People imagine that regulators will have the same ideas as themselves as to how products should be regulated. Individuals may reach a superficial consensus that the government should uphold high "product standards," a consensus that masks their radical disagreements as to what specific products should be permitted or prohibited. Individual X, who regards marijuana as dangerous but tobacco as much less harmful, tends to assume the authorities will have the "wisdom" to prohibit the former but not the latter. Individual Y, in contrast, expects that the authorities will "sensibly" permit the use of marijuana, at least for medicinal purposes, while taking action against tobacco, which he regards as a major killer. As long as the general purposes of consumer regulation are expressed in vague, idealistic language, both X and Y may find the notion appealing, yet inevitably one or both of them will be severely disappointed by its practical implementation.
People do not take sufficient account of the diversity of human needs and sometimes fail to recognize that a product they see as inferior might be of true benefit to someone in other circumstances, such as dire poverty. It is easy to countenance regulation that makes bread more costly if we imagine, like Marie Antoinette (cf. p. 4.11:35), that poor people can always eat cake instead.

^Previous