Hooray for libertarian sentiment, I guess?

[dour]

Associated Press feeds us an opinion piece (not even thinly veiled) regarding the recent trend in banning things; trans fats, cellphones while driving, and headphones in crosswalks are given as examples. In the closing paragraph, a capital-L Libertarian is not-quite-quoted as seeing the validity of a ban one-handed driving, which is hazardous to

Comments

[tyrc]

Though its power has been weakened by the increased availability of information over the internet, the imbalance of knowledge is one of those things which is exploited and abused by misleading statements, and flat out lying, especially in the Food industry, seemingly.

I think part of the argument, without stating my approval of it mind you, is that banning, say, cigarette smoking in crowded venues, or trans-fats in foods, is the theoretical savings in health costs for the city/state/nation, which may have to support someone injured by these things, and indirectly raises the cost to others. Societal benefit outweighing the loss of freedom, by their felicific calculus, accurate or not.

A secondary argument about Trans-Fats, though, while they're unnecessary (though useful) for the preparation and taste of food, there's something more valid still: they could be a toxic substance on a different level than, say, other potentially harmful but natural ingredients may be. (One can argue, on the other hand, Cigarettes have benefits as well as penalties, however unnecessary it may be.) The National Academy of Sciences (and there is a much larger scientific consensus which agrees) has come out and said there seems to be /no/ safe level of trans-fat consumption, after all - its always a risk, never a benefit, health wise.

(Another note: There seems to be a kind of trans-fat in ruminants - that is, fat in the Trans not Cis format, which gives it said name. However, these also don't appear to be quite the same thing, and the same effects don't seem to be reproducible with the ruminant variety, though I'm not quite sure yet how they differ..)

HFCS might be a little more complicated, because though its a refined product, Glucose and Fructose, of which its composed, can be found naturally in far greater quantities, though not quite in the same form of delivery (and this is in large part where the problem is - fructose has to be processed, glucose can be used by any cell in the body, etc..). But, it can be argued that HFCS is entirely unnecessary as well, and that its artificial tariffs and subsidies which make its use viable at all - so if anything, the odd construction in law should be done away with.

Now that we're seeing this informational imbalance tipped, trans-fats are beginning to disappear just the same, though not yet reliably. I wish I could feel safe eating out, though - the informational imbalance, now that I know about it, is.. awfully, awfully hard to overcome even while looking out for this. The Castor Oil in my hair-treatment, for instance, is trans-fat, for stability's sake - I would never have thought to look, but for chance. (It can be absorbed through the skin, too).

[dour]

The secondhand smoke thing is frankly bullshit; it's one of those issues of playing sly with the numbers. Three in a million is THREE TIMES one in a million, but they're both statistically insignificant. That's why I didn't stick smoking in with guns and cars.

I'm fine with local ordinances because, really, at that level it's more a community action than a government one. No screaming in the library, y'know? (Except the punk/metal library, they don't mind it there.) There's no reason to fabricate pseudoscientific excuses for these things; just keep them where they belong (i.e., where they're wanted by the vast majority of the affected populace).