Federal Agencies Warn Americans Not to Just Stick Things in Their Eyes

"Sexy Dhalsim" didn't exactly top anybody's list of favorite costumesCredit: kevin dooley / Foter / CC BYIn a press release that seems designed as much to direct business to licensed eye doctors as much as it is to invoke safety fears, not one, not two, but three federal agencies have banded together to warn us all about the dangers of sticking just any old colored translucent discs  we come across into our eyes:

With Halloween rapidly approaching, federal officials are warning the public about the dangers associated with counterfeit decorative contact lenses. Decorative and colored lenses are becoming increasingly popular, especially around this time of year.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are working to seize counterfeit contact lenses, illegally imported decorative lenses, and lenses unapproved by the FDA. This ongoing effort, which is being coordinated with the ICE-led National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) in Washington, is being called "Operation Double Vision."

"Even though Halloween approaches, consumers shouldn't let a good deal or great costume blind them to the dangers of counterfeit decorative contact lenses," said HSI Executive Associate Director James Dinkins. "What's truly scary is the damage these counterfeit lenses can do to your eyes for a lifetime."

It’s scary enough for the feds to include a slide show featuring a few messed-up eyeballs, but apparently not scary enough to provide any actual data indicating the frequency or severity of actual injuries caused by “counterfeit decorative contact lenses.” I left a message for ICE’s media office, as it’s the agency hosting the press release, to see if I can get any actual statistics.

A quick Internet search leads to a report from 2010 that says contact lens-related injuries lead to 34,000 emergency room visits by minors every year, but the brief coverage doesn't indicate whether these are government-approved contacts or not.

What the feds want is for people not to stick $20 lenses from costume shops in their eyes, but rather to see a licensed eye doctor and get a valid prescription for whatever colored lenses the government has authorized them to wear. The FDA also offers a big screw-you to anybody engaging in anime cosplay for the holiday: “[C]onsumers should not expect their eye doctor to prescribe anime, or circle lenses, which give the wearer a wide-eyed, doll-like look, as these have not been approved by the FDA.”

So, Americans, don’t go sticking things in your eyes unless they’re expensive and the government approves it.

UPDATE: Skip Oliva tweeted me a link to a piece he wrote for the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 2011 looking at the federal government's aggressive regulation of decorative contact lenses. Read it here.

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.

  • Mr Whipple||

    You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah - heard this on the rad-idio this AM. After, "WTF? Why do I need to have a prescription to get these? Can't I just use my comm....", I remembered that the US voting public elected Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, that asshole T-party/KKK conflater from Florida, others...more than once. On purpose.

    So I realized - yes, we DO need this warning and these regulations. For the children. Because "Idiocracy" is now a reality show, set in 2013 USofA.

    /"...he loved Big Brother."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Now I kind of want to put things in my eyes.

  • pan fried wylie||

    DONT PUT SALT IN YOUR EYES DANNY!

  • AlmightyJB||

    I want to put something in that chick. I wouldn't have guessed freaky eyes did something for me but they do.

  • Almanian!||

    Good to know - John's a chubby chaser, JB like teh crayzee...

  • AlmightyJB||

    Given the geek level here I would have that everyone would want to go Captain Kirk on her alien looking ass.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    "He called us nerds Gary!"

  • Brett L||

    I've got $5 says you can find the same picture without the flesh-colored top on Google Image Search.

  • Steve G||

    No such luck. search terms hint??

  • SweatingGin||

    I got as far a reverse image search for her, and it suggested "female dhalsim". Then I decided I shouldn't be searching that at work and ran away.

    I mean... wow... just dazed. I don't think I'll be getting anything else done today.

    She's like the dark, scary, crazy version of Lobster Girl.

  • SweatingGin||

    Danger alarm just going off like mad. Wake up to her carving some symbol on your chest. Stalked for the rest of your life. Boiled bunnies. Never safe again.

    Totally worth it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    definately enhanced by some some lsd or at the very least some good weed.

  • SweatingGin||

    I'm imagining a three month or so relationship/bender ending with lots of new scars.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Someone used one of my comments as a springboard to crassness. This is the danger of the internet.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah that never happens here.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    We know that is what you intended. I'm going to call the regulators right now.

  • Rasilio||

    "Currently, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are working to seize counterfeit contact lenses, illegally imported decorative lenses, and lenses unapproved by the FDA."

    Can someone explain to me what jusirdiction the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION has over non food, non drug. and not even medical device decorative lenses?

