sounds like regulatory capture to me: increase the bar to establish a brand so that only established brands dominate the market place. laws are bad and there should only be fewer of them.
It can be really easy to change what’s on a label, to be honest. Just set everything up with some time buffer, and there won’t be any disruptions.
I’ll never understand why more information is bad. I’m sure some people with allergies would love to easily know what’s in booze before they buy/drink it.
I would rather my government spend my tax dollars solving real problems, not creating hoops for companies to jump through so people can ignore them (which is your narrative, in reality, it is intended to stagmatize the product and the people who consume the product and try to shame them into stopping).
That’s false, these warnings are successful ib preventing people from consuming the drug and therefore directly decreasing healthcare costs for society.
In fact, some countries pursue it even further, mandating bland packaging for cigarettes. This is especially effective in preventing minors from smoking.
Regulating industries is not banning them. And industries profiting from addictions should be especially regulated to prevent and combat said addictions. Is banning gambling ads targeted at children also fascist?
How would warnings stop you from that? It’s informative text, it can’t hurt you. Not any more than the alcohol itself.
sounds like regulatory capture to me: increase the bar to establish a brand so that only established brands dominate the market place. laws are bad and there should only be fewer of them.
…how does that apply to labels
It can be really easy to change what’s on a label, to be honest. Just set everything up with some time buffer, and there won’t be any disruptions.
I’ll never understand why more information is bad. I’m sure some people with allergies would love to easily know what’s in booze before they buy/drink it.
if I only needed to scrawl an abv and my signature on my wine before, and now I need a printed label, my cost increases.
I would rather my government spend my tax dollars solving real problems, not creating hoops for companies to jump through so people can ignore them (which is your narrative, in reality, it is intended to stagmatize the product and the people who consume the product and try to shame them into stopping).
That’s false, these warnings are successful ib preventing people from consuming the drug and therefore directly decreasing healthcare costs for society.
In fact, some countries pursue it even further, mandating bland packaging for cigarettes. This is especially effective in preventing minors from smoking.
Sounds like our are adept “ib” being a giant fascist tool who relishes the idea of getting some degenerates to stop drinking an smoking. Like savages.
What? I barely understand what you’re saying.
Regulating industries is not banning them. And industries profiting from addictions should be especially regulated to prevent and combat said addictions. Is banning gambling ads targeted at children also fascist?