5 ms·

Alcohol causes cancer, should we reenact prohibition? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. Should we ban water? Nothing in this world is truly free of all

Alcohol causes cancer, should we reenact prohibition? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. Should we ban water? Nothing in this world is truly free of all risk. We have to make judgement calls with every single substance. Yes, coloring food is a legitimate use with real benefits that we need to weigh against the risks. And we also need to consider the very real costs of enforcement and burden of compliance. Bans are an extreme option that does not come without costs for the government and society.

roboror 2y ago
Obviously the problem is that Red no3 is so prevalent and completely unregulated. Alcohol is sold separately and ID is needed to purchase and isn't added to children's food. If the dye was only sold separately in bottles this debate wouldn't be happening. The water thing is even more unserious so I'll ignore it.
interludead 2y ago
The difference, I think, is that alcohol is a choice. But having a potentially dangerous dye in a pill you're forced to take is not.
- apwell23 2y ago
  > alcohol is a choice. Thousands of ppl die every year from being other end of DUI. I didn't choose to be on the road with ppl who choose to drink. It was forced on me.
  - interludead 2y ago
    That’s another perspective on alcohol usage
someothherguyy 2y ago
This is a silly argument that is often made. Everyone knows alcohol is a toxin. It is regulated. You have to be of certain age to buy it. It isn't normally in things you consume daily as a secondary ingredient in doses that would be harmful. You can taste it if it is. If you cannot taste it, you can recognize the effects from drinking it. The dose makes the poison with any substance, that is a base tenant of toxicology. Not many people are unintentionally poisoning themselves with water. Food and drug regulations save lives. If you want to argue against them, please at least do so in a manner that doesn't rely on absurdist examples.
- apwell23 2y ago
  Its regulation has nothing to do with its cancer causing properties. Why are you even bringing that irrelevant point here? Who is being absurd now?
  - skeaker 2y ago
    > Its regulation has nothing to do with its cancer causing properties. Only because that's so far down on the list of immediate issues it causes.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    I am not sure you understood my comment. I wasn't calling anyone absurd, and I was using the fact that it is regulated to reinforce the idea that it is a known toxin.
    - apwell23 2y ago
      Alcohol being regulated has nothing to do with it being a "known toxin".
      - someothherguyy 2y ago
        Yeah, it does.
        apwell23 2y ago
        no it doesn't.

roboror 2y ago

Obviously the problem is that Red no3 is so prevalent and completely unregulated. Alcohol is sold separately and ID is needed to purchase and isn't added to children's food. If the dye was only sold separately in bottles this debate wouldn't be happening. The water thing is even more unserious so I'll ignore it.

interludead 2y ago

The difference, I think, is that alcohol is a choice. But having a potentially dangerous dye in a pill you're forced to take is not.

apwell23 2y ago
> alcohol is a choice. Thousands of ppl die every year from being other end of DUI. I didn't choose to be on the road with ppl who choose to drink. It was forced on me.
- interludead 2y ago
  That’s another perspective on alcohol usage

someothherguyy 2y ago

This is a silly argument that is often made. Everyone knows alcohol is a toxin. It is regulated. You have to be of certain age to buy it. It isn't normally in things you consume daily as a secondary ingredient in doses that would be harmful. You can taste it if it is. If you cannot taste it, you can recognize the effects from drinking it. The dose makes the poison with any substance, that is a base tenant of toxicology. Not many people are unintentionally poisoning themselves with water. Food and drug regulations save lives. If you want to argue against them, please at least do so in a manner that doesn't rely on absurdist examples.

apwell23 2y ago
Its regulation has nothing to do with its cancer causing properties. Why are you even bringing that irrelevant point here? Who is being absurd now?
- skeaker 2y ago
  > Its regulation has nothing to do with its cancer causing properties. Only because that's so far down on the list of immediate issues it causes.
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  I am not sure you understood my comment. I wasn't calling anyone absurd, and I was using the fact that it is regulated to reinforce the idea that it is a known toxin.
  - apwell23 2y ago
    Alcohol being regulated has nothing to do with it being a "known toxin".
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      Yeah, it does.
      - apwell23 2y ago
        no it doesn't.