The importance of deliberation and time to consider one's decision have been emphasized in fields ranging from healthcare to firearms regulation. However, little is known about waiting periods' political economy and their effects on other policy features. We examine these issues using a large-scale survey experiment run with Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS). First, we investigate whether mandatory waiting periods lead to increased respect for others' decisions. We leverage an experimental design in which "Choice Architects" can make rules for future subjects to investigate the effect of deliberation on paternalism. Here, deliberation is a given. Do Choice Architects show increased respect for more considered decisions? Second, we consider Choice Architects’ endogenous choice of waiting periods. Simply put, does the possibility of giving someone else additional “time to think” reduce the willingness to impose hard-nosed restrictions? This project aims to elucidate determinants of public policy dimensions given non-traditional measures such as mandatory waiting periods. Preliminary results suggest that waiting periods are add-on restrictions that do not impact the imposition of other policy dimensions.