"Moreover, it is the government's job to protect me from you, not myself."

i nearly stood up and cheered here. i TOTALLY agree with you entire post. the "reasoning" behind this move is apalling, and my guess is that the implementation will be a nightmare. are health inspectors going to have test oils in restaurant kitchens for contraband fats?

i hope the cooks aren't pleasuring themselves, climaxing, and rubbing the byproduct into their hair while the inspector is fiddling with the goddamn bunsen burner!

i gave this post five girls pooping out of stars. if i could have, i'd have given it five MILLION.

It's interesting that cigarettes are still legal, if we accept the logic of this ban. Heart disease claims 1 in 5 Americans, but cancer is close behind, at 1 in 7. The problem is there's no trans-fat lobby. Maybe you should spear-head that initiative.

You know I agree with your argument 100%. I think it should be legal to go into Walgreens, buy an acid, mushroom, black tar heroin smoothie, go home, and watch pornography (with adults in it) while you fuck your gay cousin who happens to be your husband, all while smoking the smoothie (and his cock). However, just to play devils advocate. One might say that the reason to ban trans fats is that in the future, all of the people who are eating these trans fats will eventually become sick from it and the health care cost burden for some of them will fall on the taxpayers. Now, before anyone says I've become a fascist or whatever, just let me say that I am just throwing this out there. I do not agree with this. Personally, I think the government should just tax the hell out trans fats and use that money to pay for health care, education, and to take 90% of the bureaucrats to an inescapable island. At this this Island we setup television cameras, and periodically air drop blunt weapons, food, and drugs. They could use the advertising money to help with health care costs, and if the ratings ever drop, they could air drop some grizzly bears. Just a thought.

Tucson is getting an In-n-Out. I plan on being there when it opens and gorging myself on french fries and burger goodness. Fuck you, New York.

Frank,
I've heard people make the "we'll have to pay for the healthcare eventually so you can't do something stupid" argument before. Particularly, I've heard that argument from a certain person (currently in Africa) when I argued that motorcycle helmet laws are wrong for the same reasons I outlined above. I attempted to address that argument when I said that "it is absurd to say that the government's interest in keeping me from being fat outweighs my own autonomy." Let me briefly elaborate on that.

It's true that, should I continue to eat an inordinate amount of trans fat, I might eventually burden the state with health care costs. But there are several reasons why that's ok.

First, as I attempted to explain with the above sentence, it's incorrect to say that, because the state might eventually have to pay for me to be taken care of as a result of my stupidity, I should be prohibited from being stupid. By that reasoning, we'd outlaw bungee jumping, skydiving, mountain climbing, and football. In other words, once the argument that the state's interest in saving money outweighs the individual's interest in self-determination is accepted, there is no logical place to draw the line between permissible money-saving measures and impermissible infringements on my ability to choose my destiny.

Also, there's an average reciprocity of advantage argument. You pay your money into the system knowing that you might help pay for the costs I impose on the government by being too fat for my own good. However, in return, you gain several things. First, you know that you're able to engage in any number of stupid activities and are guaranteed the same treatment I am. Second, you get to live in a free society. So, while some tiny percentage of your income might go to giving me a quadruple bypass at the age of 36, the benefits you accrue far outweigh the price you pay. So fuck you, stop complaining.

Oh, and one more thing. We don't have universal health care in this country, so it's not even like you're paying for all of my health care. So, again, fuck you.

I agree completely that the ban is ridiculous, paternalistic, and probably violates the dormant commerce clause. However, I disagree with your analogy between being pro-choice in the abortion arena and being pro-choice in the fast-food arena. This is because the debate about trans fat effects only the person who chooses to consume delicious entrees like the McRib, the KFC snacker, and Junior Bacon Cheeseburgers. However, the crux of the abortion debate hinges on what constitutes a person and whether or not a woman's right in her body outweigh's the right of a developing person to live. My view on this distinction aside, it's asinine for New York to assume the responsibility of regulating the personal health of its residents and visitors. Hell, why not outlaw cigarettes, or beer, or murder!? Some of us like the taste of fatty foods and choose not to shop at the co-op and kick the hacky sack around with the dirty, filthy hippies.

