Get off my lawn, etc.

Hering really gets his wires crossed with this editorial:

Normally you would think that the government should stay out of deciding what people can eat and drink. But we crossed that bridge long, long ago with generally good results. We rely on the government, for example, to inspect meat and other products to try to make sure they are safe to eat.

Then, we took another step when the people consented to let the government tell citizens about the risks of drinking and smoking tobacco.

From there it is no big departure for the government to go after other substances that are found to be bad for your health.

Today that is trans fats. Tomorrow maybe sugar. After that, what? (hh)

So.... the government regulating food and drink is a good thing, because it keeps us safe. But it's a bad thing because the government shouldn't regulate anything, and who knows what they might decide to regulate next!

Does Hering not realize he's essentially written two wildly conflicting viewpoints into one editorial? Or that he reveals the lack of logic in his belief that any kind of government regulation is bad when he clearly states that certain regulations on food and drink are good things, then immediately drops a warning about the possibility of future regulations with no evidence that said regulations will be anything but good....

I'm so confused. Why is this man allowed to write editorials again?

This is to say nothing, of course, at the stupid rumor-mongering Hering presents when he brings up sugar as something that might be banned. I always understood newspaper editors to be journalists - and that journalists shouldn't be putting things in print that have no source or are merely rumors. But what do I know...