Obama's War on Fun

The president breathes new life into the Nanny State

Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

It's a high-pressure job, the presidency. Think about how badly the bin Laden raid could have gone. The worst case scenario—Navy SEALs trapped in a firefight with Pakistani forces—could have made Black Hawk Down look like a cakewalk.

Yet the night after he gave the "go" order, President Obama hit the White House Correspondents' Dinner and had to grin his way through canned laugh lines working over "the Donald."

Stressful! You couldn't blame the guy if he wanted to take the edge off with a smoke. Alas, he quit a year ago. It was "a personal challenge for him," the first lady explained recently, and she never "poked and prodded."

Of course not. It's obnoxious to hector your loved ones. "Poking and prodding" is what good government does to perfect strangers. And that's what the Obama administration has been doing, with unusual zeal, for the past 2 1/2 years.

You're not a real president until you fight a metaphorical "war" on a social problem. So, to LBJ's "War on Poverty" and Reagan's "War on Drugs," add Obama's "War on Fun." Like the "War on Terror," it's being fought on many fronts:

Smoking: Last fall, the killjoy crusaders at Obama's Food and Drug Administration released proposed "graphic warning labels" on cigarettes, including "one showing a toe tag on a corpse" and another where "a mother blows smoke on her baby." In December, a federal court rebuffed the administration's plan to squelch "e-cigarettes," which allow smokers to ingest nicotine vapor without carcinogens or secondhand smoke. But the president's lifestyle cops stand ready to regulate menthols, because, like clove cigarettes (banned in 2009), they taste good, so people might like them.

Alcohol: Similar logic drove the FDA's November ban on caffeinated malt liquors. Capitalizing on a minor moral panic over "Four Loko," which packs less punch than the ever-popular Red Bull and vodka, the agency threatened four companies with "seizure of the products" on the dubious grounds that caffeine becomes an "unsafe food additive" when combined with alcohol.

Poker: Last month, the Department of Justice shut down five major online poker sites, seizing their domain names, issuing arrest warrants for executives and seeking billions of dollars in asset forfeiture. One defendant faces jail time of up to 65 years for helping people play cards over the Internet.

Food: A year ago, Obama's FDA announced its plan to "adjust the American palate to a less salty diet," ratcheting down the amount of sodium allowed in processed foods. It's "a 10-year program," an agency source said, designed to change "embedded tastes in a whole generation of people." But even "real food" aficionados who shun Cheetos aren't safe from the reformers' zeal. On April 20, FDA agents and federal marshals carried out a 5 a.m. raid on an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, the culmination of a yearlong sting operation aimed at wiping out the scourge of unpasteurized milk. "It is the FDA's position that raw milk should never be consumed," an agency spokeswoman insisted.

C.S. Lewis once wrote that "of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." Rulers who just want to exploit us may relax once their greed's sated.

But "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience," Lewis said.

On the whole, I prefer House Speaker John Boehner's attitude. When Fox News' Chris Wallace asked the Ohio Republican, "Why don't you stop smoking?" Boehner replied, "It's a legal product. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone."

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power (Cato 2008). He is a columnist at the Washington Examiner, where this article originally appeared. Click here to read it at that site.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Reefer madness||

    dont tell me that's maryjane-juanas my boy B's puffin. so the orgies must be next followed by...popcorn!

  • fish||

  • Scruffy Nerf Herder||

    Hooooooooooooly shit

  • Joe M||

    Well, the good news is, he'll be more careful what he posts from now on. Another citizen gently educated about proper behavior.

  • ||

    Sounds like it is time to cut the SS's budget, down to 0 would be about right. If a government employee needs a bodyguard, let the government employee pay for it out of his own pocket.

  • Ted S.||

    Who will root out the private sector quantitative easing if not for the Secret Service??

  • ||

    I'm sure you'd change your tune if someone assassinated your favorite politician.

  • ||

    His mother says she isn't financially able to take legal action but hopes her family's story raises awareness about the treatment she said her son endured.

    Ever heard of pro bono?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I thought he died in a skiing accident.

  • ||

    Clearly skiing should be banned.

  • Kristen||

    They came for my fois gras and I said nothing. They came for my lawn jarts and I said nothing.

    But, by god, if they come for my skiing....

  • TANSTAAFL||

    I am still not fucking over the lawn jarts. Have you seen the shitty ass ones they sell now? They have round bottoms and fucking bounce! What a crock of shit! I loved lawn jarts. Nanny-state mother fuckers...

  • JOhnny MAckson||

    I thought she died grew a penis in a skiing accident. LOL

    Jess
    www.anon-lol.com

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Obama,

    Be careful, there could be suicide bombers.

  • ||

    I would like to see you in my office young man, or woman.

  • ||

    Only if we are lucky,

  • Hooha||

    Keep us posted on how that little expiriment turns out for you, Angus. I'm actually curious.

  • ||

    Was the Secret Service "friended" on the kid's Facebook account?

    If not, how did they find out about the post?

  • Hooha||

    Step 1; Kid has a public profile

    Step 2; Someone dimed him out

  • ||

    If you don't like the Defense budget then you shouldn't have voted for Bush. Everything about what happened wrong in this situation is directly attributed to the last president, yet Obama is fixing the problem - 2.5 years in.

    Having an SS agent interview your kid is the least of the kids worries at public school. The only crime here is that the Kids mom lets him have that stupid haircut and blue hair.

  • Scruffy Nerf Herder||

    Isn't the "War on Solvency" enough?

  • ||

    "It's a legal product. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone."

    Leave you alone ?! That's positively un-American.

  • some guy||

    Isn't he kind of begging the question by saying he should be left alone because it's a legal product?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Boehner replied, "It's a legal product. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone."

    Legal for now, John. But, hey, it's not Boehner's House that is stopping citizens from enjoying these vices. It's the regulators Congress is all too willing to let run rampant.

  • ||

    And of course Boner sees nothing wrong with making the drugs other people choose illegal.

  • Joe M||

    "It's illegal. You can't choose it. We won't leave you alone."

  • squarooticus||

    The cognitive dissonance (not to mention their anti-abortion stance) is why they can't say "It's my body. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone." The law should have nothing to do with it.

