|
|
|
|
|
|
by AbrahamParangi
2095 days ago
|
|
|
The issue isn't that the regulation is providing education. It's that the state mandates everyone put idiotic signs that are obviously meaningless everywhere. If the state wanted to be useful they should maintain a useful and easy to understand list of common substances and explain in simple terms exactly what the risk is. More creation, less control of people for no benefit. |
|
|
But where should we draw the line and balance the scales of helping or promoting human health (including education, which can save lives), restricting businesses who don't care about human health, and allowing citizens to have the freedom to be as unhealthy as they want (which I'll agree should be a human right)?
With cigarettes, the most alarming label messaging doesn't seem to stop its most determined users from enjoying them. Was a fierce cultural war fought against that regulation? IIRC, yes. (From a documentary.)
One factor here seems to be a war for freedom of diet and lifestyle, extending to the desire to not even have to see messages that tell you your lifestyle may be unhealthy for you (or your children), even if the science is clear.