Nanny Laws Center Stage Again

[jtilden21]

I don't know about you, but this new energy for Nanny Laws is starting to concern me:

1) February 4, 2008
Will hefty Mississippi consumers have to step onto the scales before being allowed to order a Big Mac and fries? Perhaps, if legislation introduced in the Mississippi House last week with three co-sponsors somehow gets passed into law.

2) RICHMOND -- The Senate Committee on Education and Health passed a series of bills Thursday that offer legislators and local officials a variety of ways to ban smoking in public areas such as restaurants.

The three bills, each approved by a 12-3 vote, offer different approaches to smoking:

n Senate Bill 298 bans smoking in all areas except for private homes, cars, private clubs, motel rooms designated for smoking, specialty tobacco stores, tobacco manufacturers and certain rooms in nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

3) Equip homes and businesses with remote-control thermostats that allow an energy company to limit how hot or cool your house can be when power demand threatens to crash the system. [This one has since been revoked].

Here's my point, gents:

1) Obesity can lead to serious health problems
2) Smoking does lead to serious health problems
3) Setting one's thermostat above/below a standard level can lead to increased energy bills and, perhaps, a strain on the environment

That said.....

What's next?

Remote-control access to stereos to keep the volume down so that you don't ruin your hearing nor disturb the neighbors?

Governors on your car engine to reduce your speed if you exceed the limit?

Built-in timers on televisions, computers and video games to shut them off after a specified period of time, lest you become a couch-potato? (Did I spell that right Dan Qualye?)

Listen, what bothers me here is the fundmental reasoning behind these movements.

Someone else telling us what is right or wrong in our own personal choices.

Does that ring a bell?

If we continue to allow the legislature into personal matters such as these, can you guess what is next?

And, we have made such strides.

**SIGH**

Someone, please tell me I am wrong here.

 

[chatolandia]

Have you seen Demolition Man?

 

[LaloGS]

What's not done voluntarily will be legislated for the good of the whole.

We are all in this together, and something's got to be done. If we all did our part in the battle against global warming, and maintaining our health, our need to legislate against our "rights" wouldn't have to happen. It doesn't come down to what you can afford; but rather what "WE" can afford.

 

[jtilden21]

What's not done voluntarily will be legislated for the good of the whole.

We are all in this together, and something's got to be done. If we all did our part in the battle against global warming, and maintaining our health, our need to legislate against our "rights" wouldn't have to happen. It doesn't come down to what you can afford; but rather what "WE" can afford.

Understand your view.

But, how does fending-off obesity in the US translate to more food in countries that are lacking food? How does an obese person in the US, denied food at a restaurant, help everyone?

If I owned a restaurant, and the rule were: if this consumer is too obese to serve, I will box-up the unsold-illegal food and ship it elsewhere where people are hungry -- then I might agree with you.

But my example is extreme and non-executable. The food would go unserved and windup in the trash.

Curbing personal freedoms does not promote altruistic actions -- it has just the opposite effect.

America is known for giving freely, and at great measures, when called upon.

If you move to quaff personal freedoms, then, in doing so, you run the risk of stifling the very thing that is American -- the belief and commitment that Americans have the freedom to make their own choices and to extend that godsend to others.

If you tie those hands and dreams, then there is no chance of its extending beyond that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Once upon a time "public health" meant "fighting diseases which jump from one person to another". Now, for the nanny-state crowd, "public health" means "limiting the behavior of everyone because I can think up some reason that said behavior might possibly diminish the personal health of someone".

The first is a matter of taking care of things that affect us all. The second is busybodiness writ large, a recipe for totalitarianism.

 

[Jory]

It's Official -- Belmont Bans Smoking In Some Homes


The ordinance passed on a 3-2 vote and will go into effect in 30 days, according to City Manager Jack Crist.

The ordinance was introduced by the City Council on Sept. 11, and then approved with a few wording changes at its Sept. 25 meeting.

Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences.

Though Belmont and some other California cities already restrict smoking in multi-unit common areas, Belmont is the first city to extend secondhand smoke regulation to the inside of individual apartment units.


VIDEO: Lung Cancer Hits Growing Number Of Non-Smokers
INTERACTIVE: What Else Are You Getting In That Cigarette?

Smoking will still be allowed in single-family homes and their yards, and units and yards in apartment buildings, condominiums and townhouses that do not share any common floors or ceilings with other units.

The ban for multi-unit apartment buildings will not take effect for an additional 14 months after the ordinance is passed, so that one-year lease agreements will be unaffected.

Smoking will be permitted only in designated outdoor areas of multi-unit housing.

Additionally, smoking will not be allowed in indoor and outdoor workplaces, or in parks, stadiums, sports fields, trails and outdoor shopping areas.

Smoking on city streets and sidewalks will be permitted under the ordinance, except in the location of city-sponsored events or in close proximity to prohibited areas.

City officials have said that enforcement of the smoking ban will be complaint-driven.

The issue was first brought to the attention of the Belmont City Council last July, when residents at a senior housing complex complained of complications arising from secondhand smoke in their apartments.


Proposal Prompted Death Threats

City leaders were targets of strong opposition -- even death threats -- in what some suspected was a well-orchestrated campaign against the proposal.


