Theres no realistic reason cigarettes should be sold to anyone, ever - but the government (in Australia where I am at least) have put the warnings out there and if people choose to still smoke, despite the packets themselves graphically showing someone with gangrenous toes, then shouldn’t that be up to the individual?
Neither is healthy for you, but neither is going to kill you outright in small amounts. So heavily regulated and limited to adults is fine as long as the companies aren’t allowed to outright lie about their products like cigarette companies used to do. Those are basically on par with eating excessive amounts of unhealthy food when consumed in small quantities.
By safe I’m referring to things like food that isn’t going to kill you in the short term because it is spoiled, toxic, has harmful additives. You know, the things that lead to food regulation agencies that keep companies from selling rotten meat or food with lead intentionally added for flavor.
I’m not saying government shouldn’t regulate safety - but that if something is safe for consumption it shouldn’t be banned, like the original posts example of meat.
I like the government to force companies to meet certain regulations for production of various food items so that they’re safe for everyone, but then let me pick at the grocery store from what’s then produced.
It’s a harsh quote, but it gets the point across: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” Carlin was right, and it applies here. Sure, half of us may be able to adequately identify what we should and shouldn’t eat, but there is another half that can’t. With proper education we can change that, but right now corporations educate better through commercials than schools do through lectures. We have to maintain oversight because the evil of capitalism will choose profit over people every time.
without relevant regulations, though, you won’t know what you shouldn’t eat because you won’t know that they’re putting sawdust in peanutbutter or borax and fermheldahyde in milk.
Maybe it’d be okay to have plaster of paris in flour, though. I mean, how else are you supposed to sculpt that Italian loaf like the french baguette?
Don’t be fooled. The people screaming about unpastureized milk and other things are being used so corporations can go back to poisoning you with shit. and that’s pretty much the most charitable I can be of that particular lot.
I feel a reply I made to someone else addresses my side of this:
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
I feel those examples are less about eating the meat (well, aside from all the issues that come with eating humans) and more about preventing them becoming meat in the first place - but yes, with everything theres nuance and outliers, but as a general I’d say that if people know what they’re eating and know the risks, and what they do doesn’t pose risk to others then let them eat whatever it is they’re eating…
I’m gonna paste in a reply I made to another comment which I think will answer my view on this
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
No. The government should absolutely enforce correct labelling on anything a person is to consume.
Like cigarettes in Australia, if the consumable poses a health risk that too should be labelled clearly.
I’d like the government to suggest things, and point to the science on things, but to leave the informed choice ultimately up to me.
I want them to deny bad actors the ability to sell dangerous foods on the open market.
Informed choice should be between safe products.
Whats your stance on cigarettes and alcohol?
Theres no realistic reason cigarettes should be sold to anyone, ever - but the government (in Australia where I am at least) have put the warnings out there and if people choose to still smoke, despite the packets themselves graphically showing someone with gangrenous toes, then shouldn’t that be up to the individual?
Neither is healthy for you, but neither is going to kill you outright in small amounts. So heavily regulated and limited to adults is fine as long as the companies aren’t allowed to outright lie about their products like cigarette companies used to do. Those are basically on par with eating excessive amounts of unhealthy food when consumed in small quantities.
By safe I’m referring to things like food that isn’t going to kill you in the short term because it is spoiled, toxic, has harmful additives. You know, the things that lead to food regulation agencies that keep companies from selling rotten meat or food with lead intentionally added for flavor.
The original post context was the banning of meat
I’m not saying government shouldn’t regulate safety - but that if something is safe for consumption it shouldn’t be banned, like the original posts example of meat.
Orrrrrrrr, and hear me out…
We thin the herd. We sell products that if you spend any time paying attention, you know NOT to buy.
“Delicious home baked cyanide cookies! Just like grandma used to bake! That one time…”
And then? If you eat those cookies, that’s on you.
Although, this bakery would have an uphill battle maintaining a regular customer base.
That’s alright, when the 100% chalk contraceptive pill and the polyethylene ‘super sensitive’ condom hit the market I think they’ll do ok.
im not sure if this is satire or not?
I like the government to force companies to meet certain regulations for production of various food items so that they’re safe for everyone, but then let me pick at the grocery store from what’s then produced.
It’s a harsh quote, but it gets the point across: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” Carlin was right, and it applies here. Sure, half of us may be able to adequately identify what we should and shouldn’t eat, but there is another half that can’t. With proper education we can change that, but right now corporations educate better through commercials than schools do through lectures. We have to maintain oversight because the evil of capitalism will choose profit over people every time.
without relevant regulations, though, you won’t know what you shouldn’t eat because you won’t know that they’re putting sawdust in peanutbutter or borax and fermheldahyde in milk.
Maybe it’d be okay to have plaster of paris in flour, though. I mean, how else are you supposed to sculpt that Italian loaf like the french baguette?
Don’t be fooled. The people screaming about unpastureized milk and other things are being used so corporations can go back to poisoning you with shit. and that’s pretty much the most charitable I can be of that particular lot.
Problem is those people get a say in regulations - which is why covid vaccines are not recomended anymore.
That’s a whole other hydra head to deal with…
I feel a reply I made to someone else addresses my side of this:
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
deleted by creator
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
spoiler
sdfgdsgsdg
I feel those examples are less about eating the meat (well, aside from all the issues that come with eating humans) and more about preventing them becoming meat in the first place - but yes, with everything theres nuance and outliers, but as a general I’d say that if people know what they’re eating and know the risks, and what they do doesn’t pose risk to others then let them eat whatever it is they’re eating…
deleted by creator
I’m not arguing against anything you’ve said. In fact, I said most of what you just said 2 replies ago.
Do you have a degree in chemistry? How do you know which 7 syllable words on the side of the box are dangerous and which ones aren’t?
In an unregulated market, who is there to say that the ingredients even need to be listed on the box?
Every purchase can be like its own little surprise!
I’m gonna paste in a reply I made to another comment which I think will answer my view on this
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
Should the government simply suggest companies accurately label the contents of food products?
No. The government should absolutely enforce correct labelling on anything a person is to consume. Like cigarettes in Australia, if the consumable poses a health risk that too should be labelled clearly.
Leaving critical thinking up to the masses??? Oh…oh no.
it would work pretty well after a few years, just ignore the deaths during the roll out.
Natural selection.
If the danger is clearly labelled, and all ingredients and potential hazards are clearly advised…
Aaaand now the town’s water supply has murcury in it, thanks.