Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    Tobacco ads? Prescription-only medicine ads? Crack ads? Bring back Press TV? ISIS propaganda? Free Anjem Choudary?
    In principle, my argument would extend to the first three, but not to the second.

    The difference is that the rationale for banning the first three is paternalism, while the rationale for banning the latter three is national security.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    In principle, my argument would extend to the first three, but not to the second.

    The difference is that the rationale for banning the first three is paternalism, while the rationale for banning the latter three is national security.
    I'm sure we could come up with a national security excuse for the first 3. A nation of crack addicts doesn't sound particularly secure.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    In principle, my argument would extend to the first three, but not to the second.

    The difference is that the rationale for banning the first three is paternalism, while the rationale for banning the latter three is national security.
    Hahaha, could you imagine a crack ad?

    "Are you tired of smoking tobacco and weed? Can't get a decent high from huffing glue? Then come on down to Crazy Dan's crack emporium for the SALE of the year! We've got all the dangerous narcotics to satisfy your needs! We'll beat any price just like your pimp beats you! Call 555-313-CRACK now or visit us behind the Walmart on Keele and Lawrence. Order now and get a FREE crack pipe with your purchase! Hurry, offer ends Sunday! Terms and conditions apply. Crazy dan will not be held liable for any deaths, shootings, or rapes that occur as a result of consumption."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZeroFree)
    Not really, at least not for something like this. While parents hold a lot of the responsibility for bringing up their children I don't see why the Government cannot impose measures that will help guide them in a better direction.
    Where do we draw the limit of the government's intervention? What is considered good?

    (Original post by ZeroFree)
    Evidence? From personal experience I've found that the less people are exposed to something the less they'll want it. I'll also side with the BMA's recommendations about regulating junk food marketing and promotions.
    Your personal experience does not justify imposing an enlargement of the state's role in childcare.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Seems a sensible decision to me. It's up to parents to make sure their child doesn't become obese, surely. I think this is reasonable from May.
    You under-estimate how easily we are all influenced. Banning cigarette advertising's during sporting events has been quite succesful actually.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.