Comment by Retric
21 days ago
That wouldn’t require a ban. The state banned it because some towns wanted to add it to their water supply. It’s literally big government stopping the will of the people.
21 days ago
That wouldn’t require a ban. The state banned it because some towns wanted to add it to their water supply. It’s literally big government stopping the will of the people.
Of course it does. Their goal was to stop it from being added, including in said towns.
Policy makers make things happen by passing laws that make it a requirement or provide financial incentives to do it, and make things stop by outlawing it or taxing it. It is what they are elected to do.
This is not "big government" - democracy does not mean that small groups that disagree should be allowed to do whatever they want, and water additives is a quite signficant thing to mess with.
Democracy and big government aren’t in opposition. Social Security for example is extremely popular.
Letting small groups that disagree do what they want is the definition of small government. Outlawing water additives is a significant thing to mess with, it’s a meaningful intrusion on people’s heath and general welfare.
What makes this entire thing silly is many areas of the US ~11% naturally have fluoride levels high enough not to need supplementation, but nobody seems to want to drop that to some ultra low level when they argue for outlawing adding fluoride. It’s not an argument that these levels are unhealthy, just the naturalist fallacy in action. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/fluoride-occurrence-united...