On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 PM, KhunLA said:

Yep ... Nothing but control ... 👍

 

I was waiting for them to cancel beef, all that methane from the farting that they don't even do 

 

On a more cynical note ( and yes many might say I am an old fool) my (dare I suggest our) generations navigated our childhood, teenage and younger active and productive years without recourse to these sort of stimulants. Energy wasn't a problem. We did things, physical or mental, got tired, slept. Humans and Indeed all creatures have been doing that for millennia!

 

I suppose as we got older the occasional cup of coffee came in handy!

1 hour ago, JAG said:

On a more cynical note ( and yes many might say I am an old fool) my (dare I suggest our) generations navigated our childhood, teenage and younger active and productive years without recourse to these sort of stimulants. Energy wasn't a problem. We did things, physical or mental, got tired, slept. Humans and Indeed all creatures have been doing that for millennia!

 

Cynical old fool ?
 

Just someone in possession of a commodity that is in scarce supply these days.

 

Common sense.

I wonder if that include Coca Cola and Pepsi, which contain caffeine and copious amounts of sugar?

 

On 9/5/2025 at 10:47 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

But better still - perhaps we should begin by protecting the forum itself from outrageously moronic strawman arguments, before the rot of stupidity spreads any further... 

 

You mean ban opinions that differ from your own? How very leftist of you. 😃 Fret not, the government is working on that and has made significant progress albeit at the expense of another term in power. 

 

But back to banning food rather than opinions, if you support banning sugary drinks, why not ban the other things I mentioned?

 

They also carry risk. 

 

Why not ban pizza? Ice Cream? Cheeseburgers? 

 

What's the difference?

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You mean ban opinions that differ from your own? How very leftist of you. 😃 Fret not, the government is working on that and has made significant progress albeit at the expense of another term in power. 

 

But back to banning food rather than opinions, if you support banning sugary drinks, why not ban the other things I mentioned?

 

They also carry risk. 

 

Why not ban pizza? Ice Cream? Cheeseburgers? 

 

What's the difference?

 

Talking about strawman arguments.

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Talking about strawman arguments.

 

Why?

 

Both unhealthy foods. One banned. One not.

 

How is that a strawman? Do you even know what a strawman is or is that a stock repsonse when you dont have an answer?

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

On 9/5/2025 at 4:47 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

But better still - perhaps we should begin by protecting the forum itself from outrageously moronic strawman arguments, before the rot of stupidity spreads any further... 

 

You mean ban opinions that differ from your own? How very leftist of you. 😃 Fret not, the government is working on that and has made significant progress albeit at the expense of another term in power. 

 

Nope it was a hyperbolae - but you've strengthened the idea..

 

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

But back to banning food rather than opinions, if you support banning sugary drinks, why not ban the other things I mentioned?

 

They also carry risk. 

 

Why not ban pizza? Ice Cream? Cheeseburgers? 

 

What's the difference?

 

You really do not know the difference ?

 

The government’s reasoning behind banning energy drinks for under-16s is about caffeine, stimulants and over-marketing rather than just “unhealthiness”...

 

Energy drinks can contain very high doses of caffeine and sugar, which for younger people can cause things like heart palpitations, sleep disruption, anxiety, and in extreme cases even hospitalisation. That’s why they’re treated more like a substance control issue than just junk food.

 

Pizza, burgers, fried chicken, etc. are unhealthy when consumed in excess, but they don’t have the same immediate stimulant effects on the nervous system.

 

The risks there are more long-term - obesity, diabetes, heart disease - rather than acute short-term dangers like a kid collapsing after downing three Monster cans.

 

Thus: 

Energy drinks = stimulant drug risk + sugar.

Fast food = long-term diet risk.

 

So.. while you think this might be nanny-state hypocrisy - its still a sensible public health policy.  That does not run separately from education on diet etc 

If a third of under 16s drink them, someone over 16 is buying them.

 

I doubt bringing this new policy in will change that.