In other words, I'm all over the place and can't really find a line to say "These items should be banned because..." The best I can get are items that hurt others, or cause damage. But two items are facing bans that I feel strongly should be kept free of new restrictions.
The first is the Happy Meal ban in San Francisco. While it does not "specifically" target Happy Meals, it targets any product offering a kid's toy if the product doesn't meet the nutritional values they assign. The aim is to fight childhood obesity - saying that kids see the toy and beg their parents to take them to McDonalds, and as a result they get fat little kids. I say that this interferes with fair advertising. Of course that's the aim - it's like they don't want McDonalds to have effective advertising. And the ultimate decision rests with parents - why are you giving in to the demands of your 3 year old? It seems ridiculous - it's not like the chain is offering untrue promises. You get tasty food and a toy. The tasty food is just grossly unhealthy and the toys may be painted with lead based paint.
The second is the proposed Washington ban of Four Loko. For the record, Four Loko is my go-to drink if I'm looking for a cheap night of drinking at a BYOB party. One can will last you hours, and costs less than $2.50. I've said to my friends that one can is a good time - two is guaranteed puking. The drink is dangerous if you don't know your limits... but isn't that true for all alcohol? The reason Washington is proposing this ban is because of a party where 9 underage students passed out after drinking Four Loko and mixing them with hard liquor. Um. Anyone see a bigger problem? They're all underage kids, and many of them were mixing the drink with vodka and rum! I find the reasoning behind the ban even more laughable:
State Attorney General Rob McKenna wrote:
"They're marketed to kids by using fruit flavors that mask the taste of alcohol, and they have such high levels of stimulants that people have no idea how inebriated they really are," McKenna said. "They're packaged just like non-alcoholic drinks, but include a dangerous dose of malt liquor."
Let's see, what else also does this... how about wine? Smirnoff Ice? Even mixing drinks like vodka + redbull? And they are NOT packaged like a non-alcoholic drink unless you consider a 32-oz can of beer the same as a non-alcoholic drink. Again, I feel like a lot of pressure from this comes from other competitors who realize that this is a cheaper and increasingly popular choice instead of their more expensive items.
Don't get me wrong, as much as I enjoy Four Loko I agree it can be dangerous. But I can say the exact same thing about alcohol in general.
So, there's my rant on banning items. They may be unhealthy, but ultimately people need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of interfering with free enterprise (within limits, of course, such as no false advertising, outrageous claims, etc). Where does everyone else fall?
Edited, Nov 10th 2010 9:07am by LockeColeMA