Reason Writers Around Town

|

In the Chicago Tribune, Nick Gillespie calls for a ban on banning things.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

25 responses to “Reason Writers Around Town

  1. I don’t support banning trans-fats, but it’s simply not true to say that they’re flavor-enhancers. French-fries and donuts were not lacking in flavor back when they were fried in lard and tallow (remember McDonalds fries?) The main reason for the switch to trans-fats was because of a bogus health scare about animal fat, courtesy of people like Ralph Nader and the CSPI.

  2. How about a ban on torture?

  3. Or a ban on flying fully loaded airplanes into fully occupied buildings?

    Cracker’s Boy

  4. I guess the obvious problem with Nick’s argument is that none of his examples (smoking, foie gras, and trans fat) have actually been banned.

  5. Ban Hysteria!

  6. Dan T.,

    Thanks. I will remember that when I want to light up in a DC bar after 3 January 2007. Better print this out to show the staff.

  7. 1g of fat = 9 calories.

    The funny thing is that the dishes accompanied by trans fats will still pack on the pounds without missing a beat. When it comes to losing or gaining weight, fat is fat. These bans will do nothing except, perhaps, fool people into thinking french fries are now diet friendly. I expect people to get fatter if anything.

  8. Thanks. I will remember that when I want to light up in a DC bar after 3 January 2007. Better print this out to show the staff.

    Banning an activity is not the same as restricting it.

  9. Dan T., I assume you think marijuana hasn’t been banned because in certain circumstances, some people are allowed to smoke it.

  10. What Mr. Gillespie fails to note is that the “Pursuit of Happiness” doesn’t usually result in happiness when people are left to their own devices. Health is necessary for happiness, and since our government is supposed to help make everyone happy, we must first help them to become healthy.

  11. Sorry Alice, but we have our own sarcastic ‘troll’ that is incredibly funny and relentless. That person’s name is Dan T.

    (the above was written assuming you are being sarcastic, if you aren’t, please disregard)

    (and yes, I think Dan T. is funny)

  12. What part of the foie gras ban in Chicago is not a ban? Restaurants are prohibited, by law, from selling foie gras.

  13. I have disregarded. No sarcasm was intended. This is a very serious matter. And I don’t think Dan T. is funny. I think he’s insightful. He just doesn’t go far enough. But I am willing to overlook that flaw. For now.

  14. What part of the foie gras ban in Chicago is not a ban? Restaurants are prohibited, by law, from selling foie gras.

    It’s a ban on selling foie gras in resturants, but I believe you could still eat foie gras in Chicago if you purchased it elsewhere and brought it into the city.

  15. Gotcha – make that two incredible funny trolls. [Dan T.] just doesn’t go far enough……I love it.

  16. What Alice seems to be missing is that while “The Pursuit of Happiness” is a promise, this does not guarantee the result of Happiness.

  17. It’s a ban on selling foie gras in resturants, but I believe you could still eat foie gras in Chicago if you purchased it elsewhere and brought it into the city.

    So what if Roe v Wade is overturned. Women will still be able to go to Sweden for abortions.

  18. Alice, thank you for the kind words. But we need to be patient. In time people will see the wisdom of these protections. And for those who don’t, we have faithful stewards of the state such as yourself to enlighten them.

    Until then, one protection at a time.

  19. “Banning an activity is not the same as restricting it.”

    No, restricting an activity is nothing more than banning little pieces of it.

    “It’s a ban on selling foie gras in resturants, but I believe you could still eat foie gras in Chicago if you purchased it elsewhere and brought it into the city.”

    Ahhh, so it is a ban.

  20. I’m such a retard.
    But at least I crave attention.

  21. Dan T.,

    Sword fighting in a burning building is still (as far as I know) banned in Chicago. It is a total ban. No sword fighting in any burning building.

    I think I found one that you will accept.

  22. Just so you know, Alice is not a real person. “Her” website is a very clever ad campaign for the book, “Mean Martin Manning,” in which a happy shut-in is molested by a pernicious self-help guru, “Alice Pitney.”

    I don’t know if the book is any good, but it’s not a bad idea for a sneaky promo.

    Sorry, I blew your cover, Alice. It’s for your own good.

  23. If Pitney is fake, what the hell happened to my frogs? You wouldn’t be calling Pitney fake if you’d been through what I’ve been through. Now I’m pissed. I sure as hell don’t appreciate being called a fictional character. If my list weren’t so full, I’d start taking names. I’ll let this one slide.

    Anyway, you know where I stand on trans fats: Salami=Freedom.

  24. Alice Pitney and Mean Martin Manning are hereby commended by me, for their creative social consiousness raising.

    p.s. I hope the marketing works, too.

  25. I think Alice and Dan T have a point. In fact I’m going to take up my own pet cause. In order to stave off ocular degeneration in young people I hereby propose an all-out ban on masturbation.

    The trick will be to start enforcing it at an early age.

    You’ll thank me when you’re older.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.