Originally posted by: alchemize
There are plenty of other consumable items that will produce the same symptoms. Should we outlaw them as well? You want to live in a free society there are consequences. Those happen to be not everybody will live a healthy lifestyle.
The "right wingers" ganging up on Chess9 on this issue is lulz.
Chess9 is a perfect example of what's wrong with the modern democrat party. Whether it is foi gras, trans fats, or MJ, THEY know what personal liberties and freedoms we need and don't need.
[/quote]
I think you're confusing three different issues.
I'm a lefty and I try to apply a consistent set of standards to liberty issues such as this one. My standards are:
Is the liberty sought dangerous to others or does it impose significant costs on others? In this category I'd place PCP. Also, allowing people to operate motor vehicles without adequate insurance would be such a liberty. Or not buckling your kid's seat belt.
In this category I'd also place food preparation using trans fats. My opinion is that if people want to use trans fats - clearly marked, and with health warnings - in their own food preparation, let them. If people want to purchase food items containing introduced trans fats, and the presence of trans fats are boldly displayed with health warnings on the label, let them. But if the presence of introduced trans fats in a food item is NOT made clear along with health warnings, I think that falls under the category of playing Russian roulette with other people's health, and I have no problem with the government reasonably limiting the use of trans fats in food.
I'd also place abortion at some point during the gestational period in this category.
Does the liberty sought entail cruelty to animals? Dog- and cock-fighting would fall into this category. Gavage-based foie gras would, too. But if gavage isn't used to produce the foie gras, let people eat all the foie gras they want.
Does the liberty sought entail a cost to society much higher than the benefit? I can't think of any specific examples, but a drug that had a high likelihood of making the user a vegetable would qualify.
Does the the liberty NOT involve informed consent?Assuming the other categories don't apply, there are activities people may want to engage in where the risk of personal loss is significant and/or the risk is low but the size of the potential personal loss is large. In such cases, my opinion is that it's reasonable for government to require that people be sufficiently educated on the risks, potential losses, and possible safety procedures before they're allowed to engage in the activity. I'd include in this category certain voluntary medical procedures. Or the use of certain recreational drugs.