Speaking of saliva, when I took Intro Sociology, my professor asked us whether, if we spit into a glass, would we then drink the spittle.

She then pointed out that we drink the stuff "in small quantities" every day of our lives and said (I'm paraphrasing here), "That's the difference between being a member of a society and being an outsider. Once someone is an outsider, different standards are applied."

(She was the reason I could have had a minor in Soc, except that my school did not do minors.)

"These days"?

I remember MAD Magazine making fun of these warning labels in the late 80s or early 90s.

I know you're joking, but wouldn't that make the problem worse, by putting more weight on your wrists?

My favourite one is a warning 'May contain nuts' on a bag of peanuts. I understand that it can be deadly serious for some people with allergy but come on.

Actually this has become a very serious problem for people with allergies. Companies are so frightened of getting sued that they simply put "May contain nuts" or "May contain gluten" on everything. Once notices like these were valuable warnings; they allowed vulnerable people to negotiate their way through a menu. Now they have become totally useless.

They're particularly long and pull tight around my wrists, leaving my wrists completely inflexible. If my arms do get tired, which can happen from time to time if I get into a flame war or something, I just use my head instead.

Erm, I hate to be "that guy" but that's likely there because peanuts are not nuts. My understanding is it means that they cannot guarantee that there are no traces of nuts or other "nuts".
So that if, for example, one has a brazil nut allergy one knows it's a risk and should look for peanuts without "may contain nuts" warnings.

True. But most people who have a "nut allergy" are actually allergic to peanuts, not to nuts as such. There was a rather tragic case here in the UK recently. Someone who was allergic to peanuts went to an Indian restaurant and specifically asked for dishes made without peanuts, explaining that these were dangerous to him. He was assured that a certain dish (which is traditionally made with a sauce thickened with nut flour) contained almonds but no peanuts. In fact it had been made with peanut flour because this is much cheaper than almond flour.

The man died of anaphylactic shock and the restaurant owner was jailed for gross negligence. You can read an account of the case at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36360111.

You learn something every day - in that case the warning actually makes sense.

That does prove my point though, I think? He had a peanut allergy and was told there were no peanuts. Had it been the other way around, almost ironically, he'd have been OK.
Sorry I mean by this that I think products actually have to have allergen information on them based upon what people are actually allergic to.
I do think that cost-cutting people using different ingredients is bad and worth highlighting all the time.

I usually only find out I'm hurt when they say they can't do anything for me and I shouldn't have done that all those years.

I was on an airplane once when we were told, before a certain passenger got on board, not to open any peanuts that we might have brought with us, nor to consume any food that contained peanuts anywhere on the plane. We were told that we'd have to make an emergency landing if we did.

I also knew a bloke who carried an "epi(nephren) pen" on the front of any outfit that he wore. He said, to anyone and everyone he met: "If I pass out, or something like that, first stick me with this pen, then call 9-1-1."

Which is also why I don't eat peanuts . . .