7 ms·

Ban [something] because it's not effective. Un-ban [something] because it's not really harmful and it's about choice of what I do with my body I never underst

by bko 10y ago

Ban [something] because it's not effective. Un-ban [something] because it's not really harmful and it's about choice of what I do with my body I never understood which someyhing to put in which category. Perhaps you can argue that no one gets any utility for the thing you want to ban since it's a fraud, but people are spending their money on that thing so surely they get some utility. Not really my place to say

manigandham 10y ago
People (in mass) are generally stupid and public good is something that needs to be carefully maintained. Much of our regulation is around maintaining a balance between freedom for an individual against the safety and peace for everyone. In this case, there is far more harm than good.
jcrites 10y ago
I think the first category is "ban something if it's ineffective and there's a tragedy of the commons from using it". Antibacterial soaps are probably not any more effective than regular soaps, but they might contribute to bacterial immunity (to antibacterials).
- bko 10y ago
  Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. Theres always a trade off , I just think that the bar to making something illegal should be higher.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Depends on whether one is thinking like a mountain or willing to be blind past the horizon of his or her own lifetime. Sometimes negative effects compound with time or, as jcrites noted, the negative effects of two people doing a thing is greater than 2x one person doing it.
  - nopinsight 10y ago
    There is likely negative externality to other people from its widespread use (more bacterial resistance), and the benefit is at most a placebo effect. Many users may not even care that much--it's just another optional checkbox at little extra cost. The manufacturers also fall into a prisoner's dilemma and cannot avoid offering it if a number of buyers are not aware of or care about externalities. Only the government can pull them out together. Should we allow smoking in most public places?
    - bko 10y ago
      > Should we allow smoking in most public places? I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay. It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.
      - nopinsight 10y ago
        The negative effects of smoking and drinking are fairly local. In this case, the question would be: Is it worth taking chances with multidrug resistance bacteria for this miniscule psychological benefit?
      - ideonexus 10y ago
        > I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay. For smoking in public places, I believe that falls in the same category covered by the quote, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." People smoking in restaurants, malls, and other public places aren't just hurting their own health, but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke. So no. Your right to slowly kill yourself with your addiction ends when you are in a public space and are slowly killing those around you. > I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them. They are a harm to those around them. That's why being drunk in public is against the law and drunk tanks get filled to the brim every Friday and Saturday night. Your right to be drunk ends the moment you endanger people in public spaces. Again, bacterial soaps fall under the same category. You want to use a product with absolutely no proven scientific benefit to yourself, but is scientifically proven to make bacteria more dangerous to those around you? Unacceptable, and since some companies and consumers are refusing to stop endangering public health, the law must step in to prevent your behavior from infringing on the rights of those around you to pursue happiness, which includes the pursuit of good health.
  - westward 10y ago
    It's unclear what your point is about alcohol and drugs which are highly regulated.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    >Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. There are also significant benefits to recreational drug use, especially alcohol. The same is not true of antibacterial soaps.
    - bko 10y ago
      But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        >But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. >You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social. You could, but you'd be ignoring the health benefits of certain patterns of consumption. What you can't do is argue that antibacterial soap has the same social and cultural significance as Chartreuse or Cognac, nor can you claim that there exists a mode of consumption for antibacterial soap that has net positive effects (outside of a hospital). Yes, it's a trade-off. We're on the same page. The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not.
        bko 10y ago
        > The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not. That's a value judgement. I would argue it does have a positive counterweight as people spend money to buy the product. That's pretty much the purpose of a market. To tease out the value people put in certain items and to direct resources into said products
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Not sure if you are serious, but markets don't work in the face of incomplete information, a state exacerbated by misleading advertising around antibacterial and germicidal products. Arguing that the market knows more than scientists about triclosan is...bizarre.
  - oxide 10y ago
    Recreational drug use and anti-bacterial soaps are a pretty poor comparison. Frankly, it's apples and oranges IMO.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Your alcohol use does not affect me. Your use of antibacterial chemicals does. That's the difference.
    - adrusi 10y ago
      More precisely When a drunk driver crashes their car, the total damage they're likely to cause to others is about equal to the total damage they'll cause to themselves. Sometimes they'll hit a family car and kill 3 people, more often they'll run into a tree and kill only themselves. It comes out pretty similarly if you look at other harm caused by alcohol. When you use antibacterial soap, you hurt everyone in the world equally. You hurt me as much as you hurt yourself, but you also hurt 7 billion other people. That means antibacterial soaps cause 7 billion times more damage to others than to oneself on average, while the ratio is about 1 for alcohol. So someone acting purely in self-interest will mediate their use of alcohol fairly effectively, while a self-interested antibacterial soap user won't mediate their use at all.
