Wednesday, April 12th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Kirkwood, Missouri, nanny state, politics, smoking
,
Kirkwood residents who think Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood’s proposed smoking ban will have no lasting economic effect better think again.
Restaurants in Ballwin, which in January banned smoking in public places, are suffering adverse economic effects, a survey by the chair of the Kirkwood Special Business District board has concluded.David McArthur, chairman of the Kirkwood Junction Special Business District Advisory Commission, said he visited seven restaurants along Manchester Road March 30 and conducted an impartial survey.
“Six of the seven reported losses in the bar of 35 to 50 percent,” McArthur told the Kirkwood City Council April 6. “The one exception, Mi Lupita, is a small restaurant with a six-seat bar area that likes the ban because it increased his non-smoking seating table capacity by five tables in the bar area. Restaurants like Longhorn Steakhouse reported bar losses of over 50 percent. No increase in restaurant sales and they now close an hour earlier every day. Also, one bar and two restaurants have closed since the ban.”
State and county-wide bans are bad enough, as they interfere with the right of a business owner to decide what legal activities are permissible on his property. Local bans like the one proposed for Kirkwood are just economic suicide, as smokers will just choose to go to a neighboring community that values freedom more highly. And it’s not like non-smokers are deprived of smoke-free environments - 16 of the 25 restaurants in the Kirkwood SBD are already smoke-free.
A city should like Kirkwood should be especially careful when considering business-killing ordinances. Kirkwood relies heavily on sales and gross receipts taxes; the General Fund receives no revenue from property taxes. In 2005, Kirkwood took in $4.1 million in sales tax revenue and $3.2 million in utility gross receipts tax revenue. General Fund expenditures were $15.9 million. Any business lost to the smoking ban would have a serious impact on sales and utility gross receipts tax revenue, and the Mayor is relying on an increase in the sales tax rate to fund some of his proposed $2 million in new spending.
Share This
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006,
by Fred (,
education, Illinois, nanny state, nutrition, politics
,
Committee blocks Illinois school junk food ban
An Illinois legislative committee voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to block the State Board of Education’s plan to bar junk food from elementary schools.The ban championed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich would prohibit the sale of soda, chips and candy in vending machines.
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules blocked it 10-1.
Good. Hopefully the ban will be killed entirely, and not just re-worked. Clearly, a diet composed entirely of candy bars and grape soda is unhealthy, but even sugary snacks are acceptable in moderation. Illinois is just caving to the food fascists at the CSPI and their kin.
Share This
Thursday, April 6th, 2006,
by Fred (,
nanny state, police, security, terrorism
,
I’m not sure which is scarier, this Daily Mail story about a man arrested for playing the wrong music:
Harraj Mann, 24, played the punk anthem London Calling and classic rock track Immigrant Song in a taxi before a flight to London.The lyrics to both tracks made the driver fear his passenger was a terrorist.
The words of the Clash track begin: “London calling to the faraway towns, now war is declared and battle come down.” And Led Zep’s Immigrant Song goes: “The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands, to fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!”Mr Mann, of Hartlepool, Teesside, had boarded the plane at Durham Tees Valley Airport when the flight to Heathrow was stopped and he was arrested by police.
He said he was told he was being questioned under the Terrorism Act and his choice of music had aroused suspicions.
Or the people defending the actions of the police. From the Daily Mail reader comments:
Fair enough! Only those who don’t know the lyrics can think otherwise!
- Lana Edwards, Zurich, Switzerland
The taxi driver was suspicious and tried to do the right thing, in notifying authorities. Lives have been lost with all these bombings.
- Marijane, Lady Lake, FL
Or these comments at the Wizbang post about this story:
I guess I am conservative enough that I would rather be safe than sorry. Maybe this incident is just the tip of the iceberg, maybe it is the isolated case that stands out. I know that our planes flying into buildings is a sign of a broken system. A guy spending several hours under questioning may make sense or not, I would need more facts to be sure.
But as I said before, if both the taxi driver and the police twitched on this guy and didn’t follow through before he did a terrorist act, that would be the real tragedy.
First, I give the taxi driver his due for being able to understand the lyrics. That is pretty impressive in itself.
Second, I do not think he is a jerk at all, much less deserving of eternal damnation for being suspicious of someone I presume is Arabic, listening to disturbing lyrics about waging war. Was he also in Muslim garb? The article doesn’t say. In today’s context the driver did exactly the right thing. Virtually no one except a Muslim terrorist is likely to take those lyrics literally, but they are alarming in light of recent events. For all the cab driver knew, the guy may have been on his way to wage Jihad. Better safe than sorry. Apparently the authorities agreed.
The man was questioned for three hours and probably had a background search. Boo hoo. Cry me a river.
Give me a break. Detaining someone for several hours because they listen to a 36 year old rock song? Defending the police that do such a thing because “better safe than sorry”? It’s wild goose chases like these that keep the authorities from catching actual Bad Guys. But at least that taxi driver can feel better because he made the police arrest a dirty muslim Led Zeppelin fan.
