If every company has "a responsibility" to do "the most profitable thing possible" then what's going to stop everyone from offering to sell people smack... on credit? Or whatever they can think of that comes closest to that?
🇳🇱
@futurebird Because that wouldnt be the most profitable thing possible. In fact that would be probably one of the least profitable choices a company could make.
One would hope. AND YET
@futurebird As far as I know there are no companies that sell smack....
@freemo @futurebird 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
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).
@freemo @futurebird not to mention fun companies like the ones in the 2018 FDA & FTC news release - who were selling unapproved opioid cessation products.
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.
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.
@freemo @Rycaut @futurebird
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.