Mexican state of Oaxaca bans sale of junk food/sugary drinks to Children

[Former President tack50]

Speaking of the OP, tbh my personal preference is just to tax junk food instead of outright banning it. If Soda starts costing 3$, suddenly its consumption drops, for obvious reasons.

But if you get happy that treats are now banned from children, then I don't know what to tell you.  Your heart left you a long time ago.

Really? If parents want their children to be able to have a great they can purchase one for the kids. This is no different than any of the other unhealthy vices that can't be sold to minors in most places, and banning vending machines from schools is obviously an appropriate measure.

Sometimes when I went to costco when I was younger, I bought Pizza and soda as a treat, but since I'm a minor, I can't have soda unless if one of my parents, gets it according to what you want.

Costco already has a policy of not serving food to minors. Rightly so, as food allergies are more well understood than they've ever been.

Wait what, how is this a good policy? Normally food allergies are diagnosed relatively early. And kids, especially those with severe food allergies, are normally smart enough to not eat the food they are allergic to. (kids really tend to be slightly more smart than adults think)

I suppose I could see the policy working for super small children (say below the age of 6 or something) but those also aren't the kids buying food alone by themselves.

And I say this as someone who indeed supports removing unhealthy food from vending machines in schools

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Lots of horrible things have been done because their backers thought that "they contribute to a better society", but ok, how long do you think it will take before this law starts resulting in thinner kids?

Yeah, this is horrible, dead0man. Oaxaca is truly one step away from involuntary reeducation camps with this tyrannical gesture.
Sometimes you have to put libertarianism aside and look at something from the perspective of common sense.

learn to read man.  "Lots of horrible things have been done because their backers thought that "they contribute to a better society"" clearly is referring to other instances, not this one.  The first word in the sentence is the clue.

Good dodge though.

Whatever. It's a policy that harms no one but can lead to beneficial results. Again, use some common sense. And for the future, "can Koch industries make money off of this" is not a good litmus test for government policy.

[SevenEleven]

Speaking of the OP, tbh my personal preference is just to tax junk food instead of outright banning it. If Soda starts costing 3$, suddenly its consumption drops, for obvious reasons.

But if you get happy that treats are now banned from children, then I don't know what to tell you.  Your heart left you a long time ago.

Really? If parents want their children to be able to have a great they can purchase one for the kids. This is no different than any of the other unhealthy vices that can't be sold to minors in most places, and banning vending machines from schools is obviously an appropriate measure.

Sometimes when I went to costco when I was younger, I bought Pizza and soda as a treat, but since I'm a minor, I can't have soda unless if one of my parents, gets it according to what you want.

Costco already has a policy of not serving food to minors. Rightly so, as food allergies are more well understood than they've ever been.

Wait what, how is this a good policy? Normally food allergies are diagnosed relatively early. And kids, especially those with severe food allergies, are normally smart enough to not eat the food they are allergic to. (kids really tend to be slightly more smart than adults think)

I suppose I could see the policy working for super small children (say below the age of 6 or something) but those also aren't the kids buying food alone by themselves.

And I say this as someone who indeed supports removing unhealthy food from vending machines in schools

Well, the main reason it's good is because it prevents costly lawsuits from being passed down to members. It's also good because children should not be wandering around Costco unattended. And if you don't think a Celiac kid might try and sneak a slice of pizza or a kid with a peanut allergy might unknowingly eat a wonton containing peanuts, well, I don't know what to say to that. My partner teaches Jr. High school and my experience is that the kids are excruciatingly thoughtless, with the parents only being marginally better. Most of the views I see here are from firmly within an upper-middle class bubble. That lifestyle is a small percentage of Americans and an even smaller percentage of Oaxacans.

It's really not extreme to suggest banning fast-food advertisements and "kid's meal" toys either. There's no legitimate reason why unhealthy food should be treated differently from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, or any other vice. What's wrong with a twelve year old betting five on black? Nothing, in a vacuum. We don't live in a vacuum, though.

[lfromnj]

Lots of horrible things have been done because their backers thought that "they contribute to a better society", but ok, how long do you think it will take before this law starts resulting in thinner kids?

Yeah, this is horrible, dead0man. Oaxaca is truly one step away from involuntary reeducation camps with this tyrannical gesture.
Sometimes you have to put libertarianism aside and look at something from the perspective of common sense.

learn to read man.  "Lots of horrible things have been done because their backers thought that "they contribute to a better society"" clearly is referring to other instances, not this one.  The first word in the sentence is the clue.

Good dodge though.

