A pet peeve of mine is too much government. My wife tires of me babbling about how we have too much government in our lives — too many regulations, too many things needing “permits” (like we have to ask permission to do so many things on our own land), too much absurdity just for the sake of a nanny-nation. New England is infamous for this micro-management style of government (ironically so, given that this is where the nation was born to free its people of tyranny of the government).
Think about it. For centuries, homes in Europe and the early U.S. were built using solid and stable foundations made only of stone and mortar. And while this keeps most of the historical homes stable and safe, every local government now has building codes that require a foundation made of concrete or concrete blocks. Stones? Bah! While they may have been sufficient for our forefathers and most New England homes, it’s not good enough for us!
This absurdity can be taken to extremes that simply fail to make any sense at all.
Take smoking, for instance. Everyone knows it kills you, but so does over-eating, over-drinking, and mountain-climbing. Yet while McDonald’s are on every street corner and caffeine remains a legal substance, smoking is somehow singled out as a particular evil that deserves our unique public attention (and stamping out thereof).
Now, I have to say, ever since smoking bans in restaurants and bars have been instituted here in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, I have greatly enjoyed dining out and going out for drinks far more than I would have a decade ago. But there’s a point where you reach significantly diminishing returns with such bans and just start banning things for the sake of banning them.
Take, for instance, Boston’s decision to ban — in 10 years’ time — its remaining six cigar bars and five hookah lounges:
The restrictions give Boston among the most stringent antismoking laws in the United States and place it at the vanguard of widening campaigns to reduce cigarette smoking, especially among young people and the poor.
Apparently Boston’s governmental authorities can see into the future and predict that in 10 years’ time, cigars and public smoking of all sorts would just be unimaginable. All of this focus just for 11 existing, small establishments (no new establishments can be approved). The justification?
“Cigarettes are bad, they’re harmful to people, there’s a need for us to change the social norms around cigarettes,” said commission member Harold Cox, an associate dean at the Boston University School of Public Health. “Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people.”
Cigarettes are “bad”?!? Wow, thanks for the news flash Harold Cox. But cigar bars and hookah lounges are where people go to smoke cigars or to take long drags on flavored tobacco from a communal water pipe. And while these actions may be bad for a person’s health (although there’s little research to suggest that smoking a single cigar once a week or once a month has any deleterious effects on a person’s health), such an action does not target young people and the poor.
It instead targets ordinary people who understand the risks of inhaling smoke or sucking on a cigar. And targets them only because of an activity that is currently on the “outs” of society (much like alcohol was in the early 1930s). These people aren’t at risk for lung cancer (you don’t even inhale cigar smoke!), and certainly are a lesser burden to society than the thousands of Bostonians who spend their evenings drinking at a bar and then attempting to drive home.
Government is generally good, when kept to common-sensical regulations and sound public policy. But when government takes a good cause, and then pushes that cause into every nook and cranny of everyday society, it has the potential of simply going too far for no logical reason. So while Massachusetts recently decriminalized marijuana possession, it will make criminals of these eleven small businesses for no particular public health justification.
Read the full article: Boston bans cigarette sales in drug stores but delays cigar bar closings
13 comments
Why is this political rant being published on World of Psychology?
And the reason old stone foundation homes in New England seem so wonderful is probably because only the ones built by wealthy families and maintained survived into the present.
I do believe that we are reaching the point where we have too much government intruding into our personal lives. I also believe that if someone wants to eat themselves to death, that is their choice.
However, I support banning smoking in public places such as buses, planes, airports, grocery stores and such; where people who do not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke are protected from that exposure. I also think that discretionary places such as resturants and bars should be allowed smoking as long as it is made clear at the entrance that smoking is allowed inside, so that others can make the choice of going inside or not.
I know that would complicate legislation of smoking bans, but it would be a nice comprimise. I for one enjoy being able to go to public places and not be forced to breath other people’s smoke.
I think there may be a serious backlash to these anti-smoking campaigns and bans. The more mysterious and unattainable cigarettes and tobacco are made by the government the more young adults and teens are likely to try them. In other words by making tobacco products bad or taboo they are automatically considered cool. They should not bring this much attention to cigarettes: doing so makes them a dangerous novelty.
