Danny Devito: Vote Yes on Prop 37

1) So you admit with government labeling you will STILL not be able to distinguish between foods that do not present a health risk and those that do? And you clearly have no interest in distinguishing between them. No matter what, labels or not, you are either going to be guessing or you are going to seek independent research. Perhaps you will buy no foods that have even come within ten miles of GMO foods. No problem there, either, that's your prerogative, EXCEPT that not everyone can afford to buy organics and those are, without a doubt, more expensive. So now what? Your legislation will not help the poor people distinguish between good and bad foods for them AND you will have driven up the cost for them. Good job.

The other point you have never once addressed is that there are ways to accomplish what you want outside of government. All you have offered is laziness and uncreative solutions because you feel that your idea might be the majority, and you will take full use of that tyranny just like so many others in this country that we on this site criticize regularly. If you don't trust free markets to provide goods, services, and information for you, fine. Do not pretend. "Oh, this time I'll make an exception because it's too important." Failed logic. That's the same reason we keep bailing out car companies and we are facing ObamaCare. Nobody is safer, everything is more expensive, and you don't have a coalition of the WILLING.

2) Your point #2 is much more Boo than Ya, and your language is that of a boorish thug (this is what usually happens in debates when someone is running out of ideas). Dr. Paul voted for the authority to go after bin Laden under pretenses of national security, authorized by the Constitution. You are using this as an example of what government should do, but look at the boondoggle it has turned into!! This favors my argument more than yours. This use of force has cost tons of money and made us less safe. What you also fail to mention that Ron Paul was the only one educated and creative enough to suggest another means of achieving the objective: he also suggested Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

If you want to go the government route, you could always try the time tested, government-suggested "duck and cover" technique to protect you from harm. It got us through the cold war, right?

can afford to have all his food tested. He doesn't care about the harm it does to the minions, he's only about himself.

I would have to disagree... genetically engineered food doesn't make it bad for you. This is a misconception. It does make it cheaper though, and I would much rather have cheaper food that goes against the dogma and "mortality" of it. I don't see much of a difference between "natural food" and regular food besides the price tag.

Maybe I don't know the real difference, maybe you can elaborate. Something that is really a health risk please, no speculative assumptions.

Independent analytical agencies. Do you need the government to tell you which car is the safest or which microwave to buy? No. Are there independent ways to check the purity of your water? Yes.

If the consumer values the knowledge, the free market will provide it. We don't need to achieve safety through force.