7 ms·

This is an interesting challenge. I guess the best way I can put it would be: "That no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consu

This is an interesting challenge. I guess the best way I can put it would be: "That no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consuming whatever substance they so please." As a side tangent: Tennessee prevents the sale of raw milk. I can not go to a dairy farmer in TN, watch him produce a pail of milk, and pay him for the pleasure of considering that pail of milk to be mine. Why? This is probably the stupidest prohibition I have yet to see. If you want to prevent the general public from unwittingly consuming raw dairy, that makes sense. But why can I not purchase raw dairy that I know to be raw and produced in good condition? There is a work-around to this, where you are legally entitled to consume the dairy of any cow you own... and so some dairy farmers sell "shares" of their cow, which entitles you to its milk. I'm not wholly against such an arrangement but it does seem rather farcical in its mandatory character.

chongli 3y ago
It is pretty silly. They could solve the problem by imposing strict liability on dairy sales. If the farmer sells you a pail of raw milk and you get sick from drinking it, that farmer is liable for it, no waivers. This is often how other dangerous products such as fireworks are regulated. The liability is a cost of doing business.
- KingMachiavelli 3y ago
  Strict liability would always apply in that case, if you sell product X for the intent of purpose Y and doing Y with X causes injury then the seller of X is strictly liable. Strangely enough since raw milk is sold for "dog/animal use" that limits any liability for human consumption since it's explicitly sold for not human consumption.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    If I sell motorcycles for the purpose of motorcycling, and motorcycling carries a substantial risk of injury, am I strictly liable?
immibis 3y ago
Wish granted, but I just discovered a substance people can drink that sends them into a blind rage where they shoot everyone they can see for the next five hours, because it feels very good to them. People are getting addicted to the good feeling of shooting people while on stuff. Don't you think we should ban it?
- KAMSPioneer 3y ago
  Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. You could also easily just slap liability to the seller of known harmful substances (see the sibling to your comment) or enforce warning labels as on tobacco products (eg "this product makes you shoot people and shooting people will get your thrown in jail").
  - immibis 3y ago
    > Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. Wouldn't it be good to prevent the shootings before they happen?
    - KAMSPioneer 3y ago
      Sure it would. Ohhh, ya got me. But this thread is about how the cure is often worse than the disease with prohibition. See: 18th Amendment, War on Drugs. Concocting a hypothetical scenario where the drug is Disney-villian evil and enforcement is not an unmitigated disaster is hardly a decisive rhetorical victory, wouldn't you say?
      - immibis 3y ago
        It's a rhetorical victory against outright banning all prohibition of substances.
      - lucianbr 3y ago
        The proposed constitutional amendment would fail hard in the given hypothetical situation. There was no "often" or any other nuance in it. It _is_ a decisive rhetorical victory, even if you don't like it.
Jochim 3y ago
> But why can I not purchase raw dairy that I know to be raw and produced in good condition? Because the people selling it routinely lie about it's safety and health benefits as compared to pasteurised milk. I don't support that risk being put onto consumers who are intentionally misled by snake oil salesmen looking to benefit financially. https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.htm...
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  Could those consumers just go for pasteurized milk and let others have the choice they want?
  - Jochim 3y ago
    > Could those consumers just go for pasteurized milk and let others have the choice they want? People can have the choice they want. It requires that you shoulder the risk yourself, rather than having it pushed on you by someone who is financially benefitting from it. No, through painful experience we have arrived at a system where people can go to a store and purchase food without needing to develop the expertise and expend enough time to be reasonably confident that it won't kill them. For the same reasons we also restrict the sale of expired meat or adulterated baby formula.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  You didn't answer them. Why isn't the consumer allowed to make the decision for themselves. Yes there are liars and cheats out there as in everything. Why can't the consumer decide who is lying and who isn't and what is safe and what isnt
  - uoaei 3y ago
    What makes you think consumers have the bandwidth to do that for every single product they consume? What makes you think that requiring every single person does this contributes to a healthy economy? As a simple counterargument, how many children are you willing to let die due to contaminated raw milk in order for this absolute "freedom" to be honored, and what makes you think those values make sense at societal scales?
saghm 3y ago
Treating raw milk like a drug was the basis of a Portlandia sketch that was pretty amusing, but unfortunately I'm having trouble finding the entirety of it on youtube at the moment to link
pif 3y ago
> no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consuming whatever substance they so please Which is as stupid as it can get, unless you add the prescription that said adult must be the only one to bear the consequences of its consumption. You want to binge-drink every night? Sure, why not? Just make sure in advance that you won't come in contact with civilised people while intoxicated, and sign a statement releasing the society from any duty to assist you when your liver shuts down. Similar for lighter or heavier drugs. You want to smoke as a chimney? Damn, I'll fight with you to protect your right to fill your lungs with tar! Just don't go to the E.R. every time a small cold turns into a serious respiratory issue, and especially make sure you collect all the ashes and all the smoke, before they poison unwilling people.
- indigo945 3y ago
  But in the US, which does not have public healthcare, the burden "to bear the consequences of consumption" does already fall on the individual in those cases. This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking). Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.
  - pif 3y ago
    It's not only a matter of medical insurance: it's also, and most important, a matter of driving while intoxicated, or putting yourself into such miserable conditions that you will forget any human decency and commit petty and/or dangerous crimes to get your next dose.
    - knewter 3y ago
      What about putting yourself in such miserable conditions that you will forget human decency and commit the non-petty crime of violating everyone's constitutional rights?
smcin 3y ago
> "That no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consuming whatever substance they so please." That seems reckless, it includes medicines and pharmaceuticals, creatine, steroids, HGH, lip-fillers, stimulants... So either you effectively abolish the FDA and pharmacies, or downgrade them to mere advisories which people can ignore.
- throwawayadvsec 3y ago
  Cigarettes are killing more people than all the substances you mentioned. Also the fact that you include "creatine" among those substances is extremely ridiculous, creatine is available OTC and present in many foods, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Lip-fillers are not substances that you ingest or inject in your bloodstream, they're part of surgeries. The FDA should be here to say this is recommended for this and that purpose. Here are the recommended dosages. Not to forbid you from using something. Every dangerous substances should have warnings on them like "this could kill you/give you cancer/mental illnesses" or even "not meant for human consumption".
  - smcin 3y ago
    You're sidestepping grandparent's point about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. How would such a world work? Prescriptions would be pointless since consenting adults could just sell/trade them.
    - Amasuriel 3y ago
      The tone of your comment seems to indicate you think this is obviously a bad thing? Prescriptions would just be doctors recommendations in this case. There could still be mechanisms to softly encourage only this usage, like insurance only covering doctor prescribed drugs. Is your concern about painkiller addiction and abuse or about people hurting themselves by taking drugs without good understanding of them or something else?
    - throwawayadvsec 3y ago
      Prescriptions wouldn't be pointless. I can get access to any drugs on earth, I'm still not going to try any random unprescribed med for the fun of it. A prescription means your doctor said I think you need this, at this dosage, for this long. You can even get prescriptions for OTC stuff. A prescription isn't a way to allow you to take something, it's a way to tell you what your doctor thinks you need.
detourdog 3y ago
The raw milk debate is odd to me because we have factory food recalled all the time due to deaths. The factory food outbreaks cover a wider area than a raw milk dairy farm.

