pitbone
4th September 2008, 09:11 AM
Hello all,
I realize I'm a little slow on the draw here, but there's still a lot of mindless propaganda going on out there about the supposed devil that is hidden away in Canada's bill C-51. In fact, the 2 biggest facebook groups have around 60,000 people in them combined. I'm planning to post the following retort to one of the groups, where I'm sure it'll be ripped to shreds by 35,000 people who aren't interested in the truth and are quite happy to continue taking glorified sugar pills for the rest of their lives. However, since this is my first proverbial 'kick at the can' for spreading critical thinking - I thought I'd get some input to make sure I'm not committing any hideously obvious logical flaws. And hey, you seem like a bright group. I look forward to reading comments! (I had to take out the website links because I don't have enough posts yet. :()
<begin post>
Originally I was against the entire “Stop C-51” movement. However, after reading the bill, I agree that there are certain deficiencies in it. Fortunately, these very inadequacies are an active topic of debate in the house of commons. This can be seen by reading transcripts of parliamentary sessions where C-51 has been debated. I have high hopes that the bill will be amended or scrapped and re-tabled before it is passed to the senate.
What I am flagrantly and vehemently opposed to is the alarmist propaganda spewed forth by activists such as <website snipped>. With all the real legal and practical problems with this bill, I fail to see the reasoning behind artificially inflating the severity and potential consequences of the bill and supporting them with irrelevant media and testimony by obviously biased ‘experts’.
Whether or not ‘big pharma’ is involved in tabling a bill that will undoubtedly make it harder to produce legal natural health products is a moot point in this discussion; as is the number of deaths caused by legalized drugs currently on the market. Neither of these are relevant to whether or not bill C-51 will make natural health products more useful to consumers.
My purpose here is not to discuss the merits of the bill, but to dispel some of the disinformation being distributed by opponents to the bill, be they biased, misinformed, deceptive or just delusional. I also want to encourage responsible, factual activism and not paranoid, fear mongering and ‘repent your sins and flee’ propaganda. When it comes down to it, if you don’t believe what I’ve written, look it up yourself. Just please don’t trust what you’ve read on some activist website.
I’ve tried to keep my personal commentary (humor not included) to a minimum and stick to (a) material directly from the Act (and other laws); (b) legal and common knowledge that any high-school law student would probably know and; (c) logical conclusions.
I took each of the section headers (and their C-51 citations) directly from <website snipped>. Each of the following points are powers that C-51 opponents claim the bill will give the government if it is passed in to law. I’ve seen this list trumpeted around several places and thought it would be a good starting point for weeding the fiction out from the fact.
I'll reiterate my purpose again just so I'm not accused of it later on. My purpose is not to prove the bill to be good or bad, just to point out the exaggerations and lies which are being toted as truth.
1) Enter private property without a warrant Section 23(4)
This clause at best is poorly worded. “Enter on or pass through...” can be interpreted in many ways. Supporters of the bill claim it’s intention is to allow inspectors to access locations (or conveyances) blocked by private property. Keep in mind that an inspector may only do this while “carrying out their functions.” An inspectors duty is outlined in section 23(1) and 23(2). Those sections state that an inspector may enter a place or conveyance “on reasonable grounds.” In other words, they must have cause to believe something illegal is taking place before they enter. Reasonable and probable cause is the criteria used by police which allows them to arrest a suspect without presenting evidence first. If a man has been stabbed and another man is standing nearby with a knife in his hand, one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe there is a connection between the two. (Of course, it is possible that the man with the knife just has really bad luck.) Reasonable grounds have to be presentable and supportable in a court of law. Sometimes they aren’t; hence the expression ‘wrongful arrest’. An inspector would have the same responsibility under this guideline before entering a building as a police officer does before suspecting someone of a crime.
Another important feature of section 23(1) is that it is “Subject to subsection 23.1(1).” Subsection 23.1(1) states:
If the place referred to in subsection
23(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not
enter it without the consent of the occupant
except under the authority of a warrant
This prevents an inspector from barging in to a person’s home without first showing adequate cause to a justice of the peace. The conditions to obtain a warrant are outlined in subsection 23.1(2) and include a clause stating that prior to obtaining a warrant the owner of the house has to have refused the inspector entry, or, the inspector has “reasonable grounds” to expect that it will be refused.
