Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/28/06 2:48 pm:
It does become a little more complicated than that . We do ask the gvt. to regulate consumer goods and to what is dangerous off the market. A large part of our gvt. is dedicated to keeping harmful medications off the market as an example .What's the difference except degrees ? Ask excon what he thinks should be perfectly legal.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/28/06 3:48 pm:
>>>We do ask the gvt. to regulate consumer goods and to what is dangerous off the market. A large part of our gvt. is dedicated to keeping harmful medications off the market as an example .<<<

Yes, and I'm not sure that is their function. To put warning lables on products (or force the manufacturers to do so) yes, fine, I'm ok with that. THat's part of their job as "educators". But to take the decision out of our hands? I have a real problem with that. In that sense, I agree with Excon.

Where excon and I disagree is over whether a stupid law needs to be obeyed or not. I believe that as the long as the law is in place, it is our responsibility as citizens to follow it, no matter how stupid we think it is. If we want the law changed, then we should vote for new leaders who will change the law. And if we break the law, I feel that we should take the consequences. Excon feels free to ignore laws that he doesn't agree with, and blames the government and the cops when he gets busted for breaking the law. That's where we differ. But on the issue of whether the government should have made these laws in the first place, he and I are in agreement (for once) that the answer is NO.

What if I want to buy something that might be bad for me if I use it improperly? Is it the government's job to take that choice away from me "for my own good"?

What if I like parachuting for fun. It's a pretty dangerous sport (I assume... I've never actually done it). Is it the government's job to keep me from that choice? Or is it merely their job to make sure that the parachuting instructors are teaching me to do it properly and warning me of the possible dangers, and that the aircraft are being properly maintained? Is it my choice whether I can parachute or the government's?

Or bungy jump.

Or drive a motorcycle?

Or lift weights?

Or excersize (or choose not to)?

Or smoke a cigarette?

Or eat unhealthy foods?

Or go to a bar?

Or carry a gun?

Where does it stop, Tom? Where does the government's "responsibility" to be the public's nanny start infringing on my rights and free choices?

As I said above, consumer education is the government's responsibility to enforce and promote. Consumer decision-making by the government is not. It's MINE.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/28/06 4:16 pm:
so you would then have no problem with someone adding bitter nightshade or hemlock to a tea mix and selling it on the market ? I agree with your slippery slope theory to a degree ,but it works both ways . There are some things as a consumer that I do not want in the products I buy .It is as you say a question of where to draw the line . In the case of transfats I agree with you ; although Euell Gibbons may resent having his health insurance premiums subsidizing my gluttonous ways ...but that is a different issue .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/28/06 5:09 pm:
>>>so you would then have no problem with someone adding bitter nightshade or hemlock to a tea mix and selling it on the market ?<<<

If it were properly marked "poison", no I really wouldn't. And if someone chose to buy it and drink it anyway, that's their problem. Their family doesn't get to sue the tea-maker. Or they do, but they don't get to win. As long as the government and the company have taken the appropriate steps to inform the public in a manner they understand that the tea is dangerous, then the purchase and use of the product is up to the consumer. This, of course, assumes that the government is doing its job of making sure that companies lable their products and educates the consumer as to what the product does and the negative effects it may have.

Elliot