The other day the Chicago Tribune documented a longstanding campaign (see Friday link) to get government bodies to adopt standards requiring flameproofing of furniture upholstery, carpets and other household materials. Turns out key actors in that campaign were companies that make the chemicals used in flameproofing, which thereby guaranteed themselves a giant market for their products, as well as cigarette companies that worried that they would face regulatory and legal pressure over fires caused by careless smoking and decided to pursue a strategy of turning the issue into someone else’s problem.
Unfortunately, according to the Tribune series, the supposedly flameproof furnishings 1) aren’t necessarily very good at reducing fire risk and 2) are doused with chemicals that one might not want rubbing off on one’s family and pets. That’s aside from the regulations’ obvious cost in making furnishings more expensive and narrowing consumer choice by excluding producers unable or unwilling to use the chemical treatments. Whether or not you accept the series’ interpretation in all respects — the authors tend to taken an alarmist line, for example, on the chemicals’ environmental dangers — it’s useful as reminder #83,951 that government regulation often is driven by motives quite different from those advertised, and in particular by business lobbies whose interest is frequently squarely opposed to laissez-faire.
On Sunday, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, criticized lately in this space for his views on supposed Big Beer responsibility for Indian reservation alcoholism, addressed the flameproofing story in his column. After reciting the controversy — laying a particular emphasis on chemical alarmism, long a specialty of his — Kristof concludes as follows:
This campaign season, you’ll hear fervent denunciations of “burdensome government regulation.” When you do, think of the other side of the story: your home is filled with toxic flame retardants that serve no higher purpose than enriching three companies. The lesson is that we need not only safer couches but also a political system less distorted by toxic money.
Which affords James Taranto of the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” this response:
The guy is so blinded by ideology that he fails to notice he has just given an example of burdensome government regulation.
Tagged as:
environment,
expert witnesses,
fires,
lobbyists,
New York Times,
safety
Even if they’re operating heavy machinery, and even if the drugs are of the type that make users drowsy, twitchy or agitated. It’s all part of the ban on employee medical inquiries under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Eighth Circuit has backed up the agency’s position that questions do not become permissible until the employer has in hand objective evidence of impairment, the sort you can take to a judge. Evidence like, you know, there having been a serious accident. I explain at Cato at Liberty.
Tagged as:
disabled rights,
EEOC,
safety
A group called the National Inhalant Prevention Coalition, with support from federal agencies SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) and NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), held a press conference yesterday to promote wider restrictions on the sale and use of helium, the familiar balloon-filling gas that as most people know will make one’s voice squeaky if inhaled. Although helium has low toxicity, it can pose dangers to the user, especially when inhaled directly from a pressurized container, the dangers “mostly related to the mechanical damage of introducing a highly compressed gas into your lungs,” as a doctor put it in a 1997 publication from NIPC (“Helium: Not a Laughing Matter”). The Washington Times reports on the coalition’s demands and quotes me for balance: “Small risk is worth knowing about, but it’s not worth rearranging our whole lives around.” It’s one thing to make sure kids know it’s unacceptably dangerous to breathe gases from pressurized containers, and another to make it unlawful for responsible 17-year-olds to pick up the balloon supplies for the family wedding.
P.S. Several readers wrote to say that because of current federal policy helium winds up artificially underpriced, encouraging its use for frivolous purposes; more on that here.
Tagged as:
illegal drugs,
safety
- Popehat’s Ken to the rescue after Maine lawyer/lawmaker assists naturopath in bullying critical blogger [Popehat]
- Newt’s “patriotism made me stray” among highlights of the year in blame-shifting [Jacob Sullum]
- Nifong sidekick, now in a spot of legal bother himself, hits back with lawsuit [K C Johnson, Durham in Wonderland]
- Shareholder action: “Delaware approves $285 Million in Plaintiffs’ Lawyers’ Fees” [Bainbridge, WSJ Deal Journal, WSJ Law Blog]
- “Even one death is too many — WE MUST BAN NETI POTS!” [NYDN via Christopher Tozzo]
- Debatable premise of Joe Nocera analysis on Stephen Glass case: bar admission turn-down = “rest of his life … destroyed” [NYT, Howard Wasserman/Prawfs, earlier]
- Who says Connecticut never reforms liability? Towns won protection last year from some recreation-land tort exposure [CFPA, earlier here, here]
Tagged as:
bar associations,
bloggers and the law,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
Duke lacrosse,
recreation,
safety
As Washington launches a new crusade against “cognitive distraction” behind the wheel, it no longer seems to matter whether your eyes and hands are in correct driving position. I explain in a new Cato post.
