Nanny State Knows Best – Page 4

We’re On Our Way to Regulating Over-the-Counter Painkillers

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just released a new scare piece talking about how rampent prescription painkiller abuse is today:

Abuse of prescription painkiller have reached “epidemic” levels in the US, a government report says.

Overdoses of pain relievers cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined, the report has found.

This looks spuriously like another of those we-want-more-government-money-so-we’re-going-to-create-a-fear-mongering-report-justifying-that-need reports. Painkiller abuse is nothing new nor something that can be prevented but now the CDC is looking for something new to regulate so it’s the next thing on the list. After all their proposed “solution” to this “epidemic” will likely require new sweeping powers and the hiring of more government goons:

Officials believe state health policies can help reverse the trend.

The report recommends tracking prescriptions more carefully and cracking down on “pill mills” (clinics that prescribe drugs inappropriately) and “doctor shopping” (when patients collect prescriptions from several doctors).

“This highlights the importance of states getting policies right on preventing drug abuse,” CDC Thomas Frieden told the Associated Press news agency.

Here’s the thing, shutting down “pill mills” and stopping patients from “doctor shopping” isn’t going to prevent anybody from buying Tylenol and Advil at their local Target. Thus the only logical direction that can be derived from this report is, ultimately, the regulation of over-the-counter painkillers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the CDC eventually demands that currently over-the-counter painkillers be treated like medications containing pseudoephedrine are today.

I wonder what will happen when the federal government eventually regulates everything in the country. How will individual agencies jockey for more money and power then? It’s likely a very important problem that each agency is currently putting agents in charge of investigating.

White House Responses to We the People Petitions

A short while ago the White House spent a fuck-ton of taxpayer money setting up the We the People Petition site. It was marketed as a website people could submit and sign petitions for government action. While the government promised to look at any petitions with an arbitrarily selected number of signatures I suspected they would simply issue easily predictable statements against taking action related to the petitions. Well, my suspicions were right. The White House responded to a handful of the petitions with the most signatures, including the petition to legalize marijuana, and the responses were exactly as expected. For instance here is part of their response to the petition asking the federal government to legalize marijuana:

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug’s effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health– the world’s largest source of drug abuse research – marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20’s. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Basically the response to the petition was to link a bunch of previous studies that were performed to justify the prohibition against marijuana. While most of those studies have been proven wrong by third-party research that’s irrelevant because the government wants marijuana illegal and by Thor in Valhalla it will remain illegal!

When people kept linking to pet petitions I ignored them because I knew the federal government wasn’t going to take any of the petitions seriously. Those in office don’t give two shits what you and I think, we’re just uneducated peons who need every detail of our lives planned, managed, and controlled for our own good.

Now I Know Why SWAT Members Have a Propensity for Killing Household Pets

There is a connection between SWAT raids and dead pets. I could never figured out the precise reason SWAT members always sought out household pets during raids and riddle them with bullets whether or not that animal posed a threat or was in a kennel minding its own business. My answer has been found:

The Army is redoubling its search for anyone who might have been bitten by a wild animal in Iraq or Afghanistan following the Aug. 31 death of a soldier from rabies, the service’s public health command stated Wednesday.

The Army is partnering with the other uniformed services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find and treat servicemembers and civilians who were bitten by stray dogs and animals while deployed, according to a command news release.

I’m guessing one of those “other uniformed services” are domestic police forces. These guys even have propaganda posters punched up and everything:

There you have it, it’s safer to riddle pets with bullets than risk it biting you and contracting rabies… even if the animal is in a kenel, had all its rabie shots, and is unable to post a threat of any kind. Better safe than sorry and all that nonsense.

Also note I’m not saying this advice is poor for soldiers deployed overseas. This rant is entirely related to the rampant string of household pets murdered by police officers for not reason whatsoever.

Rick Perry Wants to Invade Mexico

If it wasn’t blatantly obvious that Rick Perry is a neo-con he decided to show his true colors for all to see. Mr. Perry seems to believe that sending American troops into Mexico is a logical method of fighting the drug cartels:

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry on Saturday said he would be open to sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug cartels.

Speaking in New Hampshire during a campaign stop, Perry said, “It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border.”

