3 ms·

>Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. There are also significant benefits to recreational drug use, especial

>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.
      - bko 10y ago
        Markets and prices exist precisely due to imperfect information. Do you know all the resources that go into making a product? Probably not. This is pretty basic economics: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/the_power_of_prices http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/the_powe...
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Yes, it was meant as a value judgement, and this brings us back to the original point: the reason we as a society ban antibacterial soap and not Elijah Craig is because we value the latter for cultural and social reasons. This value judgement is reflected in our laws. It's a feature, not a bug. I don't get it. Don't you want to prevent epidemics of incurable diseases and enjoy a beer? I mean no disrespect but I don't understand what's so shocking or surprising about these laws.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  People also spend millions every year on a regulatory apparatus to help identify and address tragedies of the commons and other threats that each person, individually, would be ill-equipped to address on their own.
- khedoros 10y ago
  > But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit A psychological one, sure. They perceive that they're getting a health benefit (whether or not they actually are), so the money seems worth it. But the evidence is that it doesn't actually get your hands cleaner than non-antibacterial soap and that it may contribute to creating stronger bacteria. The FDA's judgement is that the downsides outweigh the upsides. I tend to agree.

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.
    - bko 10y ago
      Markets and prices exist precisely due to imperfect information. Do you know all the resources that go into making a product? Probably not. This is pretty basic economics: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/the_power_of_prices http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/the_powe...
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Yes, it was meant as a value judgement, and this brings us back to the original point: the reason we as a society ban antibacterial soap and not Elijah Craig is because we value the latter for cultural and social reasons. This value judgement is reflected in our laws. It's a feature, not a bug. I don't get it. Don't you want to prevent epidemics of incurable diseases and enjoy a beer? I mean no disrespect but I don't understand what's so shocking or surprising about these laws.
snowwrestler 10y ago
People also spend millions every year on a regulatory apparatus to help identify and address tragedies of the commons and other threats that each person, individually, would be ill-equipped to address on their own.
khedoros 10y ago
> But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit A psychological one, sure. They perceive that they're getting a health benefit (whether or not they actually are), so the money seems worth it. But the evidence is that it doesn't actually get your hands cleaner than non-antibacterial soap and that it may contribute to creating stronger bacteria. The FDA's judgement is that the downsides outweigh the upsides. I tend to agree.