Melkath

Sounds like we are really close to meeting in the middle, I'm just a little more cautious about one part than you are and you are a little more cautious than me on a different part.

Cheers!

I would rather my government spend my tax dollars solving real problems, not creating hoops for companies to jump through so people can ignore them (which is your narrative, in reality, it is intended to stagmatize the product and the people who consume the product and try to shame them into stopping).

You clearly don't follow the news and aren't very educated on the topic of carcinogens.

Artificial Sweeteners are being found to be carcinogenic. Sugar causes obesity and diabetes. Coffee is addictive and causes vascular disorders. Butter causes high cholesterol and heart attacks.

Tobacco and alcohol have no notable adverse impacts for at least 20 to 40 years (unless you drink to the point of alcohol poisoning, that is immediate).

You clearly aren't interested in knowledge or having a productive conversation. You just want to do the propagandist prohibitionist circlejerk.

1. I am in the US, and we have warnings but no nutritional facts on alcohol. In practice, I don't like wasting government time creating restrictions on labeling just so they can be ignored, because the real reason for it is to baby step at making it a bespoken cultural norm that it is bad, therefore it should be banned and people who partake are bad by association.

I think nutrition facts should be on everything, and if there is NO "hey kiddies, this is alcohol" on the can, okay, there can be one. Before I checked the context myself, I thought this was a "put pictures of tumors on cigarette packs, the simple warning isn't good enough!" kind of conversation.

1. Discounting my comment in the conversation of specifically putting warnings on alcohol as "slippery slope fallacy" takes all the other stuff I just mentioned out of the equation. Just like a simple "Alcohol can cause X" on the can, putting a simple "Butter causes high cholesterol and heart failure" is also a good idea. putting a simple "Caffeine causes addiction and vascular issues" is also a good idea. Putting a "Fossil Fuel Emissions cause cancer and global warming" on the gas pump/gas cap cover on your car is a good idea.

I guess my point is that putting "Warning: Hot" on coffee cups is a waste of both government and private business resources. It does have some minimal merit though, but where do you start? I would be starting with Fossil Fuels. Those seem the most pressing and devastating of hazards we need to be addressing. If you are fixated on smokes and alcohol first, I think you have lost the plot.

It IS possible to establish basic simple warnings on everything that should have them though. Not doing that, to me, reeks of pushing for prohibition.

That would require actual science and research instead of regurgitating the same debunked data study 20 times a year for government propaganda dollars though...

If this was meant to invalidate my argument:

Red herring fallacy

Just invoking a simple fallacy without establishing it within the context is making a red herring of fallacies themselves.

You have the knowledge in the back of your mind. The warnings make you have it in active thought.

What kind of manipulative power trip behavior control bullshit logic is this?

Do you truly believe consumers usually/always make rational and reasonable decisions, that don’t go against their own interests?

Who the fuck cares? I decide how I live my life. If you want to wear bubble wrap and consume nothing but distilled water and unflavored soy bean paste so you can totally live forever and never need medical treatment, have at.

I'd rather live.

"[cars] something that you actively need to survive."

You almost just made me spit out my beer.

Alright, if that is true, and its not a baby step towards prohibition, let me fill you in on it. We fucking know and we don't fucking care.

Stop wasting government time and resources on empty soapboxing.

We know what the propaganda says.

And coffee, and butter, and sugar, and artificial sweeteners, and cannabis, and cars.,,. prohibition is stupid. Mind your own fucking business. Stop trying to control others.

Don't think so, not if the reverse mortgage is a done deal and the medical debt is paid.

In general, hospital collectors will come at you sounding all intimidating, but will usually just waive off the debt or settle for a ridiculously low figure. Even if that doesn't happen, mom could have filed for bankruptcy. If you already have the house, you dont need to worry about your credit for the next 7 years. right?

But once you sink all of your liquid and real assets into the unsecured debt, the liquid and real assets are gone.

Your family does understand that medical debt, especially the medical debt of a deceased person, is an unsecured debt that cannot be effectively collected on. Right?

The hospital might call and say "you owe us", but the Estate Lawyer who cost 700 dollars earned his retainer by saying "Dont contact my client again" (a legally binding interaction) and then working out the logistics of putting the real assets in the heir's name while dispelling the rest of the unsecured debt (credit cards. bar tabs. whatever qualifies as unsecured debt)...

I'm sorry you lost your dad, but his last offering was what sounded like a logical solution but actually just screwed over his family and siphoned money to bad people...