Category Archives: Nanny State

Regulation of the Day Update: Ladies’ Night Bar Specials

As noted previously, ladies’ night bar specials are illegal in Minnesota. The state’s Department of Human Rights says they are unfair gender discrimination. But they’re still legal in New York.

That upsets attorney Roy Den Hollander. He thinks ladies’ nights are unconstitutional. So he sued several New York bars. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals wisely threw out his case. Even more wisely, they chose not to take him seriously:

The court, with evident amusement, said it must rule against Den Hollander even though “without action on our part, (he) paints a picture of a bleak future, where ‘none other than what’s left of the Wall Street moguls’ will be able to afford to attend nightclubs.”

It’s not often that New Yorkers show more common sense than Midwesterners. Minnesota’s solons should take heed.

Regulation of the Day 148: Cutting Grass in Cemeteries

In the world of regulation, no good deed goes unpunished. In the UK, an ex-soldier named Derek Evans decided to mow the lawn at the cemetery where his mother is buried. At first, he had intended to tidy up only her grave. But out of kindness, he ended up mowing the entire cemetery.

Regulators quickly put a stop to Mr. Evans’ good deeds. British blog Big Brother Watch reports:

The jobsworths at the Council have told him that as he was without public liability insurance he was banned from carrying on – despite the fact, as Mr Evans points out in stark terms, “the only people I was mowing near are six feet under.”

… There’s just no common sense to decisions like this: they’re so stupid you have to be an “expert” to reach them.

(Via Iain Murray)

Regulation of the Day 147: Breathing Fire

Jimmy’s Old Town Tavern in Herndon, Virginia, has an unusual attraction: fire-breathing bartenders. That tradition may be coming to an end, according to the Washington Examiner:

Fairfax County fire investigators charged Tegee Rogers, 33, of Herndon, and Justin Fedorchak, 39, of Manassas, with manufacturing an explosive device, setting a fire capable of spreading, and burning or destroying a meeting house. They also were charged with several state fire code misdemeanors.

Both men are looking at as much as 45 years in prison. Fire marshals gave them no warning before pressing criminal charges. They have been breathing fire at Jimmy’s for over a decade without previous incident. Both men were surprised; given that Jimmy’s openly advertises its fire-breathing tradition, fire marshals have had plenty of chances to tell them to stop.

Owner Jimmy Cirrito is sticking up for his employees. He told the Examiner:

“But I don’t think we’ve done anything wrong,” he said. “There’s a lot of fire in restaurants. I’ve been served flaming desserts, I’ve roasted marshmallows on tables, I’ve seen 75 candles and sparklers on cakes, and I’ve seen bartenders perform the tricks coast-to-coast and no one’s been arrested.”

(Via Tim Carney)

Regulation of the Day 144: Underage Senior Citizens

Bob Russ is 66 years old. Last weekend, he and his wife went to the Oregon Brewer’s Festival in Portland. Or rather, they tried to. He was denied entry. The reason? He was unable to prove that he was over 21 years old. At 66, Mr. Russ is Medicare-eligible.

In a letter to the Oregonian, he writes that “At two entry gates, staff told us the OLCC [Oregon Liquor Control Commission] requires a current photo ID for large alcoholic events, period.”

In addition to an apology, Mr. Russ asks for “the use of common sense by the OLCC and the city of Portland that will prevent entering into festival permit agreements that deny entry to unsuspecting “underage” senior citizens.”

The goal of photo ID laws is to prevent underage drinking. Keeping 66-year old men out of festivals for lack of valid photo ID does not prevent underage drinking. If anything, it wastes resources that could otherwise be spent stopping underage drinking.

This is one regulation where the OLCC should allow for some discretion. Doing so might prevent a lot of bad PR.

(Hat tip to Jacob Grier)

Cell Phone Cancer Scare Refuses to Die

Some people are scared that cell phones cause brain tumors. There are enough of these bedwetters that San Francisco just passed a new law to “require all retailers to display the amount of radiation each phone emits.”

For most phones, that’s roughly one watt; the legal limit in the U.S. is 1.6 watts.

Studies have yet to find a link between cell phones and brain cancer. The main reason is that it is physically impossible; one watt of radiation just isn’t enough to cause any tissue damage.

The human body naturally generates about 100 times as much energy at rest, and 1000 times as much during exercise. One measly watt isn’t enough to affect anything.

One wonders why the bed-wetters are only worried about brain cancer; cell phones are held in the hand. And unlike the brain, which is shielded by hair, scalp, and skull, the hand is completely unprotected from cell phone radiation. If cell phones did cause cancer, activists should be at least as worried about skin and bone cancers in the hand.

But they aren’t. One reason is that those cancers don’t sound as scary as brain tumors do; it’s harder to get people worked up and frightened.

The other reason is that cell phones don’t cause cancer. Not in the hand. Not in the brain. Not in the face, the, jaw, or any other body part might take the brunt of the single watt of energy our cell phones emit.

Why Prince Fielder Will Never Be a Yankee

A junior high school in Wisconsin is holding a bratwurst fry today. They’re raising money to fund a school-wide trip to a Milwaukee Brewers game next month. Sounds like a lot of fun.