Nice to see traditional stone masonry being mentioned and compared to modern times. I am a 6th generation stone mason and teach traditional skills in restoration of older buildings in the USA. Authenticity is not recognised as important factor – faster – easier is what I fight in my training of modern masons. Speed, I want it now! — mentality is delivering a society that is out of control – and the quality level of Americas workmanship standards reflects this pressure.
Thanks for standing up!
http://www.usheritage.com
I’m 53 years old, which is why I remember the not-so-distant past when I couldn’t breathe in public places. I hate hate hate hate hate cigarette and other forms of smoking. But I do think they should be allowed in the privacy of a home/smoking establishment where the smoking isn’t inflicted on innocents. To me, the world is a much better place without public smoking. Hey, I can now even breathe in a bowling alley in Colorado (well, I could if I weren’t agoraphobic and therefore couldn’t go to a bowling alley).
This letter, from a non-smoker, refers to all anti-smoking bans.
*An open letter that was emailed to all (103) Ontario, Canada political MPP’s in early May, 2008. No replies!
Betrayal, Anti-Smoking Message is Like Fascism that Preys Upon Our Children
We must not look within ourselves. We may discover what we are becoming!
Moral judgement is the mirror, mirror, on the wall image, always lurking in our mind, like an alter-conscience, prepared to reveal the frightening truth, in our soul, such as the undeserved vengefulness, at any cost, wielded against smokers. Even betrayal, of the next generation, becomes palatable within self-betrayal.
This remorseless mental/emotional preying upon, our precious children, recklessly poisons their mind and spirit, under the government’s pernicious slogan “health and safety.”
By supporting anti-smoking, we endorse and promote Fascism, an historically proven scurvy upon humanity!
The inevitable shame, of our past actions, can still be averted, by rescinding this government agenda!
The most”dangerous smoke” comes not from cigarettes, instead from the government smoke screen to obscure from view, that the real issue is Capitalism and science versus Fascism and politicized environmentalism, not ‘health and safety.’
Science and politicized environmentalism are colliding worlds, science being the height of pursuing truth, politicized environmentalism the depth of distorting truth. Anti-smoking is part of politicized environmentalism and the attempted foundation of Fascism!
Do we therefore side with Capitalism, science, Second World War troops and our allies– honour; or do we side with Fascism, politicized environmentalism, our enemies of the Second World War– disgrace? Thus far we blindly follow our enemies and disgrace!
From the mouth of Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, “It doesn’t matter what is true; it only matters what people believe is true…..You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine.” We deserve truth, not half-truths and propaganda!
For any high ranking government official that lack this critical knowledge, they are in their office under false pretenses. They are unprepared to govern. Their present course of anti-smoking legislations is the proof of that statement.
In the words of Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, “I was acutely conscious of the pressure to ‘adapt’ and to absorb the values of the ‘tribe’—family, community and culture. It seemed to me that what was asked was the surrender of my judgement and also my conviction that my life and what I made of it was of the highest possible value. I saw my contemporaries surrendering and losing their fire. Why was growing up equated with giving up?”
Philosopher/Novelist Ayn Rand wrote, “If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality–that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country’s interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea’s truth or falsehood–that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided it is held by a sufficient number of people–that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority–in short, gang rule and mob rule–if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in–and camouflaged by–the notion of ‘Government by Consensus.”
‘Rule by Consensus,’ (Rule by health care pressure group) is todays’ anti-ideology in government. Appeasement of these power-lusting, health care pressure groups is of higher priority than our children and all other tax payers, voters, and citizens. The permeating emotion from ‘Rule by Consensus’ is demoralizing, debilitating fear instead of an optimistic view of the future.
Note this recent example, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn’t entertain a ban (smoking in cars with children) because it amounts to “too much intrusion into people’s private lives.” The logical interpretation of this statement is that the entire anti-smoking movement eliminates smoker’s individual rights, and has always been an intrusion into a smoker’s family dynamic. Now, the Ontario government is prepared, in predictable flip-flop fashion, to enact such a ban.
In ignobility, many people have misaligned themself with politicized environmentalism, despite the fact that 1930’s, 1940’s, Germany used “politicized ecology and public health” to base its rationalizations. Are we predisposed to mistakenly mirror the historic footsteps of self-loathing mass destruction? No! Everyone has an individual mind and conscience, above party politics. Be true to them, follow your courage (truth) and dethrone your fear (fallacy). Rescind this government’s shameful anti-smoking agenda.