  • sarcasmic||

    The cost of medical care is socialized.
    Smoking results in medical care.
    It is a cost on society.
    Therefor it should be illegal, along with tasty food, sports, sex, and anything else that results in medical care.

  • The Gobbler||

    If sex requires medical care, you are doing it wrong (or else very, very right).

  • Matt Felch||

    If you've never sent a significant other to a hospital afterward, you're doing it wrong.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I think he means STDs.

    But still funny.

  • some guy||

    Being alive results in medical care. Ban it!

  • DLM||

    Smoking results in medical care.

    Living results in medical card.

  • ||

    If you believe life begins at conception, there is no cognitive disonence about abortion because it is no longer your body, it is someone else's inside you.

    The cognative disonence on abortion is from the other side. The people who believe it is a medical procudure and not murder yet somehow think that the government should socialize medicine and control every medical deicision but that one.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it interesting that the majority of those who oppose abortion on the grounds that it destroys innocent life tend to support the death penalty, and the majority of those who oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it destroys innocent life tend to support abortion.

  • ||

    What is it about innocence that you fail to understand?

  • Zeb||

    The main reason I oppose the death penalty is that innocent people have been executed and will be executed in the future if it continues. Innocence has a lot to do with objections to the death penalty.

  • ||

    The main reason I oppose the death penalty is that innocent people have been executed

    Name one from modern times.

    And in any case, does this mean you would support the death penalty in the case of a confessed murderer, where there's no doubt about his guilt?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Cameron Todd Willingham. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....Willingham He may have been a complete asshole and wifebeater, but look at the evidence and tell me that arson was proven.

    Claude Jones. Google him yourself. Those are just some of the cases in Texas. As far as proving them innocent after execution, you do realize the giant procedure mountain you have to climb in order to do so, don't you?

    Or you could just look at the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ow_inmates

    I do still support the death penalty, which makes me a minority here, but they aren't perfect in its administration.

  • ||

    You have to be kidding.

  • ||

    Saying the government has the right to kill a murderer is a whole lot different than saying that someone should kill an innocent child for convienence. And many people do object to both.

  • sarcasmic||

    Convicted murderers are found to be innocent all the time. Fat load of good it does them when they're found innocent after they've been executed.

  • ||

    I do understand that point. However, when they are executed, they have been found guilty, and years of appeals have tested the conviction. When a child/fetus is destroyed, it is completely (except that original sin shit) innocent.

    I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just saying there is a clear distinction.

  • sarcasmic||

    I understand the difference between possibly innocent and completely innocent.

    I just find it interesting that most stalwart supporters of one are against the other, both on the grounds of innocence.

    I support both. Fuck 'em all.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    "When a child/fetus is destroyed, it is completely...innocent.

    Unless it's baby Hitler or a reincarnation of Ted Kennedy.

  • R||

    Hitler, like anyone else, was innocent of anything significant as an infant.

  • ||

    Convicted murderers are found to be innocent all the time.

    Largely because of the lavish appeals given to people on death row. That's a feature of the death penalty, not a bug. There are quite likely even more innocent people serving life sentences who are out of luck at this point.

    Cory Maye, for instance, would never have gotten a new trial if he weren't sentenced to death.

    when they're found innocent after they've been executed.

    Please give an example where this occurred.

  • The Gobbler||

    I, for one, object to both.

  • some guy||

    The argument is typically over the definition of "child," not whether it is ok to kill a child. Many people don't believe that a single fertilized egg qualifies as a child or as an equal to an adult human. Please stop bringing that straw man to these debates! He's makes me itchy.

  • ||

    Do you support legalizing killing infants?

    If not, do you think infants are equal to adult humans?

  • some guy||

    Is a fertilized egg cell an infant? Personally, I believe it isn't a person with Constitutional rights until it is developed enough to have some chance of surviving outside the womb. I believe the current record is 21-22 weeks. Before that time, the rights of the mother take precedence.

  • DLM||

    Is a fertilized egg cell an infant?

    Human development is a continuum from a fertilized egg until death. You can draw all the arbitrary lines along the way you want. It doesn't change the essential fact that even at the stage of a fertilized egg you are seeing an unique and individual member of the species Homo Sapiens.

  • ||

    "It doesn't change the essential fact that even at the stage of a fertilized egg you are seeing an unique and individual member of the species Homo Sapiens."

    It doesn't change a fact that isn't actually a fact. Its an opinion and one not based on fact at that. "even at the stage of a fertilized egg" you have deoxyribonucleic acid that happens to be arranged very similarily to yours and other assorded biomass(which you could find in any living thing such as fungus) that if all goes well will eventually re-assemble the chemicals provided from the mother into what you call a human.

    Fact is I eat walnuts sometimes - does not make me a killer of trees. A walnut is a potential tree but is not yet a tree.

    But your belief is that deoxyribonucleic acid in a specific pattern is sacred. I suppose I can't argue against that...

  • ||

    I kinda have two pronged view on abortion:

    First off, you are ending a human life at its most innocent point of existence, which is wrong any way you look at it.

    But second, the government is nearly worthless at prohibiting anything, so any laws attempting to prohibit it would be basically impossible to enforce.

    Therefore, it should be left up to the 10th amendment, and for the states to decide how it should be approached.

  • DLM||

    Therefore, it should be left up to the 10th amendment, and for the states to decide how it should be approached.

    I tend to agree with this as a practical compromise.

  • ||

    "First off, you are ending a biological reaction before an actual baby is formed, which is just as 'wrong' as removing a tumor." - Fixed that for you.

    My comparison to a tumor may be "morally reprehensible" to you but is not without basis. Stem cells in the womb will use all available resources to create cells into a programmed pattern. Only the use of resources is regulated by the umbilical cord.

    If those "baby" stem cells had direct access to the mother's blood vessels, it would consume too many resources growing uncontrollably and WOULD kill her exactly as cancer does.

    Cancer cells contain the same DNA you call sacred. Its actually the stem cells that drive the cancer. In larger tumors that have been removed, often times there are whole grown human limbs etc. Are you getting the picture here?

    According to pro-life logic - Chemotherapy is murder. :P

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I find abortion morally abhorrent, but find that the government forcing women to back alleys with hangers even moreso.

