One of the greatest speeches I've heard RP give in a long, long while.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 5:40pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^Yogi:

He's right but who's really against killing people?


Ya, to be fair, some of them were ugly.

I don't think it is controversial to say that the drug war causes more harm than illegal drugs. That is pretty obvious. Why anyone would want that to keep going is where the controversy lies.

-Karl

That milk example assumes infinite ability to gather information about the product you're consuming. I don't have time to check that the milk that I buy in the supermarket is pasteurised. I'm quite happy that some of the tax I pay checks that for me. That raw milk whose source is immediately verifiable isn't saleable isn't an argument for deregulation, it's highlighting a case of poorly written legislation.

Apologies if the view I'm assigning to Mr. Paul isn't correct.

I have a hard time believing that you don't have time to glance at a label. I do, however, agree that there's no way that an average consumer can put that much effort into learning that much information about everything he buys. However, I believe that we should at least be allowed to buy and use things that are bad for us as long as we're not hurting others when we do it. The question then becomes a matter of figuring out what harms others.

He's more rational than most. at least.
And if he ever announces science as superseding superstition, and fully understands it's importance to the course and future of humanity, I might consider him rational enough to be a leader.

I don't like how he tries to tie being hands off on drugs with economics.

We're in the shit right now precisely BECAUSE of de-regulation.

de-regulation of economics and legalizing drugs are not the same thing. If it really was as simple as letting people face the consequences of bad decisions, I would be for it, but that's not the same thing as letting someone die because a corporation decided to maximize profits and use known bad things in the creation of their product.

It's why we have laws in the first place, a bunch of people got together and all agreed that killing people is bad and they decided to make a law against it. Yes, I'm against a nanny state, but the truth is we really don't have that much of a nanny state to begin with, This nanny state only seems to exist in the eyes of libertarians and those who want to reduce safety in the name of profit.

This is just another situation where people actively be refuse to be nuanced and instead of saying ok, regulation is good here, but not good there...they just want to lump regulation as either completely good or completely bad. I'm sorry, but life just doesn't work that way. 100 percent regulation is bad and so is 100 percent de-regulation.

"if he ever announces science as superseding superstition, and fully understands it's importance to the course and future of humanity, I might consider him rational enough to be a leader."

If you know of a good atheist candidate, please let me know.

"100 percent regulation is bad and so is 100 percent de-regulation."

I would like a system to be developed that warned people of the dangers of using a product, but still allowed them to use it. For instance, how tobacco is sold, though I think the warnings on it are not strong enough.

>> ^criticalthud:

He's more rational than most. at least.
And if he ever announces science as superseding superstition, and fully understands it's importance to the course and future of humanity, I might consider him rational enough to be a leader.


Science will inevitably lead to the robot uprising, what do you have against mankind!

It seems to me that Ron Paul is so enamoured with the concept of freedom that he believes it should extend to selling unhealthy food. There is simply no good reason to sell unpasteurized milk. Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom. If Ron Paul cannot distinguish the two, I must call into question his judgment on what constitutes freedom for the layman and consumer, and what constitutes freedom for producers to sell dangerous products.

>> ^Ornthoron:

It seems to me that Ron Paul is so enamoured with the concept of freedom that he believes it should extend to selling unhealthy food. There is simply no good reason to sell unpasteurized milk. Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom. If Ron Paul cannot distinguish the two, I must call into question his judgment on what constitutes freedom for the layman and consumer, and what constitutes freedom for producers to sell dangerous products.


You mean healthy food like fast food which is FDA approved? You could say there is no good reason to sell carbonated beverage as well, as drinking carbon dioxide is basically poison. Not a very effective one, mind you, but isn't it my right to be stupid with what I eat. I would argue eating is one of those most fundamental rights that can't really be regulated anyway, much like the drug war. In this day and age of fear mongering on the news, it would be hard to get away with "the jungle" without massive public retaliation.

