to a more rational and effective drug abatement program. As the experts have proven a thousand times: "education, not incarceration". If we keep this up, we might actually the grown up society that libertarians pretend they want.

Yeah, we'll be able to get marijuana or cocaine, but we'll be barred from soda (even diet soda), alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods (maybe you'll need drug legalization to deal with the impact of the loss of these other items, all of which are falling under one or another form of condemnation).

Slippery slope is a fallacy. Taxing soda, alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods doesn't lead to banning. The idea that society would legalize cocaine and marijuana while making the above list illegal is so wrong headed and illogical, it's funny unless you actually believe what you wrote.

For the record, I'm a liberal and I don't care for the "sin taxes" either.

Now that we can agree on that, is it possible we can agree on repealing the Drug War?

TR_Populist:

Slippery slope is a fallacy. Taxing soda, alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods doesn't lead to banning. The idea that society would legalize cocaine and marijuana while making the above list illegal is so wrong headed and illogical, it's funny unless you actually believe what you wrote.

You have proof it will end at taxation?

You have proof they'll legalize cocaine and ban cheeseburgers? Whose position sounds the most ridiculous?

Yours: We'll be able smoke crack, but eating donuts will be a no no.

Mine: Fries and crack will both end up legal and taxed by local, state, and national governments desperate for revenue.

The slippery slope is a fallacy unless you can point out the logical step by step progress which will occur. Simply because something is taxed, does not mean it will ever be banned. There's a particularly large disconnect when currently illegal substances are moving towards legalization and suggesting somehow less harmful legal substances will somehow be banned in the same environment.

How about these. Do you have any proof these won't happen?

If we allow the teaching of intelligent design in schools it will inevitably lead to teaching the life of Jesus in history class.

If we ban gay marriage, we'll eventually see amendments against premarital sex, divorce, oral sex, and any position other than the missionary.

If we don't pass a new version of the Brady Bill, people will eventually be walking around with shoulder launched nuclear weapons.

If we ease up on environmental laws, the big corporations will eventually be dumping their waste directly in your backyard.

In general people pull out the slippery slope theory because they can't successfully defend their position on its merits,. Instead they choose a universally undesired outcome and state that failure to adopt their current position inevitably leads there.

You have proof it will not? The burden on proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, you.

MarcusAurelius:

You have proof it will not? The burden on proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, you.

Proof -- no. Signs of a trend? Yes. We've seen cities ban -- not tax, ban -- the use of certain types of cooking fat. Other cities have "red lined" the licensing of fast food restaurants in certain areas because of health implications. At least one, for a period of years, also banned pate de fois gras (Chicago, since repealed.) I even know of a private community in Wisconsin that banned smoking inside one's own home.

All of these things have happened when there was no need to control individual's behavior at the federal level, because there was no federal tie to their health care. Soon we'll have some sort of government-run health care system. At that point, there will be every reason for such rules to become more restrictive and more comprehensive. Taxation, I think, will be the least of your worries if you smoke, drink, or eat anything that might be considered "bad" for you.

First, fois gras wasn't banned as a health issue, it was banned due to animal cruelty. Some people objected to the forced obscene overfeeding of geese in order to create especially large, fatty livers. A small confession. I've eaten fois gras.

Regarding the banning of trans fat cooking fats at restaurants. First, they never bothered to tax it, they just banned it. So there's no connection between taxing and banning established by that example. Second, if you personally want to you're more than free to go out, purchase a container of trans fat cooking oil and down it at your leisure, even in Chicago. Last, you're resorting to the slippery slope fallacy again. There is a reasonable case to be made for banning trans fats in restaurants and a reasonable case to be made for allowing their use. Whether to ban or not to ban should be made on those merits. There's nothing in Chicago's ban that suggests that donuts, cakes, chicken wings, and twinkies will become casualties.

Here's your slippery slope in a nutshell, I'm trying not to put words in your mouth:

Chicago banned trans fats in restaurants. We're going to end up with government controlled health care. The government is then going to do all sorts of onerous things you don't list regarding smoking, alcohol, and unhealthy foods.

--We aren't anywhere near getting government controlled health care. At best, we'll end up with a public option, not a single payer system with doctors, nurses, etc all employed by the federal government. Simply because Chicago banned trans fats, does not mean the government will move legally against unhealthy habits. If there's a public option, they would probably adjust premiuns if possible, but health insurance companies already do this. Why would a government insurace plan behave any differently.

It's also possible to construct a leftist slippery slope out of the Chicago ban.

If we don't ban trans fats, then eventually restaurants will eventually be cooking with even cheaper, more questionable chemicals, maybe even toxic byproducts from chemical plants.

I stand corrected on the issue of pate -- I had heard that it was both because of the animal cruelty and because of the high fat content.

I'm not trying to establish a connection between taxation and banning -- put the taxes high enough and something is effectively banned. Take an example, even now, the taxes that America puts on cigarettes are fairly low, and while there is some low-level illegal cigarette activity, it's uncommon. Taxes on the same product in Denmark are very high -- and Denmark has a relativley large problem with tobacco smuggling. The tax is acting as a prohibition and like most prohibitions (1920s-alcohol, today-marijuana) it has created a black market. Lower the tax, and you'll probalby lower the smuggling problem, too. (I use Denmark as an object example because I have a friend who lives there -- you could pick another substance or another country).

