3 ms·
I haven't heard a good defense of tobacco producers. For decades they suppressed evidence that their product caused lung cancer, which seems a rather bad thing
by tlb 8y ago
I haven't heard a good defense of tobacco producers. For decades they suppressed evidence that their product caused lung cancer, which seems a rather bad thing to do. Even ultra-libertarians seem to agree that dangerous products should be labeled as to how dangerous they are, so that consumers can make an informed decision.
Can you summarize or link to an argument that tobacco producers did nothing wrong?
- robertAngst 8y agoCrazed libertarian an-cap here. When your product damages people, you should be responsible to label it as such. I'll even say the government was one of the reasons they have been immune up until the recent few decades.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoI don't think the solution is to ban tobacco/sugar/alcohol/weed/opioids/new-drug-of-the-day, and I honestly think they should all be legal. The plain packaging law instituted in Australia and other places is a good way to do it. Plainly state what product is inside the pack and the dangers it presents. No "hip" and enticing designs to lure the impressionable, but let people make an informed choice for themselves.
- TheCoelacanth 8y agoWhat would the average pay-to-win game look like without the hip packaging? Basically just a collection of buttons to click with cooldowns before you can click the button again and a way to pay to click it sooner?
- KozmoNau7 8y agoSomething like that, yeah. (I know you're being sarcastic) I'm not sure I buy the idea that pay-to-win games are anywhere near as addictive as tobacco or alcohol or opioids or similar substances.