If the intent of the law is to protect drivers, then why not impose a seatbelt law in addition to the rest? It ultimately serves that same purpose. Of course, I can understand your "slipper slope" point of view here pertaining to government directing personal behavior, but then again, as I've said, driving is something separate from eating and drinking. Government also restricts narcotics, another example you might try and cite as setting a dangerous precedent, and even a more pertinent one since it deals with consumables. And yet, it hasn't happened. The worst we have had is local versions of a sin tax. Was it NYC that put a tax on sodas? I recall hearing about that not too long ago. But requiring seatbelt use and banning dangerous narcotics is not the same as banning junk foods, and everyone with a lick of common sense knows that. There's also the clear, data-supported argument available that many people consume junk foods without suffering ill effects, probably because they don't overdo it. Given that and the fact that junk foods are not addictive or acutely dangerous the way something like cocaine is, it just wouldn't be reasonable to expect any legislation attempting to ban junk foods outright to gain any traction. Too many would justifiably oppose it and it would be political suicide.
Even my local Pamida ended up getting turned into a Shopko. Pamida used to be a major chain but seems to have given up and sold out now.
They have a death wish. They're stupid enough to believe that if something has 'Diet' on the label then it must mean it contains less sugar and they can drink as much as they like.
It's always funny to see someone order a whole bunch of junk food and then ask for a diet soda. I always feel like saying, that diet soda is NOT going to help you.
