France bans unlimited sugary drink refills | Hacker News Reader

France bans unlimited sugary drink refills

bbc.com

87 pointsmalloci166 comments

I remember my vacation in the states (in the South). I got served a absolutely massive glass of coca-cola with my dinner. When I had finally managed to finish it a waiter came and refilled the bloody thing when I wasn't paying attention. How can you enjoy your meal with that much to drink?

>I remember my vacation in the states (in the South). I got served a absolutely massive glass of coca-cola with my dinner. When I had finally managed to finish it a waiter came and refilled the bloody thing when I wasn't paying attention. How can you enjoy your meal with that much to drink?

Are you from a place where there is a cultural taboo against only drinking part of the beverage a restaurant serves you?

Saying that you "finally managed to finish it" implies that you were putting effort into drinking the entire glass despite not wanting to. And being put out by the fact that the waiter refilled it implies that you felt obligated to drink the refill as well.

For me, and probably many Europeans: yes, that is how we are raised. It's not su much of being taboo, more like a sense that it makes no sense to waste anything (not just food/water) and is bad for the planet in general. (well, there is truth in that). My parents even had a picture of a bunch of underfed kids from Ethiopia (or so) on the wall in the kitchen. If we didn't eat our plate, they'd point to it and say something like 'You see that? They would go nuts for that bit of food that is still on your plate. Eat it.' Thinking of it now I can see that might not be regarded as best practices in education, but they meant it well.

That's how most people I know were raised in the US, too. As an adult, I've consciously tried to move away from this attitude, because it leads to obesity. It's especially problematic in the South, where I'm from, given the absolutely massive portions that are traditional there. (And it shows in the pervasive obesity of the population.) My rule now is that I stop eating as soon as I'm full. It's sometimes a struggle to make myself follow it, though.

My parents had the same attitude and I'm from the UK. My Dad passed away at a younger age than his father from obesity related conditions and it was then that I realised that my parents generation (born in the 50s) were the first in history to have access to unlimited food.

Their own parents had instilled in them this view that you must finish your plate. They had experience of rationing. My parents continued this attitude probably because this just seemed like the thing to do but really this sort of thing seems like a bad thing when many of us are overweight.

  Their own parents had instilled in them this view that you must finish your plate. They had experience of rationing.

In the wake of WW2 clear into the 1950s, there were food shortages in Europe, with hunger and malnutrition. Even Americans were guilted into not wasting food. For example, Allan Sherman (an overweight Jewish American comedian, sort of a Weird Al Yankovic of his era) said in a song monologue:

'My parents would say, "clean your plate; children are starving in Europe!"

So, I would clean the plate.

Four, five, six times a day.'

True, my Dad born in 1952 had a ration book for the first couple of years of his life.

He didn't remember that but for his parents it would all feel too recent.

The marginal cost of that sugar water is less than the cost of the waiter's time to walk to your table.

> Are you from a place where there is a cultural taboo against only drinking part of the beverage a restaurant serves you?

I think that describes most of the world, if allowance is made for places where leaving the last sip (or last mouthful, for food) shows enough was served.

I've never felt this pressure in the US. For food, sure. I was always told growing up to finish my food at each meal. But for water or soda, never.

So it was a common occurrence that you would fill a full glass of soda and dump half of it in the sink?

No, it's comment occurrence to say, "no, thank you" when the pitcher-bearer approaches, or turn that glass over.

> Are you from a place where there is a cultural taboo against only drinking part of the beverage a restaurant serves you?

Not a specific culture, it is only abouy not waisting food and drinks. Remember many people still don't have enough of both to live.

Whether you drink your drink or not, once it's in your glass, it's not able to go to someone else. Might as well pour it down the drain if you don't want it. At least it will help keep the sewer system running well.

Are you from a place where it’s culturally accepted to let left-over drinks simply go to waste?

> Are you from a place where it’s culturally accepted to let left-over drinks simply go to waste?

Absolutely. Where I'm from, no one bats an eyelash at a half-glass of soda left on a restaurant table.

Yes

In a situation where the water is recycled effectively and we have massive stores of it far in excess of what we need?

Yes. That's the whole point of modern water systems in the US -- that we're very wealthy and water cycles anyway, so why not cycle it a little faster if it makes us happy?

In the US, our troubles with water stem from corruption from people meant to be maintaining the system and inefficient agriculture. Personal consumption is well covered.

ATM this post is downvoted below zero.

