nanny state regulation

Regulation of the Day 156: Happy Meals

by Ryan Young on November 4, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

With an 8-3 vote, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors banned the greatest menace facing it or any other city: Happy Meals.

Restaurants are no longer allowed to include a free toy with kid’s meals. “This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children’s health first,” said the bill’s sponsor, Eric Mar. He was named Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month for his troubles.

I’m guessing restaurants’ first thoughts about the ban are not printable on this blog.

There is a loophole, though. If a kid’s meal is under 600 calories, includes sufficient amounts of fruit and vegetables, and does not include a sugary drink, then restaurants may include a toy.

Children’s reactions are said to be less than positive. Hearing “no” now and again is an important part of not growing up spoiled; though parents are the ones who should be saying it. But who needs parents when the nanny state is here?

My Role Model, Jenna Jameson

by Michelle Minton on October 27, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

As a self-made business mogul, a mother and wife, and a cancer survivor, there are many aspects of Jenna Jameson to admire and emulate. That said, I’m not looking to Jameson’s movies for advice on safe sex; just as I wouldn’t turn to Martin Scorcese for lessons on how to be a successful cab driver in New York City. Movies are works of art, fiction, and fantasy. The argument that condoms should be made mandatory in pornographic films due to viewers potentially imitating what they see on screen is logically indefensible and somewhat shocking, considering that it is written on a site that regularly publishes articles defending freedom of speech, free expression, and keeping government out of the bedroom.

Kellee Terrell’s article, posted on Huffington Post yesterday, gives us a glimpse into the type of thinking that leads many intellectuals to advocate at one time for social liberty while at the same time demanding that government intervene in the personal choices of others. It stems from a condescending disbelief in the ability and the right of the average individual to make choices about their own life.

Why the Porn Industry’s HIV Problem Is Our Problem, Too:

While it is obvious that not using condoms on porn sets is a safety hazard, I have often wondered: How much of a safety hazard is it for viewers to consume condomless porn? How much does watching bareback sex influence or reinforce our desire to mimic that same behavior in our own lives?

…I am not so naïve as to believe that if the porn industry were to make condom use mandatory, that act alone would completely revolutionize how Americans view safer sex or condoms. But it cannot be denied just how powerful media is …

Perhaps now is the time for the porn industry to make some changes in terms of safer sex practices — not just for the sake of their own employees, but for the sake of all of us.

It is not the porn industry’s responsibility to teach anything to anyone. They make films and money. We can call them artists, or business people, and though some may release instructional videos, it isn’t fair to label them as custodians of anyone’s sexual decisions.  It may be interesting to examine possible correlations between behavior and viewing habits, but even a evident connection would not make actors, directors, or producers culpable for that behavior.

Based on Terrell’s logic couldn’t the argument be made that we ought to ban films and TV shows that feature rebellious youth (i.e. My So Called Life), dangerous driving (Rebel Without a Cause) or victimization of women (everything on the Lifetime TV Network) lest someone takes them as guidance for their life choices?

Obviously, this isn’t the case. It may seem incomprehensible that the same people arguing for a condom mandate are the same people who would normally scream at the top of their lungs if the government tried to regulate bedroom activities. However, because pornography is an issue of capitalism, of “big business,” they look upon the actors as victims in need of protection-whether they want it or not.

It is not the government’s right to regulate how adults engage in sexual activity; we each can and should take responsibility for our own sexual safety. And, as Jenna Jameson has proven throughout her career, adult film actors also should be left free from government interference to make the decisions that affect their lives and career.

Note: Jenna Jameson appears to favor either a condom mandate or at least some stronger regulations on set.  That doesn’t affect her status as a sharp business lady, but, like I said, I’m not looking to her for safe sex advice–nor am I looking to her for regulatory analysis.

San Francisco’s Mayor Opposed to Alcohol Tax

by Michelle Minton on September 15, 2010

in Health and Illness, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

It isn’t often that we get to praise politicians, but cheers to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who vowed to veto plans for an increased alcohol tax. The tax “would add about 3 cents to a 12-ounce bottle of beer, 4.5 cents to a 6-ounce glass of wine and 3.5 cents to a drink containing 1.5 ounces of hard liquor.”

