Quit social media | Dr. Cal Newport | TEDxTysons | Superior Essay Writers

duce consumption in the past have not been effective. There have been different measures put in place by the government in other to restrict the way these CEDs are produced and also consumed (NCCIH, 2018). The harm principle would support outlawing of Caffeinated Energy Drinks by Government of Quebec because energy drinks have a lot of side effects which are more dangerous to children and young adults (NCCIH, 2018). Although, these regulations have helped reduce the health impacts that are associated with consumptions of these beverages, outlawing them among persons under 16 years of age would help curtail the harms associated with them among these group of individuals entirely. Therefore, the use of Harm Principle can help to justify the intervention of Quebec Government in outlawing consumption of CEDs among persons younger than 16. Critique of View Liberalist theory would oppose to government intervention in outlawing the sale of caffeinated energy drinks to persons under the age of 16 (Veerapen, 2020). This is because liberalism views focus on achieving rights for each individual, especially their right to pursue their own belief of what is right or wrong. Liberalist perspective advocates for minimizing of government involvement in the affairs of its people (Holland, 2014). With regards to caffeinated energy drinks, consuming it or not should be a decision the individual has the right to make. With the implementation of different measures to restrict the way CEDs are produced and consumed in other to reduce their harmful effects, it is then important for the consumers of these beverages to decide on whether they want to consume them or not. Instead of outlawing the consumption of CEDs among persons under 16 and taking their rights to making their own decisions away. The Government can mandate Health Authorities to raise awareness and educate these individuals by adding negative impacts of CED consumption to their school curriculum and put out advertisements as well to the general public on advantages of limiting or not consuming these beverages (Veerapen, 2020). Outlawing these CEDs among persons under 16 would just be implementation of action by people of authority which in turn would be a restriction of decisions these individuals are entitled to make. In addition, regarding the restrictions placed by the government in the past, an example would be, when it comes to the restriction on advertisements, the liberalist theory would argue that businesses should have the right to advertise their products the way they want to in other to grow their businesses. The liberty to do that should not be taken from them because of the fact that people cannot properly control themselves and limit their consumption of certain beverages. Children cannot necessarily make rationale choices, hence the reason they have guardians who are able to make these decisions for them. Parents should be encouraged to step up their game and help direct their under aged children in making right decisions instead of the liberty of these companies to advertise their products how they want being taken from them. Response to Opponent’s Critisism In response to the critique, paternalism would give the parent or guardian the power to decide on wheth

PLACE AN ORDER NOW

Subject:
Type:
Pages/Words:
	Single spaced
	approx 275 words per page
Urgency:
Level:
Currency:
Total Cost: