If there’s a backlash underway against paternalism, you’d never know it from the crowded agenda of “nanny bills” under consideration in Sacramento, which include a ban on smoking in cars with kids present and proposed restrictions on keeping unspayed cats or dogs as pets. (Nancy Vogel, “Big mother is watching with new laws in mind”, Los Angeles Times, Mar. 8).
P.S. Regarding an Illinois version of the cigarettes-in-cars idea, Jacob Sullum has the good headline: “I Do Miss Mom, but At Least the Car is Smoke Free”.
One Comment
Personally, I think that increasingly larger television sets, booming home theater systems, and computers that are constantly on provide greater strain to our energy problems than incandescent lights do.
The idea of banning incandescent lights in favor of fluorescent lights brings to mind the water crusade in the ’90s. Back then, there was much talk about how wasteful our plumbing was, and how much more environmentally friendly it would be to sacrifice a little water to save our future. So, we ended up with toilets that don’t flush and low-flow showers that do not refresh.
I’ve since wondered whether any legislator has tried proposing a ban on bathtubs. After all, baths use considerably more water than showers do. If we truly want to save every drop of water we can, why even allow people the option of using water in such a wasteful way?