    Does this mean the SEC has jusisdiction over Fantasy Football Leagues?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Does this mean the SEC has jurisdiction over Fantasy Football Leagues?

    If you have to ask....

  • buddhastalin||

    Unfortunately, the FDA considers decorative lenses to be a medical device subject to regulations.

    On top of that, the FTC requires a valid prescription when you buy contact lenses. US vendors will not sell lenses to you without one. As a wearer of contact lenses, I sometimes have to buy my lenses from Canada or the UK when I don't feel like getting an eye exam after my prescription passes the one year mark. It's a little more expensive to do that, but fuck the nanny state federal government.

  • pan fried wylie||

    $4billion/year can't save us from the scourge of $20 contacts.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    NOTHING TO CUT.

    NOTHING!

  • AlmightyJB||

    We already live in a libertarian laissez faire anarchy paradise.

  • Warty||

    Fuck you, government. Just for that, I'm gonna put this sharp piece of aluminum foil in my eye.

  • sarcasmic||

    Latest news on that 13yr old killed by cops for not immediately complying with their command to drop his toy gun.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....round.html
    Witnesses say the cops continued to pump bullets into him while he was on the ground. Apparently he didn't comply with their command to move away from the toy because he'd been shot, so they shot him some more.
    Oh, and they didn't know he was a boy because he had his back to them. But they feared for their lives because he pointed it at them, but he had his back to them.

    Meanwhile the names of the officers who are on paid vacation have not been released.

  • Virginian||

    As usual with this kind of thing, the knights cops have a plausible story, and only the word of peasants civilians to contradict their version of events.

  • Brett L||

    Do the witnesses also talk about the wet spots that appeared on the front of the officers' pants?

  • ||

    You thinking urine or semen?

  • Pathogen||

    I do believe this paper originated the story.

    Link

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    OFFICER SAFETY

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I see Mr. Brooks already got to that. Great minds....

  • Dave Krueger||

    I was planning on going out for Halloween made up to look like a federal government official but I wasn't able to bend around far enough to get my head up my ass.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Like

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Apparently he didn't comply with their command to move away from the toy because he'd been shot, so they shot him some more.

    Commands were ignored.

    OFFICER SAFETY was compromised.

    Procedures were followed.

    Good shoot.

  • sarcasmic||

    Now they're saying they didn't see he was a kid because he had his back to them. How could he have put them in fear for their lives if he had his back to them? How was he supposed to know they were cops if they were behind him? If they never saw his face, how could he have seen them?

    So it looks like they crept up behind him, pointed their guns at him, ordered him to drop the toy, and then started shooting before he had a chance to comply. Then kept firing at him while he was down.

    Yep. Good shoot.

  • Spoonman.||

    Is anybody else getting loud autoplay videos from "Anyclip" on Reason.com? You can mute them, but they unmute themselves a few minutes later.

  • JW||

    Adblock is your friend.

  • Steve G||

    WHAT!?

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    That happened to me yesterday. The ads are still there today, but at least they're staying quiet.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How could he have put them in fear for their lives if he had his back to them?

    He shunned them, which is hurtful and extremely damaging to a fragile imperfectly formed ego such as that exemplified by your average cop. So, by turning his back, he was effectively denying their existence; thus, attempted MURDER! Self defense.

  • sarcasmic||

    In all seriousness, it appears that failure to immediately obey an officer justifies them killing you.

  • Virginian||

    It's not even the more reasonable standard of knowingly disobeying a lawful order. It's literally now anytime a cop yells something at someone that person is supposed to instantly obey it, even if the cop is in plainclothes or it's a no knock raid.

    Leaving aside everything else that's fucked up about this shooting, we've now reached a point where there is zero burden on the cop. He gets to give the orders, and he gets to shoot you the instant it even appears you are hesitating, no matter the circumstances. If you are awakened at 0300 by the sound of your door being kicked in, it's your job to realize it is Brave Police Officers kicking in your door, not Evil Thugs. If you attempt to defend your home, they will riddle you with fire from automatic weapons. If you're lucky, you'll die instantly. If you're not, they'll leave you to bleed out in your home like Jose Guerena.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    My daughters aren't going to screw around and put stuff from Party City in their eyes -- probably overprotective -- but I don't need the government to make that decision for me.

