7/18/2006

Banning Cigarettes, Now Cooking Oil. Is banning Ice Cream really far behind?

Does what we like to eat matter at all? Can people make any trade-offs of risks for other benefits? Will hang gliding or parachuting be banned because of the risks, with no weight given by the government to the excitement people get from doing those activities? This is a pretty sad state of affairs.

Edward M. Burke, who has served on the Chicago City Council since 1969, . . . is pressing his colleagues to make it illegal for restaurants to use oils that contain trans fats, which have been tied to a string of health problems, including clogged arteries and heart attacks.

If approved, nutrition experts say, the ban will be the first in a major city, following the lead of towns like Tiburon, Calif., just north of San Francisco, where restaurant owners have voluntarily given up the oils. In truth, while the proposal’s prospects are uncertain, Chicago officials have been on a bit of a banning binge these days in what critics mock as City Hall’s effort to micromanage residents’ lives in mundane ways.

The aldermen voted in April to forbid restaurants to sell foie gras. They have weighed a proposal to force cabbies to dress better. And there is talk of an ordinance to outlaw smoking at the beach.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Over regulation is not the way to go. People should be allowed a fair degree of self-regulation, where we get to make informed choices. Guns are no different. We know the risks (and if we dont, we should be informed) and therefore we make a personal choice.

7/18/2006 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a simple saying, SNS, that goes - "You get the government you deserve".

If the people of Chicago/IL are so stupid as to be incapable of understanding how tyrannical their elected employees are, then I suggest you move and let them wallow in their ignorance.

If the people of Chicago/IL have brains, quit whining and fire the SOB's!

7/19/2006 2:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home