    My objection to the death penalty is not moral (though admittedly the number of innocents executed is far too many), but fiscal. It is FAR more expensive to put an inmate on death row for 10-20 years and go through the rigorous appeals process than to put a man in gen pop and let him rot. The benefit, making the victims family feel some sort of blood lust "closure" is not worth that cost (it's clear that it doesn't serve as a deterrent).

  • ||

    Ban childbirth and save women's lives.

  • ||

    Cognitive disonance is the human condition.

  • Zeb||

    "The cognative disonence [sic] on abortion is from the other side"

    Not the other side, John, an other side. It is possible to be consistent about who should be making medical decisions.

  • ||

    Absolutely. The person who is likely to die as a result of the medical decision in question should be the one making it.

  • ||

    To be fair, I don't think his congress passed those laws. He would have to repeal those laws. And, he should.

  • ||

    If you make no effort to repeal a law it's your law. Sorry.

  • ||

    To be fair, at least he is honest enough to say that those things should be illegal. And to my knowledge he, unlike most of our political class, has never used illegal drugs. It is not hypocritical to say "I think these drugs should be illegal but leave me the fuck alone when I use drugs that are legal".

  • some guy||

    How is it not hypocritical to say "I can question whether you can use your drug, but you can't question whether I can use my drug"? That's pretty much textbook hypocrisy.

  • ||

    Unfortunately. But I do prefer "I choose to smoke, leave me alone" to "I'm a politician, I know what's good for you, and you can't say or do anything to oppose me or I will ruin you"

  • Doctor Whom||

    Obviously, the government has to protect us from our own desire to play poker. If President Barack H. Reagan Bush Obama says so, that's good enough for me. I'm sure there's a reductio ad Somaliam in there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to come up with it.

  • Sudden||

    There are no casinos in Somalia because they're are no roads to get people there. Nor are there roads for delivery trucks to drive on, so there are no computers.

    See, the reason that everyone starves in Somalia is not because of tribal warlords, its because there are no roads to deliver food on. Pretty much, when youre born in Somalia, you remain stationary, maybe walk a little bit, until you die of starvation.

    Now you understand why ROADZ!!1!!1! are so important.

  • Still Funny||

    Every. Time.

  • Sudden||

    I recognize my propensity to overuse cliches. I have had several editors try to ween me off that habit. Hopefully, the Obama Adminstration will make it illegal and thereby save me from myself.

  • proegg antichicken||

    we can only hope

  • ||

    It appears you have your very own stalkertroll, Sudden. Congrats.

  • Sudden||

    I finally feel like a member of the H&R community.

  • ||

    Today you are a man. Unless you are a woman. In that case, tits or gtfo.

  • The Gobbler||

    Hello Shit Facktory!

  • OO||

    no roads nor high speed rail in the libertarian paradise of...SOMOLAIZ

  • Butts Wagner||

    Gambling your life by living is Somalia is a greater thrill than winning the World Series of Poker.

  • Spiny Norman||

    ...reductio ad Somaliam...

    I like it. I'm gonna use it and pretend I thought of it.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    ya. Definitely a good one.

  • Joe M||

    Aren't they also campaigning against video games and promoting exercise and veggies? I guess that's not quite the same as these shenanigans.

  • ||

    Just think when the nannies realize how much fun a tractor pull is.

  • Joe M||

    That's when all liburtarns will rize up in revolt!

  • alan||

    What's the deal with the tractor pull references I've been seeing lately?

    Oh, and great explanation there at

    * reason.org
    * reason.com
    * reason.tv
    * donate
    *
    *
    *
    *
    *

    previous link

    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Governments vs. Markets: Julian Morris on Environmental… (5.10)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Michael Moynihan's Reason Exit Interview (5.9)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Matt Welch Discusses Poll Results from the Reason-Rupe Survey… (5.9)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:The Meaning of Socialism: Q&A with National Review's Kevin… (5.17)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique de Rugy Tells the Truth about Gold (5.16)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Bob Poole and Adrian Moore: Why Highways Beat High-Speed Rail (5.13)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Nick Gillespie Discusses the Broken US Postal Service with… (5.12)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Calculate YOUR Share of Govt Spending on War, Entitlements… (5.12)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Nick Gillespie Discusses a Divided America on CNN's In The… (5.11)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Don't Ban DUI Checkpoint Apps! (5.11)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Governments vs. Markets: Julian Morris on Environmental… (5.10)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Michael Moynihan's Reason Exit Interview (5.9)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Matt Welch Discusses Poll Results from the Reason-Rupe Survey… (5.9)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:The Meaning of Socialism: Q&A with National Review's Kevin… (5.17)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique de Rugy Tells the Truth about Gold (5.16)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Bob Poole and Adrian Moore: Why Highways Beat High-Speed Rail (5.13)

    next link

    Loading...

    *
    *
    *
    more sharing
    o StumbleUpon
    o Digg
    o Reddit
    *

    close video

    * Subscribe
    o Print
    o E-Reader
    o Android App
    o iPhone App
    o Reason E-Mail Lists
    o Reason Stuff
    o Subscriber Services
    * Share
    o Reason on Facebook
    o Reason on Twitter
    o Reason on Youtube
    o Reason RSS
    * About
    o About
    o Contact
    o Privacy
    o Reason Foundation
    * Staff
    o Staff
    o Contributors
    * Archives
    o Archives
    o Print Issues
    o Cover Gallery
    o Hit & Run Blog
    o Brickbats
    * Topics
    * Poll
    * Feeds
    o Podcasts
    o RSS
    * Events
    * Advertise
    * Donate

    Print|Email
    Obama's War on Fun
    The president breathes new life into the Nanny State

    Gene Healy | May 17, 2011

    Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

    It's a high-pressure job, the presidency. Think about how badly the bin Laden raid could have gone. The worst case scenario—Navy SEALs trapped in a firefight with Pakistani forces—could have made Black Hawk Down look like a cakewalk.

    Yet the night after he gave the "go" order, President Obama hit the White House Correspondents' Dinner and had to grin his way through canned laugh lines working over "the Donald."

