I’m in the Washington Examiner today arguing against taking calorie labeling laws national:
Among the many proposals under heated debate between the House and Senate health care bills is one provision both sides will likely support: a national law mandating calorie labels on chain restaurant menus and in vending machines.
Advocates have described the measure as a symbolically important step against obesity and have spun recent research in their favor, but a closer look reveals a weak case for labeling.
Read the whole thing here.
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (0)

I have an article at Doublethink today about the last days of smoking at the legendary Horse Brass Pub, one of the first places I felt at home when moving to Portland a few months ago. Debates over smoking bans tend to focus on the impacts on business, public health, and property rights. The culture that’s wiped out when smoking is banned gets much less attention. In this piece I try to convey what that culture means to those of us who love it.
Incidentally, I finally got to meet Don Younger, the pub’s owner, a few days after I submitted this. He’s not at all worried that his bar won’t survive the ban. The beer, the atmosphere, and the food are all too good for that to happen (and the Scotch eggs, incidentally, are probably far more dangerous to people’s hearts than all the cigarette smoke in Oregon — but totally worth it). When we ban opponents talk about the rights of business owners, we’re not just talking about them making money; as Don says, he didn’t get into the tavern business to get rich. We’re talking about not having a community that they’ve nurtured for more than 30 years wiped out at the whim of some busybodies in the state legislature.
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (0)
I’m in the Oregonian today, calling BS on the idea that our upcoming statewide smoking ban is motivated by an interest in saving workers’ lives. If the response is anything like that to my previous anti-ban column, there’s a lot of hate mail and nasty comments headed this way and to the Oregonian website. That’s fine, I’m happy to receive criticism. But before you hit send, make sure you’re not saying what we’ve all heard many times before:
Secondhand tobacco smoke is dangerous! — I agree. Chronic, extended exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has been shown to correlate with moderately greater health risks. But if you think the guy smoking next to you in a restaurant is shaving years off your life, you’re going way beyond what’s scientifically plausible.
Smoking shouldn’t be allowed in public buildings! — I agree. Courthouses, public hospitals, police stations, and similar places could all justifiably ban smoking. You could even make a case for banning smoking on common carriers like railroads and buses. But a privately owned bar? That’s a competitive business, not a public building. If you don’t like the atmosphere you don’t have to go.
Smoking bans are just like any other workplace safety regulation! — Most safety regulations don’t ban jobs entirely, as we’re now banning working in a smoke-friendly bar. Nor do we need to protect bar workers from hidden risks; if anything, the dangers of secondhand smoke are exaggerated. Given the high rates of turnover in the hospitality industry, there’s no reason employees can’t decide for themselves whether to keep working in smoke-filled rooms.
Smokers can just step outside — In the Oregon winter? Cigarette smokers, maybe. Pipe and cigar smokers? Not my idea of high fun. For many of us, bartenders included, the ban will kill a bar culture we know and love. Besides, you’re just going to ban it outside next (see Boston, San Luis Obispo, Calabasas, Belmont, etc.).
I shouldn’t have to suffer smokers when I go out! — Then go to places that don’t allow smoking. Or, as I mentioned in the column, pass legislation that’s less restrictive than the ban but that would still encourage businesses to go smokefree. Shouldn’t smokers have places to go too?
But the one place I really want to go allows smoking! — Yeah, that sucks. Try complaining to the management. If enough people say something they might change their policy. Or maybe they won’t. Remember, the world doesn’t revolve around you. (Unless you’re William Shatner, in which case the world does revolve around you, and can I have your autograph?)
Smoking has made you bald! — Uh, no. That’s just some unfortunate photo cropping on the Oregonian website. My mane’s still doing pretty well, thank you.
Got something to add that’s not on the list? Now you can hit send.
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (22)

When you see green in a mixed drink, that’s often a sign that the bartender is getting carried away with sour apple pucker and it’s time for you to find another bar. Not so if the color comes from Chartreuse liqueur. My post today at Crispy on the Outside takes a look at the delightful Last Word cocktail.
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (0)
Hey everybody, I hope you’ve got some fun things planned for tonight. A long flight, a time change, and Reason magazine’s 40th anniversary party kept me far too busy yesterday to catch up on internet at happenings. I’m at Murky now, checking in briefly before heading over to Cato for what looks to be one of the most popular events ever held there. Jeff and I are going to have our hands full getting drinks to the thirsty libertarian masses.
There’s a lot of Repeal Day writing coming out today, including one op/ed from me in the American Spectator discussing the spiritual heirs of the Temperance movement (which, as Radley learned, is still active!).
I plan to post a more complete roundup soon, but in the meantime here are two excellent pieces from historian Maureen Ogle (author of Ambitious Brew, a book on the history of American beer that I’m currently enjoying). In the first she examines Prohibition’s legacy of regulations that hamper today’s boutique producers of spirits, beer, and wine. In the second she hopes we toast not alcohol itself, but rather our right to enjoy it. Read them both, and be sure to check out her weblog too.
More to come… Cheers!
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (1)
I had an article in the Fall issue of Doublethink about the competition between Starbucks and independent coffee shops. This was my first time published in a magazine and seeing everything laid out with original photography was pretty neat. It’s published online today here.
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (1)
In our final installment, Paul advocates the death penalty for cooks who serve trans fats, while I … no, just kidding, we both favor education over regulation. Check it out here, and thanks to Paul and the L.A. Times for bringing this discussion together.
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (0)
Those of you who’ve been wanting more of a smackdown between Paul Roberts and I won’t find it in today’s exchange, where we agree that there are plenty of reasons to enjoy eating natural, locally grown food — as long as you’re not kidding yourself about the health and environmental benefits. Read it here.
Tomorrow’s topic is foods that need to be banned, so things could get a little more heated then.
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (0)