  • Pathogen||

    But.. but.. what if you're drunk.. and high.. and your kids sneak out to go down to some seedy novelty store... and the salesman talks them into purchasing those things... and then they suddenly feel compelled to try them out... and their eyes fall out.. or something like when that asshole Nazi gets it at the end of raiders of the lost arc? One day, you'll thank big brother and its alphabet soup for doing your job for you... one day.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    It's probably best to just shut down all the costume stores.

    And get rid of Halloween.

    You know what? Ban clothes. It's for the best.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    failure to immediately obey an officer justifies them killing you.

    A pattern is emerging.

    The idea that the people in that community have not hung those cops from lampposts on Main Street is depressing.

  • sarcasmic||

    Their names are being withheld.

  • Evolved Species||

    Wow. Except for the justified cop hate in that story someone posted here, you people are beyond me.

    The seriousness of infected eyes requiring ER visits, prolonged damage requiring extensive medical care and potential accidents caused by drivers wearing something in their eyes they normally don't which WILL effect their vision somehow escapes you people on here. Well, this IS a function of government because those medical costs require money to pay and oftentimes it will be poor people without adequate decision-making skills that will wear these type of things. And those people are the ones that the government can often reach when opposed to the avalanche of "free market" advertising that doesn't even acknowledge the risks involved.

    You guys are amazingly shortsighted when it comes to health risks incurred when people are not exposed to the real dangers of products such as these. And without the government there to tell about them, we'd only have the advertising from the companies themselves, which is more often than not misleading when it comes to dangers their products may pose, especially to the uninformed and naive.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah those inferior, less evolved people can't be trusted to make their own decisions. They need the guidance of more enlightened people, like yourself.

    Go eat a gun you fascist pig.

  • JW||

    you people are beyond me.

    Then we shouldn't miss you when you're gone.

  • Steve G||

    By the way, welcome to the site!! Cookie?

  • sarcasmic||

    Without government to protect us from ourselves, we'd all die! We'd all be dead! Thank you government for saving us from ourselves! We owe our lives to government! Without government we would all be dead from our own stupidity! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooraaaaaaay!

  • Evolved Species||

    That's not what I'm saying and you know it. And that's why your kind are never taken seriously.

    I am saying that government plays a vital role in dispelling the disinformation often used in advertising IF the results can have a massive drain on the general public's well-being. And this definitely crosses that threshold since the results are exceptionally high medical costs that are going to be incurred by other people. In other words: it's in the public interest, or use the term "Promotes The General Welfare" if you prefer it.

    I hate government waste, but I would be willing to bet in the grand scheme of things, this not only protects people from making poor decisions, it reduces out-of-control medical care costs in a not-inconsequential way. But heaven forbid the government would act to protect people.

  • Fluffy||

    Please produce some data detailing the reign of terror inflicted on the United States by these products.

    Not a list of accidents you can imagine. Actual accidents and harms only.

    Thanks.

  • Evolved Species||

    Well, since the government is there to PREVENT people putting themselves in a seriously dangerous situation, I don't understand your question. Sorry if the system actually works and that bursts the bubble, which is your fantasy of people getting permanently injured.

  • JW||

    Well, since the government is there to PREVENT people putting themselves in a seriously dangerous situation

    Like authoritarianism? That kind of dangerous situation?

    Can you point to that clause or amendment that stipulates that condition?

  • Evolved Species||

    Ever heard the term "Promote The General Welfare"? If this isn't an expense designed to do just that, I don't know what is.

  • sarcasmic||

    If "Promote the General Welfare" means "Government can do anything and everything for the good of the people," why did the Framers list off enumerated powers when those four words give the government unlimited power?

  • Evolved Species||

    They're not banning them. They are explaining the dangers of them. So that hardly meets the standard of "government can do anything and everything". They're not "doing" anything other than "promoting" the potential dangers, which is a legitimate function.

  • Agammamon||

    Uhm, they *are* banning them - any that don't have the FDA's approval are seized and the importers face fines and civil/criminal charges.

    The government isn't simply putting out some PSA's saying to be careful when buying shit you plan to put on your eyeballs.

  • RBS||

    Um, you might want to check up on what the General Welfare Clause actually means.

  • RBS||

    This was meant for the evolved one.

  • JW||

    Ever heard the term "Promote The General Welfare"?

    Why no! Can you explain this strange concept to me?

    Take your time and do a good job. Go write it up in Word and paste it in here, later tonight.

  • sarcasmic||

    Um, actually, no. Government is not there to prevent what may or may not happen. That's how people with good intentions pave the road to Hell.

