Comment Re:Let them drink! (Score 1) 532
Eh? This law was doing precisely what you implied should be done, i.e., placing a restriction on junk food companies who are, as you say, in bed with the government. It was not banning people from buying as much soda as they wanted, in the form of smaller amounts.
That said, I fundamentally disagree with this statement of yours, precisely because it is partisan and non-pragmatic: "Using laws to change social norms is stupid, because it doesn't work without having serious negative consequences which outweigh any possible good results." That's partisan and non-pragmatic because it ignores the many instances in which laws have been introduced that aimed at changing social norms where the benefits clearly outweigh the harms:
- seatbelt laws
- DUI laws
- domestic abuse laws
- laws restricting smoking
There used to be a social norm that it was OK to smoke on the London Underground. The Kings Cross fire of 1987 led to a ban on smoking on the Underground. I'm hard-pressed to think of *any* negative consequences of that ban, much less consequences that outweigh the obvious huge benefits of the removal of a significant fire risk and the improvement to people's health.