VIDEO: Smokers Piping Mad Over Peninsula City's Ban Proposal

NBC11 reporter Noelle Walker said three City Council members have received more e-mails about the proposed ban than any other issue ever. Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach told NBC11 her mailbox was filled with the hate-filled e-mails.

Upset citizens are comparing the proposed ban to Nazi rules.

"Following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler with your no public smoking ordinance …," writes one opponent of the ban.

Many of the letters are littered with expletives.

"If America is lucky, someone will cut all of your *** throats," one letter said.

Another letter threatens, "Your friends will get a 747 loaded with fuel…"

The same letter ends with "Have a nice day."

Feierbach believes the strong opposition is part of an organized effort from the pro-smoking site speakeasyforum.com.

 

[LaloGS]

Understand your view.

But, how does fending-off obesity in the US translate to more food in countries that are lacking food? How does an obese person in the US, denied food at a restaurant, help everyone?It doesn't of course, but some states have nanny laws that make a bartender responsible for serving patrons to intoxicated levels who then are involved in accidents. It allows the victims of that intoxicated bar patron to sue the bartender. It makes the bartender think twice about creating a bunch of drunks every night that go out on the road to kill and maim.

If I owned a restaurant, and the rule were: if this consumer is too obese to serve, I will box-up the unsold-illegal food and ship it elsewhere where people are hungry -- then I might agree with you.The aim of laws against serving obese people in restaurants seems to be stretching the limit to my way of thinking as well, but then perhaps if restaurants were not serving individuals massive amounts of fatty sugary foods that act as an addiction on some people (I used to work in the food industry, and it is well recognized that Sugar, fats, and salt, are addicting for some people) then such a nanny law would not be necessary. By targeting obese people in restaurants the law is recognizing that the obese person is likely to be suffering from a life threatening food addiction that the restaurant is likely to be exploiting.

But my example is extreme and non-executable. The food would go unserved and windup in the trash.

Curbing personal freedoms does not promote altruistic actions -- it has just the opposite effect. I don't disagree, and I abhor these kinds of laws myself. I'm just pointing out the thinking behind them. It has been shown conclusively that big tobacco has been predatory in the way they captured customers. It took billion dollar law suits to get to the truth about their manipulations. Does the food industry have to experience the same sort of legal attacks before they clean up their act?

America is known for giving freely, and at great measures, when called upon.

If you move to quaff personal freedoms, then, in doing so, you run the risk of stifling the very thing that is American -- the belief and commitment that Americans have the freedom to make their own choices and to extend that godsend to others.Since Bush took office, there has been an ongoing attempt to take away or freedoms in the name of protecting us. Petty dictators will always want to control our lives. They have done it on a national level, and the State level petty dictators are feeling their oats.

If you tie those hands and dreams, then there is no chance of its extending beyond that.

I'm about to reenter American society after 4 years out of country, and there are aspects of America that I have grown suspicious of since I've lived in a third world country. What Americans call freedom is nowhere near the freedoms I see here in Colombia everyday. If America thinks it's free, and has freedom of choice, then it hasn't got a clue as to what the word freedom means.

 

[LaloGS]

^ It's scary when so-called Democrats let their Stalinism show. Of course, anyone who thinks a health care plan that makes mandates on the people is a good idea has totalitarian issues. Let an anti-gay legislation, based on whatever health and epidemic reasons someone can spin up, pass for the "good of the whole" and see how quick he sees the folly of his position.

In a primarily Repuglican period in America, only a Repuglican would think they could lay these totalitarian directions off on the Democrats. What stupid Black and white thinking to believe Democrats are the root of this evil when the people in office doing it are Repuglicans.

 

[smelter]

Setting the record straight .... It's a Mississippi Republican who sponsored this legislation:

Miss. Law Would Ban Serving Obese Diners
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS – 1 day ago

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A state lawmaker wants to ban restaurants from serving food to obese customers — but please, don't be offended. He says he never even expected his plan to become law.

"I was trying to shed a little light on the number one problem in Mississippi," said Republican Rep. John Read of Gautier, who acknowledges that at 5-foot-11 and 230 pounds, he'd probably have a tough time under his own bill.

More than 30 percent of adults in Mississippi are considered it obese, according to a 2007 study by the Trust for America's Health, a research group that focuses on disease prevention.

The state House Public Health Committee chairman, Democrat Steve Holland of Plantersville, said he is going to "shred" the bill.

"It is too oppressive for government to require a restaurant owner to police another human being from their own indiscretions," Holland said Monday.

The bill had no specifics about how obesity would be defined, or how restaurants were supposed to determine if a customer was obese.

Al Stamps, who owns a restaurant in Jackson, said it is "absurd" for the state to consider telling him which customers he can't serve. He and his wife, Kim, do a bustling lunch business at Cool Al's, which serves big burgers — beef or veggie — and specialty foods like "Sassy Momma Sweet Potato Fries."

"There is a better way to deal with health issues than to impose those kind of regulations," Al Stamps said. "I'm sorry — you can't do it by treating adults like children and telling them what they can and cannot eat."

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

 

[LaloGS]

That post was talking about you, LaloGS. Reading comprehension is helped by context clues, notice:

I see sarcasm eludes you ICO7. Maybe you need a course in reading comprehension.