Most people try to stay in good health their entire life. We exercise and we are told not to smoke and eat fatty foods. However most people do enjoy fatty foods, this is evident in the prevalence of the fast food industry. However several states and cities, most notably New York City, are trying to ban trans-fats. To cut to the chase I do not believe that trans-fats are good for you, my argument is not that. But by banning trans-fats and smoking, our government is breaking one of its fundamental principals; the freedom of choice.
The first and most important part of this argument is the fact that this limits our freedom of choice. A recent study shows that people simply like the taste of foods with trans-fats in them over ones with the more healthy type of fat, saturated fat. We should not force people to eat something that they find less appetizing just because it is unhealthy for them. Also your body is your own businesses not the governments. As in the U.S.A. we live without socialized health care we don't pay taxes that go directly to people who are unhealthy. For those who are state supported imposing basic rules makes sense but for those of us who are independent and non-government supported it does not.
From an economic standpoint the banning of trans-fats is not a good idea. The major corporations such as Kraft, McDonalds and Frito-Lay will not be the ones to suffer. It will be the small business's the local cafes and diners. See replacing trans-fats with saturated fats is not as simple as replacing the oil, you have to completely restock and it cost a huge amount of money, which most small restaurants cannot afford. Running restaurants out of business because people don't know how to have a balanced diet is not right nor the government's duty to do.
We have several other options to keep people aware of trans-fats that do not include outright banning them. For instance we could create public awareness through advertisement campaigns and teach kids about a balanced diet. Additionally we could also have warnings on foods with trans-fats as we do with cigarettes to increase awareness. This would be to educate the people without hurting the economy or personal freedom.
As for banning smoking we must consider the fact that anyone who is literate can see the huge warning signs on tobacco. Smokers like smoking, it gives them relief. Be it not the most healthy way to get relief but they like it so who are we to judge how they live their lives. Now some may argue that smoking kills and we must stop the waves of unneeded death. This may be a valid point however banning cigarettes may lead to another case like alcohol prohibition in the United States. This lasted between 1920 through 1933, while you may think that alcohol deaths would go down, however statistics clearly show how half-way through prohibition alcohol related deaths were the same as pre-prohibition. This clearly shows how banning a substance that is unhealthy has little effect on the amount of people affected. In fact prohibition increased violent crimes as shown by the fact that the homicide rate rose during prohibition and fell afterwards. I am not trying to insinuate that banning cigarettes will get people killed I am however trying to show simply put that banning something unhealthy does not help the amount of people affected. We also have to consider the fact that those who are smoke cigarettes are addicted. By banning the cigarettes we are not helping them, they are the only ones who can be motivated enough to stop smoking.
I strongly feel that the government should not interfere with personal freedom of choice however your feelings towards this really come down to your personal feelings about a governments role. Lastly I would like to use a quote by Samuel Smiles in his article Self-Help and Thrift "..and where men are subjected to over-guidance and over-government, the inevitable tendency is to render them comparatively helpless."