Share This
Thursday, March 30th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Ballwin, government, nanny state, smoking, St. Louis
,
Restaurant owners who have been harmed by the Ballwin smoking ban have banded together with other concerned citizens, vowing to defeat the re-election bids of Aldermen who voted for the ban
Opponents of a smoking ban are hoping to prevent the re-election of three aldermen who voted for the ban.Aldermen banned smoking in restaurants that don’t serve alcohol and other public places last year. On Jan. 2, the ban widened, and fires went out in ashtrays all over town in bars and restaurants serving alcohol.
Some restaurant and other business owners and residents opposed to the smoking ban have formed Concerned Citizens for a Better Ballwin. The group says that business is down at restaurants and that bar and restaurant owners blame the ban.
The targeted Aldermen include Tim Pogue, 1st Ward; Jane Suozzi, 2nd Ward; and Charlie Gatton, 4th Ward.
Elsa Barth, who owns the Seventh Inn Restaurant on Seven Trails Drive in Ballwin, said her sales were down 35 percent under the ban. Alderman Charlie Gatton, on the other hand, says that employees at local restaurants report that the businesses were doing as well if not better under the ban.
The Aldermanic candidates the group is supporting propose to replace the ban with an ordinance requiring businesses to post notices on their doors to say whether they are smoking or nonsmoking facilities. This is essentially the compromise proposal put forth in the District of Columbia during debate over the DC smoking ban. Tobacco abolitionists are unfazed with this appeal to personal choice and responsibility. According to the Post, “Martin Pion, president of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution Inc., said the opponents’ proposal is ‘pure tobacco-industry inspired.’”
There are a lot of non-smokers (like yours truly) who oppose smoking bans, not because we like the smell of smoke or exposure to smoke, but because it should be the exclusive province of property owners and not government to determine whether smoking is allowed. There will always be non-smoking establishments to cater to that market - why can’t there be smoking establishments for that market as well. If a non-smoker doesn’t want to be exposed to the smoke, just go somewhere else.
The last word goes to Concerned Citizens:
Peggy McCain, a spokesman for Concerned Citizens, said business owners, not the government, should decide whether to allow smoking.
“To me, it’s not about smoking or not smoking, it’s about freedom - as a citizen, to go to a smoking or nonsmoking establishment,” she said.
Share This
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006,
by Fred (,
alcohol, nanny state, Texas
,
Demonstrating the obtuseness that is inherent in government, Texas ABC officials are shocked at public outrage over busts for public drunkenness in bars
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission program, designed to stem public intoxication and drunken driving, has resulted in more than 2,200 arrests or citations since it began in August.But the program has been criticized after news reports following the most recent busts, at 30 Dallas-area bars this month.
“I’m getting all those same e-mails, the Nazi, Taliban, Gestapo e-mails,” said commission spokeswoman Carolyn Beck. “I don’t really understand the hateful outrage. I don’t understand, ‘Die in a fire.’ “
What’s not to understand? You started an operation to go into bars looking for drunk people, found some drunk people to shake down for $500 fines, and now people are complaining about it. And these were hotel bars. What, precisely, is the public safety hazard of a few businessmen staggering back to their hotel rooms?
Share This
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006,
by Fred (,
CFA, GEICO, insurance, nanny state
,
The professional busybodies at the Consumer Federation of America are attacking GEICO ’s practice of considering occupation and education when setting rates.
In the most recent challenge, the Consumer Federation of America said Monday it’s calling for state regulators to ban the practice. The group says it’s unfair and may be discriminatory because it leads to higher rates - sometimes hundreds of dollars more - for many lower-income and minority drivers.
See: CFA press release, CFA letter to NAIC
The CFA claims that “GEICO’s use of educational status alone to determine rates and eligibility allows it to bypass existing prohibitions on the use of an individual’s income, based on studies that have shown that this information is racially discriminatory. Because of the direct correlation between income and educational levels attained, GEICO is effectively substituting a proxy that is permitted for a criterion that is prohibited.”
GEICO in turn responds that they are not using income at all, and that educational status is not the sole criteria used to determine rates. From the Courant article:
In a written response Monday, GEICO said it doesn’t consider income, and that occupation and education are “actuarially sound” in predicting the incidence of future claims. The company said they aren’t its sole rating criteria in 44 states, as the federation said in its recent letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).
“The assertion in the letter that the use of these criteria is somehow race-based and therefore has an improper or unfair disparate impact on a protected class is patently false,” GEICO said in its statement.
As is usual in these cases, what the busybodies want is actually worse for the consumer than the practice they seek to stamp out. Lacking a means to see into the future, insurers use reams of actuarial data to determine the risk that a particular insured presents. The actuarial studies establish correlation between driver criteria (such as age, gender, credit score, etc.) and risk. This means that drivers with identical driving records pay different premiums based on other factors (a fact that hit personally when I was a young, single male). GEICO has apparently determined that occupation and education present reliable actuarial correlations.
