4 ms·

"I have no idea why" seems like a good place to start doing some research. In short (and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread), "the soap you choose to buy" ma

by jowiar 10y ago

"I have no idea why" seems like a good place to start doing some research. In short (and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread), "the soap you choose to buy" may affect the ecosystem we live in. In particular, the bacteria that may infect us. When products on the market cause a public health concern, it is absolutely within the purview of government to regulate said products.

Lawtonfogle 10y ago
What about all the pain caused by alcohol? From liver damage to its use as a date rape drug to drunk driving. The liver damage is personal, so that might get a pass, but the rest hurts people who don't choose to drink. Is there evidence showing antibacterial soap does more harm than alcoholic drinks?
- jowiar 10y ago
  Well, with alcohol, we tried (and largely for the reasons you mentioned). On net, the effects caused by the abolition of alcohol (and probably other drugs) were arguably worse than the effects caused by its existence. In particular, demand for (and use of) alcohol didn't disappear, and thus black markets + organized crime thrive, which cause problems worse than the original problem. I'm highly skeptical that if antibacterial soap were banned, demand would drive a a black market. People are far more aware of and particular about their Shiraz and Saison (and the intoxicating effects thereof) than their Softsoap's antimicrobial properties.
- wfo 10y ago
  This analogy is not a good one. None of the alcohol-related effects fall into "tragedy of the commons" territory the way creating antibiotic-resistant super germs does. Liver damage is a person harming themselves by their own choice. Drunk driving is a collection of specific instances of a person breaking the law and taking action which will cause direct harm to another. Alcohol as date rape is just a non sequitur designed to be incendiary. It only effects people who drink and, again, is just a person using alcohol to aid them in committing a crime. Commonly available antibacterial hand soap hurts everyone even if you are using it reasonably, legally, and responsibly. The harm to the commons is directly proportional to the quantity of it that is used in the normal, reasonable way by everyone. Alcohol is not great for "society" because it increases the likelihood people will make bad decisions, and can cause specific health problems for the people who choose to use it. This is akin to emissions standards, which I assume you oppose as well? Saying you are comparing apples and oranges wouldn't be accurate, because at least apples and oranges are both foods.
- nzp 10y ago
  Alcohol is completely irrelevant in relation to this issue. You don't not fix things just to stay superficially consistent. What you're proposing would be like refusing to fix a particular bug because there's another bug report open that is considered (for whatever reason) not as important.

by jowiar 10y ago

Lawtonfogle 10y ago

What about all the pain caused by alcohol? From liver damage to its use as a date rape drug to drunk driving. The liver damage is personal, so that might get a pass, but the rest hurts people who don't choose to drink. Is there evidence showing antibacterial soap does more harm than alcoholic drinks?

jowiar 10y ago
Well, with alcohol, we tried (and largely for the reasons you mentioned). On net, the effects caused by the abolition of alcohol (and probably other drugs) were arguably worse than the effects caused by its existence. In particular, demand for (and use of) alcohol didn't disappear, and thus black markets + organized crime thrive, which cause problems worse than the original problem. I'm highly skeptical that if antibacterial soap were banned, demand would drive a a black market. People are far more aware of and particular about their Shiraz and Saison (and the intoxicating effects thereof) than their Softsoap's antimicrobial properties.
wfo 10y ago
This analogy is not a good one. None of the alcohol-related effects fall into "tragedy of the commons" territory the way creating antibiotic-resistant super germs does. Liver damage is a person harming themselves by their own choice. Drunk driving is a collection of specific instances of a person breaking the law and taking action which will cause direct harm to another. Alcohol as date rape is just a non sequitur designed to be incendiary. It only effects people who drink and, again, is just a person using alcohol to aid them in committing a crime. Commonly available antibacterial hand soap hurts everyone even if you are using it reasonably, legally, and responsibly. The harm to the commons is directly proportional to the quantity of it that is used in the normal, reasonable way by everyone. Alcohol is not great for "society" because it increases the likelihood people will make bad decisions, and can cause specific health problems for the people who choose to use it. This is akin to emissions standards, which I assume you oppose as well? Saying you are comparing apples and oranges wouldn't be accurate, because at least apples and oranges are both foods.
nzp 10y ago
Alcohol is completely irrelevant in relation to this issue. You don't not fix things just to stay superficially consistent. What you're proposing would be like refusing to fix a particular bug because there's another bug report open that is considered (for whatever reason) not as important.