2) Confiscate your property at their discretion, at your cost Section 23.3a
This subsection starts off with: “An inspector who seizes a thing under this Act...” They can’t simply walk in to a building and take whatever they want. The seizable article must be in violation of the Act, or contain information about carrying out a violation of the act. The usage of ‘their discretion’ is fairly misleading as the inspector must be able to legally support his/her decision. Again, as per the first point, an inspector wouldn’t even be present to seize anything unless they have prior reason to enter the property.
3) Dispose of your property at their discretion, at your cost Section 23.3c
Pretty much the same as the prior point, except for one issue. In this case the inspector must “...believe on reasonable grounds that the thing could be injurious to human health.” Pretty much any inspector of anything can take action if they believe something to be dangerous. As before, the phrase “their discretion” is misleading and no mention is made of the alternative in subsection (ii). Subsection (ii) allows an inspector to direct the owner to dispose of it (take action) themselves. (This is similar to having an cracked heat exchanger in a furnace red-flagged - not the end of the world.)
4) Seize your bank accounts without a warrant Section 23(2)(d)
This subsection specifically refers to “an article...that is found in the place.” The inspector can only seize illegal items which are at the location where the violation of the Act is taking place. Note to self: Don’t manufacture illegal substances within a bank of which I am a customer.
5) Charge you for shipping and storage of your property Section 23.3a-b
At the risk of sounding repetitive, (the original authors of this list don’t seem to have had the same concern) this only applies to articles which are in violation of the act. Such shipping and storage is pursuant to all the points regarding ‘reasonable cause’ or ‘reasonable grounds’ made above.
6) Store your property indefinitely without paying you for damages Section 23(2)(d)
“Without paying you for damages” is simply an alarmist tactic to make the situation seem worse. This clause says nothing about the inspector or government being free from paying damages (Or being required to do so for that matter.) Common sense seems to dictate that if the seized articles are found to be criminal, then their owner is a criminal and subject to the provisions of the criminal code. If not, the articles will be released back to the owner, as stated in section 23.4;
An inspector who seizes a thing under
this Act shall release it if they are satisfied that
the provisions of this Act and the regulations
with respect to it have been complied with.
Having said that, it’s seems that the authors of this list have forgotten that the inspectors charged with the power to enact this law are government employees, not vexatious children. Their function is to ensure the law is being upheld, not irritate law-abiding citizenry by taking their things and taunting them. It should also be said that the Criminal Code limits property seizures to 3 months, except under specific circumstances (which are outlined in that document.)
7) Levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 / 2 years in jail per offence Section 31.1
This is true. (We’ll ignore the minor oversight of improperly referencing this clause as section 31.1; in fact, it lies in section 31(1)a-b.) These penalties are for indictable offences only and the summary offence penalties are substantially lower. I suspect that supporters would argue the thousand-fold increase from the previous fines are to give the Act some teeth. While this may seem a bit over the top, it must be taken in context. A judge’s job is to weigh the severity of an offence and punish the offender accordingly. I don’t have the knowledge or experience to make such a decision. I’m willing to bet that the authors at stopc51.com of the ‘C-51 panic list’ don’t either. All the Act does in this case is set a ceiling for how much a judge can impose. If I get charged under this act once it’s passed a judge would be insane to charge me $5,000,000. Mainly because after the bank sells my house and all my things I’m still going to be about $4,980,000 short. How will the government get their money then? Garnish my wages by 95% for the next 2000 years? What’s the point of charging someone money you know they can’t pay?
On the topic of excessive laws, if this one bothers you, don’t read the Criminal Code. Here’s a short list of things (when taken out of context) which can result in spending the rest of your life in prison: using a cell phone on an airplane, damaging ship cargo, mailing a cigarette lighter to someone or buying ice cream for a Taliban solider. (Only if they want it, mind you; if they don’t, then it’s okay.) Fair enough, who would want to do any of those things? But isn’t life imprisonment a little steep for sending your buddy a new zippo? But on the other hand, why would someone want to illegally produce and distribute homeopathic ‘medicine’?