  • Evolved Species||

    Hey, Mr sarcasmic, I know our government does quite a lot of that. I'm anti-war and hate what they are doing with the so-called prisoners in Gitmo. And I hate the fact that there are unions bleeding the taxpayers dry. But this is a valid expenditure of money, and I'm sure the "General Welfare" clause covers it much to your dismay.

    If you don't like it, challenge it in court.

  • sarcasmic||

    But don't the wars promote the general welfare? Besides keeping us safe from the terrorists, they create jobs for defense contractors.
    Why do you oppose promoting the general welfare?

    Doesn't Gitmo promote the general welfare? It houses dangerous terrorists who would be bombing Time Square if they were set free.
    Why do you oppose promoting the general welfare?

    Don't those unions promote the general welfare? I mean, those unions are the very same people issuing these warnings you are so lovingly fawning over. Without the unions there would be no warnings.
    Why do you oppose promoting the general welfare?

    General welfare can be stretched to justify absolutely anything.

  • Evolved Species||

    I'll address your argument point by point.
    1. No, wars do not promote the general welfare. They promote terrorism and put us at great danger, which I think the libertarian Ron Paul has maintained. They do not "promote" jobs for defense contractors either. They directly transfer money from the treasury to politically connected government partners of the left and right alike and make us more dangerous.

    2. Gitmo is a prison and needs to be treated as such. I have no problem capturing and keeping prisoner those captured on battlefields, even if we shouldn't have been on those fields. But those people need to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. People not captured on a battlefield should be charged and tried.

    3. Unions don't promote the general welfare because their sole function is to represent their members. And I'm a HUGE union supporter, but like FDR said, they have no place in the public sector.

    4. It's "PROMOTE" the General Welfare. Convenient how you left out that important component that legitimizes what they are doing in this story while it excludes your poor comparisons.

  • JW||

    General welfare can be stretched to justify absolutely anything.

    Don't forget teh JOOS!

  • Evolved Species||

    So you're comparing the federal agencies that are merely getting the word out about potential dangers to the Nazis? I guess you got the Nick Gillespie book of arguing roles of government.

    And I did admit that the multiple agencies spending money here is a waste, so you must admit I'm at least arguing in good faith. Unfortunately, I'm starting to think I'm the only one who is.

    But that's fine. I know I'm new here and this is my first commenting. I expected to get raked over the coals for disagreeing with the hive mentality.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Hive mentality? You obviously have not spent much time here since most commenter's are constantly arguing with each other. You mistake hive mentality with a common set of beliefs in how government should most morally be run. Sorry if you came to a libertarian website, made a comment that the government should be restricting products not approved by TOP MEN, and then got opposed by libertarian arguments. THIS IS A LIBERTARIAN WEBSITE.

  • sarcasmic||

    Don't forget teh JOOS!

    Well, at the time positive eugenics was the consensus! Consensus! And we all know that consensus means everything! So the holocaust was done to promote the general welfare! Consensus!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Let's imagine that we do agree that there is a valid function of government here. Even agreeing on that, why do we have three different agencies all spending our money to deliver the same message? It's bureaucratic mission creep, and it's an indicator of a bloated bureaucracy well on its way to fiscal collapse. As a proponent of effective government, aren't you concerned about that at all?

  • Evolved Species||

    Wow, finally an intelligent response. Yes, Scruffy Nerfherder, I am very concerned with it. The multiple agencies need to either be consolidated or made obsolete and that is where the waste is, not in the messaging.

    I agree that this could probably be done much more efficiently, but my overriding point still stands that this is a real and beneficial function of government because it promotes the general welfare and at the same time does not prevent the company from selling their product.

  • ||

    There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.

    - Peter Drucker

  • sarcasmic||

    You know what else works? Lawsuits. That's right. People hurt by these products can sue, and producers of said products have an incentive to not get sued. I know it sounds crazy, but it really happens. Is it perfect? No. Nothing is. But it's better than arrogant fuckers like you trying to protect those poor stupids from themselves.

  • Evolved Species||

    Yes, let's see how poor people fare when they go after multi-national corporations that will easily claim they had disclaimers of the dangers in tiny 2pt print on the packaging while running a barrage of ads that are full of all rainbows and puppies and not a care in the world for the wearers of these things.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ah, yes. All corporations are evil and filled with evil people who do evil things in their evil quest for evil profits, and only good government filled with good people can do good things because they only care for the good of the people. Blah, blah, blah.

