Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

  • AceSLive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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?

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • AceSLive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.