Banning consumption itemsFollow

I'm not quite sure where I come out on banning items. Dangerous drugs like heroin or meth, I definitely agree with banning those. Drugs like pot? I think it should be legal. While I don't care for the smell of cigarette smoke and I don't smoke myself, I was slightly irked when the University of Florida banned all tobacco on its campus, because honestly, I feel like people should smoke if they want to, and outside it doesn't affect as many people (indoor smoking bans are OK, though). I felt similar irritation when clove cigarettes were banned in the US, but mostly because it seemed fairly obvious that big tobacco brands were trying to keep the competition out.

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:

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

I'm not so much against banning things (although it obviously depends on the "thing") as I am against the use of backdoor means to eliminate them without actually banning them. Cigarettes of course being the prime example. Back in the day, we had some thread about a (proposed?) California law prohibiting smoking in your car if there was a minor in there. To me, that's a ridiculous erosion of property rights to say you can not perform a legal activity within your own private property that has nothing to do with the operation of the automobile (unlike drunk driving laws). If you don't want people smoking around kids or smoking in general, pass a state ban against cigarettes. But they won't do that so instead they tell shop and restaurant owners they can't allow smoking and dorms can't allow smoking and private offices can't allow smoking and you can't smoke in your car, etc.

And, of course, state legislatures are dependent upon cigarette taxes for revenue even as they say you're not allowed to smoke them anywhere. Incidentally, I was in a distinct minority in opposing the CA law.

I don't know enough about the Four Loko thing except that it sounds absolutely vile like most things college students drink. But I'd still rather that they ban it outright than say you aren't allowed to drink it in any room except the bathroom and not within 200' of a domesticated cat.

Edited, Nov 10th 2010 8:29am by Jophiel

Oh God, it is. The taste is terrible; saying it has fruit flavoring to hide the taste of alcohol is a laugh because the flavoring is disgusting. Then again like you said, college kids don't drink for taste - they drink to get drunk (and I drink it because I'm a cheap old bastage). And Four Loko will get you drunk.

Also no one calls it black-out-in-a-can, as it is mentioned THREE TIMES in the article. Not even urban dictionary calls it that. Typical media trying to create new titles to drum up outrage for something

I'm not upset about government banning unhealthy products, especially to children. The problem with allowing people to sell any kind of ****** reformed meat to toddlers is that there is no counter-weight except the parent. The company will spend millions on advertising campaigns, on research, focus groups, psychological-impacts, on carefully choosing the colours, words, images, displays, etc, which will most impact on children, and on the other side, there is a tired worn-out parent who has to say no for the sixteenth time today.

I appreciate the "freedom" argument, but I don't think there should be a freedom to sell crap to kids. I understand the argument that if company A sells crap and company B sells good stuff, then in theory company A will go out of business because people are rational human beings who only make rational and self-interested decisions. But I just don't think this is accurate in practice. Or, rather, the time-scales for this to happen are too long and/or random for it to be effective on a human scale. So, if the government wanted to impose nutritional requirements on fast-food, as well as limits on salt content, sugar content, processed stuff, E-numbers, and all the other kind of **** there is in fast food, that would be perfectly fine with me. As long as it's based on proper research, and it's done in a fair way across the board, I'd be all for it.

Not sure about the Four Loco. Seems to me as though it's just an alcoholic drink, albeit one that sounds quite disgusting. Still, I can't really see a public health requirement for banning this particular drink and not most other kinds of alcoholic drinks.

Finally, I think all drugs should be decriminalised, and the vast majority of them should be legally regulated. Drugs are a public health issue, not a criminal one, and the sooner we realise that, the sooner we'll start making some sort of progress in reducing the devastating effects their illegality has on the world.

The issue is that it is caffeinated which apparently delays noticing the effects of the alcohol until the caffeine wears off and you're hit with a cinder block of alcohol-y goodness.

Back in my day, we just drank Mad Dog and Thunderbird like good God fearing wannabe hobos.

There isn't a single ban a substance that can be used, consumed, etc., by an individual without infringing on the rights of another that doesn't encroach on the rights & freedoms of every single person in a society. If what an individual chooses to do in their own home or on their own time doesn't violate the rights of another, it should be legal. Period.

ZOMG! That guy did cocaine and murdered me! Let's ban cocaine!

No, let's make murder illegal and fry the dumb son of a ***** who can't hold his drugs.

ZOMG! That guy drank and killed 4 people in a car crash, let's ban alcohol!

No, let's make driving drunk illegal and incarcerate people who can't follow the rules.

ZOMG! That kid ate a Happy Meal and got fat! Let's ban Happy Meals!

No, let's start making people pay for their health care and then they'll see what the cost of stupidity really is.

Banning things that can be enjoyed without incident and without harm to others is ridiculous. It is the over-reach of a nanny state that seeks to insulate its population from their own poor decision making skills. It removes personal responsibility from the equation.

If consumption items decide to spam here I'll totally ban their ***. Do happy meals have an *** even? Oh well, If not, we'll tape one on.

Parents are typically financially liable for the debts of their children. They should be responsible for what their children consume, as well, so they have an out to paying much of anything.

The difference between us is that I'm willing to sacrifice a generation or two (depending on which side of the poverty line they fall...).

You don't see us sending troops to Humboldt County, CA do you? If we could get opium from California Poppies, we wouldn't give a crap what Afghanistan does.

The school banned smoking on their property. I banned smoking in my house. What's the difference?

Why should the school have to contend with everyone's discarded cigarette butts? Smoke clogged doorways etc.

I'm not a smoking ****, I smoked for a very long time and only quit recently, but there is no reason an organization shouldn't be allowed to set the rules on their own property.

Things like happy meals are taken on by governments because they are the only entity large enough to do so as there is no healthy alternative competition. I don't think government should be banning things outright but in a lot of situations they should step in and regulate. Some say this is protecting people from stupid decisions, I say stupid decision protection is really the only function of government.

Moe,



This encapsulates what the liberal movement is about.

And there we have the problem, it has very little to do with the drink itself.
Personally I just don't get why you'd want to get blackout drunk, or why you'd drink something that you don't like just because it's cheap. I mean, seriously? What's the point of drinking that **** if you don't enjoy it?

People enjoy getting drunk, just not the taste of alcohol. I'd almost say it's human nature to like to mess with yourself. Even little kids with spin around in circles until they get dizzy just to fall over because they like the feeling. Do they like spinning in circles? Not particularly. It's the loss of control that many people like.

Others use it as a social lubricant, to lessen their inhibitions. Still others do it as a show of their daring - drink drink drink until you puke puke puke. Others do it just to fit in.

There are plenty of points to drinking even if you don't like the taste. Just because they aren't "good" points doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't applicable.

That said:

I agree. Blackout drunk is never and has never been a fun point to get to (and I've only "browned out" - recalling the evening in bits in pieces, but never forgetting everything). The problem isn't the drink itself, it's that it's abused. But in this case, I don't think products should be banned solely because of the potential for abuse. Let the kids be busted for underage drinking.