>>I was thinking the exact opposite. The Nanny state gets to regulate the products people use in the interest of national health. Cosmetics, food, cigarettes, fireplaces, violent video games, movies, cars...
>
>You don't think the government should regulate products for safety? Lead paint should still be on the market? Food manufacturers shouldn't have safety regulations or be required to have labels that tell you what's actually in the package?
>
>Seems to me this kind of stuff is among the most basic reasons to have a government.
>
>Tamar

I think regulation should be applied to give more freedom to an informed consumer. I think product labels are a good idea as they present information to the consumer so they can make an informed choice. At the same time the costs associated with the labels are small enough that the manufacturers can pass them on with little impact. The market will then decide what it will tolerate.

My problem, especially in regards to healthcare, is the slippery slope. I do not want anyone to tell me what I can and cannot eat, drink, smoke, drive, watch, listen to, etc because its healthier for all. Not all bodies work the same. There are cases of people smoking past their 100th birthday and others who have asthmatic reactions to smoke in the same room. I do not want to see regulations for all based on a few. Think peanut restrictions.

As an aside I believe lead paint is still used by the government in the military and road signs.