Letter to the Editor

The ban on trans-fats in New York heralds an open season on the liberty of a person to do to their own body what they wish. The argument that it is in the heath interests of society has a nice ring to it. I take issue with New York City’s board of health banning trans-fats. This sets all sorts of precedents with unsettling complications. New York City has decided that, in the public’s health interest, it can regulate a perfectly legal substance that can be purchased by anybody. Caffeine can cause heart issues. Are coffee houses to sell only decaf? Diabetes has a causal relationship with consumption of refined sugars. Should refined sugars in be banned? I should think not. The consumption of these substances causes me no physical detriment.

Another argument is that in order to reduce health costs, we should start mandating a healthier lifestyle to save the taxpayer the burden of paying for the healthcare of the arterially clogged. If the taxpayer is paying for healthcare, than it should be free to impose whatever asinine restrictions it pleases. If someone other than John Q. Public foots the bill, than that someone should be free to dictate the terms of her or his health. Imposing on the freedom to use one’s body as one pleases in the name of public health imposes on very personal freedoms. In the name of public health, mandatory exercise for the obese could be mandated. Cessations of intercourse to halt the spread of STDs could be imposed. Big brother could issue mandatory breath masks to impede the flu complementing mandatory hand washing. These are all perfectly reasonable if you want to save a nickel on your taxes. Of course, this all assumes the taxpayer is paying for your healthcare. “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” ~ Justice Louis Brandeis.



Tim Olmsted

Engineering Physics

Class of 2009