Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a very loose sense of the word you could call sugar a toxin. But it has a ridiculous LD50. (I agree with you mostly, just don't think your argument is holding water.)
I think the argument holds. Sugar has a huge and quantifiable LD50. So does, well, water. This tells us that they are pretty much non-toxic at lose doses. If the LD50 of the "toxins" is similar to water, how can one claim that "de-toxing" will have any benefit? In other words, how can you call it "detoxing" if none of the things are toxic?
Just because sugar doesn't kill you fast (in an LD50 way), doesn't mean it's not bad for you.
You are indeed right that those `toxins' people `detox' for are pretty nebulous.