Are any actual scientists making the call on science topics under this administration, or is it all just politicians?
I haven't even seen anyone who seems to be educated make a coherent argument about tariffs or just about any decision....
perrygeo · 22h ago
Astounding. I understand the desire to take Fluoride out of drinking water - involuntarily medicating citizens should be a hard sell for anyone concerned with their legal rights. Fluoride isn't "bad" or "good", it's a exogenous substance and we should have the choice to put it in our bodies or not.
But taking it off the market completely? Come on, that's undermining the entire basis of the anti-fluoride movement. That's effectively saying "fluoride is bad, government says no", which is just a mirror image of the pro-fluoride stance. Just as reactionary and anti-liberty if not more so.
Where are the rational people who want to simply choose (or not) to take a supplement on their own terms?
mcflubbins · 22h ago
Replace tobacco with cocaine, alcohol, etc...
> But taking it off the market completely? Come on, that's undermining the entire basis of the anti-tobacco movement. That's effectively saying "tobacco is bad, government says no", which is just a mirror image of the pro-tobacco stance. Just as reactionary and anti-liberty if not more so.
perrygeo · 22h ago
I'm not sure I see your point. You rewrote that sentence to prove some point about its absurdity, but I find it a perfectly valid statement.
First, it's not a great analogy. Fluoride isn't a psychoactive drug. It doesn't change behavior, it's not addictive, it's not outright toxic to the body at normal levels. It's presence doesn't cause a public health hazard (though its absence might). There is a substantial difference that can't be hand-waved away. We're talking apples and oranges.
Second, have you researched the history of modern nation states and their collective "war on drugs"? I have no qualms saying that it's been an utter failure. Running a centuries long war against its citizens is unconscionable, expensive, and it doesn't even reduce drug use or its impacts.. I see no evidence, none, that militarization of police forces against their citizens has any positive effect on society. It certainty does nothing to stop drug use, which is the entire point.
Put another way, I don't personally drink or smoke (and I happen to think they're far more harmful than we realize), yet I don't want to live in a society where those things are made illegal. There is no contradiction here.
In terms of fluoride, I don't want to live in a society where I'm a) drugged against my will or b) forbidden from accessing the drug entirely. There's got to be a middle ground.
tocs3 · 22h ago
Doesn't this take the "let the parents decide" option away?
reverendsteveii · 22h ago
that's only ever intended to enable the decision they want. to this administration "freedom" is a word you use when you don't have the leverage to use force.
I haven't even seen anyone who seems to be educated make a coherent argument about tariffs or just about any decision....
But taking it off the market completely? Come on, that's undermining the entire basis of the anti-fluoride movement. That's effectively saying "fluoride is bad, government says no", which is just a mirror image of the pro-fluoride stance. Just as reactionary and anti-liberty if not more so.
Where are the rational people who want to simply choose (or not) to take a supplement on their own terms?
> But taking it off the market completely? Come on, that's undermining the entire basis of the anti-tobacco movement. That's effectively saying "tobacco is bad, government says no", which is just a mirror image of the pro-tobacco stance. Just as reactionary and anti-liberty if not more so.
First, it's not a great analogy. Fluoride isn't a psychoactive drug. It doesn't change behavior, it's not addictive, it's not outright toxic to the body at normal levels. It's presence doesn't cause a public health hazard (though its absence might). There is a substantial difference that can't be hand-waved away. We're talking apples and oranges.
Second, have you researched the history of modern nation states and their collective "war on drugs"? I have no qualms saying that it's been an utter failure. Running a centuries long war against its citizens is unconscionable, expensive, and it doesn't even reduce drug use or its impacts.. I see no evidence, none, that militarization of police forces against their citizens has any positive effect on society. It certainty does nothing to stop drug use, which is the entire point.
Put another way, I don't personally drink or smoke (and I happen to think they're far more harmful than we realize), yet I don't want to live in a society where those things are made illegal. There is no contradiction here.
In terms of fluoride, I don't want to live in a society where I'm a) drugged against my will or b) forbidden from accessing the drug entirely. There's got to be a middle ground.