What Should My Next Topic Be?

I have a lot of opinions on things that the government does/is doing. I'm sure you all do too.

What I would like is for everyone to comment on this post to let me know what you think my next topic should be on.

Feel free to discuss and debate the topics that people recommend. This is an interactive blog. All I ask is that you keep it PG and no personal attacks.

Thanks all, I can't wait to see what you come up with!

The Independent Thinker

The Nanny State of Government...

Today's critics of the Free Market System don't claim the world is coming to an end, as their predecessors did. Neither do they say that our success will be our down fall. No, today they cry out that we cannot handle our freedom and success. Instead of demanding that government regulate the economy with a heavy hand and then redistribute the wealth, they now argue that because Americans as individuals cannot be trusted to make our own personal decisions, the government needs to make many of them for us.

In his paper, Afraid to be Free: Dependency as Desideratum, published in the journal Public Choice, James Buchanan, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, creates a new classification of socialist menaces to liberty. Buchanan makes the case that the usual threats from managerial socialism (central planning) and distributionist socialism (the welfare state)are now joined by "paternalistic socialism" and "parental socialism". Buchanan describes paternalism as, "the attitudes of elitists who seek to impose their own preferred values on others." and parentalism in contrast as, "the attitudes of persons who seek to have values imposed upon them by other persons, by the state or by transcendental forces.

That being the case, the biggest threat to American liberty that is emerging today is a combination of these two new forms of socialism. Basically, the combination of some in government with the desire to stick their nose in almost all aspects of our live and the many Americans who just aren't concerned that it's happening. For those of you who are thinking that only those on the left are to blame, that's just not the case anymore. The parentalist/paternalist movements truly "crosses the isle".

On the left, you have anti-smoking initiatives/laws, programs aimed at reducing alcohol consumption, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, programs regulating diet and lifestyle under the auspices of reining in obesity, federalizing things that are local issues, like speed limits and the minimum drinking age, and generally using the power of the state to regulate away lifestyle risk.

On the right, which is supposed to be for limited government, you have republicans trying to prohibit Internet gambling, expand the FCC's power to include cable TV and satellite radio, prosecuting pornography as a priority, enforcing federal drug laws vigorously with little attention to the "conservative" idea's of state sovereignty. Bush's White House vigorously defended the federal government's authority to regulate medical marijuana, physician-assisted suicide, and prescription painkillers, even in states where voters have explicitly indicated their preference for laxer enforcement.

It is important to point out that quite often there is "isle crossing" going on on many of these issues. Anti-alcohol activists, like former Carter administration official Joseph Califano, for example, are just as involved in promoting drug prohibition. National Review contributing editor David Frum has called for a "fat tax" on high-calorie foods, joining more left-oriented organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Family values advocates and Republican Congressmen have joined with liberal organizations in calling for heaver government regulation of alcohol. There also seems to be wide, bipartisan support for a powerful state on issues like continuing the drug war, instituting smoking bans in private bars and restaurants, bans on Internet gambling, and increased government scrutiny over pop culture media.

On the right, movements like National Review contributor Rod Dreher's "crunchy conservatism" disparaged wealth, consumption, and consumerism. Left-leaning editorial boards at the Washington Post and New York Times abandoned civil liberties concerns in supporting the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the federal ban on medical marijuana, because a ruling the other way might have adversely affected the federal government's massive regulatory state.

Reason magazine's Jesse Walker said it best, "There is no party of tolerance in Washington—just a party that wages its crusades in the name of Christ and a party that wages its crusades in the name of Four out of Five Experts Agree."

With a lack of clear ideological affiliation, today's paternalism-parentalism resemble more and more the progressive movement of the early 1900's. Both consist of a mix of "values crusaders" and "nanny staters". Simply put, parentalism and paternalism are no more than new forms of socialism. They put community and the collective good over choice and individual freedom. As an example, when public policies for curbing alcoholism or obesity are recommended, they are rarely aimed at alcoholics or the obese, but at taming "the environment" of alcohol or obesity, which of course means the food and alcohol industries. The recommendations almost always target marketing and advertising, the information distribution tools of the free market.