I think it poses a legit question, there are in fact a different mindsets related to leftovers in different places, i.e. asking for a "doggy bag" is a thing in some places and not others.

To stay on drinks, my wife leaves glasses of water half full, and it drives me insane.

Most countries in the world will have taboos on wasting food, built over thousands of years of scarcity.

Also a couple decades of over-abundance. Remember "reduce, reuse, recycle"

When the U.S. and Russia began joint space station operations aboard the Mir station, one of the startling findings was the enormous quantity of water the American astronauts consumed compared to their Russian counterparts. I remember my first trips abroad to Europe and Asia and being baffled by how little water people drink or the tiny cups that they're served with.

Among Americans, the South is especially known for even more to drink and eat, with larger portions and sweeter drinks.

There's definitely some kind of huge cultural gap and is one of those weird subtle things that makes traveling interesting.

I remember as a child, my family went to a chinese restaurant.

While there the waitress was really on top of filling my glass of water. I thought it would be rude to not drink it. I threw up on the way home.

Don't be like 6 year old me. If you don't want to drink something, don't drink it.

Funny, the same thing happened to my brother too.

Growing up in the states (North Texas), it's treated almost identically to water. There's a baffling lack of recognition that soda is as impactful as it is on health.

When you don't want to drink any more the trick is to just stop drinking.

Last time I talked with people about it, it seemed that Americans drink a lot more on a daily basis than Europeans. It's a habit that people develop.

I drink no soda, but drink 360 ml of coffee, 2 liters of water and 0-2 beers on a typical day. I'm more strict about drinking water than a lot of people, but I don't think I'm far outside the norm.

You don't have to finish your drink.

Many Americans accept gluttony and waste, both trouble many parts of the world.

Obesity you are way ahead. But you do have a lot in common with the Mexicans for whatever reason:

https://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/how-fat-is-...

But food waste actaully the USA isn't that far ahead of others, so I partly take that back:

http://www.dow.com/performanceplastics/make-it-last/global-v...

The only waste from unfinished soda is the syrup. You'd have to clean the water after you peed it out anyway, and water gets recycled in most places.

Real scarcity is a cause for moderation, and Americans aren't always good at that, but clean water is a highly renewable resource in the US (except in areas where the system is corrupt or there's tons of wasteful agriculture, neither of which is fixed by drinking less).

Yeah, I remember that too. When the waiter put the gun to my head, I hurried up and slammed the soda, so he could refill it.

Is it just me who's thinking that individuals in modern societies are not capable anymore of making meaningful decisions, including how much to drink? We're sacrificing freedom here because we became incapable. That scares me.

It's not about"modern societies", man has been proven by several dozens of studies to not be able to consistently do rational decisions when it comes to long term. This is just about that. Also, how is that "sacrifying freedom" lmao, it just means instead of paying for infinite refill you pay for a drink, which was already the case in most French fast food restaurants. And tell me more about "freedom" when you eat in a fast food restaurant that pays their employees like, treat them like shit, bypass most working laws to pay them less and make them work more and in bad condition. If your definition of "freedom" is "doing whatever the fuck I want without any limitations no matter the consequences", then I fail to see how this is a value worth pursuing.

Why are you scared about an idea that our society has been based on throughout modern history? We live better collectively than we do alone, and living collectively requires compromises.

In a system where everyone pays for everyone else's health care, they have to act to keep that affordable and avoid widespread obesity and heart disease. This is a light touch. They're not going to make Coca Cola illegal altogether next year.

We've never had total freedom. Different countries draw the line in different places. The line gets nudged back and forth over time. I accept it because I could live on a plot of land with total freedom and the quality of my life would be significantly worse than a life without rules and without benefits.

Even though my government (the US) is currently undergoing a body horror I'd seek out another country like France with some other set of rules before I'd live in total freedom and anarchy.

I don't have a strong opinion on the ban itself, but it doesn't surprise or scare me that people don't know how to deal with unlimited quantities of food. Until recently, food was scarce, and evolution hasn't caught up to free refills. It takes a lot of education and willpower to make healthy choices.

> Until recently, food was scarce

Ever read Ishmael?

Giant and strong Industries are manipulating us. They invest billions for this. We are too weak to fight against this, these overwhelming number of battlefronts : it's too difficult, too complex, too time consuming, so we give up. We have no choice but to give up on so many of them. We have no choice. This regulation will help us take less sugar in. And that's a good thing.

