Do You Support Consumer Freedom?

[Tony]

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

What are your position(s) on coke type drinks, fatty foods, Peta, GM products, alcohol and cigarettes? Should they be legal? Regulated? Should mommy gubmint protect us from these evils? Do you support the consumer's freedom to indulge in this behavior? I’m interested in opinions.

[geni]

With the exception of nuclear divices everything should be legal with leves or regulation ranging from minimal (eg packageing material) to heavy (eg high explosives). Products that only harm to indivdual should be regulated in order to make sure that information is easy avaible to the indivdual (eg warnings and calorific content on lables). Products that can harm people other than the user should be regulated to control who can get hold of them.

If the product makes a health claim the coumpany should have evidence to ba able to suport the claim.

[corplinx]

It depends, if health care was socialized I think dictating what foods you may eat/purchase should be regulated.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

What are your position(s) on coke type drinks, fatty foods, Peta, GM products, alcohol and cigarettes? Should they be legal? Regulated? Should mommy gubmint protect us from these evils? Do you support the consumer's freedom to indulge in this behavior? I’m interested in opinions.

When you phrase the question "Should mommy gubmint protect us from these evils?" I have serious doubt about the veracity of the last sentence.

I have a funny feeling you aren't looking for a debate on the finer points of product liability or the viability of caveat emptor in the modern world. If you are, state an opinion about such matters, but if you want to just type "I have a right to do what I want" over and over, what do you need responses for?

[Tricky]

Yes, I think the government has a role in protecting consumers from dangerous substances. If a product has been thouroughly investigated, found to have horrible side effects, and the well-informed adult consumer wants to use it anyway, then they should be able to. A person would have to be a complete imbicile these days to not know the dangers of cigarettes, but other things, especially prescription medication, are not so well publicized.

More often than not, consumers are poorly informed, and quite often, information on products is incomplete. It is (or should be) the government's role from protecting consumers from untested or unlabeled products, especially with children.

(I'm sorry that your child is addicted, ma'm but it clearly states "contains crack cocaine" in the small print on the side of the box.)

[Aoidoi]

I support consumer slavery. Mostly because I like the fashion. Something about black leather and buckles... ;)

I'm also Pro-Death and Anti-Choice. I've abandonded the political parties in the US and am now trying to chose between the Totalitarians and the Dictators for my future votes (until Democracy is crushed, that is). I might go with the long shot Slavertarian or Gray parties, though. That'd probably be a wasted vote, though.

While I'm at it, I'm also an animal-hater and an anti-environmentalist.

[Zep]

Which part of the "mommy gubbmint" would that be whom you do not like, Tony? The scientists who examine the products and discover their dangers? Or the activists who lobby to have these products controlled or even stopped? Or the legislators who debate and enact the laws controlling the product's use? Or the police and public prosecutors who attempt to enforce these laws, and seek redress for people adversely affected by misues of these products? Any of these? ALL of these? Or do you have in mind any of the other elected or appointed government officials who work to protect the consumers of your nation?

Perhaps you might like to research what life was like BEFORE consumer advocacy and protection legislation existed. It wasn't a pretty picture...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

What are your position(s) on coke type drinks, fatty foods, Peta, GM products, alcohol and cigarettes? Should they be legal? Regulated? Should mommy gubmint protect us from these evils? Do you support the consumer's freedom to indulge in this behavior? I’m interested in opinions.

The only one on your list I have a problem with is cigarettes. Should be classified as a drug, then immediately banned as dangerous. Unlike all the others on the list, these have no health benefits whatsoever.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

What are your position(s) on coke type drinks, fatty foods, Peta, GM products, alcohol and cigarettes?

My position is, snort/smoke/snarf/drink/gnaw/chew/swallow 'em if you got 'em!

Just don't make me pay for it when you become a fat, bloated, cholesterol-poisoned, hyperactive incontinent with lung cancer, severe liver damage, and an eye twitch waking up naked in a sleeping bag in an alleyway with a box of Ho-Ho's!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
A person would have to be a complete imbicile these days to not know the dangers of cigarettes, but other things, especially prescription medication, are not so well publicized.