In the early 1900's, a journalist and fierce critic of the progressive movement, H.L. Mencken wrote, “the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." That statement was true last century, our saviors were central planners who sent much of the developing world into starvation. It is also true today, when our so called saviors want to put the hand of government into almost every aspect of our lives.

Next, lets take a look at some specific examples of "Nanny State" laws that are in place today.

Mandatory Seat Belt Laws are divided into two categories, Primary and Secondary.

Primary offense means that a police officer may pull you over and ticket you if they observe that you are not wearing your seat belt, without any other traffic offense taking place. 31 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have primary seat belt laws. The fines range between $10.00 and $250.00 per person, per offense.

Secondary Offense means that the police officer may only ticket you for not wearing a seat belt if you have committed another citable traffic offense. 18 states have secondary laws. The fines range from $10.00 to $75.00 per person, per offense.

New Hampshire is the only state that has neither a primary nor a secondary seat belt law for adults. They do however have a primary child passenger safety law that covers children under 18.

These laws have been instigated by the left, under the auspices of "Public Health". I'm sure we all agree that true public health is a perfectly legitimate function of government. For example, threats posed by highly communicable diseases makes protection from them a legitimate public good, deliverable by government. In this day and age, you might also include the threats posed by biological or chemical terrorism.
  
It seems obvious to me that an adult choosing not to wear a seat belt, because it doesn't pose a threat to the public, does not fall under "public health". The real problem with these laws are that, once again, our government officials have decided they know what is best for us and felt the need to step in and protect us from ourselves. Personally, I wear a seat belt and think it is foolish not to. However, if you choose not to wear a seat belt, the only one in danger is you. In a limited government, as the framers of the Constitution envisioned, it is not the governments job to protect you from yourself but to preserve and protect your liberty. But it doesn't stop the "Nannies" from trying.

When the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the States Mandatory Seat belt Law, Justice Richard Sanders, in a strongly worded dissent, said, "The government has determined our citizens are not intelligent enough to decide for themselves whether to wear a seat belt, yet they apparently have enough intelligence to locate and interpret an elusive federal administrative rule."

Please note that I have only included the seat belt laws in place for those 16 years old and older. The reason is that even though seat belt laws for children are also Nanny laws (it is a parents job to protect their children), I will not argue it.

Motorcycle Helmet Laws are another "Nanny State" Law for many of the same reasons as the seat belt laws. Because the arguments for helmet laws are basically the same, I will not get into them in this post. For statistical information on motorcycle Helmet Laws, Click Here.

Smoking Bans On Private Businesses

Washington State has the nation's strictest statewide smoking ban. It bans smoking in places such as bars, restaurants, clubs, bowling alleys and non-tribal casinos, as well as inside public places and workplaces. The ban also forbids lighting up within 25 feet of doors, windows and vents. Passers-by are exempted.

OK. Second hand smoke is bad. We all get that. I even agree that you shouldn't smoke inside public buildings and too close to doors or windows. I do however have issue with banning smoking in privately owned businesses. Let the business owners and the free market decide. This is another example of the government interfering with the free market system and stepping on the rights of private business owners.

The decision to allow patrons to smoke in privately owned bars, restaurants, clubs, bowling alleys and non-tribal casinos should be up to the owner. If the clientele doesn't want to patronize their business because of the cigarette smoke, they can go to a non-smoking establishment. If a business loses enough business because it allows smoking, they will decide to ban smoking in their place of business themselves. That's the beauty of the free market system. Private business owners can decide on the type of clientele they wish to cater to based on what makes there enterprise successful.

Even before the ban, there were plenty on non-smoking restaurants, bars, etc., for people who did not wish to be inundated with second hand smoke, to patronize. One of the other reasons our "Nanny" stated for the ban was that employees work in a smoke free environment. I agree, they do have the right to work in a smoke free environment, if that is their wish, all they have to do is not take a job in a place that allows smoking. Once again, the free market will take care of it. If a private business owner is unable to staff their business due to not being able to find employees who wish to work in a smoking environment, they will make the necessary changes. However, there are plenty of smokers who would be happy to work somewhere they could smoke without having to go out side.