But back to the point at hand, what about cigars, surely those should be illegal by this logic, or not running once a week? If you sell a product you know to be harmful, advise people thusly, and they still choose to, then by all means shouldn't it be allowed. I'll even give you grounds to liability if companies knowingly sell harmful products, criminally liability, not just civil. Even with that, I still don't see the need for an FDA. That seems to favor people who can manipulate the laws better than a true consumer protection in many cases, because the meat industry today is about as gross as it ever was in spite, or arguably, because of the FDA.

I digress, though. I don't know how a man could craft a moral argument to make food products illegal that aren't explicitly harmful. Hell, even foods that ARE explicitly harmful are legal today, but only the ones that make tons of money for big business, not struggling farmers.

>> ^Ornthoron:

It seems to me that Ron Paul is so enamoured with the concept of freedom that he believes it should extend to selling unhealthy food. There is simply no good reason to sell unpasteurized milk. Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom. If Ron Paul cannot distinguish the two, I must call into question his judgment on what constitutes freedom for the layman and consumer, and what constitutes freedom for producers to sell dangerous products.


This to me seems to be the central failing of libertarianism. They believe in freedom for everyone and they seem to believe that companies have the same rights as individuals. Time and again, we have seen that corporations cannot be trusted when there is a profit motive. The industrial revolution was about as deregulated as it can get, and all it produced was some of the most appalling working conditions ever.

Nor do I share their ridiculous faith in the market to fix these kinda things. It simply doesn't work. Company x produces products in an unethical way, company y doesn't so it's products cost more, despite being essentially the same end result. People buy xs products because they simply can't afford ys. Regulation for these kinda things creates a level playing field.

Ironically, in this particular case, I'm actually in favour of allowing unpasteurised milk to be sold as long as it is clearly labelled as such. But again, that's kinda the point. You cannot simply apply some arbitrary principle to everything. Even in things we hold sacred, such as free speech, judgements must be made (yelling fire in a theatre and so on).

Well, I have to give it to Ron Paul. He could well be the most sane of the Republican nominees this year (with the exception of Huntsman). Although, saying 'the most sane Republican nominee' is like saying 'the warmest iceberg'. He's still batshit insane, he just has occasional bouts of lucidity.

@ChaosEngine Corporations are a creation of governments, not people or free marketers. If we want to do away with legal protections for corporate entities, fine by me, I have been calling for it for quite some time. Then again, that means you will most likely have to work for yourself in the future, which is a less lazy way to live.

And saying you can't apply the idea of individual rights to influence all following decisions is to disallow any conversation beyond the surface of any subject. You can't talk about calculus unless you already have a working foundation of simple algebra, everything has a foundation from which is erects more complexity. To build any functional, rational structure, it has to be continually built on one foundation or it will be inconsistent, IE trying to apply the rule of math to the rule of friendships or something. Are you making this an appeal to be inconsistent, or an appeal to a different base of measure? If you wish a different base of measure, then purpose one, but I refuse to make believe that an inconsistent building is a better one to make, that can be steered to very evil ends, as many large corporate bodies have had. But even private people have done so too, look at prohibition of alcohol. People can be just as evil as corporate bodies.

Agreed, It's extremely frustrating knowing that I agree with him in matters of foreign policy and getting out of the drug war and out of people's bedrooms, but he's a complete nutbag when it comes to other things like economic policy. He's a perfect example of how you simply can't apply one political philosophy (liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, etc) to all situations. Not all situations are equal. some things are served better by liberalism, some things are better served by conservatism, etc. You can't apply one formula to all things.

I agree completely with ChaosEngine, it has been demonstrated time and time again that you simply cannot trust a business to do the right thing when profit motive is involved. Yes, public retaliation plays a role, but the bigger a company is, the harder it is retaliate because it requires more and more dissatisfied customers to put a big enough dent in profits to motivate them to change.