    And the only reason communism failed was because the wrong people were in charge.

  • Evolved Species||

    Again, you take my comment and leap to a far-fetched conclusion I never even approached. I just said the corporations have ways to limit their liability even when it doesn't actually serve to properly inform the general public. And you try explaining the medical disclaimer to a 12 year old who can legally go into any Halloween shop and purchase these things. Wait till she looks at herself and thinks "cool, I'll keep wearing these all the time because they make me look cool," without being able to understand the language in the disclaimer or comprehend the potentially dangerous side-effects.

    Come on libertarians. There are loads of excesses in government. But protecting consumers from potentially life alteringly dangerous products like these is not one of them.

  • sarcasmic||

    And you try explaining the medical disclaimer to a 12 year old who can legally go into any Halloween shop and purchase these things.

    That's what parents are for. Or are we all children and is government our parent?

  • Evolved Species||

    So a 12year old is not afforded any type of legal protection or shouldn't be well-informed when they are choosing to buy a product without their parents' knowledge?

    It sounds like Mr. sarcasmic here is saying that 12-year olds should be considered chattel property of their parents and shouldn't be free to purchase anything because deciding what they should and shouldn't be able to buy SAFELY should be exclusively up to their parents.

    Talk about tyranny. You're calling for the enslavement of 1/4 of Americans.

  • sarcasmic||

    So a 12year old is not afforded any type of legal protection or shouldn't be well-informed when they are choosing to buy a product without their parents' knowledge?

    You really think 12yr old kids are going to heed warning labels?

    Really?

    REALLY?

    REALLY?

    REALLY?

  • Evolved Species||

    Believe it or not, most 12 year old kids respect when an authority figure explains something to them. And I'm not going to go down the "if it saves one life" road, but there is some validity to the government exposing people to dangers that will not only effect them, but will have a real and calculable cost on society in general if the dangers are not heeded en masse and our ERs and eye doctors are burdened with more cases that were easily preventable.

  • sarcasmic||

    We've moved the goalposts from warning labels to warnings from authority figures. Who are these authority figures? The loser behind the counter at Spencer's?
    Or maybe, I dunno.... parents?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And you try explaining the medical disclaimer to a 12 year old who can legally go into any Halloween shop and purchase these things.

    I don't need to explain it to my, coincidentally, 12 year old. Or my 13 year old. My explanation is, "You're not wearing them."

  • Pathogen||

    "And you try explaining the medical disclaimer to a 12 year old who can legally go into any Halloween shop and purchase these things."

    Sooo.. should they should be carded by the cashier, or have an attorney on speed tial?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure a 12yr old will heed those government warnings. Yes siree!

  • Pathogen||

    "With a warning label this big, you know they gotta be fun!"

    /Hermes Conrad

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Quite similar to a federal government that has tens of thousands of regulations that all carry the force of law. How can you possibly be in compliance?

  • Scott S.||

    And do you have any data supporting that these lenses are actually causing harm and significant medical costs? Because the government didn't seem to find it worth the bother.

  • JW||

    I am saying that government plays a vital role in dispelling the disinformation often used in advertising IF the results can have a massive drain on the general public's well-being.

    No, no it doesn't, no more than it has a vital role in regulating the use of weasel words.

    "Promotes The General Welfare"

    Oh right, the gubmint blank check contained in the document that very clearly and in great detail, lays out the very real limits of said gubmint. Sure. Anything you say, which apparently is also the "general welfare" standard.

    Thanks for playing.

  • Pathogen||

    Here is something FDA approved to be inserted into the eye, and arguably more hazardous than "counterfeit" novelty contact lenses...

  • Steve G||

    B-b-but, it's Thursday, this shouldn't be happening

  • Warty||

    TITS OR GTFO

  • Pathogen||

    I was thinking about sticking pennies... or bottle tops... or bacon lard in my eyes, I'm glad I read your post and came to my senses... I could of cost the government a shit load of money. Thanks masked stranger..

  • SweatingGin||

    Cue the GI JOE theme.

    "Now I know!"

    "And Knowing is half the battle!"

  • Pathogen||

    Yoooo Joe!

  • Rasilio||

    The really sad thing is I can't tell if this is serious or sarcastic trolling.

  • Evolved Species||

    How about it's not trolling at all but is a person wanting to have a logical and reasonable debate.