Well-reasoned. I'm certainly down for freedom of choice when it comes to decisions that only (directly) affect yourself. But I've also heard you protest the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants for the same reasons. With as big of a danger as second-hand smoke is, can you really make the same argument here? Smoking is essentially one person's choice to ingest carcinogens, but it also clearly inflicts those carcinogens upon people who didn't choose to smoke. I'm just wondering if you still oppose the smoking ban.

I don't know if I agree with you. If food is going to taste the same and yet be healthier - where is the downside? Trans fats are basically poisonous and we often don't know they are in foods - so we are not really making a choice in the first place if we are eating them unknowingly. Why not make food a little healthier. Maybe I'm a dirty hippie, but the fact that whole foods doesn't sell products with trans fats is one of the things that I like about shopping there - and I've never found anything to be lacking in taste.

i disagree, but i don't have tie to tell you why. so there.

that was supposed to be "time" not "tie"

Katherine,
First off, remember that I said I would support efforts to require people that sell food that contains trans fat to label their products as such. I'm in favor of informing consumers, so that addresses your question about whether people are making educated decisions. Moreover, it's pretty common knowledge that fried food, regardless of whether trans fat is present or not, is unhealthy.

More importantly, your argument that trans fats are basically poison may be factually correct, but the question I would ask is "so what?" As tRJ suggested, smoking is almost more directly poisonous. Would you then say that smoking should be outlawed?

Putting that point aside (even though I think it's extremely strong), the more important argument for me is that, even if something is a direct poison, such as arsenic, I think people should have the right to consent to ingesting the substance. It's my body, it's my health, it's my decision. To argue otherwise is to say that it's the government's job to keep me from hurting myself, and to say that is to say that I can't look after myself. Children and the mentally disabled might not be able to take care of themselves, but our government should presume that adults are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

As far as your assertion that foods lacking trans fats don't taste worse so we're not losing anything by outlawing trans fats, I have two responses. First, I have no idea whether trans fat-free foods taste the same as their unhealthier counterparts. I'll assume, though, that the taste is indistinguishable. Second, and more importantly, the issue isn't about taste. If the taste and the price are the same, I see no reason why a restaurant wiouldn't switch to non-trans fats. The issue, though, is whether that choice belongs to the government. More importantly, the issue is whether it is the government's place to decide what I can and cannot put into my body.

Essentially, NYC has usurped the right of the people to determine their own destinies. That's what they've lost, regardless of how their fried chicken tastes. And that's the most important thing. If the government can tell me what I can put in my own body, what can't it regulate? And I'm not just talking about food, I'm talking about private sexual conduct, unconventional but consensual adult relationships, and other areas where we would be repulsed by the idea of the government making decisions for us.

I'd argue that the taste and texture of the food are slightly different, as is the cost - the oils that produce trans fats are generally cheaper (which is why they're more of a problem in fast food places).

I do think that your point about the ability to choose what you do with your body makes a lot of sense. I just think that they're cloaking it in rhetoric about regulating the food production industry in order to hide the fact that their intent is to dictate what Americans eat.

But then again, if Canadians have no problem with McDonalds serving trans fat-free fries, why should we? Hot french fries are always delicious, no matter how they're cooked.

I'm with you all the way, Ismael.

Utah, I disagree with your assessment of the pro-choice crowd as a bunch of co-op shopping dirty hippies. I shop at chain stores, bathe thoroughly once a day, yet I still think that abortion should be legal. Not by any means easy, mind you, just permissable in all 50 states and adjoining territories when circumstances mitigate that the mother's life is in emminent danger. When these conditions arise in poorer families, I further support the use of tax dollars, both yours and mine, to help cover the cost of the abortion.

Furthermore, I have known many 'hippies' in my life as a musician, perhaps even been one at one time (though never the dreaded Trust Fund variety), though I knew not of a single person among them whom, confronted with the prospect of fatherhood/motherhood in their own lives, would have opted for an abortion with any of your implied flippancy.

So I do not hijack this post any further, Mr. Utah, perhaps it is prudent that, should you have any further comments outside of "Fuck you, hippie", we might continue this discussion via email. You have my permission to obtain my email address from Ismael.