More Big Government

It's funny. I have plenty of close friends who love to tell me how they're libertarians at heart.

Yet most of them are more than willing to watch cities and municipalities pass silly bans on smoking. Of course, the argument seems steeped in the idea that poor people working in bars shouldn't be killed by all the second-hand smoke they encounter at work. Of course, this form of oppressive government regulation has a health benefit for these non-smokers, so they think that's pretty good. And because they tend to think that this government regulation will increase business by bringing non-smokers out to restaurants and bars in droves, those who believe in the free market are willing to think that maybe the free market wasn't working here on its own.

Of course, I'm going over the top here. Look, I suffer from asthma, and I appreciate being able to avoid smoke-clogged venues as much as anybody. I just don't like government mandating it to businesses whose clientele can make that choice themselves. As for the employees, allowing them to wear a mask (or mandating such use) seems to be a reasonable alternative to barring people from doing something perfectly legal. I also get tired of government serving as a nanny -- it does a bad enough job in other areas.

And there's always the slippery slope problem. What slippery slope? Check out NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's latest effort at saving all of us from ourselves...

When Mayor Michael Bloomberg sat down to lunch with children during a school visit a few years ago, he was disgusted by the soggy, greasy fries and other junk on their plates.

He pushed for a revamp of school menus and by the start of the next school year, fat-laden meals were being replaced by healthier versions. That same year, 2003, the city began handing out free nicotine patches and Bloomberg won his crusade to outlaw smoking in bars and restaurants.

Now the city is going after high-calorie foods in bodegas, restaurants and company cafeterias.

Experts say Bloomberg -- a bit of a health nut himself -- has targeted unhealthy lifestyles unlike any other administration before him.

''It's more aggressive than we've ever seen in the past,'' said Dr. Allan Rosenfield, dean of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. ''There's a willingness to take on unpopular but important issues.''

More than 53 percent of New Yorkers are overweight or obese -- lower than the ballooning national 65 percent, but far too high, according to Bloomberg and his health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden. Being overweight raises the risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer and heart disease, which is New York City's worst killer.

Last summer, the health department launched a campaign against trans-fats. Often used by restaurants and in packaged foods, trans-fats are thought to cause cholesterol problems and increase the risk of heart disease.

After restaurant inspectors found that 30 percent of the city's 30,000 eateries were using oils that contain trans-fats, the department began urging a citywide ''oil change.'' Officials sent letters to food service operators and started teaching workers about trans-fats along with their required food safety training.

The city plans another survey this spring to measure the results of the project.

Officials next want to tackle portion sizes.

Towering pastrami sandwiches, bagels with gooey schmears of cream cheese and pizza slices that spill over paper plates may be the city's culinary landmarks, but the health department says the Big Apple is out of control.

''Today probably the biggest hazards from what you eat are not food poisoning but the caloric load,'' said Dr. Lynn Silver, an assistant health commissioner. So health officials are trying to teach restaurants how to make healthier meals.

Now, I suppose no one should care about mere advice from government. But is it really government's role? If you are an advocate of small government, you probably should be offended. So where are all the Libertarians?

I'm waiting. And yes, I am trying to annoy people. But Bloomberg's annoying me, so why not?