  - justinpombrio 10y ago
    Except that, unlike anti-bacterial soap, alcohol is quite effective at what it does. For a proper analogy, imagine that alcohol tasted like water and didn't really affect your mental state, but still had some harmful effect when used by large groups. Maybe now it seems more reasonable to ban?
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    Equating these two markets is a little unfair. One major thing is that if they banned recreational drugs people would be mad and would still want to use them where if they ban antibacterial soap no one is going to care. I think that's why drugs get a warning label and soap just gets banned, they could mandate a large warning label on antibacterial soap but that just seems strange to me and would probably lead to the same outcome as banning them anyway.
  - cwkoss 10y ago
    Recreational hand soap
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    What is the positive in this trade? Antibacterial soaps just plain do not work. The exposure time average seconds when it needs minutes to do the job. Triclosan has been linked with cancer. The ineffective usage makes bacteria more resistant. What is the upside? Corporate profit and marketing lies?
    - big_surprise 10y ago
      Scene: FDA officials appearance at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health) Representative 1: We've been following this antibacterial resistance case closely for a few years now. Every year, a greater number of my constituents have related to me the story of how they lost a loved-one due to MSRA - and staph infection, as I understand, isn't even the only thing that this, uhh, the resistance to bacteria dru--err- medications. So, as you know, we've asked you here today to better understand how we can plan to solve this looming crisis. What have you got for us? FDA1: Well, generally speaking, we've been working with a number of the same antibiotics that have been in use for many decades now. Their effectiveness has been continuously diminishing since the first introduction of each antibiotic. The general consensus here at the FDA is, we need to encourage the development and mass production of multiple new drugs to combat the inevitable growing resistance. REP2: And what is it that you mean by inevitable? FDA2: If I may field this question - what my colleague is referring to here is the fact that long-term exposure to specific antibiotics necessarily results in resistance to the same. REP3: So, you're talkin' about evolution here, right? Just so we're all on the same page. (Indistinguishable snickering throughout the room) FDA2: Ye-- That's one way to describe it. REP2: So what exactly is it that you need from us to enact your plan? FDA1: Well, that's why we came to you. You see, it's not a very lucrative business opportunity -- developing a new antibiotic. Our custo-- your constituents would have to buckle their belts a little, because we need at least $30 million more for our budget to be pumped into early research in the university system. (The whole crowd erupts in laughter!) REP1: Hahahaha! Tax reallocations in this political climate! Don't get me started... But we did tell you to give us your pie in the sky ideas first, so what else do you have for us today? FDA3: The abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry is not onl-- REP2: Oh no... We've been through this before. How else are we going to get chickens big enough to feed the world? FDA1: Well, there's an other option too. We could stop using antibacterial soaps more than necessary in hospitals, which as you know, are the hotbeds of new infe-- REP1: Let me stop you right there. Do you even have any idea as to how much we spent on the last - washing your hands saves lives - campaign? If our const-- your patients knew that you were just washing your hands with regular soap, do yo-- no. Not even an option. We don't want to call you here again for this same issue next year. FDA4: What if we just banned them for personal use? No one would be negatively affected, and it would appear to be a decisive action to solve the problem. REP1: That does sound reasonable... Any objections from the committee? REP4: No, I don't have any soap manufacturers in my state-- hahaaha REP1: Then a voiced vote shall suffice. All those in favor
gknoy 10y ago
> Ban [something] because it's not effective. In the case of antibacterial soap, it's somewhat harmful: those antibacterial chemicals get in the water supply, and exert extra evolutionary pressure on bacteria, leading to increased chance of resistant bacteria.
- bko 10y ago
  Some people enjoy using the product for whatever reason and spend their money on these products. Should we just ignore those preferences? Why are we so quick to disregard those preferences in some cases and not in others, such as recreational drug use?
  - fl0wenol 10y ago
    Some people are dumb. They also pay extra to buy shampoo with vitamins in it despite most of them knowing it does nothing. They just want an excuse to buy the more complex version of a banal product to exert some control over their banal lives. In this case, the FDA can exert some back-pressure because of the significant risk to developing resistant bacteria against the soap constituents, which are needed in medical settings, so they are. Unfortunately there isn't anything to do be done about rinsing vitamins down the shower drain. Not yet anyway.
  - Joof 10y ago
    Yes. The antibacterial claim is misleading because it's not actually more effective and is damaging to the environment. If homeopathy was damaging to the environment, you're damn right we should outlaw it. The whole purpose of the FDA is to evaluate these types of claims. They are doing their jobs properly.
    - bko 10y ago
      Not sure how it works in the country in which you reside, but homeopathy and ineffective alternative "medicines" are pretty much legal in the US. I would prefer not to go to some government agency to determine whether I can use a product unless it has grave dangers. I don't think antibacterial soap passes this bar. You could disagree
marcosdumay 10y ago
The soap is clearly on the "ban" side. But there is an intermediary category of "Ban the publicity of [something] because it's dishonest, don't ban [something] because it's about choice".
analog31 10y ago
Ban [something] because it's not effective. Sounds like the antibacterial soaps fall into this category. As I understand it, if a product makes a health or nutrition claim, then it falls under the purview of the FDA, and the FDA rule is that if you make a health claim, then it has to be proven effective.

