xrayzebra
06-14-2006, 10:35 AM
A good read on what lies ahead.
The slippery slope
By Walter E. Williams
Jun 14, 2006
Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.
In the early stages of the anti-tobacco campaign, there were calls for "reasonable" measures such as non-smoking sections on airplanes and health warnings on cigarette packs. In the 1970s, no one would have ever believed such measures would have evolved into today's level of attack on smokers, which includes confiscatory cigarette taxes and bans on outdoor smoking.
The door was opened, and the zealots took over. Much of the attack was justified by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondhand smoke study that used statistical techniques, if used by an academic researcher, would lead to condemnation if not expulsion. Let's say that you support the attack on smokers. Are you ready for the next round of tyranny using tactics so successful for the anti-tobacco zealots?
According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.
Right now, the FDA doesn't have the authority to require restaurants to label the number of calories, set portion sizes on menus or prohibit allowing customers from taking home a doggie bag. That's for right now, but recall that cigarette warning labels were the anti-tobacco zealots' first steps. There are zealots like the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest who've for a long time attacked Chinese and Mexican restaurants for serving customers too much food. They also say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." They've called for caffeine warning labels, and they don't stop there. The Center's director said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses and meat." Visions of higher taxes are music to politicians' ears.
How many Americans would like to go to a restaurant and have the waiter tell you, based on calories, what you might have for dinner? How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? What about a Burger King cashier refusing to sell french fries to overweight people? You say, "Williams, that's preposterous! It would never come to that."
I'm betting that would have been the same response during the 1970s had someone said the day would come when cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., and Friendship Heights, Md., would write ordinances banning outdoor smoking. Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear reasonable. Revealing their complete agenda from the start would encounter too much resistance.
Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/06/14/200953.html
================================================== =======
And another columnist asserts his views. Like he knows what's best
for everyone.
Ken Rodriguez: Another case for helmet law: Look at the face of an NFL star
Web Posted: 06/14/2006 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
Motorcycle enthusiasts of Texas, you've got a new poster boy for helmetless riding.
Check out the handsome mug of Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger: Broken nose. Broken jaw. Two missing teeth. Plus so many fractures it took surgeons seven hours to repair the damage.
Lucky guy. He could be dead.
He could be like Nicholas Richards, once a UTSA senior who dreamed of flying fighter planes.
Speeding along McCullough Avenue in 2003, Richards struck a curb in Olmos Park, hit a sign and died at the scene.
He was 24. Coincidentally, that's the age of the Steelers' quarterback
There are lots of Ben Roethlisbergers out there — young, daring, invincible-feeling riders who wrap themselves in a web of delusion.
“I'm not really a risk-taker,” Roethlisberger said in 2005 when asked about riding without a helmet.
That comment ranks up there with this one: Helmet laws don't save lives.
In 1997, during a moment of legislative insanity, lawmakers repealed the state's mandatory helmet law. Ever since, motorcycle fatalities have soared.
In 1996, there were 115 motorcycle fatalities in Texas. According to the Department of Public Safety, 10 percent of the victims were not wearing helmets.
In 1998, the year after the helmet law was repealed, there were 152 fatalities. Fifty-three percent were not helmeted.
The latest figures from DPS are from 2001: 229 fatalities, 67 percent not helmeted.
Notice a trend?
Defiant, I-wanna-be-free motorcyclists instead notice this: A huge surge in ridership is crowding our roads. Of course there are more fatalities.
What the motorcycle lobby ignores is common sense. If you're thrown from a bike and your head hits the street, you've got a better chance of escaping injury — and death — with a helmet than without one.
For those who need statistics to support the obvious, consider the following:
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded that 670 motorcycle fatalities in 2004 could have been prevented if helmets had been worn.
The NHTSA estimates that helmets reduce the likelihood of fatalities by 37 percent.
A Scripps Howard study of 2004 data showed that nine of the 10 states with the worst motorcycle death rates do not have mandatory helmet laws.
A Scripps Howard study showed that motorcycle fatalities “quickly went up” in six states that have relaxed their helmet laws since 1997.
My father never let me ride a motorcycle. He wouldn't let me ride a mini-bike. “Too dangerous,” he said.
One helmetless friend underscored his point, crashing a mini-bike into a fence post and knocking out her front teeth.
Then there was my cousin, who crashed his motorcycle and broke a leg.
When he got home, he showed me the plastic shield on his motorcycle helmet. It was scratched, banged, all marked up.
“Imagine what would have happened,” he said, “if I hadn't been wearing this.”
I imagine he might have wound up like Ben Roethlisberger. Or worse.
Roethlisberger enjoyed the rush of cruising on his black 2005 Suzuki Hayabusa — known as the world's fastest bike for legal street riding.
At 23, he led the Steelers to a Super Bowl triumph. At 24, he lies in a Pittsburgh hospital, his face a mess.
Helmet-loathing motorcyclists will say Roethlisberger was merely enjoying personal freedom. There's no helmet law in Pennsylvania.
When my wife was a little girl, her father went to the Bahamas to enjoy a little freedom.
He climbed on a motorcycle, revved the engine and sped off without a helmet.
When my wife was 12 years old, she and her two siblings lost their daddy.
Freedom? Lawmakers extol that virtue on the floor of an emotionless chamber. But I'd like to see them explain it to a child with a broken heart.
News Researcher Kevin Frazzini contributed to this column. To contact Ken Rodriguez, call (210) 250-3369 or e-mail [email protected]. His column appears on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/krodriguez/stories/MYSA061
================================================== ======
Don't you just love the last sentence in this column. "emotionless
chamber". And "explain it to a child with a broken heart."