I agree. If I, as an individual, could opt out of having sugary drinks shoved in my face on the TV, in every shop, vending machine, newspaper and cafe, then I would agree there was no need for control.

No its not a good thing. Nothing stops people from following people like Stallman. This is a poor execuse for over-interfering statism and it will backfire with event like Brexit/Trump.

It's not that people are incapable, it's that they're being given ever increasing and complex decisions to make in their daily life without being given the education to support it. Some people do receive such an education or are aware enough of the knowledge to seek it themselves but that's not the case for everyone.

Lots of educated people make bad choices about health. It doesn't take education or sophistication to know that you're better off without a lot of Coke. We're bombarded with messages about drinking Coke and not drinking Coke and we've made our choice.

An completely optimal diet does get very complex, and probably subjective. Definitely over my head. But we shouldn't pretend will power isn't a problem where the low-hanging fruit is involved.

Certainly will power is an aspect, there's no doubt about that. But how many people really know that it's not healthy? After all, it's advertised as low calorie or sugar free, isn't that good? I don't think common sense about food is as common as you think it might be.

>sacrificing freedom

People can still pay for sugary refills, this will simply protect the uninformed and the poor who take this as an opportunity to fill up to the detriment of their health.

The freedom of having a society full of overweight people? This decision looks quite reasonable to me and has nothing to do with freedom.

Think about the normal-weight (or underweight) normal-blood-sugar minorities who happen enjoy soft drinks.

I'm not saying the regulation is right or wrong, good or bad.

But I'd say such regulations most likely do impact their personal freedoms.

And even if that's for the good of others (no arguing with that), and even if it's in another country - I guess, it still can't be helped to not feel somewhat disappointed.

Culture hacking works. Sugary drinks have lots of culture hacking behind their popularity. Done individuals are impervious. Many are not. We're "sacrificing freedom" because someone pumped poison into the collective consciousness. Anti pollution laws world be the alternative.

when were we capable?

Beat me to it. Before we were obese, we were already smokers, alcoholics, gambling addicts, sex fiends, violent thugs, opium lovers... if there is anything we can abuse, we will. Animals don't know when they're having too much of a good thing, evolutionary instincts are honed on getting as much as you can today because you could get none tomorrow.

And modern psychological research have shown the corporations just how to game those instincts for profits...

What profits? If they're charging you the same whether you get three refills or zero, that sounds like a pretty shitty way to get people to spend more on soda.

We have free refills in Canada and they're basically just abused by teenagers and poor people so three people can drink from one soda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_lunch

How is filling people up with soda going to make them buy more food?

Honestly, I think free refills were invented because soda is cheaper than the fast food guy's time filling your cup. Therefore, they moved the soda fountains to the dining room and just started handing out cups with meals to save money.

Problem is that we get lured into doing things we shouldn't do.

now you're really generalizing.

So suddenly people became incapable of making meaningful decisions? We're perfectly capable of making "meaningful" decisions, but nanny-state, authoritarians know that they can get away with it now, rather than 30 year ago, when they would've been "run out of town" with stupid laws like this.

We're not sacrificing freedom. Places like France and NY are.

Idiocracy. IRL.

Is there evidence that lack of capability is the culprit? Is it possible that people are perfectly capable, but make informed unhealthy choices because it's what they want to do?

I can't stand even 8oz of sugary soda, but I also can't imagine judging or restraining someone (let alone with the violence of the state) who wants to.

You're asking for evidence of cognitive biases ? There's a WHOLE discipline that documented it in several thousands of articles. If you still believe humans are perfectly free of their choices, I have bad news for you : they are not.

Also, sugar is addictive.

The whole advertising industry is built upon the evidence you're asking for.

They are hooked. What they want is not based on informed unhealthy choices.

If I'm Coca-Cola or Pepsi or run a large restaurant chain in the US, I'm pushing this ban everywhere.

Restaurants price soda to include the cost of people who get the free refills and the margins are high because of it.

If the government suddenly banned free refills, restaurants won't lower prices because it will hurt top-line revenue and buying decisions aren't made on the price of soda with your meal. Consumption goes down but prices are stable means profits are higher, so Coke and Pepsi can raise their prices to restaurants, say both sides capture half that new margin.

Soda makers win, restaurants win, consumers win because consuming less sugar assuming they don't pay for a refill, taxpayers win by lower burden on healthcare. Sounds great.

When I was living in France and Switzerland free refills were basically unheard of. About the only place that I ever found that had free refills was IKEA.

