Archive

ShareThis Page
Control freaks in government | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Control freaks in government

Tribune-Review
| Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:00 p.m.

Control freaks want to run your life. They call themselves “public servants.” But whether student council president, environmental bureaucrat or member of Congress, most believe they know how to run your life better than you do.

Economist Matthew Mitchell of the Mercatus Center likes to point out that governments impose regulations without acknowledging that the new rules will have unintended consequences.

Bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are among the control freaks’ favorite campaigns. “A recent University of Wisconsin study,” Mitchell says on my show this week, “found that in those areas where they introduced bans on smoking, you saw an increase in accidents related to alcohol. The theory is that people drive longer distances in order to find bars that either have outside seating or are outside the jurisdiction.”

I selfishly like smoking bans. I don’t like breathing others’ smoke. But the majority of us shouldn’t force our preferences on the minority, even if they do things that are dangerous. Smokers ought to be allowed to smoke in some bars, if the bar owners allow it. But today in about half the states, no one may smoke in any bar.

It’s totalitarianism from the health police. If secondhand smoke were dangerous enough to threaten non-smokers, the control freaks would have a point, but it isn’t. It barely has any detectable health effect at all.

So far, smokers just take it. But maybe that’s changing. The town of Westminster, Mass., recently held hearings on whether to ban the sale of tobacco products altogether, and 500 angry people showed up.

One said, “I find smoking one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. On top of that, I find this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing.” Good for him.

Mitchell warns that “we are accustomed to thinking about the federal government and federal overreach. But a lot of the most intrusive regulations happen at the local level,” as in Westminster.

In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., police charged two pastors and a 90-year-old volunteer with giving food to poor people in public. Florida law declares it illegal to give away food in an outdoor location without providing public toilets. The restrictions were proffered in the name of “public health and safety.”

In New Jersey, churches were forced to stop offering Thanksgiving dinners to poor people because they didn’t have “properly licensed commercial kitchens.”

The rules keep coming. A New York regulation banning trans fats in restaurants led to stringent bans on which foods people were allowed to donate to the hungry. I’d think the poor have bigger problems than trans fats.

Their biggest problem is the same one we all have: too much government.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on Fox News and author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.