by bko 10y ago

manigandham 10y ago

People (in mass) are generally stupid and public good is something that needs to be carefully maintained. Much of our regulation is around maintaining a balance between freedom for an individual against the safety and peace for everyone. In this case, there is far more harm than good.

jcrites 10y ago

I think the first category is "ban something if it's ineffective and there's a tragedy of the commons from using it". Antibacterial soaps are probably not any more effective than regular soaps, but they might contribute to bacterial immunity (to antibacterials).

bko 10y ago
Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. Theres always a trade off , I just think that the bar to making something illegal should be higher.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Depends on whether one is thinking like a mountain or willing to be blind past the horizon of his or her own lifetime. Sometimes negative effects compound with time or, as jcrites noted, the negative effects of two people doing a thing is greater than 2x one person doing it.
- nopinsight 10y ago
  There is likely negative externality to other people from its widespread use (more bacterial resistance), and the benefit is at most a placebo effect. Many users may not even care that much--it's just another optional checkbox at little extra cost. The manufacturers also fall into a prisoner's dilemma and cannot avoid offering it if a number of buyers are not aware of or care about externalities. Only the government can pull them out together. Should we allow smoking in most public places?
  - bko 10y ago
    > Should we allow smoking in most public places? I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay. It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.
    - nopinsight 10y ago
      The negative effects of smoking and drinking are fairly local. In this case, the question would be: Is it worth taking chances with multidrug resistance bacteria for this miniscule psychological benefit?
    - ideonexus 10y ago
      > I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay. For smoking in public places, I believe that falls in the same category covered by the quote, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." People smoking in restaurants, malls, and other public places aren't just hurting their own health, but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke. So no. Your right to slowly kill yourself with your addiction ends when you are in a public space and are slowly killing those around you. > I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them. They are a harm to those around them. That's why being drunk in public is against the law and drunk tanks get filled to the brim every Friday and Saturday night. Your right to be drunk ends the moment you endanger people in public spaces. Again, bacterial soaps fall under the same category. You want to use a product with absolutely no proven scientific benefit to yourself, but is scientifically proven to make bacteria more dangerous to those around you? Unacceptable, and since some companies and consumers are refusing to stop endangering public health, the law must step in to prevent your behavior from infringing on the rights of those around you to pursue happiness, which includes the pursuit of good health.
- westward 10y ago
  It's unclear what your point is about alcohol and drugs which are highly regulated.
- omginternets 10y ago
  >Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. There are also significant benefits to recreational drug use, especially alcohol. The same is not true of antibacterial soaps.
  - bko 10y ago
    But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      >But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. >You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social. You could, but you'd be ignoring the health benefits of certain patterns of consumption. What you can't do is argue that antibacterial soap has the same social and cultural significance as Chartreuse or Cognac, nor can you claim that there exists a mode of consumption for antibacterial soap that has net positive effects (outside of a hospital). Yes, it's a trade-off. We're on the same page. The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not.
      - bko 10y ago
        > The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not. That's a value judgement. I would argue it does have a positive counterweight as people spend money to buy the product. That's pretty much the purpose of a market. To tease out the value people put in certain items and to direct resources into said products
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Not sure if you are serious, but markets don't work in the face of incomplete information, a state exacerbated by misleading advertising around antibacterial and germicidal products. Arguing that the market knows more than scientists about triclosan is...bizarre.
- oxide 10y ago
  Recreational drug use and anti-bacterial soaps are a pretty poor comparison. Frankly, it's apples and oranges IMO.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Your alcohol use does not affect me. Your use of antibacterial chemicals does. That's the difference.