8) Allow laws to be created in Canada, behind closed doors, with the assistance of foreign governments, industrial and trade organizations Section 30.7
This section should correctly be cited as 30(7). This deception is based mostly on the misinterpretation of the word ‘regulations’ - which is different from the word ‘law.’ The clause stipulates that “a regulation may incorporate by reference documents” which have been written by some of the sources listed. A regulation can be seen as a way implementing a law. It doesn’t change what the law demands, it simply outlines the method in which to accomplish it. I understand that this is open to interpretation. In any case, this clause is merely adding a specific case to an already broader clause. Section 30(1) of the Food and Drug Act of 1985 states “The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.” The ability of the Minister of Health to add regulations ad hoc has been a law for the last 23 years. So far it hasn’t destroyed democracy. Is it more likely that this clause is a conspiracy design to subtly remove Canadian rights? That the house of commons is tabling a law which will eliminate them from law making? That all 304 members of parliament missed it hidden in the devious traps of legal jargon? Or is it more likely that this is an alarmist over-reaction to a logistical adjustment?
9) Allow "Crack house style" of enforcement on natural health providers Section 23.1
I apologize - I am about to repeat myself, again. Subsection 23.1(1) is quoted above and requires an inspector to have either the permission of the owner or a warrant in order to enter a dwelling-house. The conditions on which a warrant may be issued are set out in subsection 23.1(2). The conditions are:
The inspector must have ‘reasonable grounds’, (funny how that keeps coming up) “...that an activity that is governed by [the] Act or the regulations is conducted [at the location].”
The inspector needs to actually go inside to verify whether or not the activity is being done in compliance with the regulations.
entry was refused or there are ‘reasonable grounds’ that it will be refused.
I don’t know what “crack house style” enforcement is, but sure sounds bad.
10) Allow enforcement to be considered on more than 70% of Canadians who use NHP's Health Canada Reference
This link goes to a page, from Health Canada, which states that 71% of Canadians use NHPs. It doesn’t, however, say anything about enforcement being brought upon them. In fact, nothing the Act, takes issue with users of NHPs. The penalties, enforcement and restrictions only apply to those manufacturing or distributing therapeutic substances. This also brings up an interesting point about prior points involving the words ‘you’ and ‘your’. Confiscate your property at their discretion, at your cost. Seize your bank accounts without a warrant. Charge you for shipping and storage of your property. The deliberate choice of making all these statements second person is misleading. ‘You’ are not the 71% of Canadians who use NHPs. ‘You’ is a much, much smaller percentage of Canadians who manufacture or distribute NHPs.
11) Allow the minister, based on opinion, to shut down research without any scientific reason or evidence of risk or harm Section 18.5
This is a blatant lie. Subsection 18.5(1) clearly states that the Minister may shut down clinical trials if he/she has a legal, (under the Act) or health related cause to do so. In fact, the clause specifically states that the holder of the authorization, presumably the manufacturer, will have “opportunity to make representations.” Subsection 18.5(2) takes away the right to make representations if the Minister believes there is a “serious and imminent” risk to the participants of the clinical study. It is true that the word ‘opinion’ is used in the clause, and that the ultimate decision of what is safe and un-safe, in this case, is left up to the Minister of Health. Unfortunately, this is the way democracy works. Elected officials are given the responsibility of making decisions they believe to be in the best interest of their constituents. If the authors of the ‘C-51 panic list’ have a problem with this subsection, their fight is really with democracy. However, as far as I know, it wasn’t really their intention to take issue with the entire democratic electoral system, so I’ll have to dismiss this entire point as complete rubbish.
12) Allow the minister, based on opinion, to allow or disallow market authorizations for Natural Health Products Section 18.7 (1)
This clause actually expands the minister’s ability to approve market authorizations for products “other than a designated therapeutic product.” It says nothing of his/her ability to “allow or disallow” authorizations for products already included in the definition of therapeutic products. If anything, this could be seen as an advantage because it gives the Minister the ability to weigh the risk versus potential gain of a product outside of a rigorously scientific perspective. This section, however, says nothing about the Minister’s ability to deny authorization to a defined therapeutic product which has demonstrated scientific merit.
I hope that if you are left with one thing after reading this, it’s a desire to fact find for yourself. Fallacious arguments and propaganda are all over the place - Bill C-51 is no exception. Find out the facts, then make an informed decision. As I said before, I’m undecided on this issue, but the more people we have making good choices based on real information, the better the system works.