    Stressful! You couldn't blame the guy if he wanted to take the edge off with a smoke. Alas, he quit a year ago. It was "a personal challenge for him," the first lady explained recently, and she never "poked and prodded."

    Of course not. It's obnoxious to hector your loved ones. "Poking and prodding" is what good government does to perfect strangers. And that's what the Obama administration has been doing, with unusual zeal, for the past 2 1/2 years.

    You're not a real president until you fight a metaphorical "war" on a social problem. So, to LBJ's "War on Poverty" and Reagan's "War on Drugs," add Obama's "War on Fun." Like the "War on Terror," it's being fought on many fronts:

    Smoking: Last fall, the killjoy crusaders at Obama's Food and Drug Administration released proposed "graphic warning labels" on cigarettes, including "one showing a toe tag on a corpse" and another where "a mother blows smoke on her baby." In December, a federal court rebuffed the administration's plan to squelch "e-cigarettes," which allow smokers to ingest nicotine vapor without carcinogens or secondhand smoke. But the president's lifestyle cops stand ready to regulate menthols, because, like clove cigarettes (banned in 2009), they taste good, so people might like them.

    Alcohol: Similar logic drove the FDA's November ban on caffeinated malt liquors. Capitalizing on a minor moral panic over "Four Loko," which packs less punch than the ever-popular Red Bull and vodka, the agency threatened four companies with "seizure of the products" on the dubious grounds that caffeine becomes an "unsafe food additive" when combined with alcohol.

    Poker: Last month, the Department of Justice shut down five major online poker sites, seizing their domain names, issuing arrest warrants for executives and seeking billions of dollars in asset forfeiture. One defendant faces jail time of up to 65 years for helping people play cards over the Internet.

    Food: A year ago, Obama's FDA announced its plan to "adjust the American palate to a less salty diet," ratcheting down the amount of sodium allowed in processed foods. It's "a 10-year program," an agency source said, designed to change "embedded tastes in a whole generation of people." But even "real food" aficionados who shun Cheetos aren't safe from the reformers' zeal. On April 20, FDA agents and federal marshals carried out a 5 a.m. raid on an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, the culmination of a yearlong sting operation aimed at wiping out the scourge of unpasteurized milk. "It is the FDA's position that raw milk should never be consumed," an agency spokeswoman insisted.

    C.S. Lewis once wrote that "of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." Rulers who just want to exploit us may relax once their greed's sated.

    But "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience," Lewis said.

    On the whole, I prefer House Speaker John Boehner's attitude. When Fox News' Chris Wallace asked the Ohio Republican, "Why don't you stop smoking?" Boehner replied, "It's a legal product. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone."

    Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power (Cato 2008). He is a columnist at the Washington Examiner, where this article originally appeared. Click here to read it at that site.

    Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

    *
    *
    *
    more sharing
    o StumbleUpon
    o Digg
    o Reddit
    *

    Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
    See all 13 comments | Leave a comment

    Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
    Reefer madness|5.17.11 @ 1:37PM|#

    dont tell me that's maryjane-juanas my boy B's puffin. so the orgies must be next followed by...popcorn!
    reply to this
    fish|5.17.11 @ 1:37PM|#

    An outta the box OT.

    http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcp.....2882.story
    reply to this
    Scruffy Nerf Herder|5.17.11 @ 1:39PM|#

    Hooooooooooooly shit
    reply to this
    Joe M|5.17.11 @ 1:43PM|#

    Well, the good news is, he'll be more careful what he posts from now on. Another citizen gently educated about proper behavior.
    reply to this
    Chris Mallory|5.17.11 @ 1:44PM|#

    Sounds like it is time to cut the SS's budget, down to 0 would be about right. If a government employee needs a bodyguard, let the government employee pay for it out of his own pocket.
    reply to this
    Scruffy Nerf Herder|5.17.11 @ 1:37PM|#

    Isn't the "War on Solvency" enough?
    reply to this
    Mainer|5.17.11 @ 1:39PM|#

    "It's a legal product. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone."

    Leave you alone ?! That's positively un-American.
    reply to this
    Fist of Etiquette|5.17.11 @ 1:39PM|#

    Boehner replied, "It's a legal product. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone."

    Legal for now, John. But, hey, it's not Boehner's House that is stopping citizens from enjoying these vices. It's the regulators Congress is all too willing to let run rampant.
    reply to this
    Doctor Whom|5.17.11 @ 1:40PM|#

    Obviously, the government has to protect us from our own desire to play poker. If President Barack H. Reagan Bush Obama says so, that's good enough for me. I'm sure there's a reductio ad Somaliam in there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to come up with it.
    reply to this
    Sudden|5.17.11 @ 1:45PM|#! Lord's work keeping this cuntry from turning into Somalia.

    This year's 'rather be in Gaza'?

  • ||

    Thanks for the recap.

  • alan||

    You're welcome. What the Hell though, my apology at alan|5.17.11 @ 1:55PM|# was posted under this thread. Squirrels? Yep, I blame the squirrels.

  • Morris||

    TLDR

  • ||

    Fucking reruns. What else is on?

  • Hobie Hanson||

    It's all fun and games until someone gets salmonella, cirrhosis, emphysema, or hypertension. Reasonable health policy is a case of deferring fun rather than preventing it.

  • Trespassers W||

    Is this a spoof?

  • Ska||

    I would say yes, every time this handle posts.

  • Matt Felch||

    I would always assume everything here is a spoof, even the posts that aren't.

  • Solanum||

    Captain Smith stared straight ahead. The Tarmo fighter had maneuvered into attack position, its dewentar ray pointed directly at the Nonix’s outer shurt. The attacker’s beguplanktar relegnared the Nonix’s vadeenvedar at the looputanistic werttentrat!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Still makes more sense than The Lord of The Flies...

  • ||

    Well we've all got to die of something. If someone decides to smoke and drink a lot because its their idea of fun, and because they would rather die of a heart attack in their 60s or 70s rather than waste away in a nursing home from alzheimer's or some such at 80-something, who are you to make that decision for them?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yes, Hobie... clearly, we need a risk-free society.

    Now, go eat your unsalted tofu.

  • ||

    I'd rather listen to the band Hanson than hear one more word of your nanny state blather! If I want someone nagging me, I'll go get married!

