Reply #141: Mr. Bandit, there is a difference [View All]

[appal_jack]

It would be a real stretch to call me a nanny-stater. I am a firm proponent of all Constitutional liberties, including the idea (in the ninth and tenth amendments) that we the people can enjoy rights and liberties above and beyond what the earlier (and subsequent) amendments enumerate. My beliefs naturally lead me to conclude that the entire war on drugs is an unconstitutional crock, a practice round for eventual martial law.

But just because I believe someone at a proper age of consent (16? 18? 21? - I'd favor 16, but many here would argue that point) has the right to fire up a joint (or even a crack pipe, since we are on the topic of people harming themselves), I would have a real problem with someone baking some ganja brownies and feeding them (with a side of secretly LSD-spiked punch) to unsuspecting children (or even unknowing adults). Restaurants using hydrog. oil because it's cheaper, and serving it to customers who just want a veggie omelet is much more akin to this latter example. OK, my drug example may be a bit extreme, but it fits the pattern of feeding people something they do not want, do not know is there, and can't easily find out about.

Now, if you instead want to defend the right of Entenmann's do use hydrog. in their donuts (where the ingredients are clearly presented on the side of the box), I can live with that. Education about health generally works pretty well when information available to the consumer is complete and accurate. Regulation becomes more necessary when information (like the ingredients of a restaurant meal) is incomplete or unknowable.

-app