The Slippery Slope: Vermont considers total ban on all activities (except driving) while driving
From the KSAT 12, San Antonio article, States: Drop The Smokes, Food, Phones And Drive,
Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, “interacting with pets or cargo,” talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.
These lawmakers were reportedly “emboldened” by the passages of cell phone bans in certain communities. This case is an excellent example of the slippery slope of protectionist legislation. Laws - many times reasonable laws - are passed in order to protect the safety of the community. However, protectionism never stops at the line of reason. The implications for the future are that, as the government exponentially enacts protectionist measures, it purges laissez-faire in piecemeal as our freedoms are likewise being dismantled in piecemeal. The situation is only exacerbated by the many Americans today that willingly sacrifice “unalienable” rights for the sake of safety and security. This is especially true since the events of 9/11, where the attacks are now used by the government to justify an invasion of privacy (such as in wiretapping).
Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.” If Franklin is right, then much of America today deserves neither the inherent liberty that our nation was founded upon, nor the security that they sacrifice liberty for.
Wrong again, Senator Bell
“People have the right to smoke. But the right ends when someone is being exposed to smoke against his wishes.”
Senator Brandon Bell (R-Roanoke)
Senator Bell has been quite active in attempting to rally support for the anti-tobacco measure that has been proposed and passed by the Virginia Senate, yet again. As the outspoken patron saint of the smoking ban movement in this state, he proposed the bill last year, which failed unanimously in the House after passing in the Senate. I believe that Senator Bell’s rhetoric and reasoning is fundamentally flawed and thus the anti-tobacco measures he passes should be annulled.
No doctrine, law, or precedent in America gives any person the right to smoke, as Senator Bell would assert. Nowhere in our Constitution are any contituents given an inalenable right smoke tobacco, and nowhere else does it give smokers as a specific, homogeneous group any rights at all. In addition, smokers are not discriminable in the court of law. The Supreme Court defines a group capable of being discriminated against as having “an immutable characteristic determined solely by an accident of birth” (Fronterio v. Richardson, 1973). Tobacco smoking does not fit this description, nor does tobacco addiction.
Senator Bell’s additional claim that this non-existent “right to smoke” ends “when someone is being exposed to smoke against his wishes.” Nowhere in Virginia today is harmful second-hand smoke ever forced on anyone, and to make such a claim is punitively asinine. The bill is aimed at bars and restaurants, places where smoking is allowed by law and chosen by the business owner. Every last one of those places is patronized and staffed by people who choose to enter those facilities on their own intelligent, free will.
If Senator Bell’s rhetoric and reasoning behind imposing a smoking ban on the consumers and business owners of Virginia is ungrounded and defective, this measure based very much on his own designs must once again be annulled by the Virginia House.
Virginia legislators shifting toward protectionist stances, says Washington Post
The Washington Post’s recent article, Red-Light Cameras Approved By House, highlights more than just the reinstallation of photo traffic enforcement in Virginia. According to the Post, the red light camera measure is just another instance in a legislative environment that is becoming increasingly protectionist, resorting to regulation to impose safety restrictions on Virginia constituents.
In a legislature dominated more than ever by the political might of urban, government-friendly Northern Virginia, the small-government philosophy is losing ground.
Examples of a changing regulatory philosophy include a news conference this week held by Senator James O’brien, Jr. urging outlawing teenage cell phone use while driving, a measure passed by the House of Delegates requiring all children to be strapped in booster seats until age 8, and finally, a comprehensive smoking ban passed by the Virginia Senate on Monday.
One reason behind the shifting passion for protectionism is that more and more studies are being conducted and digested thoroughly by our lawmakers. The teen cell phone initiative spurred from Department of Motor Vehicles data showing that every week an average of three teen drivers (ages 16 or 17) are involved in crashes in which a cellphone is listed as a contributing factor, while the smoking ban has gained much ground from the Surgeon General’s report on second-hand smoke last year.
“The resistance in the past has been about not being the ‘nanny’ state,” O’Brien said. “We wanted to let people make their own decisions. But in the face of empirical evidence, it’s really hard to vote against this stuff.”
Illinois Smokers May Benefit from Bears’ Success
Re: Illinois Smokers May Benefit from Bears’ Success.
In the good Old Dominion, we don’t have to worry about trifling shit like this; Our football team sucks and there are no paternalistic smoking bans in place.
Senator Bell’s cursade continues
From the Roanoke.com article, Brandon Bell has come a long way, baby
“The state senator aims to snuff out smoking in many public places, but the battle is not easy.”
If in this country it was “easy” to pass Big Brother legislation that perpetuates and justifies government nannyism, where would we be right now? Freedom is the ubiquitous maxim of our country. Freedom of speech, of religion, of private property, of privacy, and freedom from intrusion into our lives from our governing body. Because they believed so strongly in these principles, our forefathers fought, lived, and died for these rights over 200 years ago.
What happens when the government effectively abrogates all of our freedoms? The terrorists have already won in eliminating our right to privacy, while the government has no qualms in silencing our freedom of speech and suspending due process when it sees fit. Sure, we are free to practice whichever religion we choose, as long as it’s not Islam. I suppose then it would make sense to attack our only remaining untouched freedom, that of private property. I mean, shit, all the other ones have been depreciated already, so why the hell not?
Good luck on your continued crusade to nullify our founding principles, Senator Bell. Though I have a feeling you’re not going to need it.
New smoking bill sent to the VA House
From the Roanoke.com article, Committee sends smoking bill to House.
House Bill 2422 eliminates the requirement to have non-smoking sections in bars and restaurants, essentially forcing all establishments to choose a smoking orientation. If the bill passes, all bars and restaurants that choose to allow smoking will have to post a sign at the entrance notifying the public that it is a smoking establishment.
This bill might not seem significant at face value, but further analysis reveals a fundamental shift. Right now in Virginia the default position of any bar or restaurant is smoking; You expect restaurants and especially bars to cater to tobacco patrons. However, this bill, if passed, will shift the default position from smoking to nonsmoking. Restaurant and bar owners do nothing if they choose a nonsmoking orientation. On the other hand, they must take an extra step and inform the public at the entrance if they choose smoking.
I personally believe this bill, if passed, will have a positive effect for tobacco advocates. I have always believed that the strongest argument against smoking bans is the liberty of self-determination in regards to property and business ownership. Any legislation that highlights this liberty is good legislation.
