Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether it's reasonable to use poison as a disincentive needs to depend on how often people consume it, accidentally or purposefully. If it's extremely rare, then this is a reasonable use case, even if we don't think poisoning is a reasonable punishment for tax avoidance (because, indeed, the poison is not intended to be a punishment). Likewise, we put up physical barriers like metal posts and concrete walls to dissu…
> If it's extremely rare, then this is a reasonable use case I don’t really see the point of risking poisoning people as a way of dissuading tax dodging especially when alternatives exist. In the same way we don’t put solid barriers on roads unless people walking need to be protected - when a barrier is there to dissuade a driver it’s designed so a car runs through a barrier without hurting the driver and passengers.
You're not disagreeing with what I wrote.
> In the same way we don’t put solid barriers on roads unless people walking need to be protected
Not true. We also put up barriers when people driving over the line would merely be a nuisance, e.g. in parking lots or to keep people from entering closed areas.