Don't you think addiction complicates things? And what regulation are you complaining about?

The Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.

Which is basically my point. Why is sterioids on the wrong side of the amorphous line, when nothing else appears to be? What about a minimum wage fixes a market failure? It's not a market failure that leads to low wages, it's the market. The minimum wage represents a social/moral judgment that people should be paid a certain amount for their labor. Steroids in sports is not a market failure any more so. One could have a steroid-free league and steroid-ridden league, and they could compete to see who gets more fans. But there is a social/moral judgment that sport should be clean, and Congress has seen fit to make those judgments for quite some time now.

I don't think additiction represents a market failure, so long as the possibility of addiction is known beforehand, which it has been for some time (probably 90%+ of smokers still alive).

I have a hard time believing that you think this. Certainly there is a "social/moral" judgment that people should not use drugs. But why does the government have any business regulating which sorts of drugs (e.g., coffee) are OK and which are not? Can you articulate the principle involved, other than "a bunch of Congressman want to do this, and, hey, Congress has done stupid stuff before"?

I think the regulation of the smoking industry is an interesting issue, with some hard questions. As a historical matter, isn't much of the federal regulation prompted, FWIW, by the misrepresentations historically made by the cigarette companies about health risks? As an economic matter, what about the fact that most smokers start as minors?

I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to the first question, despite pounding on it for three years in law school and a sufficient number of posts here to drive Sidd to the bars by early afternoon. So Ihave come the conclusion that the answer is, in fact, a majority of congress want to do some stuff, and maybe it's stupid or maybe it's not, but nothing prevents them from doing it.

Putting aside the big picture question of the regulation of nicotine, I don't have principled objections to drawing a line at 18 and saying people younger than it can't be allowed to purchase cigarettes. So let's enforce that law. But we're massively taxing cigarettes, and supporting an oligopolistic industry, based on the (apparent) sole principle that they did some really bad stuff 50 years ago, and kept doing it somewhat for another 35 years, so current smokers should pay for that past activity. And, no, cigarette taxes cannot be justified by externalities. I'd pay people to smoke, and solve a big part of the social security and medicare problems in doing so.

So, like, what's the pay scale for this gig? Because if it is more than $150,00 per year, I am, like, totally there.

Is there Burger-sponsored health insurance with that?

I'm not talking about the Commerce Clause so much as the principles that Congress chooses to act on. Congress also funds the Lawrence Welk museum in North Dakota, and surely there's no market failure there. So of course they can do it, but why? And why Republicans, who have always been so quick to complain about government regulation impinging on private industry?

Less than totally honest
 

Not always, Toots.

Less than totally honest
 

Necessary but not sufficient.

The minimum wage was necessary not because of market failure, per se, but more because of the fact that the market was not truly free.

In a heavily industrialized society, or even one that is in the process of industrializing, there cannot be a free market because the barriers to entry are too high. One or two workers couldn't go out and just build a textile mill. Consequently, market power was concetrated more in the hands of those who held capital.

The minimum wage was an effort by the government to counteract the imbalance in bargaining power by forcing employers to pay at least a subsistence level to their employees.

Your 11th Amendment almost at work
 

Perhaps part of the answer to your wuestion can be found in the fact that when a federal judge applied the 11th Amendment a few weeks back, Senator Cornyn and Rep. Delay suggested that perhaps their lives should be in danger for not bending to the will of the Congress.

Your 11th Amendment almost at work
 

Maybe, but if you go there, I go back to FDR.

Your 11th Amendment almost at work
 

Boy, the GOP really is the party of personality responsibility. Whatever dumb thing Republican senators and congressman say or do, FDR is personally responsible.

Your 11th Amendment almost at work
 

A chicken in every pot?

http://richard.meek.home.comcast.net/FatTeddy1.JPG

Your 11th Amendment almost at work
 

FDR invented judge bashing.

You say that like there were 4 employers. there weren't except in maybe some company towns. There are plenty of people today working for minimum wage, despite robust competition for employees between walmart, mcdonalds, home depot, etc.