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.
- Another View -- Glenn Normandeau: Protecting endangered non-game species a NH success story - 1
- Charles Krauthammer: Redacted truth, subjunctive outrage - 0
- David Harsanyi: Get the IRS out of the speech business altogether - 9
- Another View -- Ryan Gallagher: The U.S. government spies on reporters all too frequently - 4
- John Stossel: Who has true grit anymore? - 0
- Another View: New Hampshire would take a risky bet on casinos - 6
- Ramesh Ponnuru: In flextime fight, liberals play to their stereotype - 0
- Jonah Goldberg: Benghazi's smoking guns - 1
- Another View: Nashua does need to conduct its own review of commuter rail - 1
Jonah Goldberg: The IRS was only following Obama's lead
READER COMMENTS: 0- Updated: Man fatally shot on Manchester street; neighbors shocked - 3
- Nashua mayor to recommend Bennett for corporation counsel - 0
- Claremont group disputes incinerator plant's permit - 0
- Goffstown artisan gives new face to Wolfeboro tower - 0
- Katie McQuaid's Scene in Manchester: Kiwanis and the kids - 0
- Town may have to fix grave error - 0
- Gate City Musings: Mayor just keeps on spending - 0
- Nashua set to begin budget review - 0
- Manchester 'homeless meter' program seeks to deter panhandling - 0
Manchester alderman urges review of police phone use
READER COMMENTS: 1
Sorry, no question available



