3 ms·

But fewer people total would consume them, leading to less damage being done overall.

by derleth 14y ago

chmodd 14y ago
History disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...
- derleth 14y ago
  There was and is a major cultural demand for alcohol that just isn't there for supplements.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    This is apparently not the case, since a large number of people continue to purchase and consume supplements, and if the article is to be believed, this has resulted in providing the producers of those supplements with sufficient resources to successfully prevent their market from being suppressed by political activity, a feat which even the alcohol industry was unable to accomplish in 1919.
Gormo 14y ago
The 'damage' described in the article is the result of mis-labeled products being sold to unwary consumers, not of properly-informed consumers experiencing negative consequences of risk judgments that they've intentionally chosen to make. This kind of damage is more likely to occur in a black market setting, in which the protections of law are unavailable, than it is to occur in an open and above-board market, in which participants have recourse against such fraud. Consider also that suppressing supplements entirely also equally suppresses the benefit that consumers may enjoy from their use, and it's entirely plausible that the 'overall' reduction in benefit may exceed the 'overall' reduction in harm, so even if we were to use your purely utilitarian criterion as our only decision-making guide, such a policy might still be unjustified.
- derleth 14y ago
  > This kind of damage is more likely to occur in a black market setting But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand. Unless you can come up with a reason why supplements are similar enough to illegal drugs it wouldn't. > Consider also that suppressing supplements entirely also equally suppresses the benefit that consumers may enjoy from their use Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    > But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand It would reduce the expression of demand, certainly, but not the actual desires of individuals that produced that expression; or to put it another way, will reduce the fulfillment of demand while the underlying unfulfilled demand still exists. This yields a net reduction in total happiness, which is counter to your apparent utilitarian ethos. > Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all. Empirically? What does assessment of subjective value have to do with empirical data, apart from recognizing that individuals' subjective value empirically exists and is the source of demand? Apart from that, apart from your apparent utilitarianism - the criteria of which remain yet unsatisfied in this discussion - what's the moral basis your assertion that forcibly denying the extant happiness of many is justifiable in order to reduce the potential unhappiness of few, especially considering that the former is not strictly necessary in order to achieve the latter, and that forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience?
    - derleth 14y ago
      My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud. > forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience No. If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health. Supplement makers have been able to get around that very basic moral law using loopholes and bought-off politicians. I want an end to that.
      - 14y ago

But fewer people total would consume them, leading to less damage being done overall.

by derleth 14y ago

But fewer people total would consume them, leading to less damage being done overall.

History disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

derleth 14y ago
There was and is a major cultural demand for alcohol that just isn't there for supplements.
- Gormo 14y ago
  This is apparently not the case, since a large number of people continue to purchase and consume supplements, and if the article is to be believed, this has resulted in providing the producers of those supplements with sufficient resources to successfully prevent their market from being suppressed by political activity, a feat which even the alcohol industry was unable to accomplish in 1919.

Gormo 14y ago

The 'damage' described in the article is the result of mis-labeled products being sold to unwary consumers, not of properly-informed consumers experiencing negative consequences of risk judgments that they've intentionally chosen to make. This kind of damage is more likely to occur in a black market setting, in which the protections of law are unavailable, than it is to occur in an open and above-board market, in which participants have recourse against such fraud. Consider also that suppressing supplements entirely also equally suppresses the benefit that consumers may enjoy from their use, and it's entirely plausible that the 'overall' reduction in benefit may exceed the 'overall' reduction in harm, so even if we were to use your purely utilitarian criterion as our only decision-making guide, such a policy might still be unjustified.

derleth 14y ago
> This kind of damage is more likely to occur in a black market setting But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand. Unless you can come up with a reason why supplements are similar enough to illegal drugs it wouldn't. > Consider also that suppressing supplements entirely also equally suppresses the benefit that consumers may enjoy from their use Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all.
- Gormo 14y ago
  > But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand It would reduce the expression of demand, certainly, but not the actual desires of individuals that produced that expression; or to put it another way, will reduce the fulfillment of demand while the underlying unfulfilled demand still exists. This yields a net reduction in total happiness, which is counter to your apparent utilitarian ethos. > Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all. Empirically? What does assessment of subjective value have to do with empirical data, apart from recognizing that individuals' subjective value empirically exists and is the source of demand? Apart from that, apart from your apparent utilitarianism - the criteria of which remain yet unsatisfied in this discussion - what's the moral basis your assertion that forcibly denying the extant happiness of many is justifiable in order to reduce the potential unhappiness of few, especially considering that the former is not strictly necessary in order to achieve the latter, and that forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience?
  - derleth 14y ago
    My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud. > forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience No. If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health. Supplement makers have been able to get around that very basic moral law using loopholes and bought-off politicians. I want an end to that.
    - 14y ago