> I am an individual, not some nameless entity that can only think as a collective.
Yes. We all are. That’s why rules need to be made.
> I, personally, don't believe that a free society should be told what kind of merchandise they can sell or not sell at a checkout line. That goes for literally anything.
That seems... pretty extreme, and probably not shared by most people.
> A business that does "harmful things", such as stocking chocolate bars next to customers while they are idle in a queue (Shocking! How dare they commit such a heinous act! This is a public health atrocity!), clearly sees a mutually beneficial arrangement in where they put what merchandise. The customer has a need fulfilled (They see something they want and agree to purchase it for a marked price), and the business generates revenue. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Most places, at least in the parts of the US I’ve lived (major cities on both coasts) and visited (roughly 2/3 of the country) don't offer a choice at all, so it’s hard to ascertain how many of their customers find it mutually beneficial. In the few places I’ve seen that offer a mix, I’ve seen people intentionally queue up in those non-junk stocked aisles. Often they’re parents shopping with their children. So it seems likely at least some people would prefer this change.
> Do you people really sit there and think anyone that buys something because they want it and it's readily available is too stupid to know the dangers of eating too much unhealthy food?
Why does it have to be a matter of intelligence? I’m plenty smart but still make a variety of decisions that are bad for my health. I drink and smoke for example, and I’d likely at least never have started smoking if anti-smoking efforts had been employed more aggressively when I was a teenager.
> Do you think that they are being physically manipulated into buying it?
Do... you not even know what marketing is? Of course people are being manipulated to buy products they otherwise wouldn’t buy.
> Yes, unhealthy foods generally stimulate the brain and create a desire for more, but the same justification can be used to go the full mile and ban them outright if you are so concerned. That'll probably happen eventually anyways, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of history!
What a silly slippery slope argument. If there was any interest in actually banning these products, they would have levied a sin tax and added labeling requirements indicating their health impact. All they’re doing is removing the impulse marketing.