> But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those. But once again, you are outlawing the labor practices of sweatshops. It is not inher

> But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those. But once again, you are outlawing the labor practices of sweatshops. It is not inherent to a substance prohibition and is a different class of law. Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know? You just keep trying to somehow link problems that are already solved in other ways that are as least as effective [if not more so] with the good itself. That isn't how it works. You aren't magically going to have the power to identify "Shoe X" as from a sweatshop without also recognizing the fact that "Shoe X" was produced by "Group Y" which is a sweatshop. You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good. > What does turn 18 (or what ever age you set adulthood to) magically remove the need of informed consent? Informed consent is the adorable assumption that information is always going to be equal. It isn't. We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time. How is that any different? You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust. You cannot somehow magically force adults to be responsible members of the population. You can only say "Hey, we aren't going to fuck you over and we will provide tons of free research about whether or not X is good or bad for you via institutions like the NIH and CDC." > At least in the US, growing up the risks of drugs were vastly blown out of proportion (as was the risks of premarital sex). If those who told you that K was dangerous cried wolf on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, why would you believe them about K? Once again, how is that different than literally any other behavior that contains risk? You are aware the same could be applied to a wide array of medication you are prescribed, the tobacco people still smoke, etc? There isn't some magical solution to the fact human beings have agendas. You can only write laws requiring research into these things, to make the information publicly available for free, and so forth. You can't somehow outlaw personal agendas that cause certain groups of people to behave irrationally in a democratic system. ------- Look, if you have an actual solution to the fact human beings have agendas [and can express those agendas via voting for people that will cater to their desire for an overblown reaction to Moral Risk X], by all means provide it. However, literally no human being of significant intellectual prowess has ever succeeded in the endeavor in the real world. This should tell you that you are either the founder of a new political movement that will solve a fundamental problem with democracy....or that you are simply wrong. You have to let people think for themselves and have faith they realize they need to learn things on their own. None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].