Where we differ is that there is any fallacy in the concept of "slippery slope." I've seen it happen in numerous other areas of my life - why should this be any different?

Actually, when I was speaking of a trans-fat ban, I was thinking of New York's, but it doesn't matter -- in either case a restriction on freedom of choice, at least for the restaurant owner, has been made in the name of "public health." It's interesting to me that the restaurant owner can no longer use shelf-stable margarine (it has trans-fats) but can certainly use lard, which is loaded with saturated fats -- which is more dangerous? Depends on which study you read.

It is certain that once we have government involvement in health care ,there will be government efforts to control costs -- one target for this sort of effort might be obesity. Fatty foods "cause" obesity -- there won't be restrictions? That is a slippery slope, that leads from freedom of choice to lack of choice.

You've implied one, but I don't think you've actually made an argument that banning fatty foods and soda would be bad. If the end result were to be better health outcomes (good for the individual, good for society), why is that inherently bad?

I'm sure you'll use a standard libertarian argument that it's bad to overtly limit choices, but if people are making bad choices regarding food (which, I might add, are not solely the result of any individual, but of the society around them and the options they see), why shouldn't government restrict them?

We don't have the choice of speeding on federal highways, so why should we have the choice to run up everybody else's healthcare costs? Doesn't that spread available healthcare resources and have a very real negative effect on the health of everyone else?

If the end result were to be better health outcomes (good for the individual, good for society), why is that inherently bad?

You are presuming that a general rule to be applied to a nation of over 300 million people will be better for each individual than if they made these decisions for themselves; a ridiculous notion in my opinion. First, let's say the government makes a general rule about sugary drinks because of the common over consumption and obesity problems in this nation. This would still apply to the skinny person that has trouble maintaining their weight; in their case, this restriction is not leading to better outcomes. If anything, it is resulting in worse outcomes. But even neglecting that, a person should be able to decide for themselves what the best choices are. Perhaps to a particular person the risk of possibly dying a few years earlier is worth a lifetime of having more enjoyable meals. If so, they should be allowed to make this choice for themselves; if such a risk would not be worth it to you, you do not need to make similar decisions, but why is it necessary for you to try to control the behavior of others for what YOU perceive to be THEIR best interest? You will never be able to judge their best interest as well as they can. In terms of healthcare costs, the one reliable study I've seen that examined unhealthy behavior (focusing on costs of cigarette smoking) found that smokers REDUCED costs to society, mostly by dying earlier and thus costing less in pensions, social security, medicare, etc. I would expect to see similar results for other unhealthy behavior, such as overeating. As such, saying that you have a right to regulate behavior of others due to their externalizing of costs also strikes me as bogus. If anything, they should be subsidized if you're so worried about evening out costs.

Banning soda's and fatty foods might be an option, but it is certainly nothing that I would personally support. I draw my line in the sand well before that point. I'm actually rather ambivalent about the whole banning of trans fat from restaurants. That's about where I draw my line. I feel there is a good case for government to exercise some control what goes into food that is sold to the public, particularly when the ingredient is hidden, hazardous, etc. I recognize trans fats as more toxic than reasonably priced, nearly perfect substitutes, and that consumers may not recognize they are consuming them, or the risk entailed. As are result, I can stomach banning them at restaurants, but have misgivings. If someone can sell Trans Fat Loaded Fries, Trans Fat Loaded Chicken Wings, and Trans Fat Loaded Chocolate Cake while advertising them as even more unhealthy than lard, I'm prompted to say "more power to them."

In the case of soda and fatty foods most people know how unhealthy these foods are and choose to eat them anyway. I do. We wine sipping, cheese nibbling Massachusetts liberals love our liver destroying alcohol and our fat loaded, artery clogging double cremes. Did I mention our consumption of raw shellfish? I stomach bans on trans fat, because the guy buying the triple decker burger topped with 2 lbs of aged cheddar and one lb of hickory smoked bacon wouldn't realize the extra hazard posed by the trans fats, and likely won't miss them. I'm not going to support banning the burger because he knows it's bad for him, and his eating it doesn't infringe on my ability to enjoy my lunch. That, and I like to consume similar burgers in moderation of course.

In today's Slate there is an article about how insurance companies are providing "incentives" for healthy lifestyles, and even this article in this relatively liberal publication manages to point out that providing an incentive for one lifestyle basically means charging more to someone who for whatever reason can't or doesn't pursue that lifestyle. It also postulates that similar incentives will be built into any government insurance reform that is passed in the legislature.

In other words, the first step down the slippery slope I've postulated is already being taken.

As for transfats, the person eating that "triple decker burger with 2 lbs of aged cheddar and a lb of hicory smoked bacon" isn't facing much additional risk from trans fats. The key issue being -- who's ox gets gored?

Is it really likely that we'll see higher taxes on expensive wines and cheeses (or for that matter, double creams, which I tried while living in Maryland, and found delish)? No, the high taxes are going to be on foods used by poor people -- fast food, beer, etcetera. Or, you'll eventually have a gov't run program that monitors your size and says you either lose your insurance or you lose weight -- no choice of your own.

I'm from Missouri, and near where I grew up our two towns named "Independence" and "Liberty." I've encountered towns by those names in several other states. I've never encountered a "Low Risk" Kan., or a "Reduced Heart Disease" Miss. I don't think our system is designed to value those things -- and it shouldn't. We don't need busybodies to tell us how to live.