@ISIDEWITHQuestionsHealthcare10mos ago

Should the government ban the promotion of products that contribute to unhealthy lifestyles for young people, such as vaping and junk food?

Vaping refers to using electronic cigarettes that deliver nicotine through vapor, while junk food includes high-calorie, low-nutrition foods like candy, chips, and sugary drinks. Both are linked to various health issues, especially among young people. Proponents argue that banning promotion helps protect the health of young people, reduces the risk of developing lifelong unhealthy habits, and decreases public health costs. Opponents argue that such bans infringe on commercial free speech, limit consumer choice, and that education and parental guidance are more effective ways to promote healthy lifestyles.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 2k Spain voters.

62%
Yes
38%
No
62%
Yes
38%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 2k Spain voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 2k Spain voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Spain voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9N7V3MNfrom Arizona  answered…9mos9MO

Not banned but education on their use and consumption should be the job of public health agencies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies