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.
- Deroy Murdock: Corruption aside, the IRS has too much Obamacare authority - 8
- Thomas Sowell: There's lots of bad economic thinking in the immigration debate - 0
- Roger Simon: The slacker who came in from the cold - 3
- Charles Krauthammer: Pushing the envelope, NSA-style - 4
- George Will: Slipping the Constitution's leash - 0
- Sally C. Pipes: Obamacare's exchanges are on a collision course with reality - 26
- David Harsanyi: Liberals are hypocrites when it comes to freedom - 14
- John Stossel: Didn't we give up privacy already? - 0
- Dave Campbell: As a biker, I have loud pipes, so what? - 38
Jonah Goldberg: Freedom: the unfolding revolution
READER COMMENTS: 3- House proposes 3-year Medicaid expansion plan - 0
- UPDATE: Elderly man burned in North Hampton camper fire has died - 1
- Windham to reconsider dodgeball ban - 0
- Hooksett students taken to nearby school after gas leak - 0
- Londonderry students who haven't had whooping cough vaccine asked to stay home - 0
- UPDATED: House, Senate agree on capital budget, including new $38 million women's prison - 0
- UPDATE: Windham's Common Man to open for dinner rush despite fire - 1
- 'Home grow' dropped on way to medical marijuana compromise - 15
- Death investigation under way in Manchester, no foul play suspected - 3
House, Senate at standoff over vaccines, voter registration bill
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



