Untitled Document
Is there any doubt that the infantilization of adults
is one of the defining characteristics of contemporary politics? New York City just banned the use of trans fats in
restaurant meals, and an Ohio law passed in November that bans smoking in
virtually all business establishments (even in company-owned vehicles such
as trailer-truck cabs) went into effect. However different the actions may
seem on the surface, they share something all too common in today’s
America: They rob us of the right to make decisions — however stupid,
unwise, or repugnant to refined sensibilities — about how we want to
live, work, and eat. Although “Give me partially hydrogenated
vegetable oil or give me death!” is not likely to become a rallying
cry anytime soon, it’s worth pausing a minute to consider the
country’s headlong rush to prohibit just about anything that
bureaucrats — or simple majorities of voters — find offensive. New York used to pride itself on being the toughest
city in the world. Since passing the first municipal ban on trans fat in
the United States, it has just become one of the most annoying. Trans fats, which are made by adding hydrogen to
vegetable oils, are the flavor-enhancing substances that make many
commercially prepared baked goods and fast foods so predictably yummy
— and, alas, so predictably artery-clogging. They are reviled by
physicians, nutritionists, and exercise gurus — everyone, in short,
except for cooks and their customers. So now New York City restaurants face a fine of at
least $200 per infraction come next July. For good measure, the Board of
Health also dictated that restaurants already posting nutritional
information must post calorie counts for their meals.
“We are just trying to make food safer,”
said Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who in 2002 pushed through one of the
toughest smoking bans in the country. It’s not as tough, though, as the statewide ban
that 58 percent of Ohio voters approved and that now is in effect. When Buckeye State residents gather in bars,
restaurants, private clubs, and even bowling alleys on Jan. 8 to watch Ohio
State University take on the University of Florida for a national football
championship, they’ll have to do it without lighting up. When Ohio — a bellwether state that once billed
itself as “The Heart of It All” on its license plates —
mimics policies found in New York and California (which passed the first
statewide smoking ban in 1995), it’s a given that no unwise,
unhealthy, or just unseemly choice is safe from regulation. Indeed, how else to explain, say, Chicago’s
decision in April to ban the sale of foie gras out of concern for the geese who give their lives
— and their livers — for diners’ pleasure? Observers say
it’s likely that Illinois and Minnesota will be the 19th and 20th
states to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, even as cities in California
and elsewhere mull the idea of banning all smoking outside of private,
single-family dwellings. Similarly, New York’s trans fat ban will almost
certainly be emulated. As Chicago Ald. Ed Burke, who sponsored a similar
measure earlier this year, told the New York
Times, “I’m disappointed
we’re losing bragging rights to be the first city in the nation to do
this.” With attitudes such as that, expect to see the equivalent of
an arms race among jurisdictions bidding up restrictions on all sorts of
activities deemed unacceptable.
Such bans often are, by turns, mendacious, redundant,
and likely to be ineffective. The trans-fat ban, averred Bloomberg, is
“not going to take away anybody’s ability to go out and have
the kind of food they want,” even as it limits what ingredients can
be used. Fast-food chains such as Wendy’s and KFC had
already committed to ridding their menus of trans fats, as had various
high-end eateries in New York and elsewhere. And in a country in which the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 65 percent of adults are
overweight, it’s ridiculous to expect the ban to have any serious
impact on the supersizing of American waistlines or cholesterol levels. It’s probable that smoking bans in the
workplace encourage employees to quit or cut back. The CDC, for instance,
notes that “a 2002 review of 26 studies concluded that a complete
smoking ban in the workplace reduces smoking prevalence among employees by
3.8 percent and daily cigarette consumption by 3.1 cigarettes among
employees who continue to smoke.” And there’s no doubt that not
smoking clears the air. But even when bans do have an impact that most of us
would agree is positive, one-size-fits-all actions leave no place for
individuals to make some intensely personal choices. They ignore the evolving social arrangements —
such as nonsmoking sections, not to mention smoke-free businesses —
that give people, especially the 20 percent of adults who still light up
regularly, more options rather than fewer. By the time Washington state
passed its ultrarestrictive smoking ban last year — a law that
outlaws lighting up even in cigar bars! — 80 percent of restaurants
there were already tobacco-free. Most important, these bans reduce all of us to the
status of children, incapable of making informed choices. Is it quaint to
suggest that there’s something wrong with that in a country founded
on the idea of the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness?
Nick Gillespie is the editor of Reason magazine.
This article appears in Jan 4-10, 2007.
