https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgrwzx8er9o.amp

Quote:

---

Certain types of porridge, crumpets and breakfast cereals are included in a list of products that fall under a new junk food advertising ban.
The government says the legislation, which applies to both paid online adverts and TV adverts shown before 21:00, is designed to curb childhood obesity.
Due to come into force in October 2025, food classed by the government as "less healthy" falls under the ban, and includes fast food, soft drinks and ready meals as well as pastries, cereal bars and sweetened yoghurts.

---

Seems very nanny statist despite its good intentions. Wonder if something like this would run into 1st amendment concerns here?

The US Banned cigarette advertising.

I think because that was considered a drug though

Wish you were this concerned about the nanny state while you pimped the Covid shot on here.

Will never happen in the US.

Pharma direct to consumer advertisement is pretty much banned all over the world except the US and maybe New Zealand.

Coca Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Mcdonald's ... they own the politicians.

Ban all commercials. Everywhere

JobSecurity said:

---

Ban all commercials. Everywhere

---

Not a bad idea!

Zachary Klement said:

---

JobSecurity said:

---

Ban all commercials. Everywhere

---

Not a bad idea!

---

That will cost us.

coolerguy12 said:

---

Wish you were this concerned about the nanny state while you pimped the Covid shot on here.

---

That why was against any and all government mandates

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

JobSecurity said:

---

Ban all commercials. Everywhere

---

Not a bad idea!

---

That will cost us.

---

I know lol and I know it will never happen. It would be nice to watch an Aggie game without being advertised to for two hours though!

Quote:

---

It would be nice to watch an Aggie game without being advertised to for two hours though!

---

I don't want to pay per view ugly losses to Auburn and SC

I watched the tu A&M debacle commercial free on Youtube TV 4K. I'd rather have watched the commercials than the TV just showing the field with players huddled up for 3 minutes at a time.

Teslag said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Wish you were this concerned about the nanny state while you pimped the Covid shot on here.

---

That why was against any and all government mandates

---

What a load of crap. You went out of your way to get people into trouble for not going along with the shots in the military. You enforced it no matter how much you pretend you were against government mandates.

And rarely if ever said anything negative about the shots to the general populace. Regardless if you intended it to be so, that era was always in favor of big gov when it came to covid shots based on your posting history.

I never forced anyone to get a covid shot in the military ever in any way shape or form. It was the flu shot, and I did it again with the flu shot this year. And will again next year.

Keep the stories straight next time.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

I watched the tu A&M debacle commercial free on Youtube TV 4K. I'd rather have watched the commercials than the TV just showing the field with players huddled up for 3 minutes at a time.

---

In hindsight, I'd probably rather watch nothing at all than what we saw last Saturday!

We just ran up the middle again for a loss

Teslag said:

---

I never forced anyone to get a covid shot in the military ever in any way shape or form. It was the flu shot, and I did it again with the flu shot this year. And will again next year.

Keep the stories straight next time.

---

Where did I say you forced covid shots in the military.... Your claim was you were against government mandates which is clearly false.

And you pimped the covid shots to the general populace yet claimed innocence by saying you were against the mandates. Well guess what, the general populace was forced into drastic situations such as get fired or comply because of people like you that sunshine pumped the covid shots thus giving credence to the hard and soft mandates.

Advice from the mirror, keep your stories straight next time.

None of the means I supported government mandates. Private business should be able to fire anyone they want at any time they want for whatever reason they want.

Teslag said:

---

None of the means I supported government mandates. Private business should be able to fire anyone they want at any time they want for whatever reason they want.

---

At the behest of the governemnt during the covid era, that is no longer private business but crony capitalism.

You can quit digging your hole because I agree with your intentions as you say now after the fact, but it is completely disingenuous to try and paint yourself as being right when we all know the role you played during the covid era.

