Thursday, October 04, 2007
What is tyranny?
Lawmakers in two California cities are casting votes this month on unprecedented legislation that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos.
Today in Calabasas, the City Council plans to vote on expanding its anti-smoking law to bar renters from lighting up inside existing apartments. It would exempt current resident smokers until they moved but would require all new buildings with at least 15 units, including condos, to be smoke-free.
I am a non-smoker, and I find this to be offensive beyond words.
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of an iceberg that is likely to grow substantially. Should the government take control of our healthcare system or guarantee health insurance for all Americans (as every Democratic presidential candidate has advocated) does anyone really think it will be long before we face a litany of restrictions, all in the name of public health? Control of your smoking, drinking alcohol, diet, exercise, and who knows what else will all be considered fair game in the interests of public health.
It may already be too late to reverse this process. Tom Elliot runs down some examples at TCS Daily:
When Bloomberg is challenged on whether its really the business of City Hall to abjure New Yorkers from smoking, eating fatty foods, using baby formula, drinking whole milk, or electing not to get circumcised, he responds that, left unbanned, taxpayers could end up footing the bill for these unhealthy habits.
Nowadays, Bloomberg is but one of many politicians marching under the banner of "public health":
-- New York City Councilman Joel Rivera wants to modify zoning laws so that impoverished neighborhoods (presumably with higher rates of obesity) would only be allowed a minimal number of fast-food franchises. Gotham is also attempting to require restaurants post menu items' calorie counts.
-- Former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued nine fast-food companies to force them to label their fries containers with the words: "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and/or birth defects."
-- Senator Joe Lieberman and current California Attorney General Jerry Brown have called for a "fat tax" on high-calorie foods.
-- Having bullied smokers outdoors throughout the country, many locales are now going further. San Francisco has banned smoking in parks; Washington state banned smoking 25 feet from entrances, exits, and windows that open. West Lafayette, Ind., banned smoking within 15 feet of ATMs and bus stops. And higher taxes on cigarettes have been proposed in every city or state facing a budget crunch.
-- New York City has created a database to track those afflicted with various diseases, including noncommunicable ones like diabetes. Doctors are legally required to contact authorities whenever they discover their patients have AIDS, syphilis, and other maladies.
The problem, of course, is that once the government is on the hook for the medical bills, it will insist it is justifiable to mandate certain kinds of behavior. This may sound a bit paranoid, but John Edwards has essentially put this into his presidential platform, warning us that under his plan to provide health insurance, doctor visits will be mandatory!
I don't think tyranny is too strong a word for this type of government intrusion on the lives of individuals.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Oct 04, 11:33:00 AM:
But don't trample on civil rights by listening in on OBL! OBL has rights as do all terrorists.
But if you don't visit your doctor, or if you smoke, Big Brother is watching, Dem style. Leave the Religion of Peace alone.
What am I missing here?
SEW
By 
Harrywr2, at
Thu Oct 04, 11:59:00 AM:
#1 Reason for Hospital Admission in the US....Live Births..2.7 times the rate of any other reason...outlawing things because they burden the "Health Care System" gets really scary...really fast.
http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/charts/5admiss.pdf
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Oct 04, 12:22:00 PM:
I suggest surgical amputations of all infant's arms and legs at birth. That will prevent them from doing many "risky" things later in life.
By , at
Thu Oct 04, 01:21:00 PM:
They are just following the lead of the English health care system which is also restricting care for various reasons.
Just keep watching, there won't be screaming until some major group gets their ox gored.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Oct 04, 06:04:00 PM:
A very slippery slope toward eugenics. First, smoking, overeating/unhealthy eating, etc. are restricted by the government. How long before terminally ill patients are euthanized, or pregnant women whose unborn child is deemed to be deficient in some way (Downs Syndrome, blind, deaf, whatever) will be forced by the government to terminate her pregnancy? After all, the "government" might have to pick up the tab, right? Scary sh|t.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Oct 04, 06:08:00 PM:
oh, I missed a category...
And what about those among us who aren't terminally ill, but require constant care? Here in Texas, the hospital, not the family, has the final say on sustaining a child's life - they can starve them to death just like Terri Schiavo if the doctors decide care is "futile". Or what about the mentally disabled? Or the severely autistic? Or some other non-terminal but chronic condition?
By , at
Thu Oct 04, 08:20:00 PM:
"One of the more common government strategies today, especially in developing regions is fascism. Fascism is commonly confused with Nazism. Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure. Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems."
From and article I found on line using "fascism" as a search term. Oh, and something about George Bush showed up in the fourth item found. What a surprise.
Fascism isn't just some jack-booted thug with a swastika on his lapel. We sure live in funny times, no?
-David
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 04, 08:49:00 PM:
Why wouldn't shit like this be thrown out on the same grounds that the ban on sodomy in Texas was thrown out; that it's an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the citizens in their homes?
Oh right, equal opportunity under the law only exists for racial minorities and liberals in California...
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Oct 04, 10:10:00 PM:
If Hillary wins and the Dems maintain/increase control of the Congress, we'll see judges like we have on the 9th Circuit finding their way to the Supreme Court. The unconstitutional will be made "acceptable" by Judicial Decree (Kelo, anyone?)
By amr, at
Thu Oct 04, 11:36:00 PM:
I totally agree with your post and I am an ex three pack a day smoker. If you want another example of unwanted government intrusion into our lives, look at where local housing codes are going to protect us from ourselves. My county is going to make all new housing/additions have GFI (ground fault interrupt) circuit breakers, not just those for the bathroom in case that 115 volt radio you have on the bath tub falls in, but for all circuits. They cost 6 or more times the cost of a standard circuit breaker. But we have to protect everyone from any possible inadvertent or intentional act. Houses will also have to have 36 inch wide doorways, 40 inch wide halls, much higher electrical outlets and lower switches and other such innovations to facilitate the handicapped that just may visit your home. Some California housing codes already have such requirements. My house’s new addition does have some handicap facilities because I am growing older by the day, but that was my choice to spend the money; in the future others will not have a choice.
Oh, FYI, many codes have outside receptacles wired to GFI receptacles, which are generally located in the bathroom (to confuse you, I suppose) which will trip if you connect your ungrounded trailer or motor home charger to it
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 02:24:00 AM:
Totally agree with your post. This is an argument against government run health care. This is fascist, literally.
I think people have a right to live their lives as they wish, including the right to live badly.
If you think about it, a preoccupation with politics isn't mentally healthy but it's a chosen way to spend time for people who read and write this blog.
By davod, at
Fri Oct 05, 04:35:00 AM:
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Oct 05, 08:03:00 AM:
I have children. No it f'ing isn't.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Oct 05, 08:30:00 PM:
They cost 6 or more times the cost of a standard circuit breaker.
Kitchens, bathrooms, garages, basements, and outside already require them. About all that's left is general lighting/receptacles and bedrooms...and the bedrooms are already required to have AFCI's (which implement 30ma GF protection).
Interestingly, NFPA code for smoke detectors specifically PROHIBITS putting smoke detectors on a circuit that has 5ma GFCI protection.
How are they going to square that circle?
By , at
Mon Oct 08, 10:53:00 AM:
Before you know it you wont be able to smoke in your own home becuase of BIG BROTHER and his shooping nose what next regulate what you eat becuase of a bunch of wheat germ inhaling heath freaks?