This, of course, would be illegal in New York City, where food-based fundraisers are de facto banned. Administrators worry that they contribute to child obesity.

Regulation of the Day 127: Landscaping

Southern California is a dry place, prone to droughts. So Angelina and Quan Ha, of Orange, CA, ditched their water-hungry grass lawn about two years ago. They replaced it with “a drought-tolerant garden filled with lavender, rosemary and native wildflower seeds.” They claim the switch is saving them hundreds of dollars per year, not to mention hundreds of thousands of gallons of precious water.

The city of Orange promptly sued them, claiming their lawn violates local regulations. At least 40 percent of a yard must be covered with living plants. The city contends that the sparse shrubs and plants in the Ha family’s yard don’t meet the threshold.

“Compliance, that’s all we’ve ever wanted,” Senior Assistant City Attorney Wayne Winthers said. “They put up a nice fence, but it didn’t show anything about how they had complied with code, as far as the front yard goes.”

This is a fancy way of saying, “you will do what I tell you.” This is not a healthy attitude for any person to have.

The Has pled not guilty in court on March 2. If they lose, they are looking at up to six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.

Fortunately, after a rash of bad publicity surrounding the court hearing, the city announced within hours that it was considering dropping the charges.

(Hat tip to Megan McLaughlin)

Regulation of the Day 126: Cheese-Rolling Races

One of Great Britain’s most light-hearted traditions is the cheese-rolling race. Every year on the May Bank Day holiday, wheels of cheese are rolled down Cooper’s Hill in Brockworth, Gloucester. Adventurous and/or foolhardy souls roll down the hill in hot pursuit; the one who gets a hold of the cheese before reaching the bottom of the hill wins. You can watch a video of last year’s race here. Winners get to keep the cheese as a prize.

Cheese-rolling races have been held at Cooper’s Hill since the 1800s. Until this year, that is. Health and safety regulators shut down this year’s event because it has become too popular. The Daily Mail reports:

More than 15,000 spectators turned out last year, which, at three times the site’s capacity, means it has ‘outgrown the location’.
Richard Jefferfies, one of the organi[z]ers, said: ‘‘We have had to cancel on the advice of the police and local authorities this year because of the issues of health and safety and other aspects.

‘As well as concerns about the safety of the crowd and the competitors, local landowners were also worried by the amount of damage done by people climbing over fences and that sort of thing.’

It is hoped the races will return next year.

Regulation of the Day 125: Salt

Having eliminated all crime from New York’s streets, ended homelessness, rebuilt Ground Zero, and fixed the state’s ailing public schools, New York’s state legislature has set its sights on how much salt you eat.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg already has a plan to reduce NYC residents’ salt intake by 25 percent over five years. But State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) thinks that doesn’t go nearly far enough. It only covers New York City, for starters. The rest of the state’s salt intake would remain perilously unregulated under the Bloomberg plan.

That’s why Mr. Ortiz has introduced statewide legislation that would “make it illegal for restaurants to use salt in the preparation of food. Period.

A $1,000 fine would accompany each violation.

Tom Colicchio, who owns a restaurant and has appeared on the television show Top Chef, is livid. He told the New York Daily News that “New York City is considered the restaurant capital of the world. If they banned salt, nobody would come here anymore… Anybody who wants to taste food with no salt, go to a hospital and taste that.”

He’s right; the salt ban does offend culinary decency. But there’s another angle that’s at least as important: personal responsibility.
If I want to pile on the salt, as Mayor Bloomberg famously does, that’s my right. But I also need to be liable for the consequences. If chronic salt over-consumption gives me high blood pressure and heart trouble, that’s my fault. I should pay the cost.

But that’s not how the current health care system works. We suffer from the 12-cent problem: on average, people only pay 12 cents for every dollar of health care they consume. Roughly 50 cents are picked up by the government, and insurers cover the rest.
That means people have less incentive to watch what they eat than under a more honest system. Why not rack up huge health care bills? Everyone else is paying for me. Health care on sale! 88 percent off!

Freedom cannot exist without responsibility. Decades of government encroachments in health care have taken away a lot of our responsibility for health care decisions. So it makes some sense that Mr. Ortiz would finish the job by taking away peoples’ freedom to eat what they want.

A better solution would be to have both freedom and responsibility, instead of neither. Ban the salt ban. Give people more control over their health care dollars. Let us be free. Let us be responsible. We’re all adults here. Treat us as such, Mr. Ortiz.

Regulation of the Day 120: Fish Tanks in Barbershops

In Tenneessee, it is illegal for barbershops to have fish tanks. That could change as soon as today, though. HB2823, sponsored by Rep. Ty Cobb, is up for a vote today in the state Senate. It would make barbershop fish tanks legal once again. The bill already passed the House by voice vote. Why the need for such obscure legislation? According to Tennessean.com,

[Rep. Cobb] proposed the measure after a constituent who owns a barber shop with a built-in fish tank told him she was asked to drain the aquarium after a state inspection and told she could only have fake animals in it.

While fish tank liberalization won’t affect very many people, it is heartening to see legislators repealing laws instead of passing more of them. Legislators looking for other things to repeal can start by looking at other Regulations of the Day. Congratulations to Rep. Cobb for doing the right thing. More, please.