[pixl97]

Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right?

While directly providing said stalker with information seems like a harmful, and likely prosecutable behavior, the indirect providing of information is not a burden the general public should bear for another parties already illegal actions.

[ryandrake]

> Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right?

My kid's school strictly bans peanut products due to at least one kid having a severe and potentially deadly allergy. It seems like a reasonable and necessary precautions to avoid harm or injury.

[pixl97]

Which likely increases the risk of more people getting peanut allergies.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/introducing-pe...

[ryandrake]

That link has nothing to do with the effects of withholding peanuts from children above 5 years old (school age children).

[ljm]

Peanuts aren't served on a plane just in case someone with a peanut allergy has a bad time as result. Peanuts (and other things people are deathly allergic to) are also not served or used as ingredients in restaurants where there is a risk of cross contamination.

What you've done is bring back the equivalence to a public place so that an absurd argument can be made about banning peanuts wholesale.

As far as any non-public situation goes, it's a simple discussion of consent and it's easy: just ask for it instead of feeling entitled to it.