I don't recall who said it, but Capitalism is an awesome engine for progress and innovation, but it's a shitty way to run a just and fair society. Forget separation of church and state..we need separation of profit and ethics

Profit means you are utilizing resources effectively. The opposite is net destruction. If everyone consumed more than they produced, we would eventually have nothing. Henry Ford accumulated a lot of personal wealth for his innovations, but everyone he traded with got a car and his employees were better paid than unions. You can pay a guy with a bulldozer a lot more than a guy with a shovel and savings and investment is what makes that upgrade possible. No business can force you to trade your production for theirs, only the government with taxes can do that. If the government didn't have the power to dole out special favors to business, would business bother bribing them? Lobbying is the symptom, the problem is in excess government power.

The thing that socialists don't understand is that the wealth creation is what's important, not concentration. In capitalism, 1 guy could have 7 yachts and a moon base, but if the average person has two cars, two kids, a home, and countless amenities, who cares? Without the profit motive, who would go through the trouble of inventing and selling anything en masse if your greatest reward is no better than someone on the assembly line who took no risk? If everyone equally has very little as the soviets did, how is that better?

But you know, socialists act like all megarich people do is spend their money on frivolous things. In reality, they have too much to do that. It gets invested in upstart companies who need the capital to express their ideas and by the end, most is usually given to charity. In other words, it gets recycled back into wealth creation whereas the government would just waste it on bombs and embassies.

Oh, and to the guy who said the FDA is there to help you from business, look up stevia and aspartame. Your naive belief that giving others the power to choose for you is a complete backfire that accomplishes the opposite. The FDA is bribed shitless into using their "protective ban" powers to ban, harass, or steal from perfectly safe competitors on behalf of their corporate cronies. Also look up all the instances where a company was sued for supplying dangerous or defective products. That's not the FDA, that's libertarian-approved courts and recourse dissuading fraud and abuse in the marketplace. It's not more profitable to take shortcuts, it's less profitable because you'll be sued into oblivion. Do some businesses die because their owners are too stupid to see that? Yes. But business mortality is good, we don't want destructive businesses surviving like a horrid government program can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@ChaosEngine Corporations are a creation of governments, not people or free marketers. If we want to do away with legal protections for corporate entities, fine by me, I have been calling for it for quite some time. Then again, that means you will most likely have to work for yourself in the future, which is a less lazy way to live.

The problem is not companies/corporations per se, but the idea that the market determines the "winner". A market is in essence a natural selection mechanic. It doesn't reward the best or the brightest, simply the most efficient/ruthless. And that's fine if that's how you want to run your society, but most people don't.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

And saying you can't apply the idea of individual rights to influence all following decisions is to disallow any conversation beyond the surface of any subject. You can't talk about calculus unless you already have a working foundation of simple algebra, everything has a foundation from which is erects more complexity. To build any functional, rational structure, it has to be continually built on one foundation or it will be inconsistent, IE trying to apply the rule of math to the rule of friendships or something. Are you making this an appeal to be inconsistent, or an appeal to a different base of measure? If you wish a different base of measure, then purpose one, but I refuse to make believe that an inconsistent building is a better one to make, that can be steered to very evil ends, as many large corporate bodies have had. But even private people have done so too, look at prohibition of alcohol. People can be just as evil as corporate bodies.


In math, all rules are absolute and all theories scale infinitely. That is not the case in the real world. You cannot apply Newtonian physics to quantum theory and you don't build a sky scraper using the same construction techniques as a log cabin.

"Think" is not a four letter word. You cannot simply apply one rule to every situation. You must measure, analyse, judge.

The idea of individual rights is a hugely important one. It should always figure prominently in the discussion of any idea. But it is not the only measure of fitness.

@BansheeX, you are missing the point. Socialism is not the answer. Neither is capitalism. The point is that we must weigh individual policies on their merits. Context matters. Circumstance matters. The outcome matters.

