Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. Theres always a trade off , I just think that the bar to making something illegal should be higher.
There is likely negative externality to other people from its widespread use (more bacterial resistance), and the benefit is at most a placebo effect. Many users may not even care that much--it's just another optional checkbox at little extra cost.
The manufacturers also fall into a prisoner's dilemma and cannot avoid offering it if a number of buyers are not aware of or care about externalities. Only the government can pull them out together.
I'm actually glad you mentioned this because it's a very similar problem--a complete lack of market choice.
The big economic problem with smoking was the fact that smokers spend money--a LOT of money. Smokers spend so much more money than non-smokers that no business was ever willing to be non-smoking and consequently there was no choice.
This was similar with respect to anti-bacterial soaps. It was almost impossible to find one that wasn't anti-bacterial because the anti-bacterials sold so much better.
Side note: Ivory was one of the few that still produced a hand soap without an anti-bacterial. It's often very hard to find on a retail shelf.
I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay.
It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.
> I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay.
For smoking in public places, I believe that falls in the same category covered by the quote, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
People smoking in restaurants, malls, and other public places aren't just hurting their own health, but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke. So no. Your right to slowly kill yourself with your addiction ends when you are in a public space and are slowly killing those around you.
> I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.
They are a harm to those around them. That's why being drunk in public is against the law and drunk tanks get filled to the brim every Friday and Saturday night. Your right to be drunk ends the moment you endanger people in public spaces.
Again, bacterial soaps fall under the same category. You want to use a product with absolutely no proven scientific benefit to yourself, but is scientifically proven to make bacteria more dangerous to those around you? Unacceptable, and since some companies and consumers are refusing to stop endangering public health, the law must step in to prevent your behavior from infringing on the rights of those around you to pursue happiness, which includes the pursuit of good health.
>Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect?
The usual data massaging wasn't enough, like ignoring 19 of the 30 existing studies as of then, so they changed the confidence level required from the standard 95% to 90%. Look up commentary on their 1993 "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" for more details.
Scene: FDA officials appearance at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health)
Representative 1: We've been following this antibacterial resistance case closely for a few years now. Every year, a greater number of my constituents have related to me the story of how they lost a loved-one due to MSRA - and staph infection, as I understand, isn't even the only thing that this, uhh, the resistance to bacteria dru--err- medications. So, as you know, we've asked you here today to better understand how we can plan to solve this looming crisis. What have you got for us?
FDA1: Well, generally speaking, we've been working with a number of the same antibiotics that have been in use for many decades now. Their effectiveness has been continuously diminishing since the first introduction of each antibiotic. The general consensus here at the FDA is, we need to encourage the development and mass production of multiple new drugs to combat the inevitable growing resistance.
REP2: And what is it that you mean by inevitable?
FDA2: If I may field this question - what my colleague is referring to here is the fact that long-term exposure to specific antibiotics necessarily results in resistance to the same.
REP3: So, you're talkin' about evolution here, right? Just so we're all on the same page.
(Indistinguishable snickering throughout the room)
FDA2: Ye-- That's one way to describe it.
REP2: So what exactly is it that you need from us to enact your plan?
FDA1: Well, that's why we came to you. You see, it's not a very lucrative business opportunity -- developing a new antibiotic. Our custo-- your constituents would have to buckle their belts a little, because we need at least $30 million more for our budget to be pumped into early research in the university system.
(The whole crowd erupts in laughter!)
REP1: Hahahaha! Tax reallocations in this political climate! Don't get me started... But we did tell you to give us your pie in the sky ideas first, so what else do you have for us today?
FDA3: The abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry is not onl--
REP2: Oh no... We've been through this before. How else are we going to get chickens big enough to feed the world?
FDA1: Well, there's an other option too. We could stop using antibacterial soaps more than necessary in hospitals, which as you know, are the hotbeds of new infe--
REP1: Let me stop you right there. Do you even have any idea as to how much we spent on the last - washing your hands saves lives - campaign? If our const-- your patients knew that you were just washing your hands with regular soap, do yo-- no. Not even an option. We don't want to call you here again for this same issue next year.
FDA4: What if we just banned them for personal use? No one would be negatively affected, and it would appear to be a decisive action to solve the problem.
REP1: That does sound reasonable... Any objections from the committee?
REP4: No, I don't have any soap manufacturers in my state-- hahaaha
REP1: Then a voiced vote shall suffice. All those in favor
Depends on whether one is thinking like a mountain or willing to be blind past the horizon of his or her own lifetime. Sometimes negative effects compound with time or, as jcrites noted, the negative effects of two people doing a thing is greater than 2x one person doing it.
Except that, unlike anti-bacterial soap, alcohol is quite effective at what it does. For a proper analogy, imagine that alcohol tasted like water and didn't really affect your mental state, but still had some harmful effect when used by large groups. Maybe now it seems more reasonable to ban?
But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social.
>But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
>You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social.
You could, but you'd be ignoring the health benefits of certain patterns of consumption.
What you can't do is argue that antibacterial soap has the same social and cultural significance as Chartreuse or Cognac, nor can you claim that there exists a mode of consumption for antibacterial soap that has net positive effects (outside of a hospital).
Yes, it's a trade-off. We're on the same page. The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not.
> The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not.
That's a value judgement. I would argue it does have a positive counterweight as people spend money to buy the product. That's pretty much the purpose of a market. To tease out the value people put in certain items and to direct resources into said products
Not sure if you are serious, but markets don't work in the face of incomplete information, a state exacerbated by misleading advertising around antibacterial and germicidal products. Arguing that the market knows more than scientists about triclosan is...bizarre.
Markets and prices exist precisely due to imperfect information. Do you know all the resources that go into making a product? Probably not. This is pretty basic economics:
Yes, it was meant as a value judgement, and this brings us back to the original point: the reason we as a society ban antibacterial soap and not Elijah Craig is because we value the latter for cultural and social reasons. This value judgement is reflected in our laws.
It's a feature, not a bug.
I don't get it. Don't you want to prevent epidemics of incurable diseases and enjoy a beer? I mean no disrespect but I don't understand what's so shocking or surprising about these laws.
People also spend millions every year on a regulatory apparatus to help identify and address tragedies of the commons and other threats that each person, individually, would be ill-equipped to address on their own.
> But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit
A psychological one, sure. They perceive that they're getting a health benefit (whether or not they actually are), so the money seems worth it. But the evidence is that it doesn't actually get your hands cleaner than non-antibacterial soap and that it may contribute to creating stronger bacteria.
The FDA's judgement is that the downsides outweigh the upsides. I tend to agree.
Equating these two markets is a little unfair. One major thing is that if they banned recreational drugs people would be mad and would still want to use them where if they ban antibacterial soap no one is going to care. I think that's why drugs get a warning label and soap just gets banned, they could mandate a large warning label on antibacterial soap but that just seems strange to me and would probably lead to the same outcome as banning them anyway.
More precisely When a drunk driver crashes their car, the total damage they're likely to cause to others is about equal to the total damage they'll cause to themselves. Sometimes they'll hit a family car and kill 3 people, more often they'll run into a tree and kill only themselves. It comes out pretty similarly if you look at other harm caused by alcohol.
When you use antibacterial soap, you hurt everyone in the world equally. You hurt me as much as you hurt yourself, but you also hurt 7 billion other people. That means antibacterial soaps cause 7 billion times more damage to others than to oneself on average, while the ratio is about 1 for alcohol.
So someone acting purely in self-interest will mediate their use of alcohol fairly effectively, while a self-interested antibacterial soap user won't mediate their use at all.
