The applicability is in the logic behind the majority ruling, which is spelled out in the dissent. This situation is very much akin to what O'Conner was worried about given that the ruling allows forany property to be seized from one private entity in order to benefit another private entity.

You've either never lived in a decently-sized city, or aren't paying attention if you really need citations to believe it happens. In my city, there are roughly a half-dozen fatal police shootings of unarmed suspects every year. Only one officer has ever been indicted, much less convicted (and is fortunately in prison currently), in the nearly ten years I've lived here.

Really. Point out a conservative (neo, rather than classical) supporting this, other than Bloomberg.

I'm aware of that as far as political theory goes. Again, I was talking about the cheerleaders of this specific authoritarian act. They're not mostly on the Right. The Right has its own brand of authoritarian mumbo jumbo.

Partisan. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

As for >32oz sodas being a result of governmental collusion with private industry, that's a claim I'd be interested to see backed up with actual evidence.

This post was longer, but I deleted most of it because each point really boils down to the last part of the subsequent paragraph. How it applies to each of the above points should not be my job, because they are quite clear in whether or not the laws applied to each are designed to address an immediate danger to life or property of someone other than the person making the behavioral choice. Anyone unable to do so would not understand what I wrote anyway, so further explanation would be a waste of my time.

DUIs constitute a very real threat of causing loss of life to those around the person engaging in that activity. The law is not intended to stop drinking in general, but intended to stop something which constitutes an immediate risk of harm to people or property. Preventing a clear and present danger is not the same thing as preventing something that will never physically harm anyone but the user.

No, it was probably a dig against the South in general.

Germany's power grid isn't significantly more unstable that the grid in the USA (if it even is measurably more unstable in the first place), and Alcoa operates just fine on grid power.

Unless it's changed recently, MyGoPhone SIM cards are not free. AT&T will doing you for $10 to get one.

Firstly, it can be boiled down to simple pragmatism: If Senators are elected the same way as Representatives, what is the point of the Senate's existence at all?

They are against the initiation of force. If force is initiated by someone else, force in response is not an anti-Libertarian position.

Perhaps you should look at the source of the problem, which is companies in bed with government. This produces subsidies, such as those on corn. This allows producers to use things like corn syrup for far less than it costs to produce. Banning the product at the retail end is idiotic when you've got politicians incentivizing the use at a national level.

Using laws to change social norms is stupid, because it doesn't work without having serious negative consequences which outweigh any possible good results. It's stupid when applied to drugs, it's stupid when applied to romantic relationships between adults, and it's stupid when applied to foods. Nationalizing the cost of dealing with stupid behavior doesn't give those supporting nationalization of the cost the right to dictate the causative behavior. It's like a county stealing a private driveway, giving taxpayers the upkeep cost, and then demanding that the people who used to own the driveway stop driving a truck because it damages the driveway more than a car. Everything has an effect on health; nationalizing healthcare costs doesn't give anyone the right to dictate behavior any more than they could dictate it before the nationalization of costs. Unfortunately, the same forces that mold bad eating habits mold opinions on what 50% +1 of the population can demand of any given minority (or majority, so long as that majority isn't united and/or doesn't vote).

It's funny to watch partisans try to pigeonhole people based on a single position. While I'm not the OP, I actually do wholeheartedly support allowing people to kill themselves because they're too stupid to avoid the behavior that ultimately shortens their lifespan. And no, I'm not a Republican. I'm a pragmatist, which is a type of person who doesn't actually fit into either the Democratic or the Republican parties, as they're both based mostly in Fantasyland.

I'm not talking about Bloomberg, I'm talking about the people supporting the issue. Few of them are on the Right. This is a Leftist issue through and through, despite Bloomberg's nonsLeftist stances on other things.

Not the OP, but yes.

Indeed. Generally, the Left has been known for its opposition to using government to control social behavior. It was one of the last things they were good for. Now they're completely devoid of any value, just like the Right.

Thailand.