0
   

`Nanny' Laws Are Added to the Books

 
 
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 12:12 pm
`Nanny' Laws Are Added to the Books
By MICHAEL HILL
Associated Press Writer

March 21, 2007, 12:38 PM EDT

You're not eating that! Put the phone down! Pull those earbuds out! And put down that bat; you'll hurt someone!

Lawmakers around the country are passing or proposing laws to regulate the grease your doughnuts are fried in, the calls you make from the road, what you listen to when you cross the street, even the bat your kid hits a baseball with.

The ideas are offered with the best intentions -- usually to minimize a newly recognized danger or to encourage healthy behavior. Lawmakers worry, for example, that text-messaging while driving can be deadly, and that foods fried in trans fats promote heart disease.

Critics counter that regulating french fries and Blackberries infringes on personal liberties. "Nanny government" some critics call it, and they point to a playpen full of behavior-related bills before city councils and state legislatures.

"If we were really at war, if we were in a depression, people wouldn't be wasting their time with this stuff," said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, "but because we're not, you know, it's easy to look at every little thing that bothers you."

Attempts by the government to modify public behavior have a long history, from Prohibition in the '20s to safety belt laws in the '80s and smoking bans in the '90s. In recent years, lawmakers have increasingly focused on food.

The big action this year involves trans fats, or partially hydrogenated vegetable oils used for deep frying and baking.

In December, New York City imposed the nation's first ban on the use trans fats in restaurants. The idea has spread like greased lightning since then, with bans or warnings introduced in at least 18 states. Philadelphia recently approved a ban, and one was even discussed in Buffalo, N.Y., birthplace of the chicken wing.

BanTransFats.com founder Stephen Joseph, who grew up in England, said the heated reaction to the ban seems uniquely American.

"I was on a talk show a couple years ago and the host said, `Well, you're trying to bring socialism to America!'" Joseph said, "I mean, what an incredible overreaction for trying to change a cooking oil."

New York's City Council recently called on residents to voluntarily stop using the n-word and approved a ban on metal baseball bats in high school games, because of fears that youngsters will get killed by balls rocketing off the bats. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has yet to take action on the bat ban.

New York in 2001 became the first state to make it illegal for drivers to talk on cell phones unless they have a hands-free set. And last month a state legislator proposed $100 fines for people who listen to iPods, talk on cell phones or text-message in New York City crosswalks.

Connecticut, New Jersey and the Washington, D.C., also have hand-held-while-driving bans. And 35 states have before them "distracted driver" bills aimed at activities like cell phone use, text-messaging, DVD watching, reading, writing, grooming, even playing a musical instrument, said Matt Sundeen of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

California's cell phone driving ban goes into effect next year. In the meantime, lawmakers there are being asked to consider a ban on smoking in cars if there are children in the vehicle. A bill that would make spanking a crime was withdrawn.

Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, already ban smoking in cars if there is a passenger in a child seat, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. That is in addition to 21 states that ban smoking in bars or restaurants or workplaces or all three, according to the advocacy group.

Boaz of the Cato Institute said that banning drivers from text-messaging can arguably protect people from the dangerous behavior of others. But as for bans on such things as unhealthy food, "if I prefer doughnuts to the promise of a long life, well, I think that's my choice."
_______________________________________________________

You wanted big government, you got big government.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,904 • Replies: 47
No top replies

 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 01:33 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, already ban smoking in cars if there is a passenger in a child seat, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. That is in addition to 21 states that ban smoking in bars or restaurants or workplaces or all three, according to the advocacy group.

Sounds like a good law to me... but then I believe in protecting kids against uneccessary health dangers.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 05:24 pm
What a ridiculous article, but, then again, it's not surprising to see trash like this posted.

Want to see a 'nanny law?' How about the PATRIOT act?

Don't worry, Repubwicans, the gov't will save you from the eeeevil tewwoists so you can sleep easy at night!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 05:52 pm
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, already ban smoking in cars if there is a passenger in a child seat, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. That is in addition to 21 states that ban smoking in bars or restaurants or workplaces or all three, according to the advocacy group.

Sounds like a good law to me... but then I believe in protecting kids against uneccessary health dangers.


Do we ban kids playing football?
Even with full pads,they can get hurt,and that is an "uneccessary health danger".

Do we ban Baseball for kids.
Even with full protective gear they could get hurt,and that is an "uneccessary health danger".

What about Basketball?
What about riding a bicycle?
What about tennis?
The courts are hard and kids could get hurt if they fell.
That is an "uneccessary health danger".

It is not possible to protect kids from everything that could hurt them.
To try and do so would produce kids that lived in fear all the time,kids who were afraid of their own shadow,and that isnt healthy either.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:21 pm
Quote:
"If we were really at war, if we were in a depression, people wouldn't be wasting their time with this stuff," said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, "but because we're not, you know, it's easy to look at every little thing that bothers you."


Pardon me?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:26 pm
I got all excited....I thought they'd decided to assign a nanny to bush....no such luck. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:34 am
Being a smoker who doesn't smoke in my car when my kids are present I don't know how I feel about this. It is a persons right to do what they wish in their vechicles as long as they don't harm other drivers. Smoking in your car even with children present doesn't harm other drivers. It makes me mad to see people who smoke around their children driving around with the widows up and a cig hanging out of their mouths. That doesn't mean I think they should make it illegal to do.

When it comes to restraunts though I agree with banning smoking in them. Who really wants to smell someone elses cigs while eating food? The banning of smoking in bars was going to far though. How many of you who smoke want to smoke more when you drink and how many people do you know only smoke when they drink. The 2 seem to go together pretty well.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:39 am
mysteryman wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, already ban smoking in cars if there is a passenger in a child seat, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. That is in addition to 21 states that ban smoking in bars or restaurants or workplaces or all three, according to the advocacy group.

