If It's So Harmful, Why Isn't It Banned?
Aug 22, 2026
-
I saw a reel. The old interview of Shah Rukh Khan is going around again, and it's worth sitting with.
Talking about endorsing products people call harmful, he said something blunt: if you think something is genuinely wrong, ban it. Don't leave it legal, collect the tax revenue from it, and then turn around and blame the actor for making a living off an ad.
It's a fair point. And it's also not the whole point.
Because "it's legal" has never meant "it's harmless." Alcohol is legal. So is sugar. So are a dozen things sold to us every day with a straight face and a smiling celebrity attached. Legality tells you what the state has chosen not to prosecute. It says nothing about what's actually good for the person consuming it.
So who actually owns the responsibility here? The government, for allowing the product to exist and profiting from it? The company, for manufacturing something it knows causes harm? Or the face on the poster, lending their trust and reach to sell it?
My honest take it's not one of them. It's all three, and each one uses the other two as cover. The government points to personal choice. The brand points to legality. The celebrity points to the government. Round and round, and the only person left holding the actual harm is the consumer who trusted the face on the poster.
Maybe the real question isn't who's to blame. It's why we're comfortable with an entire system where everyone gets to say "not me."