More: Glenn Reynolds (NTSB “distracted” by its own pre-existing agenda and oversimplifying causes of Missouri accident) and more, Chapman, Marc Scribner/CEI (even bans on texting don’t seem to have worked as intended), Amy Alkon, (two years back) Radley Balko, and Ira Stoll (per IIHS, quoted on NPR, “states with cellphone bans have seen no real decrease in accident rates”). And: drivers’ use of portable GPS and MP3 devices to be included in contemplated ban? [NMA]
Tagged as:
cellphones,
safety,
traffic laws
“Alarm fatigue” is said to be a growing peril in hospitals as “nurses become so desensitized to the constant beeping that they don’t hear or ignore important warnings that a patient’s condition might be worsening.” [Liz Kowalczyk, Boston Globe]
Tagged as:
hospitals,
safety
Because Something Might Go Wrong, though there seems a shortage of evidence that much actually has been going wrong for youthful travelers on the railroad. If the new policy prevents youngsters from spending holidays or weekends with their loved ones, does that also count as Something Going Wrong? [Lenore Skenazy/WSJ, Hans Bader, CEI; related on airline policies]
Tagged as:
railroads,
safety
Subversive thoughts from Mike Rowe of the Discovery Channel hit “Dirty Jobs“. Clearly a man who has no future in Senate-confirmable appointments… [Link fixed now, thanks commenter C.S.]
Tagged as:
OSHA,
safety
“Kite flying, schoolyard games and sports day sack races have all been hit by an ‘epidemic’ of health and safety excuses, which should be challenged by the public, the Government said.” [Independent] Plus: UK school deems leather balls too dangerous for youngsters, directs use of sponge balls instead [BBC]
Tagged as:
recreation,
safety,
schools,
United Kingdom
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., an interstate trucking company, doesn’t want to put drivers with a history of drinking problems behind the wheel, and has accordingly been sued by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), under which alcoholism is considered a protected condition. I’ve got details in a new post at Cato at Liberty (& Bader/CEI, Lachlan Markay/Heritage, Fox News).
Tagged as:
alcohol,
disabled rights,
safety
The Women’s Institute in Shepperton, Middlesex, England, volunteered to tend the flowers around a war memorial on a traffic roundabout when budget cuts threatened elimination of the landscaping. “They were told by councillors that it would be too dangerous” to cross the road to the roundabout, although pedestrians traverse the same path in getting from one street to another. Telegraph]
Tagged as:
safety,
United Kingdom
- Correct result, yet potential for mischief in latest SCOTUS climate ruling [Ilya Shapiro/Cato, my earlier take]
- Wouldn’t even want to guess: how the Howard Stern show handles sexual harassment training [Hyman]
- Philadelphia: $21 million award against emergency room handling noncompliant patient [Kennerly]
- Antitrust assault on Google seems geared to protect competitors more than consumers [Josh Wright]
- “They knew there was a risk!” Curb your indignation please [Coyote]
- Theme issue of Reason magazine on failures of criminal justice system is now online;
- “Why Your New Car Doesn’t Have a Spare Tire” [Sam Kazman, WSJ]
Tagged as:
antitrust,
autos,
broadcasters,
climate change,
crime and punishment,
emergency medicine,
global warming,
Google,
harassment law,
Philadelphia,
safety
“There are thousands of door-related accidents each year. The Consumer Product Safety Commission should do its bit by requiring that a professionally trained doorman open and shut all doors for door-users. That would create millions of jobs …” [Iain Murray, CEI]
Tagged as:
humor,
safety
Per some in Australia, it may be too dangerous an activity: “‘The mayor said they would like to issue us a permit but can’t because it raises health and safety issues, in case somebody fell over a child on the footpath or into the street,’ [a cafe owner] said.” [Free-Range Kids]
Tagged as:
Australia,
roads and streets,
safety
