Consumer regulation of both addictive and nonaddictive products also inevitably creates opportunities for sellers of regulated products to create profitable situations for themselves by means of payoffs to the regulating authorities, in exchange for "looking the other way" or even for imposing restrictions that will exclude their competitors from the market. These payoffs tend to corrupt the various layers of authority, from legislators to representatives of executive agencies to the police forces in whom final enforcement is entrusted.

Finally, the natural conflict between regulatory laws and the value scales of buyers and sellers, together with the additional corruption and growing black markets, tends to erode respect for the legal authorities, replacing it with widespread cynicism. As a consequence, the authorities may find it more and more difficult to enforce even those laws that are necessary for the protection of individuals and property.

Given that consumer regulation fails to protect consumers effectively and has numerous unintended adverse consequences, why do people find the notion superficially attractive?

^Previous