[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skydiving.

Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats)

Church.

Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same).

Motorcycles.

Poker.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a difference between outlawing trans fats and outlawing these things. I understand that you don't like outlawing either, and neither do I, but there is a difference. The government think it's helping society to arrive much faster to a place where the market would lead us eventually anyway (no trans fats). The market is slow, outlawing is quick. And people won't protest. If you took away church or ice cream, people would be outraged because they feel like they get something good from these things. If you take away trans fats, nobody (really, nobody) will care except for people who care just because of principle and slippery slope ideas, like yourself and to some degree I.

I think it would be better if the law was that companies had to write on the product (or in the menu) that it contained trans fats. That would probably speed up the market without telling people what they are allowed eat. If this was the law, I would be all for it. At least as long as the mechanisms for enforcing laws are already in place. Laws that force companies to tell people what it is they are selling, seem to be one of the least harmfull and most usefull kind of laws. I'm not opposed to anarchy, but I think laws that make information mandatory are ok.