  • ||

    Nobody should be allowed to do anything unless it's in the best interest of everyone: that's the Obama Administration in a nutshell.

    It goes beyond poker, smoking and food. It extends to things like getting home mortgages and really good medical care too.

    If you're consuming too much healthcare because you have a really nice "Cadillac" insurance plan? Well that isn't in the best interest of everyone, so Obama is gonna tax that away.

    If you're not wealthy enough for a down payment? Big enough so that there's no chance you could default? Well, that's not in the best interest of everyone either, so Obama's gonna invent a financial consumer protection agency to make sure you don't qualify for a home loan.

    It isn't just the fun stuff he's gone after--anything you do that isn't necessarily in the best interest of everyone is in the Obama Administration's cross-hairs.

    And by treating us all bad individually, he end up treating us all like shit.

  • Sudden||

    If you're not wealthy enough for a down payment? Big enough so that there's no chance you could default? Well, that's not in the best interest of everyone either, so Obama's gonna invent a financial consumer protection agency to make sure you don't qualify for a home loan.

    Do you know how many of the current home mortgages being issued are 3-5% down only FHA? Its breathtaking in its scope. I serioudly believe that the overall leverage over mortgages issued in the last two years is higher than 2004-2006, when no money down was available to anyone with a pulse. Thing is the 100% financing back then required higher interest rates, now with FHA the interest rate premium is not so dramatic, so even if you have the cash on hand for 20% down, it makes sense to keep that elsewhere and take the 3% downpayment

  • ||

    Well, obviously FHA loans are in the best interest of everyone!

    Because that's the government at work!

    Ergo, in the best interest of everyone! Obama squandering $350 billion in tax payer money on TARP was in the best interests of everyone too.

    He's definitely got a weird idea about what's in the best interest of everyone, but his idea about what's in the best interest of everyone is the standard he uses.

    Poor people being given access to home loans is bad if it's done for the profit motive--and good if it's done by the government to give poor people access to home loans.

    People who complain about being forced to bail out home loans are selfish--people who only care about themselves and not the best interests of everyone. People who complain about guaranteeing home loans through FHA? Well, they're selfish for the same reason too!

    ...in this one thing, this supremacy of the best interest of everyone vs. those of us with self-interest at heart?

    He is perfectly consistent.

  • proegg antichicken||

    How about leave me the fuck alone or I'll start blowing people to bits. That's for the common good too. Have progressives learned nothing about violent rhetoric?

  • T||

    The secret service would like a word, chicken hater.

  • ||

    I was hoping maybe I misunderstood.

  • proegg antichicken||

    This post is subpar and ought stricken from ze record.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Currently selling my house for $125k; buyer down payment: $3040, or less than 3% for you folks counting at home. FHA loan.

    What do you think the over-under is until they default?

  • alan||

    Uhhm, to think at first I thought the worst thing I thought I did there was misspell 'country'.

  • ||

    If you're a Libyan civilian who doesn't want to be blown to bits? Tough, that's not in the best interest of everyone.

    oh wait, you agree with Obama on that.

  • ||

    Close. Try:

    Nobody should be allowed to do anything unless it's in the best interest of everyone the Obama Administration: that's the Obama Administration in a nutshell.

  • ||

    The part I fund alarming is that I don't think he does do what's in his own best interest. If he were just doing what was smart for himself, I could understand that.

    I remember back when people would complain about Tea Party protestors alternately carrying signs denouncing Obama as a Nazi and as a socialist--and how can he be both?

    Answer: Easy! The one thing socialism and the Nazis had in common was that they both believed that individual interests should be subverted for the sake of what they saw as the common good.

    Whether using the Reichstag fire as a pretext to suspend civil liberties or nationalizing industry was in the best interest of anyone isn't even a plausible question to me, but that's how they saw it, and I think that's the way Obama sees it too.

    Whether he's talking about gambling or home mortgages, whether he's talking about energy policy or our national diet--it's all got that same river running through it.

    Subverting individual interests for the supposed good of everyone is the Obama Administration in essence. Whether what they're doing is actually in everyone's interest or even in their own interest is another question entirely. But when I see them being consistent on subverting individual interests for the sake of their vision of the common good--on so many different issues with that being their only consistent characteristic?

    After a while it stops being what the Obama Administration does, and it starts being who the Obama Administration is. They're about subverting individual interests for what they see as the common good--and that's all they are.

  • proegg antichicken||

    wise, I am digging this. I plan to liberally steal your ideas as to appear intelligent in my next political discussions. you're welcome!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Just a reminder:

    communism = no personal or economic freedom

    fascism = no personal and some economic freedom

  • CatoTheElder||

    You ought to visit the communist Lao People's Democratic Republic, especially Vang Vieng. The New Zealand Herald wrote, "If teenagers ruled the world, it might resemble Vang Vieng".
    http://wikitravel.org/en/Vang_Vieng

    Lots of personal freedom in Vang, way more than in the US. Hash, sticks, opium, mushroom-mushroom openly sold in cafes for one thing. Even more significant, the tourist industry can offer fun activities that simply could not exist in the overly litigious US. Eg, barhopping while innertubing down the river or renting a motorcycle without a license. Each bar has some dangerous and fun attraction like a zipline, or a swing, or a slide that somewhat stoned or inebriated customers can use for free. Compare with the US: it's been decades since I've seen a country club swimming pool with a diving board, for example.

    Fact is, lawyers and their stupid negligence lawsuits have done almost as much as government to banish fun in the US.

    However, even though this is an officially communist country, virtually all of Vang's tourist industry is local private enterprise. The tubing enterprise is something close to libertopia. The Vang locals have essentially homesteaded tubing rights on the river and created a business renting tubes and conveying tourists upstream. Other Vang locals have set up and operate the bars. I spoke at length with one of the local restauranteurs -- communist-indoctrinated Laotians are actually more comfortable with free markets than most Americans.

  • Robert||

    This is very interesting! Why haven't we read more about Laos?

  • MJ||

    "Nazi" is a flavor of socialism. There is no contradiction.

  • CatoTheElder||

    The thing that all socialists and the old German National Socialist Workers Party have in common is that that are both socialist. The big difference is that the Nazis had some really repulsive ideas about race.

