data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/05836/05836e7accb13cb0adcbb8972dcc9792c2d262e0" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a64f/5a64f8e02084d4b565d5df2c33e210f7f28ef3ad" alt=""
0·
1 year agoThis isn’t the appropriate way to analyze health policy. If alcohol is bad for you, but we as a society have decided that it is ok for people to poison themselves, then when some unscrupulous capitalists makes it even worse for you, you don’t say “who cares it’s already bad for you, lol.” and then moralize about how if everyone doesn’t consume the exact same substances you do, they somehow deserve it.
It is ok for a certain level of toxicity to be permitted, but additional or different unwanted types of toxicity to be a public health concern.
This also doesn’t seem desirable. Societal health isn’t achieved by a group of individual decisions. It is created by regulations on how much pesticide should be in consumer goods or how much risk various consumables should pose to an individual.
Caveat emptor isn’t a desirable public policy.