I was just reading about a new bill recently introduced in the New York State General Assembly that would ban the use of salt in all restaurants’ food preparation.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I can’t fathom why I need to go any further with this note: the ludicrousness of such a notion ought to be self-evident by now.
However, if you reside in a state (like Ohio or New York) which has enacted a public smoking ban law you should not be surprised. This is the logical progression about which Libertarians have been warning anyone within earshot for years. The steps include (not necessarily in order so please bear with me) restricting smoking in sections of airliners, banning smoking in airliners, restricting smoking in public buildings, banning smoking in any form of public or open-to-the-public building or venue, restricting or banning the use of trans-fatty products in restaurants, restricting or banning products bearing saturated fats, restricting or banning salt in restaurants, and so on until we reach a point where stringent calorie limits on a customer’s total order must be enforced.
How can anyone expect such a legislative effort as what Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) is proposing to actually improve the overall health picture in the state of New York? Will the next step after this lead to banning the sale of salt in grocery stores? Is the New York Department of Health going to commission its very own Salt Enforcement Agency to be on the lookout for hardened-criminal salt pushers as they cross the state line with Morton cylinders stashed in their trunks?
Unless anyone in New York’s (or, for that matter, in any state's) legislature is willing to pursue an outright ban on access to salt or products containing it, the Progressive agenda behind Mr. Ortiz’ bill is quite easy to recognize.
This is an outright assault on small and independent business owners. Not surprisingly, they tend to not vote Democrat.
At a time when our economy is struggling, to push for this kind of legislation that will only serve to damage the financial viability of any eatery in New York takes the definition of “irresponsible” to new and previously unexplored territory.
The timing – at the risk of beating that drum to death – of this bill is its most incriminating component. If this is not an irresponsible, misguidedly self-righteous endeavor to merely “look out for the little guy” and save us from ourselves, the next-most likely explanation is this serves to expand the role of government in our lives and outright suppress individual choice and personal responsibility.
At some point, the term “draconian” ceases to be an overstatement.