For instance, I'm with Ron Paul on the needless war on drugs, on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I think there may actually have been some merit in the Libyan actions. I don't want to get into a debate on that point, but the point is you cannot blithely apply the same rule to everything.

>> ^Ornthoron:

Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.


It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?


It isn't in this case (see my point above about weighing individual things on their merits), but in general I'd prefer that someone is actually testing this stuff.

That is to simple. It's like saying, "I am fat because I eat poorly." Genetics, exercise, stress, how/when you eat, etc.

Regulations have made corporations all-powerful. So has de-regulations. The deck is stacked two ways. And the pols? The Republicans want you to think it is REGULATIONS!!! The democrats DEREGULATIONS!!! All so you don't see they really could care less.

>> ^VoodooV:
I don't like how he tries to tie being hands off on drugs with economics.
We're in the shit right now precisely BECAUSE of de-regulation.
de-regulation of economics and legalizing drugs are not the same thing. If it really was as simple as letting people face the consequences of bad decisions, I would be for it, but that's not the same thing as letting someone die because a corporation decided to maximize profits and use known bad things in the creation of their product.
It's why we have laws in the first place, a bunch of people got together and all agreed that killing people is bad and they decided to make a law against it. Yes, I'm against a nanny state, but the truth is we really don't have that much of a nanny state to begin with, This nanny state only seems to exist in the eyes of libertarians and those who want to reduce safety in the name of profit.
This is just another situation where people actively be refuse to be nuanced and instead of saying ok, regulation is good here, but not good there...they just want to lump regulation as either completely good or completely bad. I'm sorry, but life just doesn't work that way. 100 percent regulation is bad and so is 100 percent de-regulation.

Living in China for a year reaffirmed to me the need for an FDA. The unscrupulous business people here, to cut corners, will put all sorts of dangerous chemicals in processed food to cut corners on cost. It's gotten to the point where everyone questions every item on the shelf, and there is a general feeling of insecurity about the immediate and long term effects of consuming bad food.

Thank god for the FDA. They may be a little corrupt, and I don't doubt that they may over extent, but giving capitalists free rein to put paint thinner in my frosted flakes to make them look "frostier" is not cool.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

It isn't in this case (see my point above about weighing individual things on their merits), but in general I'd prefer that someone is actually testing this stuff.


I would too. I'm not against having a service that grades or tests foods. I'm against blanket refusals of an individual's ability to make choices. And more importantly I want to understand why people don't think that's an encroachment of someone's freedom.

I would say that in your case, @blankfist, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that raw milk can be used and offered safely.

This may be a shaky analogy, but it's similar IMO. to the 2nd Amendment, I'm very pro-gun, but there has to be SOME regulations, you just don't put certain weapons out there in the open market for any tom dick and harry who has the cash to buy. The potential for those weapons infringing on the life, liberty and happiness of others far outweighs the freedom to buy said weapons. Sure there may be plenty of people out there who would use such weapons wisely...but we don't just take their word for it, do we?

If it weren't for gov't regulations, we probably wouldn't even have ingredient lists or nutrition information on our food. Much of our quality of life today is because of these gov't regulations, not because of the free market. Personally, I don't want to turn back the clock and live in the old west days where if someone shoots me, It's MY fault for not dodging quick enough or for not shooting him first. Free market says slavery works too. Free Market says child labor is awesome. Free Market says sweatshops rule! We as a people have said time and time again that some things are more important than profit at all cost and that just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Were you asleep in History class?

If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to prove it. It's a judgement call, you can't just blindly de-regulate everything in the name of liberty. News flash, the patriot act has very little to do with patriotism. The fair tax is anything but fair, and freedom isn't free. Just because Liberty is in the word libertarian, doesn't make it so.

This is another case of someone envisioning their version of a utopian world and working backwards. Well in a perfect world, there are no abortions, so obviously we have to ban abortions. Well in a perfect world, there are no poor people, so obviously we gotta make life more and more difficult for poor people so they are motivated to not be poor. In a perfect world, we don't need gov't looking over our shoulder because we get along fine on our own, then obviously we need to reduce gov't.

