The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 02-08-2012, 01:10 PM   #11
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
It's quite possible that Lamp thinks raw milk is more dangerous than you do, or otherwise not worth the risks over pasteurized milk, and that tobacco or hfcs aren't. I'm not sure it's fair to equate the three out-of-hand.
HFCS I'll give you, it's harder for some people to see and acknowledge long-term health effects. But it would be impossible to look at the number of people sickened by contaminated raw milk, compared to the number of people killed each day by tobacco use, and conclude that raw milk is more dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
why not add cocaine or heroin to that list? What about toxic wormwood absinthe (as opposed to less-toxic proper absinthe)? What about toys made with lead (even labeled)? (maybe you think we SHOULD legalize and regulate those, fine - surely there's SOMETHING you think we shouldn't offer)
I'd be fine with legalizing cocaine and heroin, within the same regulated framework as all other medicines. Many countries have done fine with it. And like Zen said, if there's a demand for wormwood-absinthe, I'm fine with people buying it, as long as it is properly labeled, and those with the certified non-toxic label are held to an agreed-on standard of nontoxicity. There isn't a demand for toys made with lead, but if there were, then sure, label that shit up and down and let people buy it. You can go to any sporting goods store today and buy large quantities of lead in the form of fishing lures, and you can take your kid fishing with them.

The problem is when people lie about the contents of their products, not when they sell a legitimate product to the people who are informed of the contents and want to buy them anyway. And when people use products to directly harm or otherwise infringe on the rights of others, in which case the full extent of the law should be used against them. Regulation is key, but no, at the moment I can't think of a product that should be banned on its face.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.