Tag Archives: Nanny State

More things that should scare the shit out of you

Michigan is going to require doctors report child patient BMIs to the state.

I’m sure nothing could go wrong with that.

Via Karen De Coster

Why are fish exempt?

As California slips into bankruptcy, the right honorable San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare (really) is considering a law that would ban the sale of pets.

San Francisco could soon have what is believed to be the country’s first ban on the sale of all pets except fish.

That includes dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter, or, as the commission calls them, companion animals.

“People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don’t know what they’re getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized,” said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. “That’s what we’d like to stop.”

San Francisco residents who want a pet would have to go to another city, adopt one from a shelter or rescue group, or find one through the classifieds.

I need to know, why are fish  exempt?  Is it because when you tire of a fish, you just flush it?

The commission plans to listen to testimony from pet store owners, among others, before voting. Among the items it will consider is the impact on small businesses, whether to allow the sale of feeder rodents for snakes and other reptiles, the sale of fish, owner education, penalties and rescue groups that host adoptions at pet stores.

So, they will exempt fish, and maybe rodents purchased to feed to your snake.  Apparently a death as food is different from a death at a shelter when no one wants to adopt you.
I’d ask the mice about that one.

MD Legislature does, well, nothing

Other than giving State Troopers the ability to raise a little more cash via fines.

In typical nanny state fashion, lawmakers crow about making us safer and protecting us from our own stupidity (using questionable data); and in reality, pass a law that does pretty much nothing other than raise the fine on people already getting tickets.

The bill makes a driver’s use of a hand-held cell phone while a vehicle is in motion a secondary offense, which means a police officer could not pull over a motorist unless the officer observes another violation.

There is an exception for using a hand-held device while stopped at a red light. Hands-free devices are not covered by the law. The fine for a first offense would be $40, with a $100 penalty for further violations.

So it is absolutely illegal to use your hand held phone while speeding, not using your blinker, or not wearing a seatbelt.   It’s perfectly legal, however, to sit at a red light on your phone instead of looking at the light to see when it turns green.

This is seriously just stupid.  Just a couple steps more, and we’ll not be allowed to use a cell phone at all, nor listen to music, nor eat.  For the children, of course.

[In case you are wondering, I’m against any law like this, ever.  I’m a grownup, and I can decide for myself.]

Told you so…

What? You didn’t think this was coming?

No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

Keep giving the government power, it keeps taking it.

Corrupt Power

Ohio limits an individuals wine purchases to 288 bottles a year.  On its face, an unreasonable limit and a gross overstepping of governmental power.   But why limits?

The bottom line is this: Government agents will not break down your door if you bring home that 25th case of Two Buck Chuck. But if you order more than 24 cases of wine in a year and have it delivered directly to your door from a winery, you could face a fine.

State legislators added the purchase limit in 2007 (and amended it in 2008 to clarify the size of the bottles) when they were trying to figure out how to regulate wineries shipping directly to Ohioans.

“This was to prevent massive shipments to individuals,” said Donniella Winchell, executive director of the Ohio Wine Producers Association. “The level was set to establish what would seem to be a reasonable amount for personal use.”

The Ohio Wine Producers Association?  I can’t think of anyone who benefits from such a stupid law, other than perhaps that group.  I wonder how much they spend on lobbying and in campaign contributions.

Don’t worry, kids

I ignore them, too

%d bloggers like this: