And when, goldfinger, do we decide the nanny state has overstepped it's boundaries? Do we ban cars because so many people speed and so many deaths occur everyday? Do we ban large screen TVs because sitting really close to them can trigger seizures in kids? The Declaration of Independence says it best:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Seems to me the nanny state you propose is one such government that should be changed if it ever comes about.

@ Draugnar: "the addictive properties of these drugs means that anyone who takes them puts their welfare and the welfare of their family at risk"

1. Sugar is proven to be addictive too.

2. Eating a supersize McDonalds meal three times a day would put people at risk too. You might fall on them and crush them with your huge gunt.

@Jamie - I already pointed out the addictive properties of both sugar and caffiene and the fact that they aren't so physically addictive as to put have a person robbing his neighbors or selling off belongings and spending entire paychecks to get their next fix.

As far as easting the supersized meal, I also covered that. One bad trip can send a person into a psychotic break. One supersize meal will not have any effect on another person baring other medical conditions (i.e. an idiot who has a heart condition and eats all that fat having a heartattack behind the wheel or a diabetic who drinks and eats all that sugar/carbs falling asleep on the road). But those are special circumstances requiring specific conditions who shouldn't be eating and drinking that crap. The drugs of which we speak don't have any special conditions to trigger psychosis. They can do it to otherwise healthy and normal individuals using for their very first time.

@fulhamish,

"So semck just to be clear you are a full blown advocate of Mill's harm principle, that is to say: ''an individual may do whatever he or she wants, so long as such actions do not harm any other individual?' "

I suppose, especially in clear-cut cases like this. Some applications, like heavy drugs, are not really as blindingly clear as this one.

"semck, please speak with some reason here. The government has to be able to reward and punish certain behaviors for society to move forward. In Brazil they were having a problem with public urination. So much that during Carnivale they had urinary patrols who would go around and fine people for public urination. The average Brazilian didn't care, but its a pretty disgusting habit to have thousands of people pissing on houses and such."

I love that you ask me to use reason and then dive into a blatant disanalogy. Is your real concern about people being overweight that it disgusts you to look at fat people and you don't think you should have to? Because that's the only way this could be vaguely relevant. And I hope it's obvious that if that *is* your reason, then it just makes your whole case far, far worse.

Yes, governments can ban public urination, because it's a public nuisance (smell, sight, etc.) and it's very easy to find somewhere to urinate privately. Moreover, if that weren't enough, property law would probably suffice for this -- most of it occurs on public land, and the rest on the private land of another person who doesn't want someone urinating publicly on his land. So even if one didn't believe in nuisance law, there would still be no problem with *most* public urination citations.

"And do you think people would switch to solar tech without government subsidies? Do you think any of our renewable energy would be at the level of development its at now without public investment?"

Another disanalogy. Draug has already dealt with this one. Of course, I'm skeptical that this is actually an efficient use of public resources anyway, but we can assume it is for the sake of argument, since your point is a bad one either way.

" Draug - a lot of that tangent I went on was related to semck's comments on what a government has the right to do and not do."

Yes, and Draug pointed out why the tangent was irrelevant, to me or to anybody else.

@jamiet,

"'@ semck: "Waa, waa, waa, I can't always have everything I want.'

Tough."

Thank you for engaging my arguments so cleverly. I confess that I'm not sure what you're referring to, though, or where I expressed displeasure at not getting what I want. Because, you see, in all these contexts, I *have* gotten what I want. Sodas remain legal, cars remain the transportation option of choice, and US law remains supportive of both states of affairs. I'm very pleased.

Perhaps you're confusing me with you?

A government that will not protect its own people is no government.

Much of the food on sale today is on par with low grade poison. And yet many assume that it must be okay to eat if the government approved its sale.

What a sad joke that is.

"Much of the food on sale today is on par with low grade poison. And yet many assume that it must be okay to eat if the government approved its sale.

What a sad joke that is. "

I actually agree with this, from another angle. It's absurd that people look to the government to protect them from everything, to the extent that they often stop thinking for themselves. Because no government can protect its people from everything, one that sets its people up for this mindless trust in a higher entity protecting them is setting its people up for bad things. This may indeed be an example of what you say.

Of course, calling the food on sale in the US "low-grade poison" is a bit of hysteria, given our life expectancies, etc.

"A government that will not protect its own people is no government."

From others, yes. But a government that protects its people from themselves is a tyranny, because only by taking away decisions can you protect people from bad decisions.