Posted on 06/14/2006 7:38:10 AM PDT by Small-L
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?
I hate those anti-tobacco commercials still running on tv. The "progressives" want to hammer this template into our brains and then use it for who-knows-what in the future. Perhaps there will be a day when we all have to step on a scale and then are told what we'll be ALLOWED to order. And, of course, they won't stop with food.
Might as well add calorie-rationing for supermarket shopping too. How could they stop with restaurants and not continue on to make sure you didn't buy too many calories or fat grams for your household?
That's not to say I think taxing cigarettes more is fair. Nor do I favor most anti-smoking measures. (Let's be real; there are some places that must ban smoking -- like hospitals). However, smokers have themselves to blame a lot of times because they are rude about their nasty habit.
Walter Williams Ping....
"Even if you just say the smoke is bothersome to non-smokers, you have a case of one person's freedom restricting another person's freedom."
The smoking restrictions are not an issue of the smoker's rights vs. the non-smoker's rights. Neither the smoker, nor the non-smoker trump the rights of the property owner. However, the legislative actions that ban smoking in privately owned establishments have allowed the anti-smoking zealot's rights to trump the property owner's rights.
I am fine with allowing the owner to make the decision and then allowing the market to reward or punish that owner for his decision.
Of course, you will see many FReepers that don't like the free market.
As usual Dr. Williams is spot on. I fear for our country because our citizens and especially our kids are so damned ignorant that they buy into this "Government cares about you" claptrap. I fear most Americans see nothing wrong with this. I think, therefore I am Libertarian
A really and truly NANNY STATE PING-A-ROONIE!!!!!!!!!!
I suspect several of us here are guilty of maintaining improper sleep habits, excess caffeine intake, 'unhealthy' emphasis on religion and, worst of all...gluttonous internet consumption. All crimes worthy of punititve taxation and regulation.
But, to paraphrase President Chuck when confronted by the nanny enemy regarding the gun issues, they can have my keyboard when they pry it 'from my cold, dead hands'!
Williams is right. Where does it stop?
At one time, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society would solicit money to conduct research and run anti-smoking ads. Now, they still solicit money but instead of doing research and running anti-smoking ads, they hire lobbyists to lobby the federal and state governments to spend taxpayer money on research and ant-smoking ads. Yes, we have come a long way!
Uh, the template was set by the anti-drug zealots. Tobacco was just next on the list.
But..but...but don't we need big brother to warn us about dangerous FAT especially TRANS FAT and what about the kiddies eating all those dangerous SUGAR foods that do not even have warning labels. Some kids can still just go in a store and buy some Hostess chocolate cupcakes...alone...without parental supervision! What about warnings on white bread, whole milk, eggs, bacon, chips, Baby Ruth bars, etc.
When are we going to get those extra taxes on chocolate bars? Can you believe full-size Goo Goo clusters can still be bought three-for-a-dollar at certain places. That is due to their undertaxed marshmellow, caramel, chocolate, and peanuts.
Let's be busy bodies!
Be darned if anyone will tell me I can't take home food I actually paid for. They'd better pro-rate the check, then!
I would think that prohibiting "doggy bags" would be counterproductive if one wants to curb obesity. If the customer were not allowed to take part of his meal home to eat later, he would have to eat the whole meal at once in order to get his money's worth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.