Whatever. It's a policy that harms no one but can lead to beneficial results. Again, use some common sense. And for the future, "can Koch industries make money off of this" is not a good litmus test for government policy.

Yes coz deadomans only goal is to enrich the Koch brothers. Cant have to do with anything else.

[Former President tack50]

Well, the main reason it's good is because it prevents costly lawsuits from being passed down to members. It's also good because children should not be wandering around Costco unattended. And if you don't think a Celiac kid might try and sneak a slice of pizza or a kid with a peanut allergy might unknowingly eat a wonton containing peanuts, well, I don't know what to say to that. My partner teaches Jr. High school and my experience is that the kids are excruciatingly thoughtless, with the parents only being marginally better. Most of the views I see here are from firmly within an upper-middle class bubble. That lifestyle is a small percentage of Americans and an even smaller percentage of Oaxacans.

It's really not extreme to suggest banning fast-food advertisements and "kid's meal" toys either. There's no legitimate reason why unhealthy food should be treated differently from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, or any other vice. What's wrong with a twelve year old betting five on black? Nothing, in a vacuum. We don't live in a vacuum, though.

Well, yeah I get the "fear of lawsuits" argument, though tbh fear of lawsuits in my opinion tends to create lots of very bad policy outcomes (though this one is not really one of them)

As for allergic kids sneaking food, in my experience, kids who are allergic to food know that and are careful of what they eat. Someone I knew in middle school had a super severe food allergy, to the point where if they ingested anything they were allergic to, even a small amount, they were at a serious risk of dying. Even just touching the food would leave them heavy rashes. I think they even carried an epipen everywhere just in case, and were indeed once close to dying because of that.

Even at age 11, they knew perfectly clearly that if they ate stuff they were not supposed to, they could die.

Like I say, I can see the argument for small kids, up to age 6 or maybe even up to age 10. But "bigger kids" should probably be allowed the freedom and what not. Kids losing freedom has indeed been one of the negative outcomes over the past decades.

As for banning kids toys and fast food advertisement, I can see the argument for that tbh.

And that argument about gambling kids reminds me of how old Pokemon games used to have slot machines in them and those got removed from newer games

[SevenEleven]

Kids losing freedom has indeed been one of the negative outcomes over the past decades.

I think this is one of those things that got exaggerated a little bit more each year until it became so far removed from the truth that it's meaningless.

Kids today have more freedom than ever before. Personal smartphones and social media accounts vs. sharing a landline with the entire family. Playing video games with friends online vs. having to find someone willing to host an entire group of kids. The ability to take art or music classes, or learn coding, strictly online vs. parents having to fork over money for classes and drive you to them.

I don't buy for a second that kids today somehow have less freedom than I did, or especially my parents did. Not being able to buy a Big Gulp is not going to change that, if anything, it helps give them more freedom to play on the tennis team or date a girl that isn't into chubbies.

So yeah, when I went down to the store and bought myself a pack of Oreos every week as a teenager, it didn't kill me or even make me fat. But there was no real benefit to it and I'd be the same as today or even better off without it. Not a big deal. Buy a trail mix or beef jerky instead.

[Continential]

But if you get happy that treats are now banned from children, then I don't know what to tell you.  Your heart left you a long time ago.

Really? If parents want their children to be able to have a great they can purchase one for the kids. This is no different than any of the other unhealthy vices that can't be sold to minors in most places, and banning vending machines from schools is obviously an appropriate measure.

Sometimes when I went to costco when I was younger, I bought Pizza and soda as a treat, but since I'm a minor, I can't have soda unless if one of my parents, gets it according to what you want.

Costco already has a policy of not serving food to minors. Rightly so, as food allergies are more well understood than they've ever been.

Clearly they don't enforce it.

[SevenEleven]

But if you get happy that treats are now banned from children, then I don't know what to tell you.  Your heart left you a long time ago.

Really? If parents want their children to be able to have a great they can purchase one for the kids. This is no different than any of the other unhealthy vices that can't be sold to minors in most places, and banning vending machines from schools is obviously an appropriate measure.

Sometimes when I went to costco when I was younger, I bought Pizza and soda as a treat, but since I'm a minor, I can't have soda unless if one of my parents, gets it according to what you want.

Costco already has a policy of not serving food to minors. Rightly so, as food allergies are more well understood than they've ever been.

Clearly they don't enforce it.

It's enforced where I shop, but I'm not sure why that would matter anyway.

[dead0man]

Lots of horrible things have been done because their backers thought that "they contribute to a better society", but ok, how long do you think it will take before this law starts resulting in thinner kids?

