 I want to make a brief follow-up video on my raw milk vid. There was some really awesome discussion in the comments section. Was quite pleased at the diversity of responses. Some of you feel very strongly, not specifically about the issue of raw milk, but the issue of liberty, which I didn't even touch on, but was obviously the bigger issue. That omission was, well, 50% intentional and 50% rushing the video out the door. Reality is such a sensitive and interesting topic, and I'll get to that in a moment. A bit of clarification, there was a great deal of confusion on whether I advocate prohibition of raw milk, or simply don't advise it personally. A little of both, to be honest, but the point of the video is to explain in a rational way why I think raw milk is illegal, to sell where other things are not. I don't personally think it's a good idea, although I would have to add several caveats. I found some of the arguments in the comments section pretty persuasive, as I often do. On a separate issue, I think I made a few math errors, and I want to thank everyone who caught them for me. I've decided to call these ubiquitous math or factual errors in my videos concordance eggs. They differ from Easter eggs that you might find in video games or DVD menus in two very important ways. 1. They are not hidden. I display them proudly. 2. They are not the result of great effort by the content creator. They are quite accidental. I'll try to add fewer of them to my videos in the future. However, I'm going to start a contest to be the first to spot them in any new video. The winner will get something small but nice, like a $5 online credit, to the store of their choice, if I can figure out how to arrange that. If there are multiple concordance eggs per video, I can only afford to offer one reward per video. Otherwise, I'd be penniless within a few weeks. In the working scripts file, I have a couple of interesting ones. Up next is a video on GMOs, inspired by QDragon's video on the same topic. I can promise it will be balanced and fair, which means both sides of the issue should dislike it equally. I also intend to celebrate the birthday of my great hero, Carl Sagan, which is November 9th, by a reading of one of my favorite of his essays. I've promised to cover the topic of the health facts and myths of marijuana use. I'm going to give you just the facts, ma'am. I'd like to make the format of this video a little different. I'm going to set up three scenarios, where there is a choice between liberty and public good. I'd like if you'd choose one or more of the scenarios, give your opinion of what solution you think is best, and specifically why. I've set video response to automatic approval. So if you want to fire up the webcam and tell me on camera, I'd like to hear it. Scenario one. A woman is selling a cure for cancer, which she claims is very effective, but which scientists have repeatedly shown is simply rubbing alcohol, which can cause blindness when consumed. Patients are flocking to her clinic with the hope of a cure, and forsaking conventional treatments. This includes the elderly, children, and many who have hailed her as a miracle worker. A charismatic cult has built up around her treatments. She charges $10,000 a week, and most treatments are four to five weeks long. The question is, should the government intervene to stop her? Why or why not? Scenario two. A small business is selling a new herbal product that causes people to experience hallucinations and enter a dreamlike trance for several hours. It's a non-addictive hallucinogen to most people. But 2% of people have a violent reaction, and a small percentage of them end up comatose or brain injured. Some people have developed injuries as a result of the use of the product, and there have been some cases where children were given the product by older children. The media has covered the injuries, but the company still effectively sells their product. The question as before is, should the government intervene to stop the sale of the product? Why or why not? Scenario three. Illegal heroin use is a serious issue for many countries, not least the US. This is of course a real scenario, but the question here is much broader. What limits, if any, would you place on liberty with regards to the decriminalization of the manufacturing, transport, sale, and use of heroin? Those are the scenarios and questions. In the raw milk video comments, I noted that some of you made statements to the effect that liberty trumps all other concerns or outweighs all risks. Heroin legalization was even mentioned, so it seemed like a good test case. If there are any details I haven't supplied, feel free to make up your own in answering the question. Just tell us what additional information you're assuming. I know 500 characters is a real limitation, but do your best to be concise. I look forward to reading your responses. Thanks for watching.