4 ms·

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 user

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.
  - hga 10y ago
    but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Me, I'm in a funny place, since I have serious allergies and cigarette smoke (but only that in this area, not e.g. pipe tobacco smoke) is a severe problem for me, the sort of thing that for the last 2 decades can push me over into a sinus infection, when I'm exposed to it I bag my clothing and take a shower and wash my hair, etc. And we can be sure there are many others for whom it is also bad. On the other hand, I can choose not to patronize a restaurant, that's getting to a level I'm uncomfortable with, for we know the extremes of the anti-smoking crusaders: echoing another comment I've made here, was all this worth killing Eric Garner? Because I'm glad I don't have any of his blood on my hands....
    - omginternets 10y ago
      >Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Could you elaborate? What did they do?
      - hga 10y ago
        The usual data massaging wasn't enough, like ignoring 19 of the 30 existing studies as of then, so they changed the confidence level required from the standard 95% to 90%. Look up commentary on their 1993 "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" for more details.
bsder 10y ago
> Should we allow smoking in most public places? I'm actually glad you mentioned this because it's a very similar problem--a complete lack of market choice. The big economic problem with smoking was the fact that smokers spend money--a LOT of money. Smokers spend so much more money than non-smokers that no business was ever willing to be non-smoking and consequently there was no choice. This was similar with respect to anti-bacterial soaps. It was almost impossible to find one that wasn't anti-bacterial because the anti-bacterials sold so much better. Side note: Ivory was one of the few that still produced a hand soap without an anti-bacterial. It's often very hard to find on a retail shelf.

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.
- hga 10y ago
  but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Me, I'm in a funny place, since I have serious allergies and cigarette smoke (but only that in this area, not e.g. pipe tobacco smoke) is a severe problem for me, the sort of thing that for the last 2 decades can push me over into a sinus infection, when I'm exposed to it I bag my clothing and take a shower and wash my hair, etc. And we can be sure there are many others for whom it is also bad. On the other hand, I can choose not to patronize a restaurant, that's getting to a level I'm uncomfortable with, for we know the extremes of the anti-smoking crusaders: echoing another comment I've made here, was all this worth killing Eric Garner? Because I'm glad I don't have any of his blood on my hands....
  - omginternets 10y ago
    >Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Could you elaborate? What did they do?
    - hga 10y ago
      The usual data massaging wasn't enough, like ignoring 19 of the 30 existing studies as of then, so they changed the confidence level required from the standard 95% to 90%. Look up commentary on their 1993 "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" for more details.

bsder 10y ago

> Should we allow smoking in most public places? I'm actually glad you mentioned this because it's a very similar problem--a complete lack of market choice. The big economic problem with smoking was the fact that smokers spend money--a LOT of money. Smokers spend so much more money than non-smokers that no business was ever willing to be non-smoking and consequently there was no choice. This was similar with respect to anti-bacterial soaps. It was almost impossible to find one that wasn't anti-bacterial because the anti-bacterials sold so much better. Side note: Ivory was one of the few that still produced a hand soap without an anti-bacterial. It's often very hard to find on a retail shelf.