Let’s stop to think about this for a minute. The only reason the drug cartels in Mexico have any power is because they were able to attain wealth through an illegitimate business. Their business is only illegitimate because the United States government declared a pointless war on drugs. One sign of insanity is performing the exact same sequence of events and expecting a different outcome. By that definition the federal government must be insane because we had a little episode in our history known as Prohibition. Due to alcohol being declare a verboten substance the criminal underground began making a fortune off of bootlegged liquor. This lead to an increased level of violent crime which was only reduced when the constitutional amendment banning alcohol was repealed.

So what does our miraculous government do several decades down the road? Start a prohibition against various politically selected drugs which turned manufacturing, selling, and using those substances into a crime. This lead to a dramatic increase in violent crime which has not subsumed. If Rick Perry is serious about reducing the violent crime rate along the Mexican-American border he will advocate an end to the war on drugs as Ron Paul has. By ending the needless war on drugs we will take the power from the drug cartels as legitimate competition enters the market and the production of currently illegal substances begins to drop sharply in price. So long as the federal government attempts to play nanny we’re going to have to deal with drug cartels whose power is ever increasing.

An invasion of Mexico to stop the drug cartels will end in nothing but more wasting of taxpayer dollars and more of our soldiers dying needlessly. We already have several wars going on overseas anyways so why is there any talk about starting another one?

Unintended Consequences of Government Policies

As part of the government If You See Something Do Something campaign many states have enacted restrictions against young drivers. The government saw that young drivers were involved in more accidents than older drivers and decided that something must be done (to protect the children) so they decided to jump into enacted legislation that restricted various actions that younger drivers were allowed to take. What these bureaucrats never stopped to consider was the possibility that inexperience, and not merely age, was the root cause of the higher accident rates among younger drivers. As Bruce Schneier points out it appears as though inexperience may be the actual problem:

For more than a decade, California and other states have kept their newest teen drivers on a tight leash, restricting the hours when they can get behind the wheel and whom they can bring along as passengers. Public officials were confident that their get-tough policies were saving lives.

Now, though, a nationwide analysis of crash data suggests that the restrictions may have backfired: While the number of fatal crashes among 16- and 17-year-old drivers has fallen, deadly accidents among 18-to-19-year-olds have risen by an almost equal amount. In effect, experts say, the programs that dole out driving privileges in stages, however well-intentioned, have merely shifted the ranks of inexperienced drivers from younger to older teens.

All these restrictions have managed to accomplish is kicking the can down the road for a couple of years. Since 16 and 17 year-old kids aren’t allowed to drive at night they are unable to gain experience at driving in the dark so when they finally are legally able to do so they make mistakes.

So what’s the solution? I would say we should remove these laws as it’s been demonstrated that they aren’t increasing safety but simply pushing the problem down the road. But then we have those people out there that subscribe to the belief that if something doesn’t work we need to try it again, only harder:

McCartt said the solution may be to expand graduated driver licensing programs to include 18- and 19-year-olds who are getting behind the wheel for the first time. The idea isn’t without precedent: In New Jersey, such rules apply to all initial driver’s license applicants under the age of 21.

“The concept of easing drivers into riskier driving situations could apply to older teens as well,” she said.

But Males, who has studied California’s program, said it was inappropriate to impose such restrictions on legal adults and noted that the rules could disqualify them from holding certain jobs.

“That’s a terrible idea,” he said. “That’s saying the programs didn’t work, so we’ll have to make them even stronger.”

Yes that must be the solution! By Thor in Valhalla we may need to go so far as to put these restrictions in place on people as old as 50 years of age!

Protecting Us From Unlicensed Lemonade Stands

I’m starting to believe our country lacks any markets where the government hasn’t stabbed its tentacles of taxes and regulations into. Even children can’t run a lemonade stand proper licensing:

Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn’t have a business license or the required permits.

[…]

The girls needed a business license, peddler’s permit and food permit to operate, even on residential property. The permits cost $50 a day or $180 per year.

How is it that we as a society find this type of behavior from our government acceptable? Why should children be required to buy a $50.00 a day permit to run a fucking lemonade stand where they’re probably selling their product for something akin to $0.50 a cup? At that price they would have to sell 100 cups of lemonade just to break even.

This situation is a perfect example of what happens on larger scales in other industries. Part of the reason it costs so much to do business in the United States is because so many permits, licenses, and regulations must be complied with. Complying with all of the government’s malarkey costs a lot of money and that costs has to be forwarded to the consumer.

