4 ms·
> 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 judg
by 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 agoNot 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 agoMarkets 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 agoYes, 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.