  - adrusi 10y ago
    More precisely When a drunk driver crashes their car, the total damage they're likely to cause to others is about equal to the total damage they'll cause to themselves. Sometimes they'll hit a family car and kill 3 people, more often they'll run into a tree and kill only themselves. It comes out pretty similarly if you look at other harm caused by alcohol. When you use antibacterial soap, you hurt everyone in the world equally. You hurt me as much as you hurt yourself, but you also hurt 7 billion other people. That means antibacterial soaps cause 7 billion times more damage to others than to oneself on average, while the ratio is about 1 for alcohol. So someone acting purely in self-interest will mediate their use of alcohol fairly effectively, while a self-interested antibacterial soap user won't mediate their use at all.
- justinpombrio 10y ago
  Except that, unlike anti-bacterial soap, alcohol is quite effective at what it does. For a proper analogy, imagine that alcohol tasted like water and didn't really affect your mental state, but still had some harmful effect when used by large groups. Maybe now it seems more reasonable to ban?
- tdb7893 10y ago
  Equating these two markets is a little unfair. One major thing is that if they banned recreational drugs people would be mad and would still want to use them where if they ban antibacterial soap no one is going to care. I think that's why drugs get a warning label and soap just gets banned, they could mandate a large warning label on antibacterial soap but that just seems strange to me and would probably lead to the same outcome as banning them anyway.
- cwkoss 10y ago
  Recreational hand soap
- chillwaves 10y ago
  What is the positive in this trade? Antibacterial soaps just plain do not work. The exposure time average seconds when it needs minutes to do the job. Triclosan has been linked with cancer. The ineffective usage makes bacteria more resistant. What is the upside? Corporate profit and marketing lies?
  - big_surprise 10y ago
    Scene: FDA officials appearance at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health) Representative 1: We've been following this antibacterial resistance case closely for a few years now. Every year, a greater number of my constituents have related to me the story of how they lost a loved-one due to MSRA - and staph infection, as I understand, isn't even the only thing that this, uhh, the resistance to bacteria dru--err- medications. So, as you know, we've asked you here today to better understand how we can plan to solve this looming crisis. What have you got for us? FDA1: Well, generally speaking, we've been working with a number of the same antibiotics that have been in use for many decades now. Their effectiveness has been continuously diminishing since the first introduction of each antibiotic. The general consensus here at the FDA is, we need to encourage the development and mass production of multiple new drugs to combat the inevitable growing resistance. REP2: And what is it that you mean by inevitable? FDA2: If I may field this question - what my colleague is referring to here is the fact that long-term exposure to specific antibiotics necessarily results in resistance to the same. REP3: So, you're talkin' about evolution here, right? Just so we're all on the same page. (Indistinguishable snickering throughout the room) FDA2: Ye-- That's one way to describe it. REP2: So what exactly is it that you need from us to enact your plan? FDA1: Well, that's why we came to you. You see, it's not a very lucrative business opportunity -- developing a new antibiotic. Our custo-- your constituents would have to buckle their belts a little, because we need at least $30 million more for our budget to be pumped into early research in the university system. (The whole crowd erupts in laughter!) REP1: Hahahaha! Tax reallocations in this political climate! Don't get me started... But we did tell you to give us your pie in the sky ideas first, so what else do you have for us today? FDA3: The abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry is not onl-- REP2: Oh no... We've been through this before. How else are we going to get chickens big enough to feed the world? FDA1: Well, there's an other option too. We could stop using antibacterial soaps more than necessary in hospitals, which as you know, are the hotbeds of new infe-- REP1: Let me stop you right there. Do you even have any idea as to how much we spent on the last - washing your hands saves lives - campaign? If our const-- your patients knew that you were just washing your hands with regular soap, do yo-- no. Not even an option. We don't want to call you here again for this same issue next year. FDA4: What if we just banned them for personal use? No one would be negatively affected, and it would appear to be a decisive action to solve the problem. REP1: That does sound reasonable... Any objections from the committee? REP4: No, I don't have any soap manufacturers in my state-- hahaaha REP1: Then a voiced vote shall suffice. All those in favor

