I was talking to a friend about how addictive products work so well for people who sell them. The products sell themselves.

From the perspective of the buyer and society they don’t work so well. Regular readers know I’ve concluded that since polluting and depleting destroy life, liberty, and property, a government mandated to protect life, liberty, and property must prevent polluting and depleting, as surely as it has to prevent slavery.

I haven’t reached final conclusions, but addiction at least skirts with depriving people of their liberty. I can imagine a case being made compelling that governments should protect people from being addicted. If I addict you to something without you knowing I did it, say by selling you something I claim can’t addict you when it likely will, that action seems more likely to deprive you of your liberty.

I think most people agree children should be protected from being addicted. They can’t consent.

What if an adult consents to using a product they know will addict them? They may end up addicted, but if they consented, it doesn’t seem like government should stop them from something they consent to.

Thus, the more pervasively messages exist that an addictive product may addict, the more its vendors can say government shouldn’t intervene. Those messages help the industries selling the products.

But note that it isn’t necessarily the case that people consent to be addicted just because they agree to do something or consume something addictive. Even if they consent to become addicted at one point, what if they lose the ability to stop?

It’s possible that there is a role for government to prevent distribution of addictive products that an overwhelming majority of citizens would agree to. For the sake of argument, let’s say that were the case. They might pass a constitutional amendment. Messages that something is addictive undermines that support.

• ← First they say it’s impossible, then easy, then easy for me but hard for them. Anything but acting or responsibility.
• 812: Robert Fullilove, part 3: Politics, family, race, and sustainability →