    But that's like expecting a miracle on here apparently.

  • ||

    How about it's not trolling at all but is a person wanting to have a logical and reasonable debate.

    Let us know as soon as you become acquainted with logic and reason.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Ugh. I hate to see people having a difficult time with a subject. I know it's late in the argument for this, but I'll clean this up for the next reader that scrolls down here.

    There is a difference between putting out a PSA about nasty, eye-destroying contact lenses that you shouldn't wear and REGULATING THE INDUSTRY INTO THE DIRT.

    When there are hundreds of laws, regulations, specifications, and permits required to sell a particular product then you have moved well beyond the point of public safety awareness and into the realm of bloated government control.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    you people are beyond me.

    Yes.

    Yes, we are.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Chief, I have an idea. Let's market a product intentionally designed to blind our customers! It'll be great, and we'll all get stinking rich!"

    "Fabulous, Bob. Get on that right away."

  • Pathogen||

    'Made in Somolia'

  • JW||

    I don't know which of our regulars is playing the empathy-obsessed, head-injured proglodyte, but you're doing a bang up job.

  • Warty||

    It's not like it's terribly hard to bait this crowd, though.

  • JW||

    Look, I came here for an argument!

    Is this the right room for an argument?

  • Warty||

    I told you once.

  • JW||

    No, you haven't.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I heard this story one time, about this kid who, you know, was really into pirates and stuff. And his mom got him a pirate costume for Halloween. And so he puts on this pirate costume, and it has a plastic sword, and everything, and an eye patch. And so the kid thinks he's really a pirate, because he looks exactly like a pirate and everything. So he decided to go down to the harbor and board and seize a big cargo ship. And the captain said, like, "OMG A PIRATE!" and he shot the kid dead for trying to steal his boat.

    This is why we should ban pirate costumes. Because otherwise, like ten million kids will get shot for attempted piracy.

    And then there's ZOMBIE outfits. Don't get me started on that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or realistically a cop might think the plastic sword is real, sneak up behind the kid with gun drawn, order the kid to drop it and start shooting when the kid doesn't immediately comply.

  • ||

    Oh way to go Brooks. Just trivialize the grief of those parents...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How many people (of any age) were killed or injured by lawn darts?

    Once the fear gains sufficient momentum, nothing can stop it. And the government is here to help.

  • sarcasmic||

    According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, 6100 over 8 years.

  • Evolved Species||

    I guess the same could be said for people shooting guns into the air. Not too many people end up with a bullet raining down into their skull, so why in the world is it illegal?

    I take it you're also against any "endangerment" law like DUI, shooting guns in the air on New Years or driving a car at night with the brakes and lights removed.

  • JW||

    Damn! He's got us! Why hasn't anyone ever asked these painfully obvious, yet probing questions before!?

    Now I have to go and find a new ideology.

  • Evolved Species||

    So basically you have no retort? Good to know.

  • JW||

    No one knows the answers to those questions! Nobody!

    You might as well ask me the name of the devil.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know the name of the devil!

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

  • Evolved Species||

    Bush was a devil seeing as he began us down a path of perpetual war. And Obama is further taking us down that path.

    As much as it pains you to admit it, I'm no statist. I just recognize as legitimate something you all don't. But like I said, I expected it with the hivemind mentality that I have seen on here the amount of time I've been reading comments.

  • ||

    I'm no statist. I just recognize as legitimate something you all don't.

    That "something" being an authoritarian regulatory state. So, kinda like a statist.

  • Evolved Species||

    See, that's the problem. People DO know the answer to those questions. And that answer is what dispels the more ardent anarchists that call themselves libertarian. Because it shows that government does often have a vital role in "Promoting the General Welfare", which despite what you may have heard, often means being proactive in protecting or just making people aware of potential dangers.

    Again, the government may be excessive in the number of departments that are working on the issue, but the overriding point is still valid: they have a responsibility to teach people of dangers.

    I actually expected libertarians to somewhat support this seeing as it is in lieu of the government actually regulating or legislating restrictions on who can buy them or how they are produced. I think it's a good balance of safety and the free-market, but "balance" and "government" are forbidden from use in the same sentence here, apparently.

  • JW||

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are so massively fucked, fauxtroll or not. Rule by Cringing Idiots never ends well.

    Goodnight everyone! Tip your bartender (in cash!)!

  • Evolved Species||

    Yes, because only someone cringing in fear thinks it should be illegal to fire a weapon into the sky or to endanger everyone else on the road.