The other thing the smoking ban did was to hurt bars and non-tribal casinos that are located anywhere near an Indian reservation. I personally have a friends that own bars that are located 5 minute away from the Tulalip Casino and as soon as the ban went into effect, they lost one third of their business. My friend's privately owned bar is on one side of the freeway a couple of blocks east of the freeway and the Tulalip Casino is on the other side a couple of block west of the freeway. Customers started going to the bar in the casino instead because they could smoke there. I have heard similar stories from other bar, restaurant and casino owners. Washington State has a lot of tribal land around the state, so you are never more than 10-20 minutes away from a tribal casino where you can eat, drink, gamble and smoke. The state has said they want to help small business but this ban that they are so proud of has hurt privately owned small businesses.

Laws Prohibiting Internet Gambling are another brain child of the Nanny State

While this is a problem everywhere, I will focus on Washington State's law. The reason for that is I am more familiar with it and it is another example of how Washington State is one of the worst "Nanny States" in the country.

Washington State Internet Gambling Laws - "A bill was passed during the 2006 Legislative session changing the penalty for Internet gambling from a gross misdemeanor to a class C felony." "Players gambling on the Internet, whether playing poker, slots or other gambling games, run a risk of a felony conviction."

That's right, it's now a FELONY in Washington State if you decide to go online and play poker from the privacy of your home PC. The Government has decided you are not responsible enough to make the decision on what to do with your own money. If you have the audacity to spend $10.00 of your hard earned money playing Texas Hold'em online, you could end up with a felony conviction on your record and spend as much as a year in a county jail.

The reason they give for the law is that "Internet gambling is risky business". They government seems to think we are not intelligent enough to realize that gambling is risky or that there are dishonest people on the Internet that might cheat us. If we know that it's risky and yet choose to risk our own personal money on it, shouldn't that be our choice? Who is the government to tell us how we can spend our money?

A lot of people day trade stocks online. As we found out over the last few years, playing the stock market is a pretty big gamble too. Are they going to make that illegal as well? No, they make tax money on it, what was I thinking?

I don't know about you, but I'm sure glad I have the government to tell me what I should and shouldn't spend my money on. I just don't know what I would do without them...

Sorry, got a little hot under the collar there.

I think I have gotten my point across about the "Nanny State". There are many more laws I could go over here, like Payday loan legislation and federalizing local issues like speed limits, but this post has already gotten away from me.

Let me end with a couple of paragraphs I ran across on Helium.com while researching seat belt laws. They were written by a trucker who's screen name is "The Real American". The paragraphs came at the end of is answer the question, "Do mandatory seat belt laws violate individual rights?"

He wrote...

"The Constitution was written for a reason. It was to protect your Freedoms and Rights, in Individual Matters of Choice… to prevent the Tyranny of Others in dictating those highly personal choices… and to prevent our leadership from unduly legislating excessive societal oppressions!

Our enlightened ancestors didn’t care, one iota, for opinions… the one page document, governing us all, possessed none! It set up certain: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Powers to lawfully adhere to without question… and, The Bill of Rights, placed our Freedoms and Rights in God’s hands - alone…. Meanwhile, who are you or I, to take them back from Him?"

Who indeed...

SHOULD MARIJUANA BE LEGALIZED?

Should marijuana be legalized? That is a question that has been asked a lot lately in our country. It is a very important question to many and a dangerous question to many others. The only way to answer it, is to look at the 4 major elements; health, financial, economical and criminal, and decide for ourselves.

Lets start with the health aspect first. In his report entitled Why We Should Legalize Drugs, on a website called DrugLibrary.Org, Benson B. Roe, MD, a Professor Emeritus and former Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of California at San Francisco says,"And 'poison' is also a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!"

Dr. Roe goes on to state that, "Media focus on the 'junkie' has generated a mistaken impression that all uses of illegal drugs are devastated by their habit. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that the small population of visible addicts must constitute only a fraction of the $150 billion per year illegal drug market. This industry is so huge that it necessarily encompasses a very large portion of the ordinary population who are typically employed, productive, responsible and not significantly impaired from leading conventional lives. These drug users are not 'addicts' just as the vast majority of alcohol users are not 'alcoholics.'" and that legalization would result in, "purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation" and "labeled concentration of the product " among other things. Click Here to read Dr. Roe's entire report, Why we should legalize drugs.

