I'd like to know your definition of Nanny State. OK, I get the part about people having the right to do things that will mess up their bodies big time. BUT on the other end of the spectrum, who gets to pay for the mess they have made? If you say it is their doing, let them pay, are you prepared to have diabetics dying from their ruined kidneys right in your neighborhood, or to allow the smoker to die with no medical assistance because he smoked? What about people who never did anything unheathy and STILL got cancer or diabetes? It would seem to me that if you are libertarian on the front end of life, that you must be on the back end as well. I said that to say this, over the years I have seen many patients who have ruined their heart and liver only to get a transplant on the dole. What is right or wrong with that picture? Maybe they paid in so much taxes buying those expensive cigarettes and beers that they deserve to be fixed. Who know? Who decides? What if one of those people who deliberately ruined their own health is a close, close friend or relative of yours? How does that change the color of the picture? Somebody go the distance with me here. Generally, when 'nanny state' gets thrown in, the topic shrinks down to yes I can, no you can't, yes I can, no you can't.