<end post>
I realize I'm a little slow on the draw here, but there's still a lot of mindless propaganda going on out there about the supposed devil that is hidden away in Canada's bill C-51. In fact, the 2 biggest facebook groups have around 60,000 people in them combined. I'm planning to post the following retort to one of the groups, where I'm sure it'll be ripped to shreds by 35,000 people who aren't interested in the truth and are quite happy to continue taking glorified sugar pills for the rest of their lives. However, since this is my first proverbial 'kick at the can' for spreading critical thinking - I thought I'd get some input to make sure I'm not committing any hideously obvious logical flaws. And hey, you seem like a bright group. I look forward to reading comments! (I had to take out the website links because I don't have enough posts yet. :()
<begin post>
Originally I was against the entire “Stop C-51” movement. However, after reading the bill, I agree that there are certain deficiencies in it. Fortunately, these very inadequacies are an active topic of debate in the house of commons. This can be seen by reading transcripts of parliamentary sessions where C-51 has been debated. I have high hopes that the bill will be amended or scrapped and re-tabled before it is passed to the senate.
What I am flagrantly and vehemently opposed to is the alarmist propaganda spewed forth by activists such as <website snipped>. With all the real legal and practical problems with this bill, I fail to see the reasoning behind artificially inflating the severity and potential consequences of the bill and supporting them with irrelevant media and testimony by obviously biased ‘experts’.
Whether or not ‘big pharma’ is involved in tabling a bill that will undoubtedly make it harder to produce legal natural health products is a moot point in this discussion; as is the number of deaths caused by legalized drugs currently on the market. Neither of these are relevant to whether or not bill C-51 will make natural health products more useful to consumers.
My purpose here is not to discuss the merits of the bill, but to dispel some of the disinformation being distributed by opponents to the bill, be they biased, misinformed, deceptive or just delusional. I also want to encourage responsible, factual activism and not paranoid, fear mongering and ‘repent your sins and flee’ propaganda. When it comes down to it, if you don’t believe what I’ve written, look it up yourself. Just please don’t trust what you’ve read on some activist website.
I’ve tried to keep my personal commentary (humor not included) to a minimum and stick to (a) material directly from the Act (and other laws); (b) legal and common knowledge that any high-school law student would probably know and; (c) logical conclusions.
I took each of the section headers (and their C-51 citations) directly from <website snipped>. Each of the following points are powers that C-51 opponents claim the bill will give the government if it is passed in to law. I’ve seen this list trumpeted around several places and thought it would be a good starting point for weeding the fiction out from the fact.
I'll reiterate my purpose again just so I'm not accused of it later on. My purpose is not to prove the bill to be good or bad, just to point out the exaggerations and lies which are being toted as truth.
1) Enter private property without a warrant Section 23(4)
This clause at best is poorly worded. “Enter on or pass through...” can be interpreted in many ways. Supporters of the bill claim it’s intention is to allow inspectors to access locations (or conveyances) blocked by private property. Keep in mind that an inspector may only do this while “carrying out their functions.” An inspectors duty is outlined in section 23(1) and 23(2). Those sections state that an inspector may enter a place or conveyance “on reasonable grounds.” In other words, they must have cause to believe something illegal is taking place before they enter. Reasonable and probable cause is the criteria used by police which allows them to arrest a suspect without presenting evidence first. If a man has been stabbed and another man is standing nearby with a knife in his hand, one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe there is a connection between the two. (Of course, it is possible that the man with the knife just has really bad luck.) Reasonable grounds have to be presentable and supportable in a court of law. Sometimes they aren’t; hence the expression ‘wrongful arrest’. An inspector would have the same responsibility under this guideline before entering a building as a police officer does before suspecting someone of a crime.
Another important feature of section 23(1) is that it is “Subject to subsection 23.1(1).” Subsection 23.1(1) states:
If the place referred to in subsection
23(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not
enter it without the consent of the occupant
except under the authority of a warrant
This prevents an inspector from barging in to a person’s home without first showing adequate cause to a justice of the peace. The conditions to obtain a warrant are outlined in subsection 23.1(2) and include a clause stating that prior to obtaining a warrant the owner of the house has to have refused the inspector entry, or, the inspector has “reasonable grounds” to expect that it will be refused.