These regulations are getting a bit ridiculous though when we start applying them to children. Then again it’s a good life lesson for them, they can learn that going into business is a huge pain in the ass because the government will try to siphon off much of their business’s wealth and success as possible.

In New York It’s Cheaper to Litter Than Properly Dispose of Some Trash

Since trashing lying around everywhere is displeasing to most human societies our race as spend a lot of time developing means of ensuring that trash is disposed of in an orderly manner. Apparently New York has a slightly different view and prefers to punish the people living their for being sanitary:

Darbe Pitofsky, 83, said she was on her way for a cup of coffee around 6:30 a.m. on June 25 when she threw a brown bag filled with old papers in a city litter basket near her apartment on East 71st Street.

[…]

She said the worker demanded a form of identification and threatened to “put her away” if she didn’t comply.

Pitofsky said it took the worker 25 minutes to write the summons and when she complained that it would cost her $100, she said he threatened to make it $300.

See in New York a trash can isn’t actually a trash can. The nanny state there has seen fit to make certain trash cans fit for only household trash while others are fit for household or business trash. What’s the difference? I haven’t a clue because I’m a logical human being and therefore have a hard time understanding the justifications given by politicians for the stupid shit they enact.

I’m sure somebody reading this is thinking that the lady could have just avoided the fine if she had followed the rules. True. But I do find it interesting that she faces a lower maximum fine for outright littering than throwing “household or business trash” into a pedestrian-only trash can:

8. Except for any violation of subparagraph one of paragraph b or paragraph c of subdivision seven of this section by a person using or operating a motor vehicle, or any violation of subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven of this section, or any violation of paragraph d of subdivision seven of this section, the violation of any provision of this section shall constitute an offense punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars, or by imprisonment not to exceed ten days or both.

So if you have refuse that you wish to dispose of and it qualifies as “household or business trash” it’s actually in your best interest to throw it on the ground and walk away. If caught littering the maximum fine is $250.00 while disposing of trash in the wrong type of bin apparently holds a maximum find of $300.00. Brilliant move New York, encourage littering by fining people for putting trash in the wrong types of trash bins.

Nanny State Still Thinks She Knows What’s Best

The nanny state never ceases to amaze me. When it comes to shitting all over your rights in the crusade to save yourself from yourself some states simply go above and beyond anything sane or rational. Iceland is now considering make cigarettes available by prescription only:

Iceland is considering banning the sale of cigarettes and making them a prescription-only product.

The parliament in Reykjavik is to debate a proposal that would outlaw the sale of cigarettes in normal shops. Only pharmacies would be allowed to dispense them – initially to those aged 20 and up, and eventually only to those with a valid medical certificate.

The radical initiative is part of a 10-year plan that also aims to ban smoking in all public places, including pavements and parks, and in cars where children are present. Iceland also wants to follow Australia’s lead by forcing tobacco manufacturers to sell cigarettes in plain, brown packaging plastered with health warnings rather than branding.

This will obviously obliterate the habit of smoking because nobody has been able to obtain prescription only drugs without a prescription… wait that’s the exact opposite of reality. Making something prescription only hasn’t prevented people from obtaining those things. All making something prescription only does is build the framework for a black market.

The other thing to note is the simple fact this law violates peoples’ rights as self-owners. As the owner of yourself you should have a monopoly on deciding what does and does not go into your body. If you want to smoke cigarettes then you should be allowed to, if you want to smoke marijuana no barrier should be placed in your way, if you want to shoot up heroine then you should have that right. I say this as a man who’s never smoked or shot up anything in his life, in fact I don’t like being around people who are smoking as I find the smell unpleasant. But what you put into your body is your damned business, not the government’s.

The prohibition against specific drugs in this country has done nothing to curb the usage of those drugs but has done a lot to create an environment of violence, both from the state trying to prohibition drug usage and the drug cartels who are fighting the state drug enforcement agents. Prohibitions only end up costing tons of money to accomplish nothing besides generating a body count. Making the use of specific substances illegal also prevent people wanting to kick their addition from doing so because they know that they’ll likely end up in a cage when they go to the doctor for help. Nothing good comes from prohibition but much evil does. Why any country continues to think outlawing substances will be a fix to whatever problems they have is beyond my understanding.