If insurers couldn’t do what GEICO is doing here, they would have no choice but to charge all new drivers the most expensive premium (as the driver has no record upon which to base risk), and only lower the premium for drivers with long, spotless records. Would that be better for the consumer? Of course not. The best solution is for the CFA to allow the market to work - drivers who don’t want to be penalized for their occupation or education can select an insurer that doesn’t use those criteria in establishing premiums.
But the CFA doesn’t believe in markets or in trusting consumers to decide what is best. they’d rather have the government do it for you. And teaming up with New
Jersey Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange, a competitor of GEICO’s in New Jersey, in an attempt to use the hammer of government to beat down a private business? That’s just reprehensible.
Share This
Monday, March 20th, 2006,
by Fred (,
economics, nanny state, smoking
,
The CDC says that “smoking cost the nation about $92 billion in the form of lost productivity in 1997-2001.” Anti-smoking nannies claim that “secondhand smoke costs the U.S. economy roughly $10 billion a year: $5 billion in estimated medical costs associated with secondhand smoke exposure, and another $4.6 billion in lost wages.” Fast food and overeating? $115 billion. Alcohol? $185 billion. Meat eating? $61 billion according to one bunch of carnivore-haters, or $1 trillion according to one lone psycho. Keept that up, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
How much money? The Register knows.
We come up with a grand total of $7.39 trillion - well in excess of the $6.70 trillion that actually exists. That’s right, when you allow for the basic costs that we’ve all got to put up with, and the inevitable losses to criminals like Ken Lay and Ted Bundy, and then pile on the items that meddling little turds hate to see us enjoying, it all costs more money than there is.
[via the Meddling Little Turd fighters at the Consumerist]
Share This
Friday, March 10th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Calabasas, nanny state, smoking
,
Jacob Sullum had a nice little email exchange with an official from Calabasas, CA, following his Hit and Run post about the “all which is not permitted is forbidden” smoking ordinance, in which the city nogoodnik tried to claim the ordinance did not allow smokers to be jailed, which of course it does:
I wrote back, pointing out that the ordinance says, “A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to chapter 1.16 of this code [which specifies a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine] unless the prosecutor determines to prosecute it as an infraction as authorized by section 1.16.010(a).” Ten hours later, I received this reply:
You are correct regarding the ordinance text. I should have said that the City has publicly maintained that there are no plans to treat violations as misdemeanors. As is true of any violation of the City Code, we have a broad range of remedies, ranging from administrative fines (like parking tickets, which top out at $500), infractions (which also top out at $500), and full-blown misdemeanor prosecution. For the initial period of enforcement, the City only plans on educating people about the ordinance and issuing warnings. In extreme situations, such as repeated and willful violations, a fine may be levied as an infraction.
I guess my point, poorly made in my previous email, was that there are no foreseeable instances where the City would arrest people and put them in jail for smoking under this ordinance. I apologize for any confusion.
So the city’s position is that although it has the authority the put smokers in jail, it will never use that authority. If so, why put it in the ordinance to begin with?
Because they needed to get the ordinance passed. You say you’ll never use the authority, and then pull it out later when the fines don’t have the desired effect. The jail time is only one of the egregious parts of the ordinance, of course. A $500 fine for smoking outdoors is bad too. And not being able to smoke in your own personal automobile. And not being able to smoke outdoors if it is conceivable that another person will be present.
Share This
Wednesday, March 8th, 2006,
by Fred (,
nanny state, politics, smoking
,
David Nicklaus on the AT&T - BS Merger
Ma Bell, of course, was a nickname for the old AT&T, which until 1984 had a monopoly on telephone service in most of the country. By breaking up that monopoly, federal trust-busters unleashed a period of unprecedented competition and innovation in the telecommunications industry.
And, big as the latest deal is, it won’t reduce that competition or stifle that innovation.
No, it won’t stifle innovation. Because the innovation in the telecommunications industry has not come from the Bells, but from the smaller players in the industry. The Bells have resisted at every turn. They were dragged kicking and screaming into the broadband era by CLECs and cable, who offered real options while the Bells were still trying to use ISDN to avoid cannibalizing their lucrative T-1 revenue stream. They attempted through every means possible to block local competition in landlines because they hated to see the cash cows (like selling a 25 cent call waiting circuit for $10) disappear. The big cell networks like Cingular and Verizon Wireless, controlled by the Bells, disable functionality on handsets and cripple wireless broadband through limited availability and exorbitant pricing, in order to protect existing revenue streams.
Reassembling Ma Bell will have no effect on innovation, because the Bells have no reason to introduce new products or services that interfere with revenue from 100-year-old technology. Innovation will come from outsiders, and the Bells will try to crush it.
Share This