2) Confiscate your property at their discretion, at your cost Section 23.3a
This subsection starts off with: “An inspector who seizes a thing under this Act...” They can’t simply walk in to a building and take whatever they want. The seizable article must be in violation of the Act, or contain information about carrying out a violation of the act. The usage of ‘their discretion’ is fairly misleading as the inspector must be able to legally support his/her decision. Again, as per the first point, an inspector wouldn’t even be present to seize anything unless they have prior reason to enter the property.
3) Dispose of your property at their discretion, at your cost Section 23.3c
Pretty much the same as the prior point, except for one issue. In this case the inspector must “...believe on reasonable grounds that the thing could be injurious to human health.” Pretty much any inspector of anything can take action if they believe something to be dangerous. As before, the phrase “their discretion” is misleading and no mention is made of the alternative in subsection (ii). Subsection (ii) allows an inspector to direct the owner to dispose of it (take action) themselves. (This is similar to having an cracked heat exchanger in a furnace red-flagged - not the end of the world.)
4) Seize your bank accounts without a warrant Section 23(2)(d)
This subsection specifically refers to “an article...that is found in the place.” The inspector can only seize illegal items which are at the location where the violation of the Act is taking place. Note to self: Don’t manufacture illegal substances within a bank of which I am a customer.
5) Charge you for shipping and storage of your property Section 23.3a-b
At the risk of sounding repetitive, (the original authors of this list don’t seem to have had the same concern) this only applies to articles which are in violation of the act. Such shipping and storage is pursuant to all the points regarding ‘reasonable cause’ or ‘reasonable grounds’ made above.
6) Store your property indefinitely without paying you for damages Section 23(2)(d)
“Without paying you for damages” is simply an alarmist tactic to make the situation seem worse. This clause says nothing about the inspector or government being free from paying damages (Or being required to do so for that matter.) Common sense seems to dictate that if the seized articles are found to be criminal, then their owner is a criminal and subject to the provisions of the criminal code. If not, the articles will be released back to the owner, as stated in section 23.4;
An inspector who seizes a thing under
this Act shall release it if they are satisfied that
the provisions of this Act and the regulations
with respect to it have been complied with.
Having said that, it’s seems that the authors of this list have forgotten that the inspectors charged with the power to enact this law are government employees, not vexatious children. Their function is to ensure the law is being upheld, not irritate law-abiding citizenry by taking their things and taunting them. It should also be said that the Criminal Code limits property seizures to 3 months, except under specific circumstances (which are outlined in that document.)
7) Levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 / 2 years in jail per offence Section 31.1
This is true. (We’ll ignore the minor oversight of improperly referencing this clause as section 31.1; in fact, it lies in section 31(1)a-b.) These penalties are for indictable offences only and the summary offence penalties are substantially lower. I suspect that supporters would argue the thousand-fold increase from the previous fines are to give the Act some teeth. While this may seem a bit over the top, it must be taken in context. A judge’s job is to weigh the severity of an offence and punish the offender accordingly. I don’t have the knowledge or experience to make such a decision. I’m willing to bet that the authors at stopc51.com of the ‘C-51 panic list’ don’t either. All the Act does in this case is set a ceiling for how much a judge can impose. If I get charged under this act once it’s passed a judge would be insane to charge me $5,000,000. Mainly because after the bank sells my house and all my things I’m still going to be about $4,980,000 short. How will the government get their money then? Garnish my wages by 95% for the next 2000 years? What’s the point of charging someone money you know they can’t pay?
On the topic of excessive laws, if this one bothers you, don’t read the Criminal Code. Here’s a short list of things (when taken out of context) which can result in spending the rest of your life in prison: using a cell phone on an airplane, damaging ship cargo, mailing a cigarette lighter to someone or buying ice cream for a Taliban solider. (Only if they want it, mind you; if they don’t, then it’s okay.) Fair enough, who would want to do any of those things? But isn’t life imprisonment a little steep for sending your buddy a new zippo? But on the other hand, why would someone want to illegally produce and distribute homeopathic ‘medicine’?