Mostly just KFC and Subway have been doing that, and it only started like 10 years ago at most, this may be why.

Why do they mention only the country with the _second_ lowest obesity rate?

Strange, indeed. Romania has the lowest obesity rates according to Eurostat [1]. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to mention Romania except that Italy's low rate fits so well into the stereotype...

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

Probably because some insignificant (read: small) country has the lowest rate. It's easier to make comparisons when the population size is in the same order of magnitude.

Romania - which is in first place - has around 20 million inhabitants.

Sure, it's a developing country but so is Bulgaria, which is both less developed and has a considerably higher rate of obesity.

On the other hand the list the world's greatest superpower, Malta, as having the highest obesity rate.

BBC, where is your consistency? :)

(BTW, Romania has the lowest rate, and it's not a micro-state :) )

I wonder what the relative smoking rates are...

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2005-08-28/news/SMOKING_...

Some researchers have hypothesized that America's obesity rate is somewhat correlated with dropping smoking rates.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette... France is relatively low on the list among EU countries.

What stops them from offer 100 refills?

In a Brazilian state a law was passed that forbids restaurants to put salt shakers on their tables, as obviously a people shouldn't be able to decide how much salt they want on their food.

The law specifically mentions putting salt shakers on the tables, though. This was the response: https://is.gd/oiQUop

Several possibilities come to mind:

1. Laws are administered by judges who might have a different approach to interpretation than random HN commenters.

2. Openly flaunting the law might give more bad publicity that it would be worth.

3. There is practically zero market pressure to offer free refills, but not offering free refills is a potential goldmine.

Or just charging 1 cent (or equivalent) for a refill?

The replies to the topic where people fantasize about running other people's lives for them really makes my heart ache :(

That could be early-onset diabetic heart disease.

Good point haha

French (expat) here, can't remember ever seeing any when I lived in France. Have I always been at the wrong restaurants?

That's what I was wondering. I haven't spent much time in France, but in, e.g., Italy, I never saw the US-style "unlimited soda refills". I was wondering if France was different to the extent they felt the need to ban it.

The only one chain doing unlimited drinks in France is KFC.

Someone else mentioned Quick, I can't confirm from memory. I've had free refills at Pizza Hut in France, though.

I can't talk about france, but where I live (Hungary) this isn't a thing in any restaurant.

It is a thing in some american fast food chains though.

It's only a thing in some fast food chains like KFC or Quick.

I guess it is only a thing in junk food place (i.e. mostly American style places).

Soda doesn't go well with "normal" meals anyway.

The irony of the situation is that they can't simply ration or ban these products because we live in the era of consumerism and the market would rather slowly kill you and make money off of you than ban something that is a health concern. So this is a double standard to keep French pencil pushers employed and French people thinking that their government is doing something positive.

Does it affect drinks containing sugar exclusively, or does this also affect sugar-free soft drinks?

"Interdiction de la mise à disposition de boissons à volonté, gratuites ou pour un prix forfaitaire, avec ajout de sucres ou d'édulcorants de synthèse" : it affects drinks with added sugar and/or synthetic sweeteners (e.g. Coca Cola Zero).

Oh, it's nonsense then. Artificially sweetened drinks don't create obesity.

I guess this is more of a principle kind of thing since free refills are almost unheard of in Europe, even in American fast food franchises.

In general soft drinks are incredibly overpriced in Europe since people drink so little of them.

There are no bad foods, only bad diets. Why pick on sugary drinks, but leave ice cream shops alone. Why not put a hazard tax on buffet restaurants. Imagine the government decides they don't like the way you live your life, so they make laws to screw you and people like you. Laws are the worst way to attempt to improve human dietary behavior.

You could advertise fitness, create tastier low calorie beverages, even advertise drinking a full glass of water before eating. Positive fitness outcomes can be found using non punitive means.

How does this effect sugar free drinks like Diet Coke and Coke Zero?

Drinks with "added sugar substitutes" are banned as well. (From the link to the law text) https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFT...

Sugar substitutes tends to mean things like HFCS, Agave syrup, honey, etc: things that are sugar but not always called sugar on the label.

Is that the case here, or is France really banning the artificial sweeteners too?

Yes, drinks with artificial sweeteners are also affected by the ban on refills. No, France is not "banning artificial sweeteners".

French expat since a week. Hard time finding diet/light alternatives in smaller stores.

It seems like a Soda tax would be a less heavy handed approach. If you make the price high enough restaurants will stop offering refills all on their own.