If you can't at least admit that you went too far pimping the covid shot and your role in getting military personnel in trouble for questioning the trustworthiness of the pharmaceutical companies and the shots recommended/required, then there is no common ground we can share in this discussion.

I am against big gov. You advocated for it in that era, but I am hopeful you will stand up against it in the future....

Nope, never supported a single government mandate of any kind. Nor had any interaction or involvement with Covid shots in the military. Flu yes. Covid never.

I can't believe that TeslaAg is trying to rewrite his history.

How, I stand by everything I said. Just be accurate. It's not my fault a bunch of people got fired because they were afraid of needles. Be a big boy, get your lollipop, and Superman band aid next time.

Teslag said:

---

How, I stand by everything I said. Just be accurate. It's not my fault a bunch of people got fired because they were afraid of needles. Be a big boy, get your lollipop, and Superman band aid next time.

---

There you go.

Like I said homie, I never changed and I own that *****

Teslag said:

---

Nope, never supported a single government mandate of any kind. Nor had any interaction or involvement with Covid shots in the military. Flu yes. Covid never.

---

Agree to disagree. A great example of how one's own words and actions can be perceived to be good from one persons view and a pawn in an evil game from another persons perspective. I know you mean well, but I think you are a little naive in the role you played during that era.

But to get back to topic, I completely agree with your OP comment of "seems very nanny statist despite its good intentions".

Fair enough. I do respect your opinion.

Teslag said:

---

I never forced anyone to get a covid shot in the military ever in any way shape or form. It was the flu shot, and I did it again with the flu shot this year. And will again next year.

Keep the stories straight next time.

---

Oh, that's better.

They have very little rights in the UK, which for all intents and purposes is moving toward enforcing sharia law very quickly (I think the House of Commons was debating a sharia blasphemy law just last month). Personally, I err on the side of thinking free speech is pretty important, among the bundle of rights we have historically had here.

I'm not really in favor of banning speech on the basis of people being too stupid to figure out something is bad for them. The drug companies I think is a longer discussion, but I also get that banning the tobacco ads has helped over time to make smoking 'less cool.' You young 'uns probably don't recall but the old Marlboro and camel ads really were pretty effective (and entertaining).

Agree on all points. I think we sometimes forget how truly unique and American the concept of free speech is.

Muy said:

---

I can't believe that TeslaAg is trying to rewrite his history.

---

Duck Tales?

The Uk has been a smothering nanny state run by self appointed busy bodies who seek power to impose upon others "for their own good" for centuries.

As long as they aren't lying about what the product is and what it does, I don't see why they can't advertise it exists and let the potential consumer decide. I get there is a sort of spectrum on this where you approach things that are an addictive social Vice, but that is where full disclosure should come into play.

Teslag said:

---

I think because that was considered a drug though

---

So is alcohol.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Will never happen in the US.

Pharma direct to consumer advertisement is pretty much banned all over the world except the US and maybe New Zealand.

Coca Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Mcdonald's ... they own the politicians.

---

And Big Pharma couldn't be happier.

Agreed. Yet again I think back to the Sackler family/Purdue Pharma etc. and just don't know what policies might have prevented such a disaster. Sure, it's easy to lay blame at the FDA for approving some of this, but the overall marketing/ability to get so many hooked so quickly on a narcotic that was basically opium still makes me wonder if, in the 'new era' of social media/online/AI stuff what real limits or controls would work.

Oh btw, the Sacklers are still worth $14-15 Billion, at least.

Such regulation may be constitutional in the United States if it were narrowly tailored to meet a government interest. As commercial speech, it is not afforded as much protection as other areas of speech, such as political speech

Almost 30 years ago, Justice Thomas raised this potential issue in a concurrence in 44 liquor vRhode Island. Why is something being bad for you sufficient enough for the government to regulate truthful advertising about it? If the government can do it for alcohol and cigarettes, why can't they do it for sugar?

There, he argues that commercial speech should be given as much protection as political speech.