a free people should be free to eat cake.

Is it wrong -- or, you know, uncomfortably right-wing; you say "tomato" -- of me to be kind of unhappy about the trans fat ban in Montgomery County?

I mean, I don't disagree that trans fats are bad. So are a lot of things, right -- but whereas driving too fast (for example) endangers not just me but many, many other people, consuming trans fats is a one-victim arrangement, like wearing six-inch heels. I kind of don't want the government regulating what I can eat any more than I want them regulating how I can dress. I want, ultimately, to be trusted to take care of myself; and, along with that, I want the freedom not to take care of myself if that's the choice I make, because it's my business, dammit.

Of course there are lots and lots of our fellow citizens who, given the opportunity, do not take care of themselves, and I get that this measure (and the ones like it in New York and Philadelphia) is meant to make up the difference there. But see above re: freedom. Also, though, I get that a regulation on the restaurant and prepared-food industry is not a regulation on what the citizens are allowed to eat. That's really what makes this thing okay with me, to the extent that it's okay. Restaurants and bars are not allowed (not supposed, anyway) to serve alcohol to people who appear already to be drunk; but people are allowed to get drunk on their own, right. Likewise, I suppose, now restaurants in New York and Philly and MoCo are not allowed to serve artery-clogging food to people who are already in danger of giving themselves a heart attack (which is all of us); but people are still allowed to eat shortening with a spoon, I guess, if they choose.

How about a law banning tanning salons, then, eh? Skin cancer is bad, bad, bad. And people are still free to lie out in the genuine sun if they want. (And so on.)