Thank you, Resist. Good post.

It isn't censorship to say "I think the messages on some TV show are harmful to children". I think it's sad to see the posters here who are so quick to get in the face of other posters, calling them names and insulting them, just because they want to share their point of view. If you agree with the author, say so and maybe explain why. If you disagree with the author, say so and maybe explain why. No need to put down other people because you disagree with them.

Steve, I'm not sure. The root of the problem is that 'We the People' have forgotten that we created our gov't to protect our rights, not to provide for our needs and wants. We need a way to prevent our Congress from providing for our needs. This is hard, because so many people depend on gov't money, and we must provide a path to transition them from that dependency. And people getting something for nothing typically want more, not less, from the gov't.

The question is not whether sugar is good for you or not, but rather whether the gov't should be influencing the price of sugar. When the gov't imposes sugar tariffs, it drives the price of sugar higher because otherwise cheaper imported sugar cannot compete. This is good news for domestic sellers of sugar, but bad news for domestic buyers of sugar. These buyers are now incented to find other sweetners for their products because the sugar now costs more. This is part of the reason you see fructose (and corn syrup) in dozens of products (bread, cereal, catsup, candy bars, etc) that used to have sugar. And even then their products still cost more than if they had been made with competitively-priced sugar. By the way, this also...

Gov't charity (and that is what this is) is charity at the point of a gun. It is the gov't saying "you don't have enough compassion for your out-of-work neighbors, so we're gonna take some of your money and be compassionate to them on your behalf. The Constitution does not authorize our Congress to do this. I choose to support local charities and rescue missions. Our Federal Congress has no right to tell me I should donate more than I (or you) already do.

This is just 'ol Jesse being juvenile. Or desparate for attention. Or both. The problem is that as the truly awful instances of racism became more and more rare, instead of applauding it the race-baiters simply lowered the bar for what constitutes racism and declared that nothing had changed. Now we have liberals on MSNBC declaring that wanting to end gov't programs that are used by blacks is racist! Yep, if you believe in reducing gov't spending, it's not because you believe in smaller gov't, it's because you hate the black man. Good grief.

A few thoughts: - For the Libertarians out there, this is a STATE initiative, not a Federal one. CA most certainly can allow or ban drug use - they have that authority. Stop fretting about exceeding the Constitution because it isn't in play here. - What's with all the attacks against Mr. Hewitt? While it's clear he doesn't approve of marijuana, he NEVER said here he supports a ban. His point seems to be that people (especially young people) are poor evaluators of risk. And that is VERY relevant to any discussion of whether a drug should be legalised.

My gosh, ObamaCare is gonna cost more than forecast - who knew? That is, besides JUST ABOUT EVERYONE! Gov't programs ALWAYS cost much more than the advertized price tag.

Obama promised the country "free ice cream". And the country, like a bunch of children, said "Yeah!!! We want free ice cream".

This won't stop until a solid majority of voters begin acting like adults and demand that DC get back to its proper role of "limited government".

This article isn't about salt or about smoking - it's about PROPERTY RIGHTS.

The government does not have the authority to violate my right to acquire, use and dispose of my private property as I see fit, so long as I do not violate the property rights of another.

My body is (legally speaking) my private property, therefore, my property rights extend to my own body and may not be infringed upon by the government.

This is true even if the government says they are doing so for my benefit. It remains true even if I agree with the benefit, for the government may not force me to do something that would benefit me.

Even if I agreed that smoking (or salt, etc) is harmful to people, the government does NOT have the...

It's been fun.