Note to Chicago’s do-gooder legislators: The Law of Unintended Consequences isn’t the sort of rule that can be amended or rescinded. That should be the lesson learned in the aftermath of the Windy City’s recently imposed ban on the sale of foie gras. Instead of stigmatizing the delicacy (as was undoubtedly the plan), the ban has actually increased its popularity. As reported in a local paper, intrigued newbies and forbidden-food fanatics alike are flocking to nearby suburban restaurants to satisfy their newly piqued foie gras craving:

Suburban restaurateurs believe the city’s foie gras ban may cook up greater interest in their eateries by city foodies. …[Manager Michael] Priami said he believes Chicago’s loss might be wins for restaurants like Le Francais. The hunger for foie gras will not go away so perhaps the passion for it will prompt some to drive beyond the city limits.

On a related note, Reason editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie mocks the Windy City’s buzz-kill busybodies in today’s Los Angeles Times:

Sure, the White Sox, a baseball franchise rivaled only by the Cubs for long-term ineptitude, won the World Series last year, and may yet make the playoffs this year. But even if the team miraculously repeated, how could Chicagoans legally celebrate? By not talking on their cellphones while driving? By eating soy pate? By paying Wal-Mart greeters a living wage if you can still call residing in a city of dead pleasures living?

We hope the animal-rights nuts behind the foie gras ban are taking notes: Banning a food is the quickest way to make people want to try it. So bring on the veal-chop ban, and the brie ban, and even the coq au vin ban. More Americans should find out what they’ve been missing.