5 ms·

Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that. A whole lot of people put a whole lot of illegal stuff into their bodies every single day

rvnx 3y ago
> Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that. Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed.
- noarchy 3y ago
  >Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed. Really, a prohibition argument made with a straight face? North American governments famously failed to maintain a ban on alcohol. How well do you think they'd fare with trying to ban sales of caffeine, given it's reach is greater (and far more socially-accepted) than alcohol?
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging.
    - noarchy 3y ago
      >Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging. Don't forget the vast selection of caffeinated pop/soda, energy drinks, etc. You're talking about a wide ban here, as this is one of the world's favourite drugs, covering a very popular array of beverages. If you're daft enough to propose it, I suspect you'd be laughed out of the halls of legislatures. Regulation of caffeine levels in energy drinks and pop is probably an easier sell, and some jurisdictions already do this.
aranchelk 3y ago
Moreover, legality doesn’t even necessarily imply reduced cost. I’ve heard anecdotally that in California illegally produced cannabis is cheaper: it’s not taxed and there’s no cost to meet regulatory compliance for the producers.

rvnx 3y ago

> Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that. Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed.

noarchy 3y ago
>Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed. Really, a prohibition argument made with a straight face? North American governments famously failed to maintain a ban on alcohol. How well do you think they'd fare with trying to ban sales of caffeine, given it's reach is greater (and far more socially-accepted) than alcohol?
- rvnx 3y ago
  Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging.
  - noarchy 3y ago
    >Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging. Don't forget the vast selection of caffeinated pop/soda, energy drinks, etc. You're talking about a wide ban here, as this is one of the world's favourite drugs, covering a very popular array of beverages. If you're daft enough to propose it, I suspect you'd be laughed out of the halls of legislatures. Regulation of caffeine levels in energy drinks and pop is probably an easier sell, and some jurisdictions already do this.

aranchelk 3y ago

Moreover, legality doesn’t even necessarily imply reduced cost. I’ve heard anecdotally that in California illegally produced cannabis is cheaper: it’s not taxed and there’s no cost to meet regulatory compliance for the producers.