Chicago is working on adopting such a tax, but for the moment only on bottled/prepackaged drinks.

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2016/11/10/cook-county-approv...

They're trying to offset the increased cost of diabetes and other health issues linked to high-calorie drinks. It's meeting heavy resistance from lobbying groups at the moment.

But

Relevant Parks and Rec. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oq3zt

In the show, citizens are pissed because Leslie, the politician lady, decides to tax oversized sodas.

Maybe people don't deserve the "liberty" to drink gallons of sugar. And maybe companies don't deserve to offer it to people.

The comparison has been made between sugary drinks and social media. Are they next?

well, they can make it up to 10 ... few really drink more than 3

silly rule

10 refills? Yeah even here in the states among the heaviest of soda drinkers that seems like a useless limit...

I'd rather live in a country that provides comprehensive free health care and limits soda consumption, than one that allows me the "freedom" to consume as much sugar as possible and makes me pay for the consequences.

I must be a radical hippie leftist: I think we should tax the sh-t out of refined sugar and subsidize organic vegetable farms.

I agree much more with jdam's thoughts - why are we controlling other people with laws. Its sad, ... scary at worse. Is your idea really to start policing people's everyday interactions that we don't support?

Just the judicial and monitoring overhead alone makes this really silly. What do you do to a restaurant that serves unlimited sodas? What resources do you expend to find them and bring them to trial?

why are we controlling other people with laws

Right now the USA is subsidizing the corn industry to the tune of billions of dollars a year. 5-10% of that corn gets turned in to sweeteners.

Why are we taxing honest, hard-working Americans to provide cheap sweeteners for your sugar fix? Why are we subsidizing an industry that has been shown to have negative health effects?

I'm just saying that if you're going to subsidize farmers, you might as well say they have to make healthy food, not poison. :)

That's a very interesting debate to have. FTR: I remember reading somewhere something about a discussion between the USSR and the USA after WWII that went more or less like this: "Better to have a belly full with state jobs than jobless and hungry free men".

You still have the freedom to drink as much as you want in France. This is not about the freedom to drink, this is about fighting obesity.

That is not entirely true. For instance you can't drink in the street or be inebriated in public places.

France also used to serve wine in schools (http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/47/74/06/20160130/ob_1c8cee_...).

Maybe some law makers will come up with the idea to forbid sugary drinks and fast food to less than 18 or 21 years old (like it is for alcohol and cigarettes in some countries).

> For instance you can't drink in the street

Untrue. A few municipalities forbid it, generally in specific places and/or for a specific duration, but the general rule is that it is allowed.

> or be inebriated in public places.

True, but not enforced. Only if you have done something wrong but they can't prove it or they don't want to bother proving it, they will (sometimes) charge you with that.

> > For instance you can't drink in the street

> Untrue. A few municipalities forbid it, generally in specific places and/or for a specific duration, but the general rule is that it is allowed.

My bad then: that's what I remembered from visiting France for some months at time.

Not trying to start a flame war, but to offer a counterpoint: I don't believe that taxes should be used as a means to control people's behavior. If you put huge taxes on products that you deem to be socially unacceptable, you are simply making it harder for lower income families to access them, while wealthier individuals can continue to access them with little to no consequence. Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but this sounds like a classic example of a regressive tax.

And why is it up to us to say that poor people should have limited access to sugary products? Shouldn't that be a personal decision? Feel free to disagree, but I personally believe that if we're going to subsidize the organic industry, we shouldn't simultaneously be punishing people that just want their soda.

I think taxes should be used to control behaviour but the money raised should then go into a Basic Income Scheme.

You surely also would like the state to ban tobacco, alcohol and weed since it also has proven negative consequences? Can't have it both ways.

You can, actually. This isn't about banning sugary drinks. It's about banning a business model that the drafters of the law believe harms the collective health of France. This has more in common with clean air legislation than it has with drug prohibition.

I don't want to live the way the government wants me to.

Is that what you think this it? Do you actually think this is unjust and oppressive? To me it looks like a government doing what it is designed to do: govern. AKA "conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people)."

Perhaps you should describe to me the devastating consequences of this law, so that I may better understand your suffering.

A proper balance is important, though. Let government regulate too much and things will get really bad.

The problem is in defining what would be "too much" (and "too few"). Here, the opinions digress heavily.

Oh, of course. But this is a subject in where nobody gets hurt at all, and may even benefit some people.

