16
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
News
3 readers
4 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
That emphasized line is typical when someone wants to ban something but doesn't have any proof that it's actually dangerous. See the US government and conservative's reasoning for keeping marijuana banned or the federal government banning vaping (while allowing cigarette sales to continue). In both cases the weak justification for the bans are "we don't like this stuff and there's not enough research proving it's safe!" Meanwhile they try to hamstring anyone who wants to conduct a study unless the objective of the study is to bolster the ban.
And guns are still legal after countless school shootings, so don't hold your breath.
The right to spice isn't enshrined in the Constitution. It should be, maybe. The Spice Must Flow.
It’s also typical when researchers notice an interesting phenomenon and decide they need to gather more data.
Doesn't seem like that applies here since the researcher said "we need more data to determine its safety", implying it's unsafe until we can prove it safe even though countless people eat this spicy shit every day without any noteworthy issues. He's acting like this is the first time the human race has discovered spicy food and it's some big mystery.
"Implying" is a very subjective word. Nowhere in the article did a doctor mention they wanted to ban peppers, just research them more to ensure their safety.
There's no code word phraseology here...just the intent to do more science to learn more.
Implying it may or not be safe.