I don't know about anyone else, but I get a full write-up with any prescriptions I or my kids get fully detailing the side effects and precautions, and even if I didn't there's about a bajillion places I can go online and get that information for free, plus I can ask my doctor interminable questions about it over and over and over until half of his medical school learning melts out of his ears.

It doesn't matter how well something is "publicized;" if the information is readily available, and you don't seek it out or act to learn even the slightest thing about it, then that is something the individual should accept responsibility for. I certainly shouldn't have my rights curtailed as a result of someone else's lack of responsibility, especially when that irresponsibility hurts no one but themselves.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BTox


The only one on your list I have a problem with is cigarettes. Should be classified as a drug, then immediately banned as dangerous. Unlike all the others on the list, these have no health benefits whatsoever.

Absolute rubbish.

The health benifits of smoking tobacco are not widely understood. Throughout history man has used tobacco as an important aid to healthy living.

Chewing tobacco was believed to protect against the Plague and in 1774 a tobacco resuscitator kit was invented. This was used to blow tobacco smoke up the patient's anus, nose or mouth to revive 'persons apparently dead'. Tobacco enemas to loosen the bowels were popular into the early nineteenth century. they were used to treat anyone who caught the dreaded cholera disease.


From Jarvik, British Journal of Addiction, 1991

"the many positive aspects of this wonder drug. "When chronically taken," it says, "nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement [it makes you feel good], (2) negative reinforcement [it may keep you from feeling bad], (3) reduction of body weight [by reducing appetite and increasing metabolic rate], (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against: (5) Parkinson's disease, (6) Tourette's disease [tics], (7) Alzheimer's disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound."


So Throw off your skeptical thoughts and smoke your way to good health!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I have a funny feeling you aren't looking for a debate on the finer points of product liability or the viability of caveat emptor in the modern world.

I'm not looking for debate, atleast not tonight. What I'm looking for are opinions. Making people aware of the potential dangers of certain products is fine. I want to know if you think products like cokes, fast food and alcohol should be regulated and/or controlled? Do you support the consumer's right to eat/drink/smoke such things, despite the potential risk?

[BTox]

Originally posted by The Fool
This was used to blow tobacco smoke up the patient's anus...

Dang, forgot about this wonderful use! :D

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


I'm not looking for debate, atleast not tonight. What I'm looking for are opinions. Making people aware of the potential dangers of certain products is fine. I want to know if you think products like cokes, fast food and alcohol should be regulated and/or controlled? Do you support the consumer's right to eat/drink/smoke such things, despite the potential risk?

I don't care what people do unless it harms someone else. I'm pretty much with Tricky on this one with regard to information.

On the other hand, it is real easy to say that people are responsible only for themselves, not so easy to be the person who works the ER that turns away some broke with an oreo addiction who is having a heart attack. We shouldn't have to pay for that, right? Who tells his kids?

The only weapon is information. I'm all for consumer freedom, but I'd put the clamps down on peddling poison for profit. Not by banning, but by brutally truthful labeling.

[fishbob]

My position is, snort/smoke/snarf/drink/gnaw/chew/swallow 'em if you got 'em!

Just don't make me pay for it when you become a fat, bloated, cholesterol-poisoned, hyperactive incontinent with lung cancer, severe liver damage, and an eye twitch waking up naked in a sleeping bag in an alleyway with a box of Ho-Ho's!I have to agree with Shanek on this one - with a couple of additions.

1) People need to know the risks associated with these choices. Education is big mommy gubmint's responsibility.
2) People need to tell the truth about their lifestyle choices when they sign up for life, health, and auto insurance. You know the insurance companies will not pay doodly on a claim if they find out you were a beer-swilling ho-ho junkie when you claimed to be a tea-sipping vegan on the application form.
3) People need to pay for their own choices. Group snarfer insurance. Group drunkard insurance.
4) I should not have to pay to support the poor choices of others. My taxes should pay for education, but not for medical costs due to bad choices and not for prohibition of bad choices.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Just don't make me pay for it when you become a fat, bloated, cholesterol-poisoned, hyperactive incontinent with lung cancer, severe liver damage, and an eye twitch waking up naked in a sleeping bag in an alleyway with a box of Ho-Ho's!

