4 ms·

This is not a bad idea and will pay dividends to future generations. It's like having a drug dealer at every check out lane.

pacoWebConsult 6y ago
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!
- vangelis 6y ago
  Well, maybe if the Anglos didn't gorge themselves on sweets this wouldn't be a problem.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  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.
  - pacoWebConsult 6y ago
    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!
    - pcdoodle 6y ago
      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.
      - pacoWebConsult 6y ago
        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?
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        A nanny state is not the answer.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      > 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.

pacoWebConsult 6y ago

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!

vangelis 6y ago
Well, maybe if the Anglos didn't gorge themselves on sweets this wouldn't be a problem.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
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.
- pacoWebConsult 6y ago
  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!
  - pcdoodle 6y ago
    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.
    - pacoWebConsult 6y ago
      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?
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      A nanny state is not the answer.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > 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.