Home » Opinion » Editorials
July 21. 2012 11:33PM
You may not: The ban-happy Bay State
For all the liberal caterwauling regarding the supposed preference conservatives have for using government to impose their beliefs on the people, why is it that government bans of specific personal choices proliferate in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire?
This month’s heat wave has been brutal. At least 30 people have died across the country. On top of that, the United States is experiencing one of its worst droughts since the 1950s. Though public health officials are advising people to drink plenty of water, doing that could be a challenge in Concord, Mass. There, where the American Revolution was sparked, voters in April banned the sale of bottled water.
At the time, some voters said they were concerned about the effect of so many plastic bottles on the environment, while others said the water in those bottles contains more chemicals than people should drink. To improve public health, the voters opted to make it impossible to buy water during a drought or heat wave. (The ban does not take effect until it is approved by the state Attorney General’s Office, so for now bottled water remains available in town.)
That is hardly the only example of such misguided nanny-statism in Massachusetts. The Boston Globe noted last week that “Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Lynn, and Needham have all banned trans fat....” Cambridge is considering a ban on large sodas. Jeffry Miron, a Harvard economist, told The Globe, “There is just no plausible set of assumptions under which they are likely to have any meaningful effect. There are so many ways that people are likely to consume calories.”
Two other municipalities, Arlington and Marlborough, have passed bans on leaf blowers. And of course Middleborough famously voted last month to fine anyone who swears in public.
Generally speaking, conservatives have a strictly limited number of behaviors the government should regulate. There is abortion, to protect the life of the unborn; marriage, to protect the foundation of our civil society; and addictive substances, whether narcotics or slot machines, to protect people from predation. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be open to having government regulate any and every personal behavior that they happen to dislike. We don’t know about you, but handing the government that much power sounds a lot more dangerous than leaving people free to make their own choices, good or bad.
This month’s heat wave has been brutal. At least 30 people have died across the country. On top of that, the United States is experiencing one of its worst droughts since the 1950s. Though public health officials are advising people to drink plenty of water, doing that could be a challenge in Concord, Mass. There, where the American Revolution was sparked, voters in April banned the sale of bottled water.
At the time, some voters said they were concerned about the effect of so many plastic bottles on the environment, while others said the water in those bottles contains more chemicals than people should drink. To improve public health, the voters opted to make it impossible to buy water during a drought or heat wave. (The ban does not take effect until it is approved by the state Attorney General’s Office, so for now bottled water remains available in town.)
That is hardly the only example of such misguided nanny-statism in Massachusetts. The Boston Globe noted last week that “Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Lynn, and Needham have all banned trans fat....” Cambridge is considering a ban on large sodas. Jeffry Miron, a Harvard economist, told The Globe, “There is just no plausible set of assumptions under which they are likely to have any meaningful effect. There are so many ways that people are likely to consume calories.”
Two other municipalities, Arlington and Marlborough, have passed bans on leaf blowers. And of course Middleborough famously voted last month to fine anyone who swears in public.
Generally speaking, conservatives have a strictly limited number of behaviors the government should regulate. There is abortion, to protect the life of the unborn; marriage, to protect the foundation of our civil society; and addictive substances, whether narcotics or slot machines, to protect people from predation. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be open to having government regulate any and every personal behavior that they happen to dislike. We don’t know about you, but handing the government that much power sounds a lot more dangerous than leaving people free to make their own choices, good or bad.
- Page One Editorial: Control of NH’s future: Today’s House vote will be one for the ages - 16
- Consider Nevada: Gambling always expands - 9
- Missing the point: The IRS scandal and state power - 25
- Helping panhandlers: A method worth trying in Manchester - 7
- For the people: A century of the NH primary - 0
- What innovation? The casino way is the lazy way - 10
- Not so merry: Giving Robin Hood a bad name - 4
- Disengaged: Obama's lousy excuse - 15
- Underestimating NH: Gun control picks two wrong targets - 35
Mayor development: Growth and a Manchester city office
READER COMMENTS: 0- Gambling bill scuttled, 'Now it is going to be really tough' for budget - 15
- NHIAA Roundup: BG girls’ tennis team sweeps Pinkerton - 0
- NHIAA box scores, summaries for May 22 - 0
- Officials say Goffstown High ‘safe’ after threat of violence - 1
- Manchester Community College graduates told ‘speak your minds’ - 0
- Portsmouth manhunt suspect turns himself in to police - 0
- Nurse said Exeter Hospital is making her a ‘scapegoat’ in hepatitis case - 0
- Derry council defends officials' purchases - 0
- Nashua librarian reports E-books flying off virtual shelves - 0
Buchholz moves to 7-0 as Red Sox post win
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



