<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Trans Fats Ban</title>
	<atom:link href="http://policywise.net/2006/12/30/the-trans-fats-ban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://policywise.net/2006/12/30/the-trans-fats-ban/</link>
	<description>Policy Matters</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:25:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Crossing The Line? at Policy Wise</title>
		<link>http://policywise.net/2006/12/30/the-trans-fats-ban/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Crossing The Line? at Policy Wise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:31:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.policywise.net/?p=8#comment-22</guid>
		<description>[...] I am against government interference in free choice unless it is unobtrusive and the benefits are clear enough. The purpose behind banning smoking in living rooms is to protect non-smokers-I am no sure the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I am against government interference in free choice unless it is unobtrusive and the benefits are clear enough. The purpose behind banning smoking in living rooms is to protect non-smokers-I am no sure the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By:  Life is a street car named Desire</title>
		<link>http://policywise.net/2006/12/30/the-trans-fats-ban/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator> Life is a street car named Desire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.policywise.net/?p=8#comment-35</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-pre%--&gt;s an interesting claim and certainly, quantifying the exact number of people who die from second hand smoke, as some have tried to do is very difficult.  Generally, I am against government interference in free choice unless it is unobtrusive and the benefits are clear enough. The purpose behind banning smoking in living rooms is to protect non-smokers-I am no sure the science is clear enough to merit such intervention. I think this crosses the line where state intervention becomes so intrusive (even when directed towards&lt;!--%kramer-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?url="class="technorati-balloon"  onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/www.technorati.com');"><img src="http://static.technorati.com/images/bubble_h17.gif" class="technorati-balloon" alt="links from Technorati" style="border:0;" /></a>s an interesting claim and certainly, quantifying the exact number of people who die from second hand smoke, as some have tried to do is very difficult.  Generally, I am against government interference in free choice unless it is unobtrusive and the benefits are clear enough. The purpose behind banning smoking in living rooms is to protect non-smokers-I am no sure the science is clear enough to merit such intervention. I think this crosses the line where state intervention becomes so intrusive (even when directed towards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