gknoy 10y ago

> Ban [something] because it's not effective. In the case of antibacterial soap, it's somewhat harmful: those antibacterial chemicals get in the water supply, and exert extra evolutionary pressure on bacteria, leading to increased chance of resistant bacteria.

bko 10y ago
Some people enjoy using the product for whatever reason and spend their money on these products. Should we just ignore those preferences? Why are we so quick to disregard those preferences in some cases and not in others, such as recreational drug use?
- fl0wenol 10y ago
  Some people are dumb. They also pay extra to buy shampoo with vitamins in it despite most of them knowing it does nothing. They just want an excuse to buy the more complex version of a banal product to exert some control over their banal lives. In this case, the FDA can exert some back-pressure because of the significant risk to developing resistant bacteria against the soap constituents, which are needed in medical settings, so they are. Unfortunately there isn't anything to do be done about rinsing vitamins down the shower drain. Not yet anyway.
- Joof 10y ago
  Yes. The antibacterial claim is misleading because it's not actually more effective and is damaging to the environment. If homeopathy was damaging to the environment, you're damn right we should outlaw it. The whole purpose of the FDA is to evaluate these types of claims. They are doing their jobs properly.
  - bko 10y ago
    Not sure how it works in the country in which you reside, but homeopathy and ineffective alternative "medicines" are pretty much legal in the US. I would prefer not to go to some government agency to determine whether I can use a product unless it has grave dangers. I don't think antibacterial soap passes this bar. You could disagree

marcosdumay 10y ago

The soap is clearly on the "ban" side. But there is an intermediary category of "Ban the publicity of [something] because it's dishonest, don't ban [something] because it's about choice".

analog31 10y ago

Ban [something] because it's not effective. Sounds like the antibacterial soaps fall into this category. As I understand it, if a product makes a health or nutrition claim, then it falls under the purview of the FDA, and the FDA rule is that if you make a health claim, then it has to be proven effective.