Sounds like a good law to me... but then I believe in protecting kids against uneccessary health dangers.


Do we ban kids playing football?
Even with full pads,they can get hurt,and that is an "uneccessary health danger".

Do we ban Baseball for kids.
Even with full protective gear they could get hurt,and that is an "uneccessary health danger".

What about Basketball?
What about riding a bicycle?
What about tennis?
The courts are hard and kids could get hurt if they fell.
That is an "uneccessary health danger".

It is not possible to protect kids from everything that could hurt them.
To try and do so would produce kids that lived in fear all the time,kids who were afraid of their own shadow,and that isnt healthy either.

Come back when you can understand the difference between living life and being trampled on because you're little.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:53 am
We should not need laws to define common sense. Where do these senseless laws end? Where would you draw the line?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:57 am
We have laws that tell people how fast it is safe to drive....

We have laws that tell people not to commit fraud, or assault, or murder...

All pretty common sense, IMO.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 09:00 am
DrewDad wrote:
We have laws that tell people how fast it is safe to drive....

We have laws that tell people not to commit fraud, or assault, or murder...

All pretty common sense, IMO.


We also have laws requiring seat belts and banning what kind of oil restaurants can cook their food in, whether you can wear an ipod while walking.

There is no end to stupid laws and your post doesn't address these.

Obviously you have no problem with others telling you what you can eat and what legal drugs you can take. Tell me, do you want them to tell you how to dress, what music to listen too and what kind of car you can drive?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 09:05 am
I'm saying find me better examples than "don't smoke with your kids in the car."

Call me when they outlaw Jack's Ultimate Cheeseburger....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 09:46 am
DrewDad wrote:
I'm saying find me better examples than "don't smoke with your kids in the car."

Call me when they outlaw Jack's Ultimate Cheeseburger....


The concept of this thread is nanny government. We don't need legislation telling us where and when we can smoke. If it's so bad, ban it completely.

I have 2 parents, I don't need the government to step in for them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 09:51 am
McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I'm saying find me better examples than "don't smoke with your kids in the car."

Call me when they outlaw Jack's Ultimate Cheeseburger....


The concept of this thread is nanny government. We don't need legislation telling us where and when we can smoke. If it's so bad, ban it completely.

I have 2 parents, I don't need the government to step in for them.


There are no degrees of scale?

For example, we don't outlaw drinking - but we do outlaw it in your car.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:36 am
Laws telling you what to do are not new. It depends on whether the public finds them acceptable or not.

Twenty five years ago, there was a law in Wisconsin that you could not serve a meal in a restaurant without including a small wedge of the state's famous cheese.

Obviously a commerically motivated law enacted to promote the Wisconsin dairy industry, a very large industry there.

I say, so what? Probably nobody kicked about it, and I'll bet Wisconsin residents soon learned to look forward to that wedge of cheese with their meal.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:40 am
Massachusetts also had a law, possibly still does, that a restaurant could not serve any soup called "clam chowder" which had tomatoes in it.

Clearly an attempt to limit choice of Massachusetts restaurant patrons to New England Style clam chowder, and to suppress the invasion of the Manhattan Style clam chowder.

To the barricades, McGentrix!!!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 07:37 am
N.J. senator proposes toy gun ban
Would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase toy gun
WABC Eyewitness News

(New Jersey- WABC, July 11, 2007) - A New Jersey senator wants to make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under age 18 toy guns that look so realistic they can be mistaken for a real firearm.

"The margin between a child's stupid mistake and a tragic ending is far too thin," said Sen. Nicholas Scutari.

Scutari, D-Union, introduced the proposal in late June and plans to push it when the Legislature reconvenes late this year. He said the bill stems from an incident in a Union Township where four students were suspended after bringing a cap gun to school.

"We need to stress to our children that guns are not toys, but deadly weapons which should always be regarded with extreme caution and handled with respect," Scutari said. "Restricting access to imitation firearms will help to drive that point home."

Gun rights advocates plan to fight the bill.

"It misses the mark because it demonizes toys instead of criminal behavior," said Scott Bach, president of the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs, which is the National Rifle Association's New Jersey organization.

If the measure is enacted, New Jersey would join several states that have restricted access to realistic toy guns to minors.

New York, for instance, got Wal-Mart in 2003 to stop selling toy guns that fail to have a non-removable orange stripe along the barrel. The retailer also agreed to stop selling toy guns in realistic colors such as black, blue and silver and paid $200,000 in civil penalties.

Scutari's bill would make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under 18 and imitation firearm, which is defined as anything "reasonably capable of being mistaken for a firearm."

The bill is based on a 1987 New Jersey law that bars the sale of hunting, fishing, combat and survival knives with blades of more than five inches to anyone under 18.

Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison.

Scutari said the bill would help police and school officials figure out whether a firearm is either fake or real, but Bach said it would intrude upon retailers and parents.

"This bill seeks to intimidate retailers of even toy water pistols rather than to address the bad acts of criminals who use imitation guns in furtherance of crime," Bach said. "A parent who gives a child a toy firearm as a gift would be guilty under this legislation."
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 10:37 am
Although I am generally sympathetic to your opinion in this thread, McG, I'm not sure I have a problem with banning realistic looking fake firearms for the simple reason that it does put the person playing with it in danger.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 10:37 am
I've seen video games that make a ban on toy guns look silly.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 10:41 am
I don't see the parallel. A cop could shoot a kid with a fake gun. It's seems unlikely that a kid playing a video game could get himself killed just by doing so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » `Nanny' Laws Are Added to the Books
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 08:17:04