It' just doesn't work that way.

>> ^VoodooV:

I would say that in your case, @blankfist, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that raw milk can be used and offered safely.


Why is it on me? I don't want to drink raw milk. But for those who do then why not let them? It's their choice. Just like smoking pot or eating vegan or skydiving or sitting with bad posture or whatever else you may or may not agree with.

The bottom line is why's it your business what someone puts in their body? And why should it be the government's?

I hope you're not as uncritical when looking for libertarian literature as you are when looking for health information. That page is written by a HuffPo grade misinformer. Unpasteurized milk has no nutritional benefits over pasteurized milk, no matter how much some California hippies bleat about "natural".

Of course, I'm not here to judge those who choose to drink raw milk for some reason. I come after all from a country where half-rotten fish is considered haute cuisine (Although properly made rakfisk has no infectuous risks. And is delicious! And is a great excuse to drink lots of aquavit! Errm, I digress.). If you absolutely want some dysentery with your milk, that's your problem. I just want to warn people that we pasteurize milk for a very good reason.

On a larger scale though, I find it alarming that Ron Paul has to pay lip service to the health and nutrition wackos to garner votes. What will be next? The same type of west coast hippies also campaign actively against childhood vaccination. Will he, if he is elected president, abandon childhood vaccination programs in the name of freedom, when we know for a fact that the disappearance of group immunity in some areas of California has resulted in deadly outbreaks of measles and whooping cough?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

>> ^Ornthoron:

no matter how much some California hippies bleat about "natural".
health and nutrition wackos to garner votes
west coast hippies
Of course, I'm not here to judge those who choose to drink raw milk for some reason.


Of course not.

>> ^Ornthoron:

On a larger scale though, I find it alarming that Ron Paul has to pay lip service to the health and nutrition wackos to garner votes. What will be next? The same type of west coast hippies also campaign actively against childhood vaccination. Will he, if he is elected president, abandon childhood vaccination programs in the name of freedom, when we know for a fact that the disappearance of group immunity in some areas of California has resulted in deadly outbreaks of measles and whooping cough?


He gives lip service to liberty and freedom of choice. I'm not one of those "west coast hippies" that avoids vaccines or drinks raw milk, but I'd never want to stop them from doing so. Unlike you and others, I don't sit on a high throne and sneer down at those who choose to do so. Even if there's zero health benefit over pasteurized or even if raw milk can be (but not always is) dangerous to ingest.

Why does this topic irk you so? And would you be against letting free adults choose to put things in their body even if they know the risks?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You could say there is no good reason to sell carbonated beverage as well, as drinking carbon dioxide is basically poison.


Uh... just to clarify, carbon MONoxide is a poison, carbon DIoxide is the same stuff we breath out every other second of every day of our lives. It's not poisonous, it would kill you due to oxygen starvation long before it ever "poisoned" you.

Sounds like you could use a couple decent labels here or there.

@Payback Hypercapnia (to much co2 in the blood, co2 is toxic in volume without relation to oxygen) for divers is a real thing, though, it doesn't happen with ingestion...like ever. It was a convoluted point, really, I should of used the sugar as the "harmful" substance in it, in excess.

But back to the point of heath, there is no healthy reason to drink more than 1 drink a day, should it be outlawed? I don't understand how the argument is any different than not allowing people to consuming the beverage of their choice.

The irony of Ron Paul is: I like the underlying idea VERY VERY much.
However I'd absolutely love to actually see him get down to details. HOW would he actually reduce the American military withdrawal as a World Police Force with doing as little additional damage as possible (You can't just stop the machines of the Military Compelx dead in their tracks- that would have absolutely horrible results- both economically and on a world-scape (Israel, Colombia, South Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq...).
How does his ideology of ptotecting other's lives extend into the right of abortion (Something I remember him being kinda ...meh).



AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: How can he implement this without breaking a system which has by now become VERY MUCH accustomed to all the shady deals he so much despises and WITHOUT breaking the world economy and creating an ugly power vaccuum.
This guy unfortunately is not young enough anymore to become a pioneer. He seems more like someone we'd very much be disillusioned with once he runs into the actual political roadblocks that exist.

The irony of bush and the neoconservatives is that they aspired to achieve a situation like it is now happening in the middle east (albeit a very warped version of) something which IS ACTUALLY happening NOW (though probably without any causes lying in the US).
This will NEED the American military complex and extroverted American foreign policies to work.

Ron Paul would need at least 3 terms to push what he works for. It's just that difficult. And I can't see a second Ron Paul behind him who'd continue once he is worn down (if you know more than me please PM me)

What irks me is people who spread misinformation about important health subjects, resulting in unnecessary death and suffering. It's rather tangential to the topic of this video so I will not go more into it here.

There are plenty of things that irk me about libertarianism too, but when it comes to american elections I am just a spectator, not a participant. So I will let all of you carry on without me and sit back with some popcorn.

http://i.imgur.com/af9fU.gif

>> ^blankfist:
Why does this topic irk you so?

>> ^Ornthoron:

What irks me is people who spread misinformation about important health subjects, resulting in unnecessary death and suffering. It's rather tangential to the topic of this video so I will not go more into it here.
There are plenty of things that irk me about libertarianism too, but when it comes to american elections I am just a spectator, not a participant. So I will let all of you carry on without me and sit back with some popcorn.
http://i.imgur.com/af9fU.gif


Ha. Fair enough.

But if I can add something? According to wikipedia, people exclusively consumed raw milk prior to industrialization. And even some claim that raw milk can be produced hygienically without the dangerous pathogens. I wouldn't know one way or another, but I'd also suspect you don't either, right?

That's the problem with telling people what to do. You don't always know what's correct and what isn't. If I was a paper manufacturer who was in strict competition with let's say hemp manufacturers then I could, for instance, collude with government and get them to make all kinds of wild speculations about the dangers of marijuana and have it banned completely. You may remember Refer Madness?

I leave people alone. I wish everybody else did too.

According to wikipedia, people exclusively consumed raw milk prior to industrialization.

Yeah, and the average lifespan as below 40; and epidemics and plagues were common. People did alot of things that wouldn't pass muster today.

And even some claim that raw milk can be produced hygienically without the dangerous pathogens. I wouldn't know one way or another, but I'd also suspect you don't either, right?

You're using the same line as climate change deniers and anti-vacination advocates: Use layman's ignorance to deny established science, engineering or medical fact/procedure. I can use that technique to cast doubt on any complex scientific/medical/engineering issue (which in the states, is practically every technical subject).

The bottom line is, with the issue of raw milk, like anti-vaccination, it's not about curbing individual rights, but reducing the public safety risk. You can catch infectious diseases from raw milk. I have a right to not be exposed to some disease-ridden fool.

>> ^longde:

I have a right to not be exposed to some disease-ridden fool.


Now we're getting to the source of the fear. I've often wondered what makes others want to control the behavior of the masses. It's this. It's that people are afraid of the uncontrollability of freedom. It's uncertainty. What the fringe may do with it.

So let me ask you this, @longde, do you agree that those who consume raw milk or choose not to vaccinate should be raided by men with guns drawn and thrown into cages for it? Is violent reaction to fear better than reasonable, nonviolent persuasion?

I will say this much in his defense.

Where exactly does it say it's a right to not be exposed to diseases? People like to confuse privilege with right all the time.

It's in everyone's best interests that everyone be healthy. Notice though that I didn't say it's a right. However, that is not the same thing as catering to the OCD/germ-phobia that exists in the US. Two completely separate things.

I completely disagree with the drug war. Still, arguing that legal drugs kill more people than illegal drugs is an argument directly in opposition his point.