There is a free newspaper in my town telling of the various events, items of interest and weather. The paper’s headline today is “City Council Bans flavored Tobacco.” The ordinance passed 4-3 and does not include menthol cigarettes. Cigars can still be flavored. Fines upwards of $2,500 will be levied against anyone selling flavored tobacco.
These types of regulations truly amaze me. The question that I will always ask is this: Do we need the city council to make this law? Is my city better, safer, more comfortable or more fun because of this regulation? The purpose of this regulation goes back to an earlier study by the FDA which said that flavored cigarettes are used to get children hooked on smoking and if flavored cigarettes are allowed to exist, more and more people will smoke. The city council took that and made a law so that flavored cigarettes cannot be sold and then, they assume, fewer people will smoke. I wonder if anyone will look, ten years from now, and find out if this law had any effect on people’s smoking habits. My guess is that they will not.
I think it is stupid for city councils to make such regulations. Rules like this are called nanny laws because they are designed to keep us safe from ourselves. Seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmets are two classic nanny laws because they serve no purpose. The motorcycle helmet law in California came about when Gary Busey got into a motorcycle accident without a helmet and became the brunt of jokes on Celebrity Apprentice. Sacramento law makers immediately made a law saying that all motorcycle riders must wear helmets. Why? It serves no purpose. If I know the information and choose to wear a helmet, great, but if I choose not to, who cares. Certainly not law makers. Laws that protect me from myself are antithetical to freedom and liberty and they are tyrannical and draconian.
As for smoking. I was raised in a house that did not smoke. My parents spoke against it often and so I never had a desire to smoke. Also, today, there are TV commercials against smoking. More and more restaurants are going smoke free. Society and the free market has moved against smoking, we do not need a law.
I cannot conceive of why, evil, sinful, selfish, egotistical people that I did not elect (for the most part) and who do not know me at all, feel that they need to make all sorts of laws against large sodas, certain kind of clothing, phone use, phone apps and on and on. None of these nanny laws makes life better, makes anyone safer or does anything but annoy people interested in freedom and liberty.
As for laws to protect children? Make all of those you want. Don’t force adults to wear seatbelts but mandate that kids wear them. That is fine. As soon as a person become a voting and drinking and driving adult, leave them alone.
AND GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTHCARE NOW!!!!!!!!
These types of regulations truly amaze me. The question that I will always ask is this: Do we need the city council to make this law? Is my city better, safer, more comfortable or more fun because of this regulation? The purpose of this regulation goes back to an earlier study by the FDA which said that flavored cigarettes are used to get children hooked on smoking and if flavored cigarettes are allowed to exist, more and more people will smoke. The city council took that and made a law so that flavored cigarettes cannot be sold and then, they assume, fewer people will smoke. I wonder if anyone will look, ten years from now, and find out if this law had any effect on people’s smoking habits. My guess is that they will not.I think it is stupid for city councils to make such regulations. Rules like this are called nanny laws because they are designed to keep us safe from ourselves. Seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmets are two classic nanny laws because they serve no purpose. The motorcycle helmet law in California came about when Gary Busey got into a motorcycle accident without a helmet and became the brunt of jokes on Celebrity Apprentice. Sacramento law makers immediately made a law saying that all motorcycle riders must wear helmets. Why? It serves no purpose. If I know the information and choose to wear a helmet, great, but if I choose not to, who cares. Certainly not law makers. Laws that protect me from myself are antithetical to freedom and liberty and they are tyrannical and draconian.
As for smoking. I was raised in a house that did not smoke. My parents spoke against it often and so I never had a desire to smoke. Also, today, there are TV commercials against smoking. More and more restaurants are going smoke free. Society and the free market has moved against smoking, we do not need a law.
I cannot conceive of why, evil, sinful, selfish, egotistical people that I did not elect (for the most part) and who do not know me at all, feel that they need to make all sorts of laws against large sodas, certain kind of clothing, phone use, phone apps and on and on. None of these nanny laws makes life better, makes anyone safer or does anything but annoy people interested in freedom and liberty.
As for laws to protect children? Make all of those you want. Don’t force adults to wear seatbelts but mandate that kids wear them. That is fine. As soon as a person become a voting and drinking and driving adult, leave them alone.
AND GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTHCARE NOW!!!!!!!!
Comments
Post a Comment