We found out that it wasn't. That led to the FDA.
Please tell me you're not suggesting that the federal government set up an agency to oversee amusement rides? That they review the risks and print up leaflets with teeny-tiny writing (as they do with drugs) that are to be handed out at the gate of each ride listing all the dangers?
The possibility of seizures would be one. Heart attacks, strokes, choking, nose bleeds, vomiting, acid reflux ... teeny-teeny-tiny writing to get them all on one piece of paper. Don't want to be sued, you know.
Is this really a conservative forum? Sure doesn't look like one to me.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that for policy reasons, we require manufacturers or purveyors of goods and services to disclose warnings because that imposes the least amount of cost on society. You simply cannot argue with this--indeed, you admit that your policy failed with my example of prescription drugs--but yet, at the same time, you say that we should continue to embrace bad policy.
What you are saying is utterly irrational. Anyway, it's a meaningless debate. This issue has been settled a hundred years ago and it's not going to be reargued anytime soon.