Carl Eppig (Middleton, NH wrote:OK, OK, OK, OKaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Getting back to the original topic of this thread (and putting alcohol and drugs on the self for awhile), I don't mind the government advising me about what to eat or not eat. I do them telling me what to eat or not eat. If any of you don't think the NYC ban on trans fats could have happened without the previous smoking ban, or if you think the ban on trans fats is the last you are going to hear on this subject; you are not thinking clearly.
Carl: You can stop flogging that horse. It's dead already. And beginning to smell. You're the one arguing about smoking bans and trans fat bans being the same thing, as far as I can see.
Since you insist on everyone else thinking clearly (by which I suppose you mean the way you see things), we might ask the same of you. Don't you think the ban on public smoking (not a ban on smoking, mind you, just restrictions against polluting a shared environment, two very different things) and banning the use of trans fats are totally separate issues?
It is obvious to anyone who pays attention to history that certain people want to prohibit certain actions. It is equally obvious that certain people place greater importance on individual responsibility and independence (although in a civlized society, independence is largely a myth we don't often like to admit to ourselves).
The question I think is important is whether we should
1.) prohibit the use of trans fats because they cause harm to people.
2.) regulate the use of transfats through governmental agency supervision and oversight, as we've done with other things
3.) rely solely on increased education and communication to make people aware of the problem and leave it at that (although the natural response there would be all the people that aren't aware, aren't educated, or don't make the decisions about what they consume, or simply aren't responsible enough to make the decisions---should we not care about those people?)
New York did it one way. I confess I am not real happy with the way they selected (government decision by mandate without vote or plebiscite). But also assume that if the decision causes enough disturbance the people can reverse it through voting, directly or with their representatives.
Since this doesn't directly impede my life or behaviour, it's not a big thing with me though. It's not like I'm going to miss the transfats in the food. I figure some people will scream about having to change, then they'll change. And we won't even notice anymore. You can count that as insidious and evil, or as just human nature. Either way, I think you'd probably be correct to some degree.