>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.
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.