 Lets look at some of the effects marijuana has and decide if they are pros or cons:

1. Marijuana has been used effectively to enhance the appetite of  patients undergoing chemotherapy. (PRO)
2. Studies show that marijuana is helpful in relieving a person from the uneasy feeling of nausea. (PRO)
3. Short-term effects can sometimes include distorted sensory perception, problems with memory and learning, lack of  coordination and trouble with problem-solving. (CON)
4. Marijuana can relieve chronic pain and suffering of people with diseases like cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain syndrome, etc. (PRO)
5. Increased heart rate and reduced blood pressure are also some of the short-term effects of marijuana. (CON)
6. Doctors have used marijuana to successfully treat of neurogenic pain.  (PRO)
7. Marijuana contains delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. THC influences the activities of the nerve cells, like pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory, time perception and coordinated movement. (YOU MAKE THE CALL)
8.  High doses of marijuana, when consumed through food, has been known to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory and disorientation (YOU MAKE THE CALL)
9. Marijuana can cause respiratory problems in smokers, like daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, higher risk of lung infections and obstructed airways. (CON)
10. People who have glaucoma, asthma and spasticity have been found to have benefited from using marijuana. (PRO)
11. Studies found that mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy have given birth to children who may exhibit problems with neurological developments. Prenatal exposure can cause altered responses to visual stimuli, increased tremulousness, problems with sustained attention and memory and poor problem-solving skills. So don't use marijuana while pregnant.(CON)
12. Marijuana is regarded to be a "mind opener", it can help people broaden their outlook and think creatively.  (PRO)

 The pros and cons are about even. However, if you were to make the same type of list about alcohol and cigarettes, it would be as long or longer and they're legal. Marijuana is not even close to as addictive as alcohol and cigarettes are either.

But I digress...

Next, lets take a look at the financial, economical and criminal sides of legalizing marijuana. The reason we will be looking at all three of these together is that they go hand in hand as you will see. There are many financial reasons for legalizing marijuana, both in what we could save and in what new revenues it could bring in. The economics of it are the jobs it could create. The criminal side is obvious, much less crime due to the fact that possessing marijuana would be legal and there would be no more need of the drug cartels because you would be able to walk into a store and buy it. That's really simplifying it. Let's get into it, shall we?

Whitehousedrugpolicy.gov reports that "According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, there were an estimated 1,663,582 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States during 2009. Of these drug abuse violation arrests, 6.0% were for the sale/manufacture of marijuana and 45.6% were for marijuana possession.". So according to our own government, there were 758,593 people arrested for marijuana possession and 99,813 people arrested for growing and/or selling marijuana just last year alone. Imagine the amount of money we spent on that.

Wait, we don't really need to speculate to much, because we have a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University. According to prohibitioncosts.org "The report has been endorsed by more than 530 distinguished economists, who have signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for 'an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition,' adding, 'We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods.'

Chief among the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University."

Dr. Miron's paper, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," concludes:**Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of legal regulation would save approximately $7.7 billion in government expenditures on prohibition enforcement -- $2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels"

Wow, OK, so just not having to pay for the enforcement of marijuana crimes would save $7.7 billion and those are 2005 numbers. I'm sure if they were putting this report together now it would be an even higher number.

Now, what does Dr. Miron and crew say about revenues? "**Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2.4 billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco."

Do you think America could use an extra $14 billion per year? Yes we can! The kicker is that these figures are conservative. The real numbers are probably much higher and if you add in the cost of housing, food and heath care of these prison inmates, the number becomes astronomical.

Let's talk now about how this all could effect the overall economy. For one thing, it would create jobs. If we packaged it like cigarettes, regulated it like alcohol, and allowed stores to get a cannabis license like we do with beer and wine licences now, all of those "criminals" who are growing marijuana could register as a grower for a company that packages/manufactures who in turn sell to the stores that would now be selling to the public. The best part is, that even with all that, the "Sin Tax" and the sales tax marijuana would be cheaper to purchase that it is now.