The so-called “charge for harm tax,” as it has been dubbed, would be a fee levied on alcohol wholesalers and distributors. It was proposed by John Avalos, a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in order to recoup the estimated $18 million a year San Francisco spends supposedly dealing with alcohol-related problems as well as to cover health care costs.
The proposal won approval with the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, but Newsom believes a “charge for harm” would do more harm than good, saying, “Pursuing this likely illegal new fee in this economic environment will impact thousands of businesses, cost jobs and put San Francisco at a competitive disadvantage with every other county in California.”

First, Newsom is right. This proposed tax is bad for the city and the state’s economy.

California’s wine and alcohol industry is a healthy and vital parts of the state’s economy. This, unfortunately, means it is a prime target for politicians who would rather raise taxes than cut spending.  But, while  the proposed tax may temporarily fill the coffers, it will result in those wholesalers and distributors charging restaurants, vineyards, and breweries and ultimately, consumers more.

This will result in fewer establishments, fewer jobs, less tax revenue for the state in the long-run.

Wine and beer production provide the U.S. with over 2 million jobs and represent around $60 billion in taxable wages. In California, a state known for its wine production, the stakes are particularly high. The wine industry in California provides tax revenue (about $15 billion in state and federal taxes) as well as bringing in tourists (about 20 million a year) who pour money into other parts of the economy.

The effects of increased taxes on wholesalers and distributors will ripple through the entire industry.

Second, if they charge for the harm alcohol does, are they going to pay for the benefits it also provides?

Alcoholic beverages have long been demonized in this country for the “social ills” associated with those who abuse the product. However, there are just as many if not more positive effects of alcoholic beverages that most do not consider when choosing to apply discriminatory taxes to the industry. Moderate alcohol consumption is widely associated with decreased risks of various age-related medical problems such as coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and cognitive disorders like dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, and a new study indicates that alcohol consumers have lower risk of rheumatoid arthritis.

Studies also show that social interaction is more important to ones health than quitting smoking or losing weight. While it isn’t a requirement, much of modern social interraction is organized around the consumption of alcohol: drinks after work, dance clubs, football games and beer, a backyard barbeque. Alcohol isn’t necessary for social interaction, but there’s a reason they call it the social lubricant.

The point is, alcohol doesn’t make stupid people do stupid things. If someone chooses to get drunk and behave in a risky way, that is their choice and no fault of the farmer, bar, or retailer who sells them the bottle.

Whether the net effects of alcohol consumption are negative or positive, it shouldn’t be the government’s role to apply discriminating taxes one industry because it deems the effects “undesirable.”

Note: image via wortblog.blogspot.com

Anti-stripper law could create more prostitution

by Michelle Minton on June 30, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Odds & Ends, Personal Liberty

As so many journalists have punned, recently passed anti-stripping legislation makes the “Don’t Show Me” state a far more appropriate nickname for Missouri. Yesterday, Gov. Jay Nixon ‘s signed into a law a bill that significantly restricts the operations of adult entertainment establishments for the purpose of protecting the “vulnerable people who are being coerced into being the fodder for some of these places,” said state Senator  Matt Bartle.

Among other things, the new laws prohibit total nudity, restrict semi-nudity to state areas six feet away from patrons, prohibit touching, ban alcohol, and limit the hours of operation of such establishments.

What most people don’t realize is that strippers usually aren’t under contract with any particular club and, generally, operate like contractors, paying a stage fee or a house fee to the club which is deducted from whatever they earn while dancing. These laws simple mean that strippers will have less time to work, fewer clubs to dance at, and fewer customers.

Proponents of the bill claim that liberal laws regarding adult entertainment in the state contribute “demeans women and contributes to prostitution.” But treating women as if they are children or mentally incapable of making their own choices is better? In addition, these restrictions will simply result in less income for current strippers which could very likely result in more prostitution not less.

A quote from a representative of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence says it all:

“One of the ironies is that, for many young women, it is the way that they can support themselves, maintain custody of their children, or escape an abusive relationship.”

If regulators really wanted to help the poor strippers they should decrease regulations and taxes on other industries so that more businesses will open in the state. Maybe then strippers will have more opportunities to switch into another profession, if they want.

Proponents of this law aren’t trying to help women, they are trying to control them.

