a free people should be free to eat cake.

[fox]

Is it wrong -- or, you know, uncomfortably right-wing; you say "tomato" -- of me to be kind of unhappy about the trans fat ban in Montgomery County?

I mean, I don't disagree that trans fats are bad. So are a lot of things, right -- but whereas driving too fast (for example) endangers not just me but many, many other people, consuming trans fats is a one-victim arrangement, like wearing six-inch heels. I kind of don't want the government regulating what I can eat any more than I want them regulating how I can dress. I want, ultimately, to be trusted to take care of myself; and, along with that, I want the freedom not to take care of myself if that's the choice I make, because it's my business, dammit.

Of course there are lots and lots of our fellow citizens who, given the opportunity, do not take care of themselves, and I get that this measure (and the ones like it in New York and Philadelphia) is meant to make up the difference there. But see above re: freedom. Also, though, I get that a regulation on the restaurant and prepared-food industry is not a regulation on what the citizens are allowed to eat. That's really what makes this thing okay with me, to the extent that it's okay. Restaurants and bars are not allowed (not supposed, anyway) to serve alcohol to people who appear already to be drunk; but people are allowed to get drunk on their own, right. Likewise, I suppose, now restaurants in New York and Philly and MoCo are not allowed to serve artery-clogging food to people who are already in danger of giving themselves a heart attack (which is all of us); but people are still allowed to eat shortening with a spoon, I guess, if they choose.

How about a law banning tanning salons, then, eh? Skin cancer is bad, bad, bad. And people are still free to lie out in the genuine sun if they want. (And so on.)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The argument here is similar to the one used to justify smoking bans, actually--that in the long run the ban saves us all time and money because it cuts down on health-care costs to both state and industry. Now of course smoking isn't "victimless" in the same sense--you can't get sick from second-hand transfat consumption (except in the cholera sense, but, um, ew) they way you can from smoking, but arguably transfats are more pervasive (more people partake of them, and with less knowledge) than cigarette smoke.

All of that said, I agree with you, but still kind of feel like Edina Monsoon when she rants to the judge at the end of the AbFab episode "Poor," in the second season. (Which, if you don't know it, is brilliant and maybe can be found on YouTube.)

[jgesteve.livejournal.com]

Hmm... would a second-hand trans fat death be if someone had a heart attack behind the wheel and struck a pedestrian. Assuming of course they aren't behind the wheels of a MetroBus because that's just par for the course ;-)