Someone hand me a hankie.
The slippery slope
By Walter E. Williams
Jun 14, 2006
Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.
In the early stages of the anti-tobacco campaign, there were calls for "reasonable" measures such as non-smoking sections on airplanes and health warnings on cigarette packs. In the 1970s, no one would have ever believed such measures would have evolved into today's level of attack on smokers, which includes confiscatory cigarette taxes and bans on outdoor smoking.
The door was opened, and the zealots took over. Much of the attack was justified by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondhand smoke study that used statistical techniques, if used by an academic researcher, would lead to condemnation if not expulsion. Let's say that you support the attack on smokers. Are you ready for the next round of tyranny using tactics so successful for the anti-tobacco zealots?
According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.
Right now, the FDA doesn't have the authority to require restaurants to label the number of calories, set portion sizes on menus or prohibit allowing customers from taking home a doggie bag. That's for right now, but recall that cigarette warning labels were the anti-tobacco zealots' first steps. There are zealots like the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest who've for a long time attacked Chinese and Mexican restaurants for serving customers too much food. They also say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." They've called for caffeine warning labels, and they don't stop there. The Center's director said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses and meat." Visions of higher taxes are music to politicians' ears.
How many Americans would like to go to a restaurant and have the waiter tell you, based on calories, what you might have for dinner? How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? What about a Burger King cashier refusing to sell french fries to overweight people? You say, "Williams, that's preposterous! It would never come to that."
I'm betting that would have been the same response during the 1970s had someone said the day would come when cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., and Friendship Heights, Md., would write ordinances banning outdoor smoking. Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear reasonable. Revealing their complete agenda from the start would encounter too much resistance.
Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/06/14/200953.html
================================================== =======
And another columnist asserts his views. Like he knows what's best
for everyone.
Ken Rodriguez: Another case for helmet law: Look at the face of an NFL star
Web Posted: 06/14/2006 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
Motorcycle enthusiasts of Texas, you've got a new poster boy for helmetless riding.
Check out the handsome mug of Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger: Broken nose. Broken jaw. Two missing teeth. Plus so many fractures it took surgeons seven hours to repair the damage.
Lucky guy. He could be dead.
He could be like Nicholas Richards, once a UTSA senior who dreamed of flying fighter planes.
Speeding along McCullough Avenue in 2003, Richards struck a curb in Olmos Park, hit a sign and died at the scene.
He was 24. Coincidentally, that's the age of the Steelers' quarterback
There are lots of Ben Roethlisbergers out there — young, daring, invincible-feeling riders who wrap themselves in a web of delusion.
“I'm not really a risk-taker,” Roethlisberger said in 2005 when asked about riding without a helmet.
That comment ranks up there with this one: Helmet laws don't save lives.
In 1997, during a moment of legislative insanity, lawmakers repealed the state's mandatory helmet law. Ever since, motorcycle fatalities have soared.
In 1996, there were 115 motorcycle fatalities in Texas. According to the Department of Public Safety, 10 percent of the victims were not wearing helmets.
In 1998, the year after the helmet law was repealed, there were 152 fatalities. Fifty-three percent were not helmeted.
The latest figures from DPS are from 2001: 229 fatalities, 67 percent not helmeted.
Notice a trend?
Defiant, I-wanna-be-free motorcyclists instead notice this: A huge surge in ridership is crowding our roads. Of course there are more fatalities.
What the motorcycle lobby ignores is common sense. If you're thrown from a bike and your head hits the street, you've got a better chance of escaping injury — and death — with a helmet than without one.
For those who need statistics to support the obvious, consider the following:
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded that 670 motorcycle fatalities in 2004 could have been prevented if helmets had been worn.
The NHTSA estimates that helmets reduce the likelihood of fatalities by 37 percent.
A Scripps Howard study of 2004 data showed that nine of the 10 states with the worst motorcycle death rates do not have mandatory helmet laws.
A Scripps Howard study showed that motorcycle fatalities “quickly went up” in six states that have relaxed their helmet laws since 1997.
My father never let me ride a motorcycle. He wouldn't let me ride a mini-bike. “Too dangerous,” he said.
One helmetless friend underscored his point, crashing a mini-bike into a fence post and knocking out her front teeth.
Then there was my cousin, who crashed his motorcycle and broke a leg.
When he got home, he showed me the plastic shield on his motorcycle helmet. It was scratched, banged, all marked up.
“Imagine what would have happened,” he said, “if I hadn't been wearing this.”
I imagine he might have wound up like Ben Roethlisberger. Or worse.
Roethlisberger enjoyed the rush of cruising on his black 2005 Suzuki Hayabusa — known as the world's fastest bike for legal street riding.
At 23, he led the Steelers to a Super Bowl triumph. At 24, he lies in a Pittsburgh hospital, his face a mess.
Helmet-loathing motorcyclists will say Roethlisberger was merely enjoying personal freedom. There's no helmet law in Pennsylvania.
When my wife was a little girl, her father went to the Bahamas to enjoy a little freedom.
He climbed on a motorcycle, revved the engine and sped off without a helmet.
When my wife was 12 years old, she and her two siblings lost their daddy.
Freedom? Lawmakers extol that virtue on the floor of an emotionless chamber. But I'd like to see them explain it to a child with a broken heart.
News Researcher Kevin Frazzini contributed to this column. To contact Ken Rodriguez, call (210) 250-3369 or e-mail [email protected]. His column appears on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/krodriguez/stories/MYSA061
================================================== ======
Don't you just love the last sentence in this column. "emotionless
chamber". And "explain it to a child with a broken heart."
Someone hand me a hankie.