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.
- Missing the point: The IRS scandal and state power - 24
- 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 - 34
- Roaming jihadis: A terrorist visits Manchester - 5
- Athletes and PE: Give them credit for sports - 7
Consider Nevada: Gambling always expands
READER COMMENTS: 8- Updated: NH House defies Hassan, kills casino bill by 35-vote margin - 16
- Threats at Goffstown High ‘not credible’ - 0
- House votes to ban lead sinkers and jigs an ounce or under - 8
- House passes auto dealers bill of rights - 2
- Rochester man facing up to 30 years in prison for brutal assault - 1
- Man who confronts burglar in Nashua gets bit - 0
- Police say Nashua man struck woman with Jeep - 0
- Pease chosen to receive new KC-46A refueling tanker; to bring 100 jobs - 9
- FBI agent kills Florida man during questioning about Marathon bombing suspect - 3
Updated: Car may have started itself, crashes, burns at Manchester Home Depot
READER COMMENTS: 5
Sorry, no question available



