They're coming for you next.... Apr 28, 2010 13:43:38 GMT -5
Post by theexorcist on Apr 28, 2010 13:43:38 GMT -5
Is the greater economic benefit to society of seat belt laws or the health benefits of "salt laws" worth the intrusion of government into our lives? For me, an interesting but difficult question to answer. Despite the stance I took in the Goldman thread regarding the need for government intervention re: derivative markets, in general, I prefer that the market make such determinations, not the government. While I agree with the economic argument on the seat belt issue, I admit to conflict concerning salt. Where does one draw the line? As Boz said, I surely don't want anyone telling me how much beer I can drink. But beer is not an ingredient in food. I can choose to not consume beer. Excess salt, on the other hand, appears in far too many foods, making it quite difficult for some members of society to avoid over consumption. Excess salt consumption contributes mightily to hypertension, a scourge of low to moderate income black Americans. Will this policy lead to a reduction in hypertension in blacks? If so, great. Yet, I admit I shudder at the thought of the gov't mandating salt content. As I stated earlier, a difficult yet quite interesting question.
This is from a while ago, but this first paragraph really annoys me.
Smoking in restaurants has a negative effect on me, even if I don't smoke - it shortens my life and gives me negative consequences. I'm cool with limits on smoking.
But seat belts for adults and salt .... there are a lot of dumb things that other people - and myself do - and they're not banned. It's a horrible slippery slope. What if they find that sports fans have increased risk of early death - is banning watching sports acceptable?