Yeah, this is horrible, dead0man. Oaxaca is truly one step away from involuntary reeducation camps with this tyrannical gesture.
Sometimes you have to put libertarianism aside and look at something from the perspective of common sense.

learn to read man.  "Lots of horrible things have been done because their backers thought that "they contribute to a better society"" clearly is referring to other instances, not this one.  The first word in the sentence is the clue.

Good dodge though.

Whatever. It's a policy that harms no one but can lead to beneficial results. Again, use some common sense. And for the future, "can Koch industries make money off of this" is not a good litmus test for government policy.

good follow through on that dodge

[dead0man]

Kids losing freedom has indeed been one of the negative outcomes over the past decades.

I think this is one of those things that got exaggerated a little bit more each year until it became so far removed from the truth that it's meaningless.

Kids today have more freedom than ever before. Personal smartphones and social media accounts vs. sharing a landline with the entire family. Playing video games with friends online vs. having to find someone willing to host an entire group of kids. The ability to take art or music classes, or learn coding, strictly online vs. parents having to fork over money for classes and drive you to them.

I don't buy for a second that kids today somehow have less freedom than I did, or especially my parents did. Not being able to buy a Big Gulp is not going to change that, if anything, it helps give them more freedom to play on the tennis team or date a girl that isn't into chubbies.

So yeah, when I went down to the store and bought myself a pack of Oreos every week as a teenager, it didn't kill me or even make me fat. But there was no real benefit to it and I'd be the same as today or even better off without it. Not a big deal. Buy a trail mix or beef jerky instead.

A.kids today have more ways to buy and play things online, and its easier for some of them to communicate with their friends, but to suggest kids today are "more free" than their parents or grand parents were sounds insane to my ear.  Perhaps there is even more potential for liberty, but certainly parents, society, security cameras everywhere and even those freedom giving smart phones have taken away a ton of freedom I had as a kid.  Kids today don't even desire the same kinds of freedom we took for granted, as proof, look at the driving rates of teens today vs teens in the past
2.there is no 2

[SevenEleven]

Kids losing freedom has indeed been one of the negative outcomes over the past decades.

I think this is one of those things that got exaggerated a little bit more each year until it became so far removed from the truth that it's meaningless.

Kids today have more freedom than ever before. Personal smartphones and social media accounts vs. sharing a landline with the entire family. Playing video games with friends online vs. having to find someone willing to host an entire group of kids. The ability to take art or music classes, or learn coding, strictly online vs. parents having to fork over money for classes and drive you to them.

I don't buy for a second that kids today somehow have less freedom than I did, or especially my parents did. Not being able to buy a Big Gulp is not going to change that, if anything, it helps give them more freedom to play on the tennis team or date a girl that isn't into chubbies.

So yeah, when I went down to the store and bought myself a pack of Oreos every week as a teenager, it didn't kill me or even make me fat. But there was no real benefit to it and I'd be the same as today or even better off without it. Not a big deal. Buy a trail mix or beef jerky instead.

A.kids today have more ways to buy and play things online, and its easier for some of them to communicate with their friends, but to suggest kids today are "more free" than their parents or grand parents were sounds insane to my ear.  Perhaps there is even more potential for liberty, but certainly parents, society, security cameras everywhere and even those freedom giving smart phones have taken away a ton of freedom I had as a kid.  Kids today don't even desire the same kinds of freedom we took for granted, as proof, look at the driving rates of teens today vs teens in the past
2.there is no 2

What do driving rates have to do with freedom? I don't see the connection.

[dead0man]

wait, wait, wait.....you can't see the connection between driving and freedom?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Kids today have more freedom than ever before. Personal smartphones and social media accounts vs. sharing a landline with the entire family. Playing video games with friends online vs. having to find someone willing to host an entire group of kids. The ability to take art or music classes, or learn coding, strictly online vs. parents having to fork over money for classes and drive you to them.

This is a strange and frankly dystopian argument and I'm horrified that anyone could make it in good faith.

[lfromnj]

wait, wait, wait.....you can't see the connection between driving and freedom?

Kids losing freedom has indeed been one of the negative outcomes over the past decades.

I think this is one of those things that got exaggerated a little bit more each year until it became so far removed from the truth that it's meaningless.

Kids today have more freedom than ever before. Personal smartphones and social media accounts vs. sharing a landline with the entire family. Playing video games with friends online vs. having to find someone willing to host an entire group of kids. The ability to take art or music classes, or learn coding, strictly online vs. parents having to fork over money for classes and drive you to them.