I'm not exactly sure this doesn't hurt anyone at all. On the contrary, I believe there is some impact - although it's most likely not any heavy, and benefits to the society in general may[1] easily outweight.

I don't think businesses have those free refills out of pure generousity. There's most certainly some commercial incentive. Removing that must have some impact on businesses.

And it must also impact people who don't have weight or blood sugar issues, and have benefited from free refills. Heck, if I'm a regular at McDonalds, drink to my heart's content and government suddenly says "we forbid you to do that anymore - oh just think of those obese people!" I may be understanding but still I'll be sort of upset.

[1] May or may not. I dunno. Was there a proper scientific research?

I suppose I have to agree with you. You apparently want a nanny state and to tax me to pay for it.

> You apparently want a nanny state and to tax me to pay for it.

What's it with Americans and these expressions. I've heard "nanny state" used 0 times by non-Americans (non-Americans use it only when quoting Americans).

Also, you're making it sound like you're _the only one_ being taxed. He will also be taxed.

I suppose it's an American phrase. Given the way the rest of the world is going it may be an American value, too, though the US itself is moving away from that idea, too.

I'm not going to rehash old arguments about the virtues of fiscal conservatism. Suffice to say, I'm happy if people want to redistribute wealth and intrude on the lives of fellow citizens. I just wish it didn't involve me.

I am not the only one being taxed. But if my income is 5 times the median income, then I'm paying 20X the median taxes. No fun!

When the population is incapable of caring for itself, when do you jump in as state? If the population is harming itself, when do you stop it?

If you see a person is injuring themselves deliberately, will you stop them or do you let this person continue?

Me personally? If I don't know them, I'm not getting involved. This is not theoretical for me. On a couple of occasions I've witnessed people in the process of self harm. It's scary.

This is a human rights violation.

You are free to buy as much soda as you want.

And restaurants can offer as many free refills as they want, as long as the limit is less than infinity.

More of a violation against intelligence than against human rights.

If your definition of "human rights violation" is any limitation on any freedom then it's a useless definition because "human rights" would then only exist under anarchy.

Nope, anarchy also has rules.

What's a human right violation is producing so much soda when people die because of a lack of water.

is that sarcasm?

It was, I'm suprised that of all issues this generates such a strong response

Because we have already read many fine American gentlemen asserting the same thing in all seriousness.

Human rights violations usually do.

Free refills? How dare you! That stomach doesn't belong to the consumer, it's merely being rented from the state!

You are making an argument based on taking this to an extreme. But take it to the other extreme: is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy?

The merits of this new French law can be argued, but it is not an obvious overreach.

> But take it to the other extreme: is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy?

Given that the most effective treatment for heroin addiction is diacetylmorphine maintenance (aka, prescription-strength heroin)[0], I'd say it's definitely governmental overreach.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment

I believe your comparison isn't correct. Or, at least, is a bad example.

Certain substances are banned not (just) because they're harmful but because its addicts way too frequently tend to exhibit certain behaviors that are harmful to others.

Don't think it's any common to hear about a soda, coffee or chocolate addict incurring violence on drug-fueled rampage, or stealing to get another dose.

No, those costs are externalized in healthcare, which has a large and real public effect.

Ahem. Unless my reading/understanding is wrong, parent comment was about reasons for banning heroin.

Yep, heroin has negative health effects. Yep, ban has all sorts of economic consequences. I don't think many would argue with that. Still, are those the reasons why it and alike substances were banned in the first place?

I believe your points are different from what caused my disagreement.

Opiate prohibition also has a lot to do with racism against Asians, who used to be associated with opiates in the mind of the public. Similarly the prohibition against marijuana in the US has a lot to do with racist attitudes towards Latino and Black people. Attitudes towards drugs often have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with who's doing it.

> is it governmental overreach that heroin is banned or is it a good public health policy?

I think you are making a good point, but this is a horrific example. Heroin prohibition has been a spectacular failure. There are literally bodies in the streets to show for it.

Classic "nanny state" defense. The food industry invented that, by the way.

> The food industry invented the classic nanny state defense

Citation needed.

That's like saying Patrick Henry invented liberty.

Even it that is true, that doesn't make it wrong.

The Nanny State™ also puts age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.

Excessive sugar consumption is a huge problem for our society. Much more so than statistically insignificant stuff like terrorism.

If there is something which has a massive negative impact of huge parts of the population, the state is supposed to do something about it.

The US gov also wanted to do something about this several times in the past, but the US food industry is just too powerful and influential.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com