Feb. 15, 2007 - 17:28 MST

NARROWING DOWN

Although I personally suffer the slings of things I did in the past, it does seem to me that we are in danger of being "overprotected" by various government and special interest groups.

There are a couple of articles in this morning's The Rocky Mountain News, one on the editorial page and one in the news section. I will quote in full the editorial here:

A NEEDLESS DISTRACTION FOR POLICE

"You probably shouldn't smoke with your kids in the car. In fact you probably shouldn't smoke at all. But that doesn't mean government should turn unhealthy habits into punishable offenses."

"Unhappily, that notion is beyond the grasp of at least one member of the Aurora City Council who is proposing an ordinance that would establish a $50 fine for anyone smoking who has a minor child in the vehicle. It would be a primary offense meaning police could pull that person over for no other reason than the smoke."

"The suggestion comes, not surprisingly, from Bob "Penny Per Pop" FitzGerald. He made headlines last year suggesting that the city tax cans and bottles of high-fructose beverages in order to cut down on obesity. Oh, and to raixse $1.8 million in revenues."

"The proposal never made it into law, fortunately. The soft-drink industry didn't like it and besides, it would have been a bureaucratic nightmare. Undeterred, FitzGerald is back with another ordinance that would turn cops into the Health Police.

"The prognosis, fortunately, isn't good. "This is not a groundswell for our council," said Mayor Ed Tauer. "It's irresponsible to smoke with kids in the car, but that doesn't mean that's what we should be using our police resources for."

"Besides, most people who smoke with their kids in the car also smoke with them present at home. How would the Health Police solve that one ?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And then there is another article today by April M. Washington of that paper quoted in full here:

TOUGHER SEAT-BELT LAW WINS COMMITTEEE OK

Police could stop drivers for failing to buckle up

"Colorado drivers could be stopped and given a $25 ticket solely for failing to buckle up under a bill passed by a Senate committee Wednesday on a party line vote, despite worries of abuse."

"This bill is simple. It will save lives," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Peter Groff D-Denver. It would save money. It's the right thing to do.."

"Supporters testified that a tougher seat-belt law would save 70 lives annually."

Of the 444 people in Colorado who died in traffic accidents in 2005, 253 did not wear seat belts. About two-thirds of the 79 teesn-age victims did not use seat belts," said the Colorado State Patrol."

"But several lawmakers argued the measure would trample on residents' personal freedoms and civil rights."

"Sen. Ron May, R-Colorado Springs, said the measure would give cash-strapped cities and towns an excuse to set up enforcement traps."

"I have a concern that some jurisdictions will use it to set up traffic stops just to check seat belts," he said. "Local governments could use that for a revenue stream."

Senate Bill 151, also sponsored by Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, creates a primary seat-belt law."

"Under the bill, drivers who aren't buckled up could be pulled over and ticketed by police. currently, they can only be ticketed if they are stopped for another traffic infraction."

" In addition, the bill would require children 8 and younger to use a safety seat. Existing law requires safety seats for children up to age 4."

" But police could not pull over a driver soley because of a child-seat infraction."

"The Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on a 3-2 party line vote, advanced the measure to the full Senate."

"Democrats argued that drivers who fail to buckle up are infringing on rights of taxpayers who pay the cost in increased insurance premiums and rising Medicaid costs."

"If you want the option of not wearing a seat belt, you ought to have the option to pay the additional costs being put on the backs of taxpayrs and residents for your stupidity ," said Sen. Chris Romer D-Denver."

"Lawmakers for three straight years have tried to pass a tougher seat-belt law, but it has failed by the slimmest of margins after dramatic floor fights."

"The measure is expected to sail through this year because Democrats hold more seats."

"The Colorado State Patrol and the Colorado Department of Transportation are pushing the measure, saying that it would bring the state $14 million in one-time federal grants for transportation projects and safety seat campaigns."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is what is going on in my state, and from what I read things similar to these are going on in all our states. Morality Police, Health Police and on down the road Thought Police perhaps.

I have no quibble with the fact that driving without a seat belt is very stupid, dangerous and often fatal to the non-wearer and fatal to innocents involved in the tragedy coming from an accident caused by a non-seat-belt wearer. However, unless auto manufacturers engineer and install lights on the roofs of cars which will indicate that all seats occupied have sealt belts engaged and retrofit them, I can see no sensible way that a cop can, from his seat in his patrol car see sufficiently into another car and determine whether seat belts are being worn. That and the danger of the officer becoming involved in an accident because his attention was diverted in trying to see if Joe Public has his seat belt on. So in essence a cop would have to stop a car and physically check seat belts, and really - - how hard would it be for folks to quickly hook up their seat belts berfore the cop can check ?

And of course as soon as those little indicator lights are put on cars, there will be little cheat chips or whatever to indicate the seat belt is engaged even though they are not acutally in use.

And thinking of the smoking bit, now that would add a load on the cops, checking every car they see to determine if: A - The driver is smoking. B - Determining if any of the passengers are minor children. All without getting involved in an accident himself while persuing his duties.

Lessee now, radar-vision for seat belts, minor children in car also requiring quick instant radar-vision. Surely as a state we can add a few more things for the cops to check on above and beyond speeding, drunk driving and instances of road rage.

What is that the old bartenders in the westerns used to say, "Choose your poison pardner." As human beings we seem to feel that we can do as we please without someone breathing down our neck constantly. We overeat and get fat or have heart attacks and no one will convice a person to not overeat no matter what threats are advanced. As long as we are not obiviously under the influence of liqor, hell, it's legal to drink booze. Like cigarettes, booze is highly addictive, has its own string of diseases and ailments - mental and physical -- but it is legal. And for many of us alcohol is used sensibly with no ill effects -- but an alcoholic overeater, what then ?

I smoked for many years, rolled my own until the little rolling machines became "Drug Parephernalia" and couldn't be found easily. Then I went to generics. I remember pitching a fit when a grocery clerk tried to charge me more than the $8.65 for my carton of cigarettes. Manager was brought on the scene and stated the new price higher than the $8.65. I said, "turn around and look at your cigarette section and read the price for this carton of cigarettes (which said $8.65), that was the last carton sold for $8.65 there.

Along about the time that I became an inadvertant non-smoker the price of cigarettes skyrocketed.

Now some people hooked on tobacco give up other things such as groceries, rent, medicine and so forth in able to support their habit, contracted when they were a lot younger and tobacco much cheaper.

Sort of wandering around here, but thinking about things, seems as if society at large feels that habits can be controlled by law, price and browbeating. Not leaving things up to the individual. And then there is the obvious inequity of laws and prices between tobacco and alcohol. Only if a person has overconsumed alcohol and becomes an obvious danger to life and limb of others can it be considered illegal. But what about the dude who has oversmoked for years, dropping dead at the wheel of a car from a heart attack ? Ya gonna give him a ticket ?

There is one thing that a cop can easily see, and that is, if a cell phone is in use by the driver, which to my mind is a definite threat to others lives and limbs. But legislation trying to correct that has died an ignoble death.

Will they, eventually, set up roadside check stations having scientific gear to determine if a person who is driving is suffering sleep deprivation ?

Seems as if anymore most personal freedom is endangered. Bad habits kill, each of us chooses our own poison and barring killing someone else off, that poison will eventually do us in.

Maybe we ought to lobby our legislators to pass laws against passing laws. Otherwise it would seem our personal freedoms and civil rights are on a course that is NARROWING DOWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Blog