I don't buy for a second that kids today somehow have less freedom than I did, or especially my parents did. Not being able to buy a Big Gulp is not going to change that, if anything, it helps give them more freedom to play on the tennis team or date a girl that isn't into chubbies.

So yeah, when I went down to the store and bought myself a pack of Oreos every week as a teenager, it didn't kill me or even make me fat. But there was no real benefit to it and I'd be the same as today or even better off without it. Not a big deal. Buy a trail mix or beef jerky instead.

Best part,

[SevenEleven]

wait, wait, wait.....you can't see the connection between driving and freedom?

Kids losing freedom has indeed been one of the negative outcomes over the past decades.

I think this is one of those things that got exaggerated a little bit more each year until it became so far removed from the truth that it's meaningless.

Kids today have more freedom than ever before. Personal smartphones and social media accounts vs. sharing a landline with the entire family. Playing video games with friends online vs. having to find someone willing to host an entire group of kids. The ability to take art or music classes, or learn coding, strictly online vs. parents having to fork over money for classes and drive you to them.

I don't buy for a second that kids today somehow have less freedom than I did, or especially my parents did. Not being able to buy a Big Gulp is not going to change that, if anything, it helps give them more freedom to play on the tennis team or date a girl that isn't into chubbies.

So yeah, when I went down to the store and bought myself a pack of Oreos every week as a teenager, it didn't kill me or even make me fat. But there was no real benefit to it and I'd be the same as today or even better off without it. Not a big deal. Buy a trail mix or beef jerky instead.

Best part,

Kids that are old enough to drive are old enough to take public transportation, thus bypassing the parental aspect. The obvious point being that kids aren't as reliant on parents to pursue their interests as in the past.

[dead0man]

keep diggin' son

[SevenEleven]

keep diggin' son

Ok, Mr. Security Cameras Take Away Freedom. Either make an argument or stop trolling.

[dead0man]

I made my arguments on page 1 (that you shouldn't take candy from children), now I'm just making fun of your strange views on freedom.

edit-

keep diggin' son

Ok, Mr. Security Cameras Take Away Freedom.

I did shenanigans as a teenager, shenanigans I wouldn't want on video.  If I knew there was a camera (that I didn't have some control over at least) watching me, I'd have been less likely to do shenanigans.  I'm not even saying this is necessarily a bad thing, I"m just saying it's limiting the freedom for young people to do the shenanigans normal teens get up to.

[Velasco]

Tyranny.

This but ironically.

Freedom State (out of irony)

[lfromnj]

Ok so a few teens in major cities have more freedom now. They can actually use public transportation due to the crime drop. However for the majority of American teens its false. Driving is key to any freedom for the vast majority of older teenagers. Its disgusting NJ forced me to wait till 17.

[Continential]

Ok so a few teens in major cities have more freedom now. They can actually use public transportation due to the crime drop. However for the majority of American teens its false. Driving is key to any freedom for the vast majority of older teenagers. Its disgusting NJ forced me to wait till 17.

Yeah, in order to go to public transportation, you need to go to a bus station or a train station and I have to drive to get there and it takes 15 minutes to drive there.

[SevenEleven]

Ok so a few teens in major cities have more freedom now. They can actually use public transportation due to the crime drop. However for the majority of American teens its false. Driving is key to any freedom for the vast majority of older teenagers. Its disgusting NJ forced me to wait till 17.

Yeah, in order to go to public transportation, you need to go to a bus station or a train station and I have to drive to get there and it takes 15 minutes to drive there.

If that's difficult for you to travel away from home, you should be even more grateful for the opportunities the internet offers.

[lfromnj]

Ok so a few teens in major cities have more freedom now. They can actually use public transportation due to the crime drop. However for the majority of American teens its false. Driving is key to any freedom for the vast majority of older teenagers. Its disgusting NJ forced me to wait till 17.

Yeah, in order to go to public transportation, you need to go to a bus station or a train station and I have to drive to get there and it takes 15 minutes to drive there.

If that's difficult for you to travel away from home, you should be even more grateful for the opportunities the internet offers.

Or you know you could just drive?

[dead0man]

Ok so a few teens in major cities have more freedom now. They can actually use public transportation due to the crime drop. However for the majority of American teens its false. Driving is key to any freedom for the vast majority of older teenagers. Its disgusting NJ forced me to wait till 17.

Yeah, in order to go to public transportation, you need to go to a bus station or a train station and I have to drive to get there and it takes 15 minutes to drive there.

If that's difficult for you to travel away from home, you should be even more grateful for the opportunities the internet offers.

it's funny how bad you are at this