Another revenue source for the government would be the taxes on imports. "Companies" that want to import their "product" could do so just like the manufacturers of whiskey, etc., do now. All of their products would have to meet FDA standards and US Packaging standards to be allowed to be imported. Those big bad guys we fear might just have to become real, legitimate businessmen if they want to keep making money in America with their marijuana crops.

The criminal element that comes with illegal/illicit drugs, the pushers, the evil drug cartels, etc. will be gone. Just like during prohibition, when the crooks/mobsters ran the booze rackets, crime was high and there was a bad element surrounding alcohol sales and consumption. When they finally over turned prohibition and made alcohol legal again, the bad element moved on. We will have no need of the back ally bad guys or the drug kings from South America, we can just go to the store.

In closing, Benson B. Roe, MD, in his report Why We Should Legalize Drugs, says,"We should look at the fact that a relatively low budget public education campaign has resulted in a significant decline in US consumption of both alcohol and tobacco during a period when a costly and intensive campaign to curtail illegal drugs only resulted in their increased usage. Is there a lesson to be heeded?

Of course there is. Scrap the nonsense of trying to obliterate drugs and acknowledge their presence in our society as we have with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization would result in:

1. purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
3. obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
4. obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
5. savings in expensive enforcement and
6. significant tax revenues.

Effort and funds can then be directed to educating the public about the hazards of all drugs.

Can such a change of attitude happen? Probably not, because the huge illegal drug industry has mountains of money for a media blitz and for buying politicians to sing the songs of "evil" and "danger" which is certain to kill any legislative attempt at legalization. Perhaps it will take some time before reality can prevail, but meanwhile we should at least do more to expose deception and to disseminate the truth."

What do you think? What are some more of the positives and negatives? Should we legalize marijuana? Why or Why not?

TSA. When are they going to get a clue?

Do you remember back when, if you had to fly, it wasn't so bad? You showed up an hour before your flight, checked your bags, went through the metal detector and waited for your plane to load.

Then 9/11 happened. Understandably, the country went crazy with grief, anger and fear. We mourned our dead, raised the heroes up and decided we had to do something to make sure that kind of horror never happened again. Just over 2 months later, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created.

While on the surface, it seemed to be a good idea. The only problem is that they don't actually prevent anything but the most obvious attempts to bring weapons on an airplane. The government then had another brainstorm and came up with the No Fly List. The only problem with that is that innocent Americans ended up on the list simply because they had a name that was the same or similar to one that could possibly be an alias for a terrorist. Or because they pissed off someone in a position of power in the TSA. All in all it was a little more inconvenient, but not intolerantly so. And if it gave the public an illusion of safety(and really, that's all it did), what's the harm?

Skip ahead a few years. The "Underwear Bomber" tried to smuggle a bomb onto a plane and blow it up. He was able to get on the plane without a problem and thankfully when he tried to detonate the bomb, it failed.

So because of the "Underwear Bomber" we needed to do something to prevent that from happening again. Insert "Full Body Scanners" here. Radiation and violation of our right to privacy. But it will prevent another "Underwear Bomber", right? Wrong. The very people who created and sold these horrible machines to us have said that these monstrosities would not have prevented the "Underwear Bobmer".

So what are your choices? You can either subject yourself to the radiation and humiliation of the full body scanner, or you can be groped by TSA agents. And the topper, even if you choose to go through the scanner, you can still be pulled aside for a game of touchy feely by the TSA. There seems to be no ryme or reason to how they decide who gets their special attention. You have TSA agents feeling up 80 year old grandmas and little kids.

Here is a thought for you, how about doing a little profiling? I know it's not PC to say something like that, but if we truely want to do something to make us safe, profiling is really the only way to do it. The government has profilers whos jobs it is to profile criminals. They come up with a profile off the murderer or rapist or kidnapper, etc. How about we put some of them to work comming up with a few profiles of people who would be the most likely to try and blow up an airplane and have the TSA pull those folks out of line for their special touching. That way, we can go back to metal detectors and the occational pat downs, except for the people who fit the profile. Right now, the TSA is so affraid of being acussed of profiling that the people most likely to be terrorists walk right through the check points while Grandma Peterson is being groped.

When is the government going to get a clue and stop worrying about being PC and do what they really need to do. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What more can I say?

More importantly, what do you have to say about it?