  • ||

    Wise words, sir. Wise words. I have learned something new. (I'm serious here)

  • Sudden||

    I'd have respected Boehner much more if the quote had been "Fuck off, slaver"

  • ||

    Woulda been great, but there would have been an outcry over his use of the word "Fuck". Stupid social conservatives...even Goldwater realized they sucked after a while.

  • Edwin||

    The clove cigarettes ban makes sense, cloves are REALLY strong shit, numerous peop0le have had pretty bad adverse reactions to them; ever notice how the smell of cloves never goes away from a spice grinder?

    http://www.straightdope.com/co.....gular-kind

    shoulda been banned a long time ago

  • T||

    I have a pretty bad adverse reaction to your bullshit. The stench never goes away. Therefore, you shoulda been banned a long time ago.

    Or if that was too over the top for you, substitute 'peanut' for clove.

  • Edwin||

    OK....
    250 people reporting breathing problems, some people coughing up blood, and a few people even dying isn't a joke

    so now you guys are reduced to ignoring science? Any time I say something common sense, you guys ask for a reference or citation, and now that I'm showing you actual medical data, you don't care?

    your philosophy really is a joke

    clearly the benefit of preventing further harm from such a product far outweighs the gain society gets from its use, considering what an obscure and little used product it is

  • T||

    250 people reported problems on annual sales in the 15 million range? Are you fucking kidding me? Jesus Haploid Christ, look up the mortality statistics on acetaminophen. Hell, more people die from peanut induced anaphylaxis every year. Grow a sense of proportion, you innumerate git.

    And more importantly, so fucking what? Why is it the government's business that you might die? If you're worried about the risk of death, don't smoke cloves. If you're not, have at. In any event, it's nobody's business but your own and your unfortunate heirs.

  • DLM||

    Why is it the government's business that you might die?

    Because then you couldn't pay any more taxes, though I suspect they'd find a way around that.

  • ||

    Hi Edwin -

    clearly the benefit of preventing further harm from such a product far outweighs the gain society gets from its use, considering what an obscure and little used product it is

    And why is it that you (or society, as nebulous as that concept is) have the right to make that decision for anybody? Why can you substitute your judgement for what is or is not an acceptable risk for another individuals? How do you justify substituting your evaluation of the subjective enjoyment someone gets from an activity vs. the assumed downside for the direct participants judgement? And more importantly, why do you think your judgement should carry with it the "right" to lock someone in a cage for disagreeing with your evaluation of the situation?
    -Karl

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Are you kidding? Your citation undercuts your point. 2 people died, but both were already sick? 250 people had "breathing problems?" Out of millions of smokers? Big. Fucking. Deal. I'm having trouble thinking of any activity that is less safe than that.

  • Somalian Road Corporation||

    If people want to take part in an activity that only potentially harms themselves or other consenting adults, it's their own fucking business. How dangerous it is/the "science" doesn't matter because I'm not being forced into it.

    If you don't like clove cigarettes, don't buy clove cigarettes. Absolute harm reduction by government is impossible, to say the very least.

  • T||

    Great handle, SRC. I may swipe that phrase for use in other contexts.

  • Joe R.||

    "Somali Roads" is going to be the name I give my libertarian folk-rock album.

  • ||

    250 a year?? More people die from car accidents, lightning strikes, or getting shot by police! And besides, if I am a grown person with a brain, and I choose to do something like relax with a cigarette, I should be able to. I don't need monkeys like you whining about how bad a product is. People drown in water, should we ban swimming pools?

    And if it's little used, why do you care enough about it to regulate it as much as it is now?

  • waffles||

    Fuck you. You sound Canadian, get out of my country.

  • Some Call Me. . .Tim||

    And take your round, so called bacon with you.

  • Dr. Orpheus||

    My daughter came home from an electronic music recital... smelling mysteriously of cloves...

  • Zeb||

    They still have cloves. They are just wrapped in tobacco now instead of paper so they can call them "clove cigars".

  • Somalian Road Corporation||

    And thus the government regulations intended to increase safety (or at least harangue those gauche smokers) actually expose citizens to more danger and toxins. Why, it's almost like I've never seen this before.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "shoulda been banned a long time ago"

    Just like skiing ... or motorcycles ... or basketball ... or something YOU like to do.

  • The Gobbler||

    Why did they question him at school? I doubt he posted on facebook from there.

  • T||

    Because school admins will roll over for anybody with a badge. If you show up to somebody's house and ask to interrogate their kid, what do you think the response would be?

  • The Gobbler||

    That was my point. I think the mother should sue the school. They may be in loco parentis, but that should not give them the right to waive the kid's Fifth Amendment protections.

  • waffles||

    Fuckoff, Slaver.
    Fuck, off slaver.
    Fuck-off slaver.
    Fuck! offslaver!

    Fuck off slaver.

  • Greg Nickels||

    Obama's War on Fun

    Now that's something I can get behind.

  • Some Call Me. . .Tim||

    Will Fun get two in the face or an anti-tank missile through the bedroom window?

  • T||

    Hellfire strike from a Predator while driving to a rave.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Or going to the movies.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Late night raid by SEAL team 6.

  • Disney||

    Late night raid by SEAL team 6™.

    FTFY

  • Ragnar||

    "It was "a personal challenge for him," the first lady explained recently, and she never "poked and prodded."

    Yeah, right. You see the arms on Michelle Obama? You see Barry's ears? Tell me she hasn't pulled them a few times.

  • ||

    If you show up to somebody's house and ask to interrogate their kid, what do you think the response would be?

    Before, or after, I shoot their dog?

  • ||

    Speaking of fun I just found this on Youtube. Watching this is like finding out Steve Urkel really works for the CIA or plays centerfield for Yankees. How can the kind of douche rock play like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

    King of Douche Rock

  • Edwin||

    Now all restaurants are taco bell...

  • #||

    it's amazing how prophetic a campy action movey can be.

  • Too Big Too Fail||

    It's not really a war on fun, it's a war on slight risk.

    Massive risk, however, is still acceptable.