So if someone was penniless, uninsured and suffering health problems through making wrong choices in life, would you just let them die? And how would you dispose of the body without putting the taxpayer to expense?

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
Education is big mommy gubmint's responsibility.

Why?

2) People need to tell the truth about their lifestyle choices when they sign up for life, health, and auto insurance. You know the insurance companies will not pay doodly on a claim if they find out you were a beer-swilling ho-ho junkie when you claimed to be a tea-sipping vegan on the application form.

I'll agree with this. Lying in such a situation is a form of fraud.

3) People need to pay for their own choices. Group snarfer insurance. Group drunkard insurance.

Sounds good to me.

4) I should not have to pay to support the poor choices of others. My taxes should pay for education, but not for medical costs due to bad choices and not for prohibition of bad choices.

Why for education, though, and not the others?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
So if someone was penniless, uninsured and suffering health problems through making wrong choices in life, would you just let them die?

Isn't it amazing how people make the leap to this assumption when it isn't even close to what I said?

I said that such a person shouldn't be able to MAKE others pay for their own irresponsibility. That doesn't mean that other people shouldn't voluntarily try to help them out.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Isn't it amazing how people make the leap to this assumption when it isn't even close to what I said?

It was a serious quesion, not an assumption.

I said that such a person shouldn't be able to MAKE others pay for their own irresponsibility. That doesn't mean that other people shouldn't voluntarily try to help them out.

And if there aren't enough volunteers? Then do you let them die?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


And if there aren't enough volunteers? Then do you let them die? Oh, you mean like the good ol' days, before gubmint intervention?

[BillyTK]

I believe people should be allowed to consume as much or as little coke type drinks, fatty foods, Peta (Peta? the actress or the conservationists?), GM products, alcohol and cigarettes as long as they like, as long as they don't endanger others with their usage, and are as fully informed as is reasonable about the nature of these products, which is where Momma Gubmint steps in–to ensure that such information is available, and that evil companies aren't trying to pass off crack cocaine as candy for little kids, nor endangering their employees in the manufacture of these products (or beagles, as is the case with tobacco). And if if someone is penniless, uninsured and suffering health problems through making wrong choices in life, then shanek should be forced to pay for them. :D

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx
It depends, if health care was socialized I think dictating what foods you may eat/purchase should be regulated.

Here, here, buy the man a beer!

I'm firmly convinced that if taxes were levied against unhealthy consumer items socialized medicine could work in America.

We always hear that "XXXX causes 20 billion dollars a year in medical care". Why not just tax sales of XXXX to the tune of 20 billion dollars anually? As long as we were consistent, this would cover the majority of health care costs.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Here, here, buy the man a beer!

I'm firmly convinced that if taxes were levied against unhealthy consumer items socialized medicine could work in America.

We always hear that "XXXX causes 20 billion dollars a year in medical care". Why not just tax sales of XXXX to the tune of 20 billion dollars anually? As long as we were consistent, this would cover the majority of health care costs.

That sounds like a good idea, except it has a potential of creating a black market. For example, in New York they put high taxes on cigarettes, the result is a black market of people trying to buy cheap cigarettes from where ever and sell them tax free in New York.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That sounds like a good idea, except it has a potential of creating a black market. For example, in New York they put high taxes on cigarettes, the result is a black market of people trying to buy cheap cigarettes from where ever and sell them tax free in New York.

Read this short story:

Lipidleggin (http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0600/fa.lipidleggin.html)

I think the reality won't be quite that extreme. :)

Yes, black markets are a reality and always a danger. The best you can do is enforce the current law and try to keep the taxes reasonable enough that consumers won't bother with the added risk if illegal purchases.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Read this short story:

Lipidleggin (http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0600/fa.lipidleggin.html)

I think the reality won't be quite that extreme. :)

Yes, black markets are a reality and always a danger. The best you can do is enforce the current law and try to keep the taxes reasonable enough that consumers won't bother with the added risk if illegal purchases.

Thanks for the story :)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shanek
Just don't make me pay for it when you become a fat, bloated, cholesterol-poisoned, hyperactive incontinent with lung cancer, severe liver damage, and an eye twitch waking up naked in a sleeping bag in an alleyway with a box of Ho-Ho's!

I hate it when that happens.