Not the original person you replied to, but as far as I'm concerned there are a few questions that could very easily indicate which side of the line is something.

E.g.

- Is it addictive?

- Does it have the potential to destroy lives?

- Does it have the potential to destroy lives in seconds?

- Does it have a strong lobbying mechanism behind it? (n.b. things that are good and nice rarely need someone to bribe people to accept them)

or simply:

- Would you be worried if your child did it?

I think the number of "yes" that you get draws a very clear line.

▲

egorfine 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These questions sound very rational until you realize that sugar, performance cars, military technology and history lessons can tick all those boxes.

▲

submerge 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you recommend a history lesson that will destroy my life in seconds? Book, podcast, youtube would all be acceptable formats.

	▲	egorfine 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You might want to research russia's war in Ukraine a little bit to learn how history lessons destroy lives in seconds.

▲

jmkd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your question ramp makes sense to me except in two ways: 1. why this "destroy lives in seconds?" question? 2. where do you see sugar sitting here?

	▲	sakisv an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wanted to draw the distinction between something that destroys lives over a longer period of time (smoking) VS something like gambling where you could lose your life's savings in seconds. The alcohol mentioned in a sibling comment also ticks the box. For the sugar, I'd say yes, no, no, yes and "not too much, but I'm keeping an eye out".
	▲	ambicapter 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		He's obviously talking about alcohol (it takes seconds to consume an amount of alcohol that can result in death, yours or someone else's from a fight or car crash) and firearms (should be obvious). Sounds like you're implying some sort of mischaracterization of sugar here which minimizes the former in a weird way.