Oddbean

@134318c2 Its important to mention WHY it isnt profitable.. and thus why companies dont do it... Because if they did it they would be arrested and shut down and would make no profits... ergo, they dont.

@b05df304 @134318c2 well not exact but a few things that come close: Original Coca-Cola contained cocaine, but in the years since they changed to use the same plant without the drug and to do so have lobbied for exemptions in every drug law and international treaty (see https://www.eater.com/23620802/cocaine-in-coca-cola-coke-recipe-gastropod) Perdue Pharma - while the Sacklers who own it have basically negotiated their way out the company made highly addictive drugs, pushed them by claiming they weren’t and have been found highly liable

@65078e98 Thats my point.. historically there are examples (as you pointed out)... Because historically it was profitable. Now it isnt profitable, so now we dont have that (or when it is sold, it doesnt last as is the case of Perdue). @134318c2

@b05df304 @134318c2 Purdue wasn’t all that long ago. And there are almost certainly lots of companies still making and profiting highly from addictive substances. Even when they face backlash they continue in business (see Juul - yes they settled and paid hundreds of millions for targeting kids with their vape products and their products were banned by the FDA but eh are still legally on the market while the ban is worked out. But they also made over $2B last year)

@65078e98 I think your missing the point... Companies dont sell coke because it isnt profitable. Other adictive drugs are profitable so they will see those. The reason coke isnt profitable is because if you sell it you go to jail and get your money taken from you. That isnt true for other addictive substances, so other substances are profitable. All that aside though, just as a side comment. Nothing remotely immoral about selling something addictive in and of itself. PArticularly if, like many addictive drugs, it treats something better than non-addictive alternatives. So nothing fundementally wrong with a company selling something that happens to be addictive. That said, if your selling something that is addictive and not serving a purpose then yea you might be an asshole, particularly if your marketing is predatory as is used to be the case with tobacoo. @134318c2

Tobacco (or nicotine) serves a purpose - it promotes calm focus. Hence the heavy use by philosophers and truck drivers. Nicotine actually protects the brain. Unfortunately, it does so at the expense of heart and arteries. (With or without smoke to damage lungs.) There is a tiny amount of nicotine in green tea (~12 micrograms / cup). I find this sufficient for my purposes, and avoids the risks associated with larger doses. On a similar note, coca tea is not addictive, quite healthful, actually essential to high altitude living, and can be brought into the US in "personal quantities" (IANAL). It is when you refine the traces of cocaine from the coca leaves into a deadly white powder that it becomes a problem. (Question: what happens to the cocaine coca-cola company removes from the coca leaves it decocainates?)

@300ec228 > Tobacco (or nicotine) serves a purpose - it promotes calm focus. Hence the heavy use by philosophers and truck drivers. Nicotine actually protects the brain. Unfortunately, it does so at the expense of heart and arteries. (With or without smoke to damage lungs.) A bit of a misconception there. I mean yea nicotein will "calm" you I suppose, but only because your on edge due to the nicotein addiction you developed. People who dont smoke just get sick and feel like they want to puke.. But people who smoke regularly really just return to their pre-addicted normal feeling when the smoke so defeats the purpose mostly. > There is a tiny amount of nicotine in green tea (~12 micrograms / cup). I find this sufficient for my purposes, and avoids the risks associated with larger doses. No where near 12 micrograms. You are about 20x over the actual concentration in a cup. At least for the typical 1 gram per cup of water ratio. @65078e98 @134318c2

@b05df304 @134318c2 not to mention fun companies like the ones in the 2018 FDA & FTC news release - who were selling unapproved opioid cessation products. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-ftc-warn-companies-selling-illegal-unapproved-opioid-cessation-products-using-deceptive-claims

@65078e98 If you are trying to argue the point that sometimes company sell things in a way that is immoral and dishonest and even dangerous and addictive... then sure that isnt a point i am trying to disagree with. @134318c2

@b05df304 @65078e98 @134318c2 You seem to be saying that we better create laws and regulations that make it financially unwise to sell dangerous and addictive substances. Otherwise there is little impediment. Which was kind of the original point.

@7c15cae2 No not necceseraly what i was saying no. But it is true that if you make something unprofitable by making it illegal then it is not likely to be sold by large companies since it wouldnt be profitable. But that isnt the only way to make something unprofitable. So I wasnt necessarily suggesting that as the only course of action. @65078e98 @134318c2

@9b848945 You know that smack refers to heroin, not cocaine, right Thanks, actually i was mistaken, I was thinking of smack as cocain (though now that you mention it I did know it was in reference to heroin). and that oxycontin is essentially time released heroin? No Oxycontin is the time-released formulation of Oxycodon not Heroin. While they are opioids they are chemically different chemicals. In fact as far as opioids go there are more structurally similar examples. That is what I was replying to. They sold smack. Ahh ok, this makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying.

@b05df304 Purdue was intentionally over-selling a known addictive drug purely for profit, many users of which side-stepped to heroin and fentanyl. Doesn't seem metaphorical to me! Am I missing something? It wouldn't be the first time : - ) @134318c2