> How about we stop freedom inhibiting
> legislation and let grown people make
> their own decisions?

Because "their own decisions" have consequences for the careers of actual healers... Doctors who don't bother with this silliness nonetheless suffer costs (insurance etc.) incurred by those who do exploit this cruel vanity.

Jus' sayin'.

Also, nothing ever anytime at all in any context which/whom-ever is "available for free", especially in the medical realm.

Because historically, going to the doctor has been very dangerous. I don't think we want to go back to the eras of poison peddlers.

> I don't think we want to go back to
> the eras of poison peddlers.

We kinda have, already. Now, free choice, m'kay? Libertarianism and all that. The (temporary) insertion of plastic sacks of liquid under your skin may be, y'know, some golden path to a better human tomorrow. I doubt it, but whatever.

There's gotta be a way to keep the backsplash from this grooming choice away from our healers.

"I don't take drugs, other than the prescription kind, but I don't understand why you can't smoke pot or take a hallucinogenic drug if you so desire."

Because you don't have any protection from the partier who hurries back to work driving a truck, operating a crane or running high-voltage wire that is objective. You don't have tests to determine the level of impairment for most drugs, and without those tests, you cannot protect the public from the consequences of misuse.

Lawsuits and insurance money DO NOT UNDO INJURY OR DEATH.

The proof of this is already here in the difficulty we have with alcohol, for which we HAVE tests and legal precedent.

And there's a consistency alert here: would you buy Adderall if half of them were sugar pills and the other half was just, whatever? Just what is smart about clamoring for consumer protection buying canned ham, then turning around and picking the blue or red pill from a strange guy in a leather duster in an abandoned hotel?

Fix those problems, you have my support. Don't fix them, you're just expressing sympathy for those who are simply saying "Screw you. I want to get high."

OH holy shit. I get botox. Once, they hit a vein with an injection. That was unpleasant but a known possibility. No one needs to take away my ability to make the choice to subject myself to that. Nor do they need to take away my choice to insert bags os silicon under my skin, or blast my face with pulsed light lasers, or suck fat out of my thighs or snip the excess skin form my stomach. Not saying I want or need all those, but as an adult I can make that decision for myself.

Plus, like people say with drugs, outlawing it doesn't remove demand. It just makes fulfilling it riskier.

Plastic surgery is elective. Nobody is forcing anyone to have it. I had breast implants years ago not because I thought it would make me look like a model but because the elasticity in my skin is so bad that after 3 kids my boobs literally drooped to my knees. I had to wear a bra even with pj's. I wanted a lift but had so much excess skin I would have been completely flat chested which was the only reason I got a small implant. My boobs are now where they're supposed to be and I don't feel like the grandmother in "There's Something About Mary." How dare anyone try to make that choice for me. If you don't like it, don't feel my tits!

What business is it of the government's if you don't endanger anybody else by "operating heavy machinery" or endanger anybody else's tax dollars by making us pay for rehab?

Amy, you've pretty much answered your own question before you even get going. You can't just ignore the reality that the government DOES pay for rehab/medical treatment; or the reality that people DO "operate heavy machinery" while on drugs. We've allowed the government to make our lives its business by expanding it to have a hand in every little aspect of our lives.

It truly boggles the mind, the ignorance of people who wail for government healthcare yet turn around and decry the war on drugs. It's the same issue. You can't have the former without the latter.

The drug issue is not even remotely the same as what Ms. Edmonds is blathering about. Ever heard the saying "you never see an attractive woman picketing a strip club?" That's what this chickie babe is doing--she hates attractive women, doesn't want attractive women to exist, and is disguising her hatred with a mask of "concern."

She probably hangs out with the Women's Studies professors.

"I had breast implants years ago"

I saw this sign in front of the cosmetic surgery office.

"When life gives you a lemon, make a melon".

Yes, there are people who will smoke pot, snort cocaine, drink copious amounts of alcohol and then make further bad decisions under the influence. And sadly, innocent people will occasionally be hurt and/or killed. But eliminating choices doesn't magically stop people from getting hurt or killed. So how are we going to ban a procedure that only affects the individual who chooses to go through with it? Is it risky, and occasionally unnecessary? Sure. But if a person is willing to go through with it for whatever reason, who am I to stop them?

The PIP question is CERTAINLY separate from the augmentation Q?

The PIP used a non-medical grade silicone in their implant. This is BAD, and they will be punished for it no doubt. The question is, who knew the risk of THAT and what is that risk.

The generalized risk of medical grade implants is a whole other thing, and that delineation is important. the intrepid reporter isn't making that clear.

IF you decided to go medi-tourist, you have to realize the risk, and Caveat Emptor.

EVEN IF you are getting a regular medical surgery like a knee-replacement, or heart-bypass in a foreign country, the risk is increased, because there are some unknowns, like do you speak the same language as the Doctor? It is no different if you are asking for fun-bags to be installed.

It's NOT like you can't get quack Dr.s in the US, you still have to vet anyone... and I've had board certified, blah, blah Doctors, with which I didn't agree with their care, and chose another.