References:
Paul Watson – Environmental Overkill, (Whatever happened to common sense) – book
Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem – book
Ayn Rand – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal – book
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick
Government’s that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages.
The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, “Today, we live in the age of envy.”
I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930’s, 1940’s. Do you?
Exactly how can our government “create a healthier society for all” when they betray the smoker’s sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?
This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker’s to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government’s suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions.
Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person’s struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke.
Then why does government pathetically use smoker’s as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?
Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.
Hey man, as a Penn student studying American government and history, I have a thing or two to say to you.
Your comments are completely ridiculous, and completely out of context. Our present government was not established overnight, and was a result of experience and practical reasoning. I really urge you to read about US government before the Constitution, that were under the Articles of Confederation. The state and national governments of the time were very chaotic, and non-functioning. There was basically so many issues that couldn’t be resolved, and services that could not be provided. States were independent among a “league of friendship”. The framers of the Constitution set out to create a government that had checks and balances (unlike Britain). Their conundrum centered on liberty, and it was to create a government that was strong enough to hold order and preserve liberty, BUT WEAK ENOUGH TO PREVENT TYRANNY/DICTATORSHIP. There is just SO MUCH to say to you, but I am not willing to type up a book for you. I HIGHLY recommend that you read the Federalist Papers, especially No. 10 and No. 51. (there is a lot of insight regarding government as well as human nature, and how government can be made to work WITH human nature to function). Moreover, you need to take some courses on American Government.
And from comparative politics, although our republic democracy is not utopian, it is in fact the most supported form of government WORLD WIDE. That opinion is the result of history and experience, and TONS of research and communication. In fact, if my memory serves me right, 80% of the world’s countries favor democracy than any other form of government.
Your arguments oversimplify and basically ignore so much that you’re just ranting off like a fool. And I don’t mean to make you feel bad about yourself, but it is true. I would think that someone holding such a high degree would know that.
As per the smoking problem, it is a social problem. And a social problems are defined as problems that affect many people, and damage the environment. In this definition, I am not emphasizing that Boston wants to stop smoking mainly because it harms the environment, but because second hand smoke kills thousands of non-smokers every year. So while I personally couldn’t care less about what people do to their bodies, I, like politicians and citizens, have a deep concern about the many negative consequences to the innocent non-smoking people around them. And secondly, I care about the environment as well, so that is an added bonus for me.
And on a last note, if government did not exist, there would be disorder, namely anarchy. Words would not mean anything, and the wants of society would never be fulfilled. Politics is a lot about making TOUGH decisions, and require a lot of people to make those decisions. PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT ARE NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO STUDIED POLITICS, AND ARE NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE DISCONNECTED FROM TODAY’S KNOWLEDGE. People who work as a part of government, and for government are from ALL fields of study. Government is run BY THE PEOPLE, and it is our way to self-regulate ourselves. Without government, life for everyone would never be the same!
Note: That second post of mine is the better one (I added some more insight to the last paragraph).
Sorry about that.
All well and good, but perhaps you missed that part about cigar bars and hookah lounges being places for people to engage in a single, voluntary activity — smoking cigars or the hookah. There’s no “second hand smoke” argument for such a conscious decision.
There’s a time to worry about real public health issues, and then there’s a time where you just go over the edge because you have the authority (but not the rationale or logic) to do so. Cigarettes are a real public health issue. A handful of people, comparatively, who are smoking the occasional cigar or hookah for pure pleasure in a social environment is not going to make a penny’s worth of difference to public health, nor affect anyone’s health who doesn’t willingly expose themselves to these handful of places.
Just because government *can* do something doesn’t mean it should. Common sense should still be in play, and that’s clearly not the case here.
I agree with you most strongly! Too many laws Too much government. What is the witchunt on smoking and even more on smokeless tobacco that doesn’t hurt others. The government wants and big buisness wants its profit. Fine, leave it at that. I’m already am banned from some products. Is that freedom? Some want smoking bans in the outdoors, that makes sense no? Screw all you zealots and that part of government supporting you! If it doesn’t hurt you leave it alone!
oh and by the way doc, I seriously need to ask you a question. I have severe insomnia and have tried numerous benzodiazepines and antidepressants but nothing seems to work at all?? I am getting so frustrated with it because i will kind of start shaking with any kind of confrontation. Please help me.
Hey sorry i meant to say anxiety but i have severe insomnia as well but my doctors wont do anything?