Regulation of the Day 138: Dwile Flonking

by Ryan Young on June 2, 2010

in Culture, Nanny State, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Britons sure do seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Take, for example, the colorfully-named pastime of dwile flonking. Players soak a rag in beer and put it on top of a pole. Then they use the pole to hurl the rag at other players.

A player who misses twice in a row is called a “flonker.” Flonkers are required to drink a beer before the opposing team can pass the errant rag all the way around him in a circle.

This year’s dwile flonking world championship was to be held in Norfolk. Then regulators got involved. As one can tell by the rules, dwile flonking is a drinking game. And drinking games are forbidden now. Legislation passed earlier this year banning them.

The American journalist H.L. Mencken defined Puritanism as “The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” He may as well have been talking about regulators.

And thanks to the new Puritanism, the world may never know who the world’s top dwile flonkers are.

The Nanny Zone Episode 1

by Ryan Lynch on June 1, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OJgLJZuwM 285 234]

Regulation of the Day 96: Health Warnings on Cell Phones

by Ryan Young on January 6, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

The state of Maine and the city of San Francisco are considering requiring warning labels for cell phones.

Perhaps some warning labels are in order. After all, few things are more annoying than people SPEAKING AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE INTO THEIR PHONE ABOUT WHAT’S FOR DINNER when a normal tone of voice will do.

But these warning labels have nothing to do with letting people know that their phones can make them look like jackasses.

No, the labels warn the credulous that their phones emit electromagnetic radiation. Otherwise known as light waves. Some people believe that this causes brain cancer.

Brain atrophy, maybe. But cancer? Most studies have found no correlation, let alone causation.

Something else to consider: the demographic group far and away most prone to brain cancer is also far and away the least likely to use cell phones – the elderly.

Hmm.

Regulation of the Day 77: Banning Toys in Happy Meals

by Ryan Young on December 2, 2009

in Health and Illness, International, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Roberto Zabrido, a government official in Spain, is “adamant that the Happy Meal and its ilk pose a risk.”

The solution? Legislation that “would ban restaurants and food manufacturers from including toys and prizes with their products.”

If Happy Meals – Happy Meals! – are Spain’s most pressing national problem, then that country is either the most trouble-free place on Earth, or else busybodies such as Mr. Zabrido have too much money and power. My bet is on the latter.

(Hat tip: Jacob Grier)

Nanny State Beer

by Angela Logomasini on November 13, 2009 · 1 comment

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Nanny state regulators in the United Kingdom have been up in arms about a beer–Tokyo released by BrewDog– that dares to contain just over 18 percent alcohol! One legislator even submitted a motion in the Scotland Parliament condemning the beer. Others have called for for regulations. “It is completely irresponsible and a real worry … It highlights the need for a mandatory code for the alcohol industry to prevent irresponsible drinks promotions such as this,” noted a representative of a the UK-based British Liver Trust.

BrewDog’s response? As recently reported by the blog BevLaw, BrewDog markets a product called “Nanny State Beer” for all those regulators and others who just can’t control themselves! It has just 1.1 percent alcohol. Its label reads:

Society today is an all too dangerous place.

ASBO-ed [Anti-Social Behaviour Order] three year olds loitering in alley ways, CCTV [Closed-circuit television] recording our every move and misplaced suitcases grinding entire public transport infrastructures to a halt.

No wonder you’ve been reduced to a quivering wreck, battening down the hatches at three in the afternoon with Ofcom [Office of Communications] on speed dial.

At BrewDog we appreciate your inability to know your limits – especially when it comes to alcohol – which is why we’ve created Nanny State.

This idiosyncratic little beer is a gentle smack in the right direction.

It’s time to draw your net curtains, sit back with Nanny and watch your favourite episode of Last Of The Summer Wine. It’s finally safe to enjoy alcohol again.

Please note: BrewDog recommends that you only drink this beer whilst wearing the necessary personal protective equipment and in a premises that has passed a full health and safety risk assessment for optimum enjoyment.

Good that BrewDog has a sense of humor, and fortunately, their products remain on the market–at least for now. What’s not funny, is the growing nanny-state mentality and what it can do to our freedoms. Beer is just one of their many targets. Watch out for regulations on soda, car windows, water, and even your waistline!

Image: From BrewDog blog site.