3 ms·

You're opening for me to go off-topic and talk about drug abuse here. And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that

You're opening for me to go off-topic and talk about drug abuse here. And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that we as society should help out. (See the resemblance?) (Also note that society might have failed people and led them to abuse too, but the final decision is made by the person either way). But closing the door for people who don't have issues with self-restraint feels like collective punishment. (Not that Maccas are in the wrong here, they can open and close restaurants wherever they want, I don't mind.)

paganel 4y ago
> And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that we as society should help out We have different views here, even though I admit, I used to be ambivalent about that (and about drug legalisation) until very recently. I mean, I would certainly not criminalise drug possession and drug use like it unfortunately still is the case in my country (Romania), but I've started having very serious doubts about legalising distribution, and in so doing "normalising" said drug use. Back to unhealthy food, unfortunately some people are too weak to resist eating above a certain healthy threshold. There were studies that blamed the food companies themselves for that, there are other people that blame the users themselves (like you seem to do), but in the end the unhealthiness wins. That's why if the unhealthy source goes away (like in this case with Russia and McDo) I see it as a positive, no matter who was at fault the rot source is gone, that's got to be good.
- lillecarl 4y ago
  I don't think we soley disagree. I think it's essential to keep certain products out of the masses hands. These certain products are product with high "addictability" and high "abusabulity" (might be the same thing?). As a single example I'd put all opioids in that compartment. (There are more but I think this is one everyone agrees on) Food on the other hand, while it's addictive it's also essential for literally everyone. I for example am such a lazy piece of shit that I haven't cooked in years, for me it would be devastating if the unhealty but calorie rich and affordable food went away. That's an anecdote, but yes if access to high-calorie food is limited people are less likely to get/stay overweight. Norway has a thing for this to reduce candy intake, they have a sugar tax. And while I'm not all for the government taking all my money, in a socialist society I think it makes perfect sense to tax something that'll cause a significant amount of people health issues to pay for it in advance. Same with cigarettes, they're super expensive in Norway, so that you've hopefully somewhat paid off your lung-cancer treatment once/if you get it. There's no one size fits all for this, but there are definitely things we should keep out of peoples hands. I do not however think food is one of those.
bena 4y ago
Part of the point is that other nations have stricter regulations about what companies can and cannot do. Companies in the US pretty much have had a free-for-all on the population.

paganel 4y ago

> And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that we as society should help out We have different views here, even though I admit, I used to be ambivalent about that (and about drug legalisation) until very recently. I mean, I would certainly not criminalise drug possession and drug use like it unfortunately still is the case in my country (Romania), but I've started having very serious doubts about legalising distribution, and in so doing "normalising" said drug use. Back to unhealthy food, unfortunately some people are too weak to resist eating above a certain healthy threshold. There were studies that blamed the food companies themselves for that, there are other people that blame the users themselves (like you seem to do), but in the end the unhealthiness wins. That's why if the unhealthy source goes away (like in this case with Russia and McDo) I see it as a positive, no matter who was at fault the rot source is gone, that's got to be good.

lillecarl 4y ago
I don't think we soley disagree. I think it's essential to keep certain products out of the masses hands. These certain products are product with high "addictability" and high "abusabulity" (might be the same thing?). As a single example I'd put all opioids in that compartment. (There are more but I think this is one everyone agrees on) Food on the other hand, while it's addictive it's also essential for literally everyone. I for example am such a lazy piece of shit that I haven't cooked in years, for me it would be devastating if the unhealty but calorie rich and affordable food went away. That's an anecdote, but yes if access to high-calorie food is limited people are less likely to get/stay overweight. Norway has a thing for this to reduce candy intake, they have a sugar tax. And while I'm not all for the government taking all my money, in a socialist society I think it makes perfect sense to tax something that'll cause a significant amount of people health issues to pay for it in advance. Same with cigarettes, they're super expensive in Norway, so that you've hopefully somewhat paid off your lung-cancer treatment once/if you get it. There's no one size fits all for this, but there are definitely things we should keep out of peoples hands. I do not however think food is one of those.

bena 4y ago

Part of the point is that other nations have stricter regulations about what companies can and cannot do. Companies in the US pretty much have had a free-for-all on the population.