2 ms·

I mean, can't you take this to the extreme and see why it is a bad point of view. Anything is sell-able as long as we slap a warning label on it. That seems l

by diob 3y ago

I mean, can't you take this to the extreme and see why it is a bad point of view. Anything is sell-able as long as we slap a warning label on it. That seems like a recipe for disaster, right? We sold a highly radioactive substance to Jim, and endanger more than Jim. Consequences are often far beyond the individual, and I think folks believe they're too smart to get caught in the fallout of someone else's decisions. Oops, Karen from HR brought in deadly nightshade muffins to share ("small amounts are said to be good for the liver, I heard it on my favorite podcast!"). There's a middle ground here, where if it's dangerous enough, we don't allow it to be sold. It's not one way or the other. That's dangerous thinking in and of itself.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> We sold a highly radioactive substance to Jim, and endanger more than Jim. Gasoline + air is a high explosive. Most fluids at a hardware store are poisonous and some of them taste sweet. The MSDS for the things under your sink will tell you all the ways they can destroy you. You can have hydrofluoric acid send to your front door. It can kill someone if you spill it on them, but it also has legitimate uses and is such a simple compound that there is no point in prohibiting it because anyone can make it themselves. Dangerous things are widely available and everywhere and it's rarely a problem. > Oops, Karen from HR brought in deadly nightshade muffins to share ("small amounts are said to be good for the liver, I heard it on my favorite podcast!"). https://www.amazon.com/Belladonna-Seeds-Atropa-belladonna-Flower/dp/B07CRXCV3D/ https://www.amazon.com/Belladonna-Seeds-Atropa-belladonna-Fl... > There's a middle ground here, where if it's dangerous enough, we don't allow it to be sold. Many of the things all around us are even more dangerous than the things that have been banned. If you ask someone to choose a central example of things they think should be banned, they'll often start with military explosives like C-4. Military explosives are designed to be stable. You have to use a blasting cap to set them off because the last thing you want is unintentional detonation. If you fill your house with propane or natural gas, the slightest spark from anything will vaporize the entire building and everyone inside. Natural gas is dramatically more dangerous than C-4. But C-4 is scarier because Hollywood shows it being used in a different context, and that's how politics decides what's banned. And once you get into the banning things business (because you have to ban C-4, don't you?), people relentlessly want to add more things to the list. Which doesn't happen in any more principled a way.
- diob 3y ago
  I think you missed the point. All of those things are sold to do the purpose they're meant for. Someone isn't telling folks to drink gasoline. Actually someone probably is. . . Most would assume a supplement is safe. If it isn't, we shouldn't be allowing advertisers to lie. Everything you mentioned is upfront about purpose, it doesn't mislead people to use it in a dangerous way. I'd be okay with the FDA allowing dangerous things to be sold, so long as the product explicitly said it was dangerous and not to be used in anything other than the proper way.

by diob 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> We sold a highly radioactive substance to Jim, and endanger more than Jim. Gasoline + air is a high explosive. Most fluids at a hardware store are poisonous and some of them taste sweet. The MSDS for the things under your sink will tell you all the ways they can destroy you. You can have hydrofluoric acid send to your front door. It can kill someone if you spill it on them, but it also has legitimate uses and is such a simple compound that there is no point in prohibiting it because anyone can make it themselves. Dangerous things are widely available and everywhere and it's rarely a problem. > Oops, Karen from HR brought in deadly nightshade muffins to share ("small amounts are said to be good for the liver, I heard it on my favorite podcast!"). https://www.amazon.com/Belladonna-Seeds-Atropa-belladonna-Flower/dp/B07CRXCV3D/ https://www.amazon.com/Belladonna-Seeds-Atropa-belladonna-Fl... > There's a middle ground here, where if it's dangerous enough, we don't allow it to be sold. Many of the things all around us are even more dangerous than the things that have been banned. If you ask someone to choose a central example of things they think should be banned, they'll often start with military explosives like C-4. Military explosives are designed to be stable. You have to use a blasting cap to set them off because the last thing you want is unintentional detonation. If you fill your house with propane or natural gas, the slightest spark from anything will vaporize the entire building and everyone inside. Natural gas is dramatically more dangerous than C-4. But C-4 is scarier because Hollywood shows it being used in a different context, and that's how politics decides what's banned. And once you get into the banning things business (because you have to ban C-4, don't you?), people relentlessly want to add more things to the list. Which doesn't happen in any more principled a way.

diob 3y ago
I think you missed the point. All of those things are sold to do the purpose they're meant for. Someone isn't telling folks to drink gasoline. Actually someone probably is. . . Most would assume a supplement is safe. If it isn't, we shouldn't be allowing advertisers to lie. Everything you mentioned is upfront about purpose, it doesn't mislead people to use it in a dangerous way. I'd be okay with the FDA allowing dangerous things to be sold, so long as the product explicitly said it was dangerous and not to be used in anything other than the proper way.