chongli 3y ago

It is pretty silly. They could solve the problem by imposing strict liability on dairy sales. If the farmer sells you a pail of raw milk and you get sick from drinking it, that farmer is liable for it, no waivers. This is often how other dangerous products such as fireworks are regulated. The liability is a cost of doing business.

KingMachiavelli 3y ago
Strict liability would always apply in that case, if you sell product X for the intent of purpose Y and doing Y with X causes injury then the seller of X is strictly liable. Strangely enough since raw milk is sold for "dog/animal use" that limits any liability for human consumption since it's explicitly sold for not human consumption.
- michaelt 3y ago
  If I sell motorcycles for the purpose of motorcycling, and motorcycling carries a substantial risk of injury, am I strictly liable?

immibis 3y ago

Wish granted, but I just discovered a substance people can drink that sends them into a blind rage where they shoot everyone they can see for the next five hours, because it feels very good to them. People are getting addicted to the good feeling of shooting people while on stuff. Don't you think we should ban it?

KAMSPioneer 3y ago
Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. You could also easily just slap liability to the seller of known harmful substances (see the sibling to your comment) or enforce warning labels as on tobacco products (eg "this product makes you shoot people and shooting people will get your thrown in jail").
- immibis 3y ago
  > Why? Shooting people is already super illegal. Wouldn't it be good to prevent the shootings before they happen?
  - KAMSPioneer 3y ago
    Sure it would. Ohhh, ya got me. But this thread is about how the cure is often worse than the disease with prohibition. See: 18th Amendment, War on Drugs. Concocting a hypothetical scenario where the drug is Disney-villian evil and enforcement is not an unmitigated disaster is hardly a decisive rhetorical victory, wouldn't you say?
    - immibis 3y ago
      It's a rhetorical victory against outright banning all prohibition of substances.
    - lucianbr 3y ago
      The proposed constitutional amendment would fail hard in the given hypothetical situation. There was no "often" or any other nuance in it. It _is_ a decisive rhetorical victory, even if you don't like it.

