What he’s saying, in a backhanded way, is that fat people’s health care costs more, so our weight is therefore a matter of “public health policy.” Which is to say the government may legitimately consider itself to have a compelling interest in every damn thing you put in your mouth.

Even if we concede that fatness is a choice and that fat people’s health care costs more than thinner people’s (big concessions), Mark’s thinking can, of course, be used to extend the government’s control over any number of things.

The choice to have children, especially out of wedlock and among the poor, is obviously a huge drain on public-health resources. The government therefore has an obvious interest in who has children and when. How do you suppose it’ll look after its interests?

In fact, pregnancy aside, there are obviously significant public-health costs associated with sex itself. Sexually transmitted diseases are a huge drain on resources. The right policies, properly enforced, could all but do away with those expenses.

If you argue that public-health costs (real, potential, or imaginary) are grounds for government intrusion into private choices and behavior, you’ll soon find there is justification for limiting, banning and mandating all kinds of things.

Of course, some people like that idea.

(1) There are no fat people. They just redefined the BMI to make it look that way.

(2) O.K., well maybe there are increasing numbers of fat people, but they’re healthier than thin people according to some study I read.

(3) Well, maybe fat people aren’t really healthier, but it’s nobody’s business. This buttinski and nanny state stuff has got to stop.

(4) Well, even if it’s theoretically other people’s business from a public health policy standpoint, the proportion of the population that is fat is going to be so much in the majority that we’re going to take over and force things to be the way we want them to be.

If I come across another one as good it’s so yours.