4 ms·

Thanks for this interesting counter argument (and for the upvote, although the effect was quite short - I guess there are more emotional than rational voters).

by guylhem 13y ago

Thanks for this interesting counter argument (and for the upvote, although the effect was quite short - I guess there are more emotional than rational voters). It is quite valid - if we have a strong suspicion on something, it could be helpful to give a shot. I'm just concerned we don't know how strong our suspicion is, which turns that into a bet (more on that later) The real problem IMHO is that this bet will certainly prevent or stall proper studies for a long time afterwards. Take for example LSD - there are many results suggesting it might be effective on depression. Yet it was banned, which means once we have the technology to conduct a real large scale study, we may not have enough data points as we would have if it had not been banned (thanks to recreational users) I mean, it is not ethical to willfully expose human to known dangerous drugs, yet if they take it wilfully by themselves or by mistake, it's a great source of data: for example, pharmacovigilence collects accidental use of drugs by pregnant mothers to guesstimate the toxicity on the fetus or the LD50 on humans) This is just an example, but you can see how it might scale, basically we are taking bets, and it hampers research. Also, it is quite philosophical. Personally, I'm against coffee due to its addictive potential and it's social image, yet it would be wrong for me to say there are no positive outcomes linked to it, or that on average it might have positive health benefit. I just don't know. There are many contradictions and I remember reading an article on how there seems to be time trends in negative or positive studies result, with an oscillation. (which would suggest that our research results are biaised by our perception) An outright ban on caffeine, like on LSD, even if it might be a) coherent with my refusal, and b) more comfortable to me since I know I wouldn't be accidentally exposed to coffee (ex: in a soda), would certainly hamper further research, which would be detrimental if there was after all a positive health benefit on average - ie it would deprive me of future data which could help me change my mind. IMHO, with bad data, taking bet with one's health is acceptable (if at no cost for the health system). Taking bets with the other people health - aka banning or mandating, is wrong. EDIT: I just noticed your answer. Sorry if I improperly stated my intend. The goal was not to enter into a philosophical debate, but to have counter arguments. I am interested in either proving or disproving my thoughts - both are fine. Therefore, to avoid sparking a debate, I will not reply to your comment. Your answer however was very helpful and helped me clarify my thoughts. I agree with your points. Thanks a lot, thanks also for telling me your position and your data on coffee. For my position on coffee, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632696 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632995 - I'd rather not say more, or a coffee fanboy may start a debate.

srl 13y ago
Oh man, a philosophical/ethical rabbit hole! Down we go... > I mean, it is not ethical to willfully expose human to known dangerous drugs, yet if they take it wilfully by themselves or by mistake, it's a great source of data: for example, pharmacovigilence collects accidental use of drugs by pregnant mothers to guesstimate the toxicity on the fetus or the LD50 on humans) The issue at hand isn't the subject's consent, I assume - the issue is our act of encouraging an individual to do something that might be harmful. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong with performing studies on heroin use, as long as the appropriate warning labels were affixed. (I'm just assuming you're not a hard-core libertarian. If you are: just have a private company enforce the ban, and all will be well ;P ) I think, though, that it's also unethical to allow /others/ to knowingly encourage an individual to do something harmful. I recognize this is pretty controversial (if I were religious, I'd be a pain in the ass), but it means that if we are reasonably certain that item X is harmful, banning or restricting advertising is a must. I also think it's ethically preferred to, where feasible act to discourage others (without coercion) from doing things harmful to themselves. Government- and charity-run nutrition programs, PSAs, etc. That's our ethical dilemma, I guess, or at least mine. On the one hand, long-term scientific knowledge may be more rich and valuable if nothing is done. On the other, there is a moral imperative to take actions which might limit that long-term knowledge. I'm inclined to assert, boldly and without factual basis, that there will be "enough" people who disregard the advertisements and PSAs, that scientists won't be much bothered by the missing data. Remember it's not like LSD; we're not banning the substance, just the encouragement. People smoke plenty of cigs, even though they're not advertised (and there's abundant negative advertising). (By the way, I'm also very against coffee, having bad personal experiences with an individual who's behavior was/is noticeably negatively affected by the stuff. I'd support normalizing drug laws by lumping hyper-junk foods, caffeine, alcohol, cigs, pot, and other mildly harmful items of varying addictiveness into one big "restricted advertising" category, and using the taxes to send out occasional PSAs.)

by guylhem 13y ago

srl 13y ago

Oh man, a philosophical/ethical rabbit hole! Down we go... > I mean, it is not ethical to willfully expose human to known dangerous drugs, yet if they take it wilfully by themselves or by mistake, it's a great source of data: for example, pharmacovigilence collects accidental use of drugs by pregnant mothers to guesstimate the toxicity on the fetus or the LD50 on humans) The issue at hand isn't the subject's consent, I assume - the issue is our act of encouraging an individual to do something that might be harmful. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong with performing studies on heroin use, as long as the appropriate warning labels were affixed. (I'm just assuming you're not a hard-core libertarian. If you are: just have a private company enforce the ban, and all will be well ;P ) I think, though, that it's also unethical to allow /others/ to knowingly encourage an individual to do something harmful. I recognize this is pretty controversial (if I were religious, I'd be a pain in the ass), but it means that if we are reasonably certain that item X is harmful, banning or restricting advertising is a must. I also think it's ethically preferred to, where feasible act to discourage others (without coercion) from doing things harmful to themselves. Government- and charity-run nutrition programs, PSAs, etc. That's our ethical dilemma, I guess, or at least mine. On the one hand, long-term scientific knowledge may be more rich and valuable if nothing is done. On the other, there is a moral imperative to take actions which might limit that long-term knowledge. I'm inclined to assert, boldly and without factual basis, that there will be "enough" people who disregard the advertisements and PSAs, that scientists won't be much bothered by the missing data. Remember it's not like LSD; we're not banning the substance, just the encouragement. People smoke plenty of cigs, even though they're not advertised (and there's abundant negative advertising). (By the way, I'm also very against coffee, having bad personal experiences with an individual who's behavior was/is noticeably negatively affected by the stuff. I'd support normalizing drug laws by lumping hyper-junk foods, caffeine, alcohol, cigs, pot, and other mildly harmful items of varying addictiveness into one big "restricted advertising" category, and using the taxes to send out occasional PSAs.)