Is it any better to have a fancy US doctor pushing statins on you, while telling you to cut the fat and eat more whole grains?

You can't cure a heard mentality by banning stuff, you actually make the mentality WORSE. Because you convince people to make even fewer decisions and rely even more on the powers that be.
How reliable are they?

Because you don't have any protection from the partier who hurries back to work driving a truck, operating a crane or running high-voltage wire that is objective.

I sympathize with this, but understand it is a slippery slope. Public safety in general is a public good and best handled by a government. However, once you veer into the notion that perfect safety, however desirable, is the objective of government, the regulations won't ever end.

Yes, someone driving while high is bad, but frankly, bad drivers and impatient assholes cause more accidents. Hell, at this point, I'd be satisfied if everyone actually knew and followed right-of-way rules.

(Plus, it does turn out that people on legitimate pain medication often drive better than those who are not. In other words, impaired judgement doesn't follow the federal governments absurd drug schedule.)

Unless your boobs look bad and need fixing, breast implants are a bad idea. They usually don't look very good when you are naked. They look all inflated, sort of like half footballs glued to your chest. If you have nice but small breasts, keep them that way, there are plenty of guys who will like them. Most guys will like any breasts they are allowed to see and touch.

Yes, guys eyes are drawn to large breasts, they are hard wired that way. But surgery is the most expensive, dangerous, and unattractive way to exploit that programming flaw. Get those silicone things that line the bottom of your bra, or a push up bra. $40 and safer than walking in high heel shoes.

As I tell guys about penis enlargement; by the time you have to show your stuff, you have already made the sale.

But, I believe women should be allowed to get boob-jobs. I just wish they would be smart enough not to.

The Economic Way of Thinking about Politics
12/03/07 - Russell Roberts at Econlib
=== ===
[edited]  Politicians are just like the rest of us. They find it hard to do the right thing. They claim to have principles, but when their principles clash with what is expedient, they often find a way to justify their self-interest. If they sacrifice what is noble or ideal for personal gain, they are sure to explain that it was all for the children, or the environment, or at least for the good of society.

Bruce Yandle uses bootleggers and Baptists to explain what happens when a good cause collides with special interests.

When the city council bans liquor sales on Sundays, the Baptists rejoice. It is wrong to drink on the Lord's day. The bootleggers rejoice too. It increases the demand for their services.

The Baptists give the politicians cover for doing what the bootleggers want. No politician says we should ban liquor sales on Sunday in order to enrich the bootleggers who support his campaign. The politician holds up one hand to heaven and talk about his devotion to morality. With the other hand, he collects campaign contributions (or bribes) from the bootleggers.

Yandle points out that virtually every well-intentioned regulation has a bunch of bootleggers along for the ride, special interests who profit from the idealism of the activists and altruists.
=== ===

Hey Crid, I have gynecomastia. Just try to stop me from having my man-boobs excised this summer. I've put up with this horror for 31 years, so I'm not seeing the problem with my "cruel vanity" in this case.

That's what this chickie babe is doing--she hates attractive women, doesn't want attractive women to exist, and is disguising her hatred with a mask of "concern."

Why can't she just workout, shave her pits, put on makeup, and eat right like the rest of you dames?

Hating attractive people is easier than doing some actual work on your appearance, it seems.

I'm currently in a lot of back pain, after a long day of carrying around the underestimation of twenty pounds attached to my chest. For a good bra, I'm looking at paying, at the very least, fifty dollars a piece. And it's full of metal that sets off the detector at my current employment, so I'm put through the embarrassment of having a wand waved around my chest in front of my co-workers. (This pretty well describes my day)

The idea that because some idiots are taking unnecessary risks to improve their appearance that I would be deprived of the only solution to both the physical pain and embarrassment I experienced today is infuriating.

"Not saying I want or need all those, but as an adult I can make that decision for myself."

Gee, I'm glad you're an expert - how do you protect others who aren't? On the one hand, you're saying you can make both an informed decision about risk to yourself and select the right professional approach to solve your problem. But on another, you would risk the environment and the public beyond your ability to make them whole again. This was NOT attributable to drug or alcohol abuse - it's linked to show something you can't fix that you can do wrong all by your lonesome.

"People operate heavy machinery while drinking, and we haven't banned wine."

No, but we DO have objective fitness-for-duty tests for alcohol abuse for important positions. Where are those for the drugs other than alcohol?

Gee, I'm glad you're an expert - how do you protect others who aren't?

First step is to take those people who admit they need the governemnt to take care of them and either shoot them in the head (my personal preference), wall of Florida and banish them all there, or at the very least make it illegal for such people to vote and have decion making power over those of us capable of thinking for ourselves

People operate heavy machinery while drinking, and we haven't banned wine."

No, but we DO have objective fitness-for-duty tests for alcohol abuse for important positions. Where are those for the drugs other than alcohol?
Posted by: Radwaste

From what I understand such tests are capable, for example weed. Some THC stays in your blood long after the active portion is done.

If/when drugs are ever legalized I'd be willing to bet any number of companies would jump at the chance to sell such tests to law enforcemnt.

"Gee, I'm glad you're an expert - how do you protect others who aren't?"

