Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Writers Around Town

Reason Staff | 12.11.2006 7:06 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

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

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Race to Ban What's Bad For Us

Reason Staff
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (25)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Penry   19 years ago

    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. Joe   19 years ago

    How about a ban on torture?

  3. Cracker\'s Boy   19 years ago

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

    Cracker’s Boy

  4. Dan T.   19 years ago

    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. crusty bread   19 years ago

    Ban Hysteria!

  6. Guy Montag   19 years ago

    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. steveintheknow   19 years ago

    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. Dan T.   19 years ago

    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. Whoa   19 years ago

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

  10. Alice Pitney   19 years ago

    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. Cab   19 years ago

    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. highnumber   19 years ago

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

  13. Alice Pitney   19 years ago

    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. Dan T.   19 years ago

    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. Cab   19 years ago

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

  16. Not Alice   19 years ago

    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. T. Dan   19 years ago

    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. Dan T.   19 years ago

    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. Lamar   19 years ago

    “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. Dan T Dan   19 years ago

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

  21. Guy Montag   19 years ago

    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. Les   19 years ago

    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. Mean Martin Manning   19 years ago

    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. J sub D   19 years ago

    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. Godfrey   19 years ago

    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 log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

DOJ Brings Kilmar Abrego Garcia Back to the U.S. After Insisting It Couldn't

Joe Lancaster | 6.9.2025 4:45 PM

Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information

Jacob Sullum | 6.9.2025 4:20 PM

Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline

Sophia Mandt | 6.9.2025 12:48 PM

FTC Pivots From Competition to Children

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.9.2025 11:00 AM

This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market

Jack Nicastro | 6.9.2025 10:44 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!