New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Taxpayer funded ad campaigns against sodas and junk food.

Should the government be using taxpayer $'s on ad campaigns against sodas/junk food?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 31 50.0%

  • Total voters
    62
Hmm so then we also should not protect private property, enforcing contracts, right? Because all of those are "nudging" us into certain type of behaviour that big government "deems" proper...
The protecting of private property rights and enforcing contracts is a part of the government duties that they do not do.
 

degsme

Council Member
In all honesty, I have to question whether such "Information Blitzes" actually do all that much good.
Well that's a legitimate question. Except that using the cigarette example, the research on this shows that in fact it does work. Not perhaps as effectively as some claim, but it does work.

Why else would companies spend tens of billions of dollars doing such information blitzes on the opposite side as well?
 

fairsheet

Senator
We (most) all know now, that healthy calories cost (at point of sale) 3-4x what "bad" calories cost. That's why (praise the Lord!) it's rare to hear the old hate angle around how fat poor people are. We know why a lot of poor people are fat. It's because they can't afford the food they SHOULD be eating.

On the other hand, there are millions of Americans who CAN afford the more expensive "good calories", but they choose to go with the less expensive (at point of sale) bad calories. The consumption of bad calories imposes a profound cost on our socioeconomy. When the fellow who goes cheap and buys the bad calories gets fat, he forces me to absorb his bad-health costs. That's radical socialism.

If by spending pennies to convince him of a better way, I can save dollars - I'm all for it.
 

Citizen

Council Member
& yet the cons are fine with insurance companies robbing us or not giving us coverage for bad health, when the company ads that we are bombarded with shape our buying & eating habits.

Look how many people still smoke. & If the government hadn't stepped in, would there still be Doctors & tobbacco funded scientists telling us smoking IS GOOD for us?
 

RedCloud

Mayor
We (most) all know now, that healthy calories cost (at point of sale) 3-4x what "bad" calories cost. That's why (praise the Lord!) it's rare to hear the old hate angle around how fat poor people are. We know why a lot of poor people are fat. It's because they can't afford the food they SHOULD be eating.

On the other hand, there are millions of Americans who CAN afford the more expensive "good calories", but they choose to go with the less expensive (at point of sale) bad calories. The consumption of bad calories imposes a profound cost on our socioeconomy. When the fellow who goes cheap and buys the bad calories gets fat, he forces me to absorb his bad-health costs. That's radical socialism.

If by spending pennies to convince him of a better way, I can save dollars - I'm all for it.
Can't add to that, Fair. Good post.
 

Figjam

Mayor
...it is a public health issue and their job to inform people, just as with tobacco products...

...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
i'm not sure i agree.

how much does a can of beans cost?

please elaborate, or aid me in clarifying my thinking.
 

kgswiger

Council Member
Should the government be spending taxpayer dollars on ad campaigns against sodas and junk food?
Yes. Take a breath, people. It's an ad campaign. They aren't forcing anyone to eat or drink, or not eat or drink, anything. Want to eat buffalo chips? Go right ahead. But the government putting out an ad that says that eating buffalo chips is a bad idea, because they're buffalo excrement, isn't hurting you any.
 

Huskyoverlord

Council Member
Yes. As a huge swath of our population is un or under informed.. why not.

Further, Phil thinks that some things....like the amount of sugar in sodas, juices, etc should be limited.....the percent of chemical used in things like....mcd's chicken nuggets..etc should be limited or prohibited.
can't change stupidity or choice , no matter how hard you try to push what doctors say is good for you this week. Maybe because the powers that be are full of crap.
 

degsme

Council Member
can't change stupidity or choice , no matter how hard you try to push what doctors say is good for you this week. Maybe because the powers that be are full of crap.
Um Husky you can change stupidity - its called education. Same with "choice". The best example might be the great progress that has been made in how people consider the capabilities of women and minorities.
 

888888

Council Member
The protecting of private property rights and enforcing contracts is a part of the government duties that they do not do.
you mean like the ones business always seem to break, claiming they can't compete so the contracts they have made are thrown out. Where business like airlines transfer their wealth to another business set up to manage the assets and makes the airline part of it to rent and pay fees to the parent company and then are allowed to go into bankruptcy because of it. Those contracts Runner?
 

Friday13

Governor
No. If a grocery store wants to promote veggies, fruits, etc, produce is a part of its business. But I also don't want to see ads for alcohol, viagra, penis pumps, tampons, drugs (of any kind), catheters...ad nauseum.

ai285.photobucket.com_albums_ll69_rbumblb_TVad_Enzyte_SmilingBob.jpg
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
No, of course not. It's not the business of the federal government to attempt to control what we eat. If they wanted to do something good then they should require that more info on calorie counts and fat content, etc be provided with food products so people can make their own decisions.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
I get a kick out of the Chantix ads. They go through a 10 minute disssertation on all the possible side effects from using the stuff. Your chances of dying from lung cancer from smoking are much less than your chances of getting headaches, chronic coughing, neuritis, heart disease, diariaha, constipation, blurred vision, loss of hearing, weird dreams, wet dreams, suicidal thoughts, blackouts, congestion, runny nose, impotence, or loss of equalibrium, from using Chantix.

Final Warning: If you die, stop using Chantix immediately.
 
you mean like the ones business always seem to break, claiming they can't compete so the contracts they have made are thrown out. Where business like airlines transfer their wealth to another business set up to manage the assets and makes the airline part of it to rent and pay fees to the parent company and then are allowed to go into bankruptcy because of it. Those contracts Runner?
8,

Where do the companys go when they file bankrupcy and to get rid of their debt and contract obligations? Don't they go to the courts (government)? Therfore, isn't it the government that determines the outcome of a bankruptcy petition?
 

gabriel

Governor
define against? is it stop altogether or use in moderation? once again, your poll lacks substance
 
Top