>Sometimes the government needs to step in. (in no particular order:)
Let's see what you got here because I think you're being naive.
>lead paint
That causes harm to everyone both directly (health risks) and indirectly (disposal costs). So the ban on lead paint was a benefit for us all.
>DDT
Ditto.
>opioids
Nope, they're regulated. Morphine is a form of them.
>microbeads
This is the same as the DDT and lead paint items. Common risk but indirectly through how they harm fish stock which are part of the food web that makes the nitrogen cycle possible.
>antibacterial soaps
Yet again, indirect harm to all.
I've yet to discern a pattern in your argument that shows where sugary sodas are bad. Obesity sucks, I'm a big fat blob here so I know the damage it does personally (bad back and probably going to get heart disease at this rate). What you should notice that health issues like this are covered under insurance and sodas can be hit with a sin tax to cover additional costs. Trying to go out of our way to ban stuff like this is misplaced as the individual consumer won't ever be able to cover the cost. Producers of such goods can but since our tax code is a mess it's a miracle we get any taxes from them. So if you want to really hit who is doing harm it would be the producers of such goods. From sodas to cars every good comes with a part of it's risks (that harms) socialized but it's profits privatized. That means we should tax firms to cover those negative externalities and not individuals who consume them.
Let's see what you got here because I think you're being naive.
>lead paint
That causes harm to everyone both directly (health risks) and indirectly (disposal costs). So the ban on lead paint was a benefit for us all.
>DDT
Ditto.
>opioids
Nope, they're regulated. Morphine is a form of them.
>microbeads
This is the same as the DDT and lead paint items. Common risk but indirectly through how they harm fish stock which are part of the food web that makes the nitrogen cycle possible.
>antibacterial soaps
Yet again, indirect harm to all.
I've yet to discern a pattern in your argument that shows where sugary sodas are bad. Obesity sucks, I'm a big fat blob here so I know the damage it does personally (bad back and probably going to get heart disease at this rate). What you should notice that health issues like this are covered under insurance and sodas can be hit with a sin tax to cover additional costs. Trying to go out of our way to ban stuff like this is misplaced as the individual consumer won't ever be able to cover the cost. Producers of such goods can but since our tax code is a mess it's a miracle we get any taxes from them. So if you want to really hit who is doing harm it would be the producers of such goods. From sodas to cars every good comes with a part of it's risks (that harms) socialized but it's profits privatized. That means we should tax firms to cover those negative externalities and not individuals who consume them.