So I guess Montgomery County in Maryland approved a ban on trans fats for the entire county yesterday. I found myself arguing about trans fats with an acquaintance the other night, and his initial response was complete shock that I didn’t think it was a good idea.
“But they’re really bad for you!” he said. “Why wouldn’t you want people to not be able to eat something that’s really bad for them?”
“Why wouldn’t you want people to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they should be able to eat something that’s bad for them?” I asked.
“Oh, yeah,” he said. “Yeah, I guess you have a point.”
! And then it occurred to me that there are perhaps a whole subset of people who’ve just never really stopped to consider that maybe the whole point of having laws isn’t just to “protect” people from making “bad” decisions. Huh.
I liked this line from the WaPo article:
Restaurateurs say that it could be difficult for them to find healthy replacements for trans fatty oils and that they might have to use artery-clogging palm and coconut oils or butter.
So really what we gain here is … nothing. Unless bans on palm and coconut oils and butter are next.
And on that note, I’m going to the gym. Seriously, I’m going to the gym, at 8 in the a.m. It’s this new thing I’ve started. All of 3 days ago. Hey, maybe we should think about that, in lieu of banning butter and oil — mandatory gym time for all Americans. I mean, it’s bad for you not to exercise, right? Why wouldn’t we want to prevent people from things that are bad for them?
As referee of that argument, both literally and figuratively, I just figured out what was bothering me about this particular ban. It’s the fact that it came out of nowhere. Usually when there’s a smoking ban or a trans fat ban in the works, it gets a lot of press, there’s a lot of debate. You know, democratic process and all.
ha, that’s right; i was thinking that argument came about after you left …. I (obviously) may have paraphrased a bit 😉