A Perfect Example of the Nanny State

A large number in the libertarian movement often talk about the nanny state. Nanny state, for those of you unaware, is a term used to describe the government’s constant regulations claimed to be put into place to “protect consumers.” In actuality these regulations are nothing more than means of extracting more money from people in the form of permits and license. The state of New York is one of the biggest nanny states out there and that point can’t be made clearer than by looking at their ban on cutting cheese in the open air:

The state Agriculture Department is enforcing a ban on slicing cheese in the open air – and shoppers complain that the regulation means pre-packaged cheese, which defeats the purpose of buying fresh.

That has to be one of the dumbest regulations put into place anywhere (please don’t point out dumber regulation to me, I’ve already developed a strong enough distaste for government). Obviously this regulation was put into place under the guise of protecting consumers, after all there is no other way such a stupid regulation could get pushed through:

“We do not want dirty utensils used at farmers’ markets,” Ziehm said.

“There are many risks involved in slicing cheese in an open-air market. The product could be exposed to the elements, to bacteria and germs, while it’s not wrapped,” she added.

That sounds to me like she’s saying you shouldn’t have picnics because there are lots of dangers involved. Shit I think I gave the New York government another idea of something to require licensing for. If you look at this requirements for getting a license to cut cheese you’ll notice is has protectionism written all over it:

A state regulation on the books since the 1970s requires what’s called an Article 20-C license to slice cheese for commercial sale – and it applies to Greenmarket vendors, Ag Department spokeswoman Jessica Ziehm said.

Vendors can obtain the license only if they slice cheese in a “permanent” building that excludes pests such as flies and has hot and cold running water and a three-compartment sink.

Although I’m unaware of the cost of this Article 20-C license I’m betting it doesn’t come cheap. Likewise this regulation ensures only businesses with established locations are able to get the required license. That means small independent farmers who sell their goods as temporary locations like farmers’ markets are unable to sell cheese outside of the pre-packaged variety. This means that consumers are often unable to get a small amount of cheese from the independent farmers and thus will go to established locations to obtain the small amount that they truly desire. It’s an effective means for government to ensure business flows to those it favors.

Government always find ways to justify their “consumer protection” schemes which almost always turn out to be schemes to protect established businesses from competition.

Using Legislation to Force Adoption of Your Product

Let’s pretend that you’re a fledgeling inventor who has come up with a new mechanism to make a currently available tool safer. The idea seems solid but it’s also very expensive which has lead to nobody licensing your invention from you. What do you do? If you’re the asshole who invented SawStop you go to Capitol Hill and try to use government to force companies to license your invention:

Gass’ saw uses an electrical sensor to detect when the blade touches flesh instead of wood. Within a few thousandths of a second, the blade slammed to a stop.

But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.

“They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.

SawStop, Gass’ little upstart company, has sold tens of thousands of these safer table saws, and lately things have been heating up in Washington. The National Consumers League last month brought in injured woodworkers to meet with lawmakers and regulators. They want to make the SawStop safety brake mandatory on all table saws.

That’s one of the most dick moves somebody can perform. When you want to make money by creating a better mouse trap that is great and I fully support you. On the other hand if you want to make money by getting the government to use their monopoly on the initiation of force to make people buy your mouse trap I will condemn you.

The reason saw companies aren’t adopting SawStop isn’t because safety doesn’t sell, it’s because safety isn’t worth the asking price to most people:

In other words, let consumers decide. Young says many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 to $300 in cost, depending on which side you talk to.

As mentioned earlier in the article SawStop has sold tens of thousands of their safer saws. His customers obviously felt the additional cost of those saws was small enough that it outweighed their fear of getting injured should their finger get near the saw blade. On the other hand other people who’ve purchased saws want something that is cheap (for instance a person who uses a saw sporadically for hobby project) and adding an additional $100 to $300 will make a big difference to those people.

The reason a free market is great is because it allows us to determine what will be available. Different customers have different wants. Some people want an industrial saw because their business requires it while others want a cheap saw because they only use it once every two years. By mandating SawStop the legislature would destroy the market for those wanting a cheap saw as the cost of licensing the technology is more than some of those saws are.

And in the end there is an incredibly cheap and effective safety mechanism for saws called a push stick. Hell you can make a push stick with basic woodworking tools (no saw required) in a few minutes. Not only do I hope legislation mandating the inclusion of SawStop on all saws fails but I hope Mr. Gass goes out of business and ends up poor and penniless on the streets. Does that sound harsh? It should, I’m not a fan of somebody using force to line their own pockets.