  • ||

    Don't forget the War on AIDS. It's a multi billion dollar boondoggle to scare us about sex and then scare us into taking Pharma drugs. On a lower scale, it's like scaring us about weapons of mass destruction, to scare us into accepting a bogus foreign war.

  • ||

    AIDS kills 1.8 million people a year. I think it's worth declaring war on.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    "AIDS kills 1.8 million people a year. I think it's worth declaring war on."

    Sure with billions of taxpayers' money and to the exclusion of all other medical and social dangers people would otherwise have put that money towards - HCV, prostate cancer, heart disease, ALS, alzheimners's, etc etc. Why not let people send their money to whatever research and activist organizations they choose instead of government picking which diseases are more important that others!

  • GroundTruth||

    Just saw a 2012 bumper sticker with the Obama logo. I don't usually "wave", but in this case....

  • Nanny-Staters are mean||

  • chaussures mbt wingu||

    nice job!

  • ||

    The things this article and you people are complaining about are a direct result of the fact that a huge portion of Americans are unfit for military service due to health problems, not to mention the fact that said health problems cost this country a fortune every day. The government wouldn't have to be a nanny state if you people just got off your asses and took care of yourselves for once in your life, you useless parasites.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    "the fact that said health problems cost this country a fortune every day"

    WRONG

    Not a fact at all. it is an anti-fact. it the opposite of fact. it is BULLSHIT on a stick you sniveling busy-body, uptight, BIATCH!

    The less healthy you are, the earlier you die and the less your overall cost is for healthcare.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=18711498

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....9/abstract

    Please try again to justify your nanny state stance

  • DLM||

    ... unfit for military service ...

    Just lower the standards. Do I have to think of everything?

  • Marty d||

    "The government wouldn't have to be a nanny state if you people just got off your asses and took care of yourselves"

    You are scolding Democrat sympathetics, aren't you?

    Also, I'm ok that most of my family wouldn't meet military fitness; I dont' want to rely on Michael Moore to keep me safe...

  • Marty d||

    "The government wouldn't have to be a nanny state if you people just got off your asses and took care of yourselves"

    You are scolding Democrat sympathetics, aren't you?

    Also, I'm ok that most of my family wouldn't meet military fitness; I dont' want to rely on Michael Moore to keep me safe...

  • Melissa||

    Yeah, because when I think "Fun" I think about Republican Right-Wing Religious Fanatics.

    BTW, Newt Gingrich once advocated The Death Penalty for marijuana possession.

    Sounds like a real fun guy!

  • Hooha||

    You seem to be lost, little girl. World News Daily forums are that-a-way -->

  • Marty  d||

    Keep up that Hope & Change baby! LOL

  • TANSTAAFL||

    WRONG

    The less healthy you are, the earlier you die and the less your overall cost is for healthcare.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=18711498

    Please try again to justify your nanny state busy body stance

  • ||

    I subscribe that it is "Obama's War on Common Sense".

  • ||

    Well...dragons are used to scare kids....so this does not surprise me

    http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/

  • Geotpf||

    This is a decent critism of Obama. Thing is, the alternative (whoever the Republicans nominate) will be worse. And don't pretend that Johnson or Paul will get the nomination-neither has a chance, especially since they are competing for the same voters.

    Oh, and the author perfers Boehner's attitude?

    Boehner Praises Signing of Legislation to Strengthen Enforcement of Internet Gambling Laws

    Washington (Oct 13, 2006) House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today hailed legislation signed into law to strengthen enforcement of laws prohibiting internet gambling. The measure was signed by President Bush as part of the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act Conference Report (H.R. 4954). Boehner issued the following statement:
    “Strengthening enforcement of our internet gambling laws will help crack down on the growing problems of illegal, off shore gambling, and it will also help protect America’s families. Although online gambling is already illegal, offshore websites target American families and children and operate in direct violation of U.S. law. The measure signed by the President provides law enforcement authorities and private parties such as credit card companies with new tools to strengthen enforcement and effectively shut down these online transactions on or off shore. Reps. Leach and Goodlatte deserve great credit for working together on behalf of American families to rein in internet gambling. This measure is an important part of the American Values Agenda and I am pleased that House Republicans continue to move substantive legislation upholding strong values that puts the interests of our families and children first.”
    The measure is part of the American Values Agenda put forth by Republicans earlier this year. The agenda contains a list of freedom-based legislative initiatives and complements the broader House Republican agenda that was unveiled by GOP leaders back in March.

    http://www.speaker.gov/News/Do.....tID=51543#

    Really?

  • Coeus||

    Thing is, the alternative (whoever the Republicans nominate) will be worse.

    We were told that last time about McCain. And then Obama managed do almost everything we were warned that McCain would. They are practically identical. There is little chance we will get a freedom loving nomination in the republican party. There is no chance we will from the Democrats.

  • ||

    Allow me to state my belief on the role of Government regarding laws "for our own good."

    I believe the Government has a responsibility to protect me from the harmful actions of other people, and therefore protect other people from any harmful actions I may perform. I firmly believe the Government has NO BUSINESS protecting me from myself.

    This includes ALL levels Government. I could care less if the Federal Government passes a law restricting my freedoms instead of my State or City Governments. The fact of the matter is that my freedom has been abridged none-the-less.

    That would mean no to prohibition of any drugs - be it alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, caffeine, or any of the other drugs out there. You don't need to save me from my own stupidity.

    That would mean yes to laws prohibiting the operation of motorized vehicles/heavy equipment under the influence of any drugs/amounts deemed unsafe(even too much caffeine could make you a risk). You can easily hurt others with this.

    No to helmet laws. (You are smarter to wear one but that is YOUR concern).

    No to seat belt laws(never heard of anyone being killed by a human projectile fly out of the windshield).

    Yes to laws limiting how long truckers can drive without sleep.(Driving while seriously tired is every bit as dangerous as driving drunk).

    No to laws prohibiting harm from things that are just plain statistically unlikely to happen.

    That sort of clear logic would wipe many laws off the books.

  • ||

    I agree with what you are saying almost completely . . . Your logic falters abit with truck-drivers being required to get enough sleep and not applying those same restrictions on all; as you do for drunken driving. Absolutely people shouldn't drive exhausted and drowsy. And it would be next to impossible to enforce such laws on everybody but I'm not sure we should be comfortable with laws that apply to only a certain group simply because they are easier to monitor.

