5 ms·

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

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...

undefined3840 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    > 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 7y ago
      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 7y ago
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.
Retric 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      >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?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    >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 7y ago
      I thought your concerns were that this is the end state of socialized healthcare? I’m simply saying that they’re uncorrelated.
- king_panic 7y ago
  The amount of misinformation surrounding human health is criminal. The restaurant/food industry and "healthcare" industry is a giant scam. The system sells you the problem -- processed food, sugar, alcohol, snacking -- and then sells you the "solution" at exorbitant costs -- doctors appointments, drugs, surgeries. They get you coming and going. The biggest problem is eating frequency, bar none. Humans are not meant to eat 24/7. When the body fasts, it's healing. People are figuring that out. Look up snake_diet_wizard on Instagram. He promotes prolonged fasting. The health and weight loss transformations are amazing. One hundred pounds of body fat lost are standard. We heal when we fast.
bbanyc 7y ago
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.
- avar 7y ago
  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.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    The population is something like 70% Chinese. How are you going to randomly assign locations and NOT have a Chinese majority............
belorn 7y ago
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.
friendlybus 7y ago
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.
- smackmybishop 7y ago
  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.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    Ok, fair enough

undefined3840 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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 7y ago
    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 7y ago

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.

Retric 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >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?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  >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 7y ago
    I thought your concerns were that this is the end state of socialized healthcare? I’m simply saying that they’re uncorrelated.
king_panic 7y ago
The amount of misinformation surrounding human health is criminal. The restaurant/food industry and "healthcare" industry is a giant scam. The system sells you the problem -- processed food, sugar, alcohol, snacking -- and then sells you the "solution" at exorbitant costs -- doctors appointments, drugs, surgeries. They get you coming and going. The biggest problem is eating frequency, bar none. Humans are not meant to eat 24/7. When the body fasts, it's healing. People are figuring that out. Look up snake_diet_wizard on Instagram. He promotes prolonged fasting. The health and weight loss transformations are amazing. One hundred pounds of body fat lost are standard. We heal when we fast.

bbanyc 7y ago

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.

avar 7y ago
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.
9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
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 7y ago
  The population is something like 70% Chinese. How are you going to randomly assign locations and NOT have a Chinese majority............

belorn 7y ago

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.

friendlybus 7y ago

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.

smackmybishop 7y ago
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.
soulofmischief 7y ago
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 7y ago
  Ok, fair enough