Jochim 3y ago

> But why can I not purchase raw dairy that I know to be raw and produced in good condition? Because the people selling it routinely lie about it's safety and health benefits as compared to pasteurised milk. I don't support that risk being put onto consumers who are intentionally misled by snake oil salesmen looking to benefit financially. https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.htm...

ajmurmann 3y ago
Could those consumers just go for pasteurized milk and let others have the choice they want?
- Jochim 3y ago
  > Could those consumers just go for pasteurized milk and let others have the choice they want? People can have the choice they want. It requires that you shoulder the risk yourself, rather than having it pushed on you by someone who is financially benefitting from it. No, through painful experience we have arrived at a system where people can go to a store and purchase food without needing to develop the expertise and expend enough time to be reasonably confident that it won't kill them. For the same reasons we also restrict the sale of expired meat or adulterated baby formula.
georgeplusplus 3y ago
You didn't answer them. Why isn't the consumer allowed to make the decision for themselves. Yes there are liars and cheats out there as in everything. Why can't the consumer decide who is lying and who isn't and what is safe and what isnt
- uoaei 3y ago
  What makes you think consumers have the bandwidth to do that for every single product they consume? What makes you think that requiring every single person does this contributes to a healthy economy? As a simple counterargument, how many children are you willing to let die due to contaminated raw milk in order for this absolute "freedom" to be honored, and what makes you think those values make sense at societal scales?

saghm 3y ago

Treating raw milk like a drug was the basis of a Portlandia sketch that was pretty amusing, but unfortunately I'm having trouble finding the entirety of it on youtube at the moment to link

pif 3y ago

> no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consuming whatever substance they so please Which is as stupid as it can get, unless you add the prescription that said adult must be the only one to bear the consequences of its consumption. You want to binge-drink every night? Sure, why not? Just make sure in advance that you won't come in contact with civilised people while intoxicated, and sign a statement releasing the society from any duty to assist you when your liver shuts down. Similar for lighter or heavier drugs. You want to smoke as a chimney? Damn, I'll fight with you to protect your right to fill your lungs with tar! Just don't go to the E.R. every time a small cold turns into a serious respiratory issue, and especially make sure you collect all the ashes and all the smoke, before they poison unwilling people.

indigo945 3y ago
But in the US, which does not have public healthcare, the burden "to bear the consequences of consumption" does already fall on the individual in those cases. This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking). Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.
- pif 3y ago
  It's not only a matter of medical insurance: it's also, and most important, a matter of driving while intoxicated, or putting yourself into such miserable conditions that you will forget any human decency and commit petty and/or dangerous crimes to get your next dose.
  - knewter 3y ago
    What about putting yourself in such miserable conditions that you will forget human decency and commit the non-petty crime of violating everyone's constitutional rights?

smcin 3y ago

> "That no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consuming whatever substance they so please." That seems reckless, it includes medicines and pharmaceuticals, creatine, steroids, HGH, lip-fillers, stimulants... So either you effectively abolish the FDA and pharmacies, or downgrade them to mere advisories which people can ignore.

throwawayadvsec 3y ago
Cigarettes are killing more people than all the substances you mentioned. Also the fact that you include "creatine" among those substances is extremely ridiculous, creatine is available OTC and present in many foods, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Lip-fillers are not substances that you ingest or inject in your bloodstream, they're part of surgeries. The FDA should be here to say this is recommended for this and that purpose. Here are the recommended dosages. Not to forbid you from using something. Every dangerous substances should have warnings on them like "this could kill you/give you cancer/mental illnesses" or even "not meant for human consumption".
- smcin 3y ago
  You're sidestepping grandparent's point about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. How would such a world work? Prescriptions would be pointless since consenting adults could just sell/trade them.
  - Amasuriel 3y ago
    The tone of your comment seems to indicate you think this is obviously a bad thing? Prescriptions would just be doctors recommendations in this case. There could still be mechanisms to softly encourage only this usage, like insurance only covering doctor prescribed drugs. Is your concern about painkiller addiction and abuse or about people hurting themselves by taking drugs without good understanding of them or something else?
  - throwawayadvsec 3y ago
    Prescriptions wouldn't be pointless. I can get access to any drugs on earth, I'm still not going to try any random unprescribed med for the fun of it. A prescription means your doctor said I think you need this, at this dosage, for this long. You can even get prescriptions for OTC stuff. A prescription isn't a way to allow you to take something, it's a way to tell you what your doctor thinks you need.

detourdog 3y ago

The raw milk debate is odd to me because we have factory food recalled all the time due to deaths. The factory food outbreaks cover a wider area than a raw milk dairy farm.