    I think it is criminal that a major part of medical training is working around the clock. If a doctor is going to sew me up after having been on duty 24 hours I want it to be the guy who has been doing it so many years he can do it in his sleep!

    And we allow our ARMED police officers to work overtime and extra shifts.

    I don't know where to find the right libertarian line between allowing truck-drivers to drive half asleep and doing alertness testing for every single driver on the road. . . but I would caution against unequal restrictions for a group simply for the sake of ease.

    What were you thinking about with your suggestion "No to laws prohibiting harm from things that are just plain statistically unlikely to happen"? I think I agree but am not entirely sure yet.

  • Radiis Shoes||

    First of all, I would like to thank you for the stellar and informative entry. I have to admit that, I have never heard about this information. I have noticed many new facts for reasoning. Thanks a lot for sharing this useful and attractive information. I will be waiting for other interesting posts from you in the nearest future.

  • Edwin Leap||

    When my wife was recently recovering from head and neck radiation, I was looking for old-fashioned Campbell's Chicken and Noodle Soup. It was difficult to find one that wasn't 'low salt, low fat.' Likewise with yogurt. The thing is, I need to give her calories. I need things that taste good to her. I need salt and fat. Why is this so hard? Leave us alone!

  • TANSTAAFL||

    "I need things that taste good to her"

    Can't you just imagine Obama or Pelosi saying "well you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs!"

    To them, the needs of you and your wife are subservient to their own vision of the "Greater Good"

  • ||

    The War on Poker was started 10 years ago. The case has been slowly building. Bush first announced it was illegal (because it is money laundering) and major banks stopped bank transfers. Offseas gambling companies found smaller banks that would launder funds. That is illegal. It is not illegal to play poker - it is illegal to launder money.

    Anything that you can tax is legal.

  • ||

    I disagree with this article - the logic is all wrong. This is what they are attacking Obama for and blaming him for a Nany State? Each item of WAR on FUN has major logical flaws.

    "One defendant faces jail time of up to 65 years for helping people play cards over the Internet."

    I can play poker online right now. The companies that were busting knowingly and willfully tried to launder money.

    The FDA has a right and duty to protect individuals from unsafe fd on grocery shelves - if there is misleading information, marketing campaigns and health study results that are negative and contribute to diminished health then why mass produce them?

    You can put as much salt as you in everthing you buy. Salt is not illegal. It is super cheap. Put it in your coffee for all i care. You can make any kind of food you want. You can buy fois gras and make it at home - even in the brief time it was banned FROM RESTAURANTS - in Chicago you could buy it at certain markets, or oder it from a can online - which was not illegal.

    People limit themselves and create artificial walls. I do not live in a Nanny State. It's a shame that some people do.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    Well, the FDA doesn't want people using it illegally so they are limiting supplies for people who are prescribed it. Tell me, can you make adderall yourself at home? How about cancer drug avantis? If not, then you do too live in a nanny-state.

  • ||

    I don't want some libertarians blue haired mess of a child giving my 6 year old kid some caffeine bomb of a drink that is supposed to be made for club kids to enhance meth.

    I am going to pay to get my kid into private school.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    Right, depriving everyone else of things is the best way to protect your children from risk. It all seems fine until they ban something you really like or need.

    My guess is that you will howling in outrage when they ban yogurt douches and enemas.

  • ||

    The point is is that it is not a need. High salt content in food is not a need. Like global warming 99% of scientists say too much salt in your diet has adverse health effects in human beings. You cannot take salt out of a can of soup, but you can add it.

    I will buy my own greek yougurt to douche myself if the FDA does not approve of the new OTC Yogo Doosh kit.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    Well, since we can all just make everything as well as everybody else, why do we even need trade? You gonna make a microhip? Cancer drug? car? Pencil? lightbulb? all by yourself?

    You may have made the most ridiculous argument against government regulation ever. That is truly special.

    Stop trolling and read something that doesn't have a picture of Seacrest and Paris Hilton on it.

  • ||

    You are defending the worst article i've seen in a long time. The items that this article is talking about are not good arguments against deregulation - they are i believe extremely weak reasons to keep the government out of a War on Fun. The article is just wrong. I think there is a huge difference between Poker and caffeine alcohol drinks and a cancer drug.

    You argument is horrible because you are defending something that is obviously wrong - you have extended it into something in which the article is not about. Obviously you went to public school and having reading comprehension problems.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    "Obviously you went to public school and having reading comprehension problems."

    Wait, are you intimating that government run institutions are inefficient and fail to achieve their objective? Like the FDA? USDA?

    Listen up, because I won't repeat myself. It doesn't matter if you think their is no difference between cancer drugs and caffeine drinks because all that matters is that the government thinks it has the authority to outlaw these things. And it may not seem connected to a nanny-stater like yourself, but it is. They claim it is a health risk and therefore they claim the moral authority (nevermind constitutional authority) to ban them. The more they are allowed and encouraged to do this, the more they will. inevitably, as all Libertarians will tell you, even "the greater good" malarkey becomes lip service to mask economic, political and social aims which truly dictate which medicines, drinks, chemicals, food, etc they allow and don't allow.
    The same FDA you put so much trust in, allowed a pollutant (verified by testing at the time) produced by monsanto to go into use. Why? Maybe because 2 of the top 3 people in the FDA and EPA used to run Monsanto. You are so short-sighted in your defense of government intrusion you never consider the inevitablity that such authority is abused and misused to benefit the well connected and powerful. But that is just the nasty side-effect of allowing an entity like the US government to strip away your god-given(gaia-given, whatever) right to do with your own body what you like. It is ignorant people like yourself who are the weak and petty tyrants. Th problem is that alone you are just annoying, but get enough of you together and you become a force - guided by your own foolishness and hastening your own decline, but a force nonetheless.

  • ||

    "Why don't you stop smoking?" Boehner replied, "It's a legal product. I choose to smoke. Leave me alone."

    He doesn't stop smoking because he is addicted. His wife probably really wants him to quit because she doesn't want to be left alone for too many years. She probably feels that every healthy year will be like gold.

  • nike shoes||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    THANK U

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement