Mr. Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation,a Washingtonbased
public policy research institute.

We have a wonderful neighborhood backeryShuman'sin "Old Town"
Alexandria, Va., where I live. It's the morning hangout for all of Old
Town's oldtimers.

Recently,just as I was shoving one of Shuman's pasties into my face, I
thought, "Wait a minute. I should sue this place." I looked down at my
waistline, and it all came to me in a flash of dollar sighs: "It's Shuman's
fault that I'm heftier than I would like to be."

Just kidding, of course. But this idea reminds me of a recent Associated
Press story about 61yearold Seattle man who's suing the Safeway
supermarket chain and the Dairy Farmers of Washington. Why? Because, he
says, his recent stroke was caused by his addiction to milk.

To quote the AP story: "I drank milk like some people drink beer or water,
probably," said the confessed "milkaholic." "I've always loved a nice
glass of milk, and I've drank a lot of it."

The confessed milkaholic, Norman Mayo, says in his lawsuit that his human
plumbing was clogged by the fat in the milk, causing his stroke. "If
tobacco products can be required to have warning labels, why not dairy
products?" he asked. "I think milk is just as dangerous as tobacco."

Sure, Mr. Mayo, and while we're at it, why not sue the makers of Twinkies
and HoHos and Milk Duds? Next thing you know, we'll have to show an ID to
buy a bag of M&Ms.

Don't laugh. That certainly seems to be the direction our nanny state is
taking us. Fewer and fewer people seem willing these days to take
responsibility for their own behavior or to accept the fact, sad as it is,
that every ill that befalls us isn't necessarily a consequence of somebody
else's negligence.

Respiratory trouble? Blame the tobacco ogres. Clogged arteries? Blame Elsie
the milk cow. Overweight? Blame the whitehaired ladies who dish out the
goodies at Shuman's or the Hostess cupcake people. Auto accident? Blame the
liquor companies. Or the automakers because their cars can crash!

A few days after the AP story moved, Joyce Price reported in The Washington
Times that two Yale University researcher, psychology Professor Kelly D.
Brownell and graduate student E. Katherine Battle, were proposing, in an
article in the journal Addictive Behavior, that the government impose a
"fat tax" on food to discourage people from eating anything but organic
bean sprouts and fieldgrown grass. (I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get
the picture.)

Brownell, director of Yale's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders,
criticized the food industry for promoting a diet "high in fat, high in
calories, delicious, widely available and low in cost." Quick call the
cops!

To some degree, of course, Brownell is correct. As anyone who has met me
knows, these are exactly the kindsof foods I like the best especially
the delicious part, such as Shuman's cinnamon buns. And, on occasion, the
yummy stuff gets the better of me and I have to go back on the wagon.

But to imply that our cravings for things we enjoy are simply a product of
advertising and "marketing" is to place humans on the level of animals,
helpless to act contrary to our physical appetites. If that's true, then
the constant barrage of healthy lifestyle advice we get from Reader's
Digest, television, the women's magazines, the American Council on Science
and Health, and a hundred other sources is useless.

So long as we pursue this nutty line of reasoning that everybody else is
responsible for our actions and their consequences we will invite the
government to intrude further and further into every detail of our daily
lives.

Thus, while the current government crusade against tobacco may be morally
satisfying to many, it portends ominously for the future.

I eat what I eat because I enjoy it. I drink what I drink because I like
it. I smoke what I smoke cigars because I want to. I accept
responsibility for the consequences as the price of living in a free country.

The more we refuse to pay this price, the more our freedoms will slip away.