    That sounds crazy to me and to most right-thinking people.

  • sarcasmic||

    I must say, you are quite adept at rebutting arguments that no one made! Bravo!

  • sarcasmic||

    Bush was a devil seeing as he began us down a path of perpetual war.

    Derptastic. Well, I'm done with this one.

  • Robert||

    I can understand how it would promote safety to have the manufacture of the devices regulated. But in the case of purely cosmetic contact lenses, how does it serve safety to require a prescription for them? Are there even any optometrists who would prescribe a cosmetic, no-correction contact lens for a child? Or for an adult?

  • ||

    they have a responsibility to teach people of dangers.

    No, they don't.

    I actually expected libertarians to somewhat support this seeing as it is in lieu of the government actually regulating or legislating restrictions on who can buy them or how they are produced.

    Not at all. As was already explained to you, these non-FDA approved contacts are illegal, and importing or selling them can result in fines or jail time. Given the choice between a totalitarian regulatory state and a paternalistic totalitarian regulatory state, I'll take option C.

  • Ska||

    So can we at least get a hot Chun-Li to go with our sexy Dhalsim?

  • JW||

    Number 4? You want number four?

  • ||

  • ||

    So I miss the T in fighter...

    Doesn't matter. Thankfully Google is smarter than I am

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I know the name of the devil!

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

    *outright prolonged laughter*

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I take it you're also against any "endangerment" law like DUI, shooting guns in the air on New Years or driving a car at night with the brakes and lights removed.

    I am against laws which prohibit activity which does not actually harm anyone.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    ps- "Actual harm" does not include pants-wetting speculative paranoia.

  • Evolved Species||

    Say that until a stray bullet from some drunken partygoer rains down on someone you love.

    If you want to be taken seriously by the rest of society, you have to be somewhat willing to give up the right to legitimately endanger someone.

    How about this: a drunk driver is barreling down the road in the wrong lane. The person he is coming toward swerves to avoid him and ends up in a ditch and the driver is dead. By your logic, the drunk driver never hurt the person. They hurt themselves because they swerved. The drunk is free to go on his merry way.

    So much for your theory.

  • RBS||

    barreling down the road in the wrong lane.

    Also known as Reckless Driving.

    Bonus points for your appeal to emotion though.

  • sarcasmic||

    Leave him alone! He's got the straw man on the ropes! He's about to knock it out!

  • Evolved Species||

    Thank you for making my point for me. Mr Brooks here said he shouldn't have anything happen to him because he did not "actually harm" the innocent victim of his drunken driving. You know, the dead one in a ditch who would be alive were it for the drunk coming at him the wrong way.

  • Rasilio||

    But I legitimately endanger people every time I get in my car. In fact the danger presented by me simply driving in accordance with all traffic laws is orders of magnitude greater than the risks posed bu firing a firearm into the air.

    I could have an equipment failure, be dealing with fighting kids in the back seat, changing the radio station at the wrong minute or simply be lulled into complacency by the routine of driving and then kill someone as a result and the risks of this happening when I am cold stone sober (in fact I do not drink or take any drugs at all) are on the order of 1/7th the risk of them happening if I were just above the legal limit for alcohol.

    So since you have already determined that the risks of firing a gun into the air are too great to be acceptable how do you accept the risks posed by sober driving?

  • Evolved Species||

    Now who is beating a strawman to death?

  • ||

    IOW, you don't like confronting the inconvenient aspects of an ethical system defined entirely by hysteria.

  • ||

    you have to be somewhat willing to give up the right to legitimately endanger someone.

    A person "endangered" by their voluntary participation in an activity, or their voluntary purchase of a good or service, has every right to endanger himself, and no cause for action against the person, activity, good or service he voluntarily employed in the course of self-endangerment.

    Endangering other people through negligence, force, or fraud is entirely different and would be actionable in any court in the land, public or private, in libertopia. Actually, that's kinda the basis of libertarian ethics. Have someone with an IQ at least double your own read this to you and see if you can comprehend it (your local bus stop should provide you at least a dozen candidates): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N....._principle

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's not like it's terribly hard to bait this crowd, though.

    Go 'way. Baitin'.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How about this: a drunk driver is barreling down the road in the wrong lane. The person he is coming toward swerves to avoid him and ends up in a ditch and the driver is dead. By your logic, the drunk driver never hurt the person.

    WRONG.

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