y ago

ribosometronome 7y ago
Couldn't the same be said of any luxury?
- lostlogin 7y ago
  I’ve not considered coke to be a luxury product before. But if you mean that it’s not a necessity, it guess... maybe?
- zentiggr 7y ago
  Not a luxury when it's a net negative to your health to drink it. Lawmakers have slowly banned advertising for more and more obviously addictive and harmful things. They just can't make headway against the most pervasive and least obviously harmful things.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  No. Refined sugar is incredibly toxic. It doesn't just rot your teeth, make you obese, and eventually turns you into a Type 2 diabetic, but it also raises the risk of heart disease, strokes, Alzheimer's, and many other conditions. The direct economic costs - health care costs, lost productivity caused by illness - are immense, and the soda and junk food industries make no contribution towards them. There are also less direct personal and emotional costs, in the form of family/partner illness and sometimes death. Some luxuries are similarly toxic, but as a "cheap" luxury sugar abuse affects a much larger demographic. IMO the ad efforts that support these products are unconscionable, and there's no question the money would be better spent elsewhere.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    It hasn't done any of those things to me, however, so kindly get your hands off mine and out of my business please.
    - mft_ 7y ago
      Are you sure it hasn't raised your risk?
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        Whatever marginal risk increase I suffer from my moderate consumption is well worth the guaranteed enjoyment I gain. A lot of HN users wish to "optimize" these facets of other people's lives through government regulation, but it's no less odious than going up to people in person and knocking their drink to the ground. It's not your choice.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        Exactly. I'm more than happy for more labels saying how bad sugary drinks are - like a less extreme version of smoking warnings - but taking a choice away for someone because you think you know better is authoritarian, even if we're only talking about a drink.
        TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        It's far more authoritarian to promote industries that spend outrageous sums on manipulating people into harming their own health, with incredibly expensive social and personal consequences. It's absolutely and completely false to frame this as a government vs individual issue. It's actually corporate propaganda vs the individual. No one who supports individual freedom has any business encouraging corporate propaganda, because it's the psychological equivalent of sugar - absolutely toxic to genuine free choice. Big Tobacco has already discovered this strategy doesn't work in the long term. Big Pharma is catching up slowly. (Ask the Sacklers.) Big Sugar is still lagging behind, but it's only a matter of time.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        I'm not really disagreeing with you. Like I said if we had more warning labels and less corporate branding I'd be perfectly fine with that. I'm yet to be convinced that Coca-Cola is as bad as cigarettes and needs to be totally banned/heavily taxed though. You know the one of the things the worse off in society enjoy doing? - drinking a soda. They need to know the health risks, yes, but taking that away/adding a sin tax makes their quality of life measurably worse even if their health would be slightly better off in the long run. You're either taking away some of the little enjoyment they have or more of their money and I don't think that's fair.

Why? They're a net negative to society (soft drinks themselves, that is)

ribosometronome 7y ago

Couldn't the same be said of any luxury?

lostlogin 7y ago
I’ve not considered coke to be a luxury product before. But if you mean that it’s not a necessity, it guess... maybe?
zentiggr 7y ago
Not a luxury when it's a net negative to your health to drink it. Lawmakers have slowly banned advertising for more and more obviously addictive and harmful things. They just can't make headway against the most pervasive and least obviously harmful things.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
No. Refined sugar is incredibly toxic. It doesn't just rot your teeth, make you obese, and eventually turns you into a Type 2 diabetic, but it also raises the risk of heart disease, strokes, Alzheimer's, and many other conditions. The direct economic costs - health care costs, lost productivity caused by illness - are immense, and the soda and junk food industries make no contribution towards them. There are also less direct personal and emotional costs, in the form of family/partner illness and sometimes death. Some luxuries are similarly toxic, but as a "cheap" luxury sugar abuse affects a much larger demographic. IMO the ad efforts that support these products are unconscionable, and there's no question the money would be better spent elsewhere.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  It hasn't done any of those things to me, however, so kindly get your hands off mine and out of my business please.
  - mft_ 7y ago
    Are you sure it hasn't raised your risk?
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      Whatever marginal risk increase I suffer from my moderate consumption is well worth the guaranteed enjoyment I gain. A lot of HN users wish to "optimize" these facets of other people's lives through government regulation, but it's no less odious than going up to people in person and knocking their drink to the ground. It's not your choice.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        Exactly. I'm more than happy for more labels saying how bad sugary drinks are - like a less extreme version of smoking warnings - but taking a choice away for someone because you think you know better is authoritarian, even if we're only talking about a drink.
        TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        It's far more authoritarian to promote industries that spend outrageous sums on manipulating people into harming their own health, with incredibly expensive social and personal consequences. It's absolutely and completely false to frame this as a government vs individual issue. It's actually corporate propaganda vs the individual. No one who supports individual freedom has any business encouraging corporate propaganda, because it's the psychological equivalent of sugar - absolutely toxic to genuine free choice. Big Tobacco has already discovered this strategy doesn't work in the long term. Big Pharma is catching up slowly. (Ask the Sacklers.) Big Sugar is still lagging behind, but it's only a matter of time.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        I'm not really disagreeing with you. Like I said if we had more warning labels and less corporate branding I'd be perfectly fine with that. I'm yet to be convinced that Coca-Cola is as bad as cigarettes and needs to be totally banned/heavily taxed though. You know the one of the things the worse off in society enjoy doing? - drinking a soda. They need to know the health risks, yes, but taking that away/adding a sin tax makes their quality of life measurably worse even if their health would be slightly better off in the long run. You're either taking away some of the little enjoyment they have or more of their money and I don't think that's fair.