The slippery slope

•Jun 14, 2006
by Walter E. Williams

Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.

In the early stages of the anti-tobacco campaign, there were calls for "reasonable" measures such as non-smoking sections on airplanes and health warnings on cigarette packs. In the 1970s, no one would have ever believed such measures would have evolved into today's level of attack on smokers, which includes confiscatory cigarette taxes and bans on outdoor smoking.

The door was opened, and the zealots took over. Much of the attack was justified by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondhand smoke study that used statistical techniques, if used by an academic researcher, would lead to condemnation if not expulsion. Let's say that you support the attack on smokers. Are you ready for the next round of tyranny using tactics so successful for the anti-tobacco zealots?


According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.

Right now, the FDA doesn't have the authority to require restaurants to label the number of calories, set portion sizes on menus or prohibit allowing customers from taking home a doggie bag. That's for right now, but recall that cigarette warning labels were the anti-tobacco zealots' first steps. There are zealots like the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest who've for a long time attacked Chinese and Mexican restaurants for serving customers too much food. They also say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." They've called for caffeine warning labels, and they don't stop there. The Center's director said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses and meat." Visions of higher taxes are music to politicians' ears.

How many Americans would like to go to a restaurant and have the waiter tell you, based on calories, what you might have for dinner? How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? What about a Burger King cashier refusing to sell french fries to overweight people? You say, "Williams, that's preposterous! It would never come to that."

I'm betting that would have been the same response during the 1970s had someone said the day would come when cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., and Friendship Heights, Md., would write ordinances banning outdoor smoking. Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear reasonable. Revealing their complete agenda from the start would encounter too much resistance.

Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?


Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.


Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Amen brother.

Ooohhh... lookee'

Call for tougher junk food ad ban
The government's food watchdog is pushing for a ban on TV commercials advertising junk food before the 9pm watershed.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) says proposals drawn up by media regulator Ofcom to reduce the effect of junk food ads on children do not go far enough.
The three sets of options stop short of a pre-watershed ban.
But the FSA says banning such ads for products like crisps and fizzy drinks would help protect children's health.

It is estimated that 14% of children in England are clinically obese.
Earlier this year, Ofcom proposed tighter restrictions on the timing and content of junk food commercials as part of a consultation.
One option was to ban the ads in commercial breaks in programmes for pre-school children.

The FSA would join a groundswell of support for the ban from numerous groups including parents
British Heart Foundation


Another was to ban or restrict them in programmes for the under-10s.
At a meeting in Bristol on Thursday, the FSA rejected all Ofcom's options.
It argues a ban on junk food commercials before 9pm would extend protection to older age groups.
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) said it was "delighted" that the FSA was pressing Ofcom for a pre-watershed ban.
It claims more than two-thirds of parents would support such a move.
Campaigns officer Josh Bayly said: "The obesity problem in this country has got to such a serious state now that any action we can take we really must take.
"Around 80%-90% of television advertising is junk food advertising - food that is high in fat, sugar and salt.
"With children watching over 20 hours of television a week now it is a very, very considerable influence over their food choices."
Sue Davies, chief policy adviser to the consumer magazine Which? also backed the FSA position.
She said: "We hope that Ofcom can now accept that its approach is completely flawed and put children's health first."
However, broadcasters said such a ban could cost them £140m in lost advertising revenue.
The deadline for responses to the consultation is 30 June.
Last month, it emerged that the National Heart Forum was preparing an application for a judicial review over the consultation.
The heart charity said it was unlawful and unfair to exclude the possibility of a pre-watershed ban.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...th/5081964.stm

Published: 2006/06/15 13:43:05 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[Ibby]

Goddammit, I'm gonna eat like a pig if I want, and no government's gonna stop me.

Really? And if you have private property and you want your customers to be able to smoke....

[Ibby]

If someone wants to smoke on my property, nobody is going to stop them. Simple. Don't like it, don't come in.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Goddammit, I'm gonna eat like a pig if I want, and no government's gonna stop me.

What if it isn't the government that takes this initiative? What if, say, it was your employer that fired you for unhealthy eating/smoking/drinking?

[Ibby]

Well that's his right, I guess. I could try to get on him for firing me without ample reason, but thats a different issue.

[Happy Monkey]

Their reason would be that you were too ample.

Originally Posted by Ibram

If someone wants to smoke on my property, nobody is going to stop them. Simple. Don't like it, don't come in.

That is not the way it works, if you own a store or restaurant.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why can't you selfish people get it through your heads...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN.

You've done what you want and consequently screwed up your health, but by God, your betters will not allow you to inflict your degradation on the next generation. They'll raise healthy war fighters in spite of you.

What the hell do you think this is...some kind of free country or something?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Why can't you selfish people get it through your heads...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN.

What happens if/when they find that a little second hand smoke strengthens kids immune systems? Pfizer will probably make an inhaler...

[xoxoxoBruce]

It only works if it's a prescription.

[9th Engineer]

A collegue of my father's told me about a case they had a few days ago. A woman came into the ER with a stroke and a collapsed lung. She was so fat they couldn't put a chest tube in her so they needed to move her into the OR. Picture three docs, all with multiple other trauma cases comming in to deal with, having to shove their hands into her chest halfway to the elbow to hold back her fat so that yet another doctor could get a tube into her chest cavity to release the fluid pressure against her lungs. Not only did she endanger the lives of other people comming in from car accidents and serious injuries by forcing half the doctors in the ER to divert their attention, but if the time delay was the difference between her living or dying all of those doctors are now up for a lawsuit. But of course a jury would never hear that side of the story. We may live in a free country, but other people always have to take responsibility for people like this. I don't care if the 300lb guy in front of me at McDonalds can't have his Big Mac and large shake, I'll probably end up paying his medical bill anyway!!

[xoxoxoBruce]

So what? Pay the bill.
I'm paying an accumulated fortune to supply the local rug rats with toys and stuff I can't afford for myself, in the name of producing well rounded students.
We all pay for stuff we have no say in, no benefit from and sometimes are vehemently opposed to.

Tell the 300 lb guy how you feel....maybe he'll share his fries.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

•Jun 14, 2006 by Walter E. Williams

Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.

It is now a 'slam dunk' fact that smoking AND second hand smoke is deadly. Details posted in the Entertainment Section at Shock & Gore - TV Ads - Enough is Enough

The evidence is now "indisputable" that secondhand smoke is an "alarming" public health hazard, responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths among nonsmokers each year, Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said yesterday.