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.)

[datlowen.livejournal.com]

That was me what posted that, earlier. Sorry. I had a crash that logged me out. STUPID COMPUTER

[cereta.livejournal.com]

There's nothing inherently right-wing about thinking that government shouldn't be telling grown-ups what to do with their lives any more than is necessary for those grown-ups to live together safely and peacefully. For all that it's the argument against gun control, it's also the argument in favor of reproductive rights and gay marriage.

I'll admit that smoking bans are where my vaguely libertarian leanings run smack into my own self-interest, because I live in a town where the concept of smoking and non-smoking sections was basically a joke, so I wasn't all that unhappy to see the bans go into effect. OTOH, I disagree with the above commenter, because the rational behind smoking bans is not and never has been "your smoking is bad for you" (for that, we tax the bejeezus out of cigarettes), but rather, "your smoking is bad for the people who work in these places and often don't have the option of not working the smoking section." Now, you can disagree with that, but that's a different argument than trying to protect you from your own decisions.

[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 ;-)

[thalia]

I agree that banning trans-fats is overkill; the problem is, right now it's really hard to avoid them in restaurants, because there's usually no way of telling where they're used. I'd be ecstatic if restaurants would just flag the items that use them.

[emila-wan.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. Where does it stop? I am recalling a scene from a movie, I think it was Demolition Man: in a near-future American city, Sandra Bullock is explaining to the recently removed-from-stasis 20th century Rambo, er, Sylvester Stallone why there is no salt on the food, because the "benevolent" ruler of the world has decided people can't eat anything that's unhealthy for them. Ick. And there are little ticket machines spit out fines every time you utter a cuss-word. It's political correctness taken way past reason into utter fucking madness.

Pretty soon we'll all be eating pablum and our children will be knitting during recess because anything more strenuous might lead to injury. Wait ... make that crocheting, as the knitting needles are far too dangerous and will need to be banned.

[insptr-penguin.livejournal.com]

My god, think of the oreos.

Seriously, I bet they are still selling cigarettes like trans-fat-free hotcakes.

On a different note

[yiaya.livejournal.com]

On behalf of the mod, this is just a reminder, please make sure you comment on this post (http://community.livejournal.com/doctor_who_eps/21902.html?mode=reply) for the Doctor Who community. If you've already done so you can ignore/delete this comment. Thanks!