8) Allow laws to be created in Canada, behind closed doors, with the assistance of foreign governments, industrial and trade organizations Section 30.7
This section should correctly be cited as 30(7). This deception is based mostly on the misinterpretation of the word ‘regulations’ - which is different from the word ‘law.’ The clause stipulates that “a regulation may incorporate by reference documents” which have been written by some of the sources listed. A regulation can be seen as a way implementing a law. It doesn’t change what the law demands, it simply outlines the method in which to accomplish it. I understand that this is open to interpretation. In any case, this clause is merely adding a specific case to an already broader clause. Section 30(1) of the Food and Drug Act of 1985 states “The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.” The ability of the Minister of Health to add regulations ad hoc has been a law for the last 23 years. So far it hasn’t destroyed democracy. Is it more likely that this clause is a conspiracy design to subtly remove Canadian rights? That the house of commons is tabling a law which will eliminate them from law making? That all 304 members of parliament missed it hidden in the devious traps of legal jargon? Or is it more likely that this is an alarmist over-reaction to a logistical adjustment?
9) Allow "Crack house style" of enforcement on natural health providers Section 23.1
I apologize - I am about to repeat myself, again. Subsection 23.1(1) is quoted above and requires an inspector to have either the permission of the owner or a warrant in order to enter a dwelling-house. The conditions on which a warrant may be issued are set out in subsection 23.1(2). The conditions are:
The inspector must have ‘reasonable grounds’, (funny how that keeps coming up) “...that an activity that is governed by [the] Act or the regulations is conducted [at the location].”
The inspector needs to actually go inside to verify whether or not the activity is being done in compliance with the regulations.
entry was refused or there are ‘reasonable grounds’ that it will be refused.
I don’t know what “crack house style” enforcement is, but sure sounds bad.
10) Allow enforcement to be considered on more than 70% of Canadians who use NHP's Health Canada Reference
This link goes to a page, from Health Canada, which states that 71% of Canadians use NHPs. It doesn’t, however, say anything about enforcement being brought upon them. In fact, nothing the Act, takes issue with users of NHPs. The penalties, enforcement and restrictions only apply to those manufacturing or distributing therapeutic substances. This also brings up an interesting point about prior points involving the words ‘you’ and ‘your’. Confiscate your property at their discretion, at your cost. Seize your bank accounts without a warrant. Charge you for shipping and storage of your property. The deliberate choice of making all these statements second person is misleading. ‘You’ are not the 71% of Canadians who use NHPs. ‘You’ is a much, much smaller percentage of Canadians who manufacture or distribute NHPs.
11) Allow the minister, based on opinion, to shut down research without any scientific reason or evidence of risk or harm Section 18.5
This is a blatant lie. Subsection 18.5(1) clearly states that the Minister may shut down clinical trials if he/she has a legal, (under the Act) or health related cause to do so. In fact, the clause specifically states that the holder of the authorization, presumably the manufacturer, will have “opportunity to make representations.” Subsection 18.5(2) takes away the right to make representations if the Minister believes there is a “serious and imminent” risk to the participants of the clinical study. It is true that the word ‘opinion’ is used in the clause, and that the ultimate decision of what is safe and un-safe, in this case, is left up to the Minister of Health. Unfortunately, this is the way democracy works. Elected officials are given the responsibility of making decisions they believe to be in the best interest of their constituents. If the authors of the ‘C-51 panic list’ have a problem with this subsection, their fight is really with democracy. However, as far as I know, it wasn’t really their intention to take issue with the entire democratic electoral system, so I’ll have to dismiss this entire point as complete rubbish.
12) Allow the minister, based on opinion, to allow or disallow market authorizations for Natural Health Products Section 18.7 (1)
This clause actually expands the minister’s ability to approve market authorizations for products “other than a designated therapeutic product.” It says nothing of his/her ability to “allow or disallow” authorizations for products already included in the definition of therapeutic products. If anything, this could be seen as an advantage because it gives the Minister the ability to weigh the risk versus potential gain of a product outside of a rigorously scientific perspective. This section, however, says nothing about the Minister’s ability to deny authorization to a defined therapeutic product which has demonstrated scientific merit.
I hope that if you are left with one thing after reading this, it’s a desire to fact find for yourself. Fallacious arguments and propaganda are all over the place - Bill C-51 is no exception. Find out the facts, then make an informed decision. As I said before, I’m undecided on this issue, but the more people we have making good choices based on real information, the better the system works.
<end post>