Why do you assume you or I are smarter than the rest of the population and therefor need to "protect" them from making their own decisions about their body?

If it were up to libertarians we'd still be smearing lead across our faces.

Cat, how would implants solve your problem?

DO invest in a good bra. If you live near an Intimacy go get fitted. Otherwise see if there is a Brantly/Jeunique/Cameo lady near you.

If it were up to libertarians we'd still be smearing lead across our faces.

Posted by: NicoleK

And thats such a bad thing why? 99% of humanities problems stem from the stupidity of the masses or a few individuals

Imagine a world where people were not protected from their own stupidity and wound up dead.

>>Imagine a world where people were not protected from their own stupidity and wound up dead.

I see a future full of more intelligent people who didn't kill themselves, or their children. Win, Win!

The irony is that stupid people help propagate and maximize the value of Government intervention. But then you have to ask, do we have a government for stupid people or smart people? Are there more smart people than stupid people? And then you realize, that smart people are in the minority...

There's an old programmers parable:

'I have a problem in need of a solution.

I know! I'll use regular expressions.

Now, you have two problems.'

And that's exactly the kind of thing you get with the prohibitionist mindset.

With prohibition, all you're doing is exacerbating the existing issue (some degree of irresponsible behaviour), by adding the side effects of arbitrary legislation / enforcement and the resulting underground economy that fills the void.

To address the often argued issue of 'public safety', in what way does making some form of behaviour illegal axiomatically result in the purported ability to reliably identify and determine the offenders?

If you cannot detect (via some kind of 'breathometer' kind of apparatus or equivalent) an impaired person, in what way does the legality (or not) make any difference at all? I'm all for keeping people who are impaired (for any reason, including sleep deprivation), from operating things that can harm others. While I would ideally prefer an operator who is entirely 'clean' and aware, I would still choose someone who is slightly high, and who can pass the physical test, over someone who is all but falling asleep at the wheel.

Making a law does not confer some kind of magical ability to prevent stupid people from doing stupid shit.

The hypothetically impaired backhoe driver will still be impaired regardless of the legal status of the impairing compound. A physical impairment check is generally more reliable than a simple chemical check, anyway (if not as simple for a brain dead tester to administer).

A (minor) case can be made that some laws reinforce or otherwise improve upon the kind of social opprobrium that can serve as a check on truly negative behaviour, but that effect can often be pretty similarly managed without the law (or at least with a more finely tuned law that addresses the effect, rather than the act), and generally without the negative side effects of what ends up being a generally unenforceable law.

I think Cat is saying she needs a reduction, not implants.

Are they talking about banning reductions?

For the record, to clarify, I'm not for a ban on all cosmetic surgery, but I'd be happy to support a ban on implants known to leak poisonous chemicals or otherwise be dangerous.

Um, Lujip, lead makes people MORE stupid not less stupid.

Silicon is in most cosmetics and hair products, and on a lot of the dishware people eat from. And it's supposed to be toxic? Some people's bodies probably don't react well to it. Some people can't have any piercings, either, for the same reason. But plenty of studies have disproven the silicon/health problems nonsense.

Um, Lujip, lead makes people MORE stupid not less stupid.

Posted by: NicoleK

I know - eventually it kills them as well - did I not make that point clear enough?

> Just try to stop me from having my man-boobs
> excised this summer. I've put up with this
> horror for 31 years, so I'm not seeing the
> problem with my "cruel vanity" in this case.

First of all, gynecomastia ≠ funbag installation, and I never said it did.

Second, minor tissue removal has got to be less risky than loading a bunch of space-age plastics into your flesh + with later procedures for tuneup and extraction.

Third, vanity is vanity, but I don't think this is the kind of procedure for which we'd expect you to sue your doctor if you didn't like the results, as might a vain woman. If you wept to a jury that you wanted your titties back, they probably wouldn't award you any damages.

etc

"Unless your boobs look bad and need fixing, breast implants are a bad idea. They usually don't look very good when you are naked. They look all inflated, sort of like half footballs glued to your chest."

Some women get implants specifically for the "Big fake" look. Because they like it.

Some guys go for women who are showing off their big fake breasts.

What you're saying is your personal preference, you should recognize this by now, "old guy"

"Why do you assume you or I are smarter than the rest of the population and therefor need to "protect" them from making their own decisions about their body?"

Straw man. I'm calling the evidence: we have mishaps and proven measures for reducing their numbers.

Take a look if you have the idea that individual choices only harm individuals. Wrong.

Rad,

Not that I disagree with you about the actual uselessness of the categories at that link, but I'm still going to have to call 'Darwin' on a lot of the results.

Firstly, I would posit that a significant majority of those damaged or killed by those kind of procedures actively and systematically sought out those forms of 'treatment', and also deliberately ignored or outright rejected science based procedures.

I completely agree with the idea that if some form of individual behaviour shows a distinct and directly attributable harm to another, non consenting individual, then there is some room for some action to address it. But that action must be limited to addressing the incidents of direct harm, and not merely to the consensual individual activity. Otherwise, it's like shooting your neighbors cat because his dog bit you.