Another Ban in the Nanny State

Living in Massachusetts you grow up learning to live without.  I don’t mean that the state is poverty stricken; I mean that the state’s government officials like to decide what is in the best interest of you, the person.  They like to decide what is good and bad for you because they feel they are smarter than you in making that decision for you.  We are so lucky to have these smart superficial people making these life decisions for us. Heaven forbid we are able to make these decisions for ourselves, what would we possibly do?

In the past we have seen such bans on fireworks, no alcohol sales on Sunday, and tattoos.  Recently we saw a ban on an energy drink mixed with alcohol called “4Loco” and we also saw a ban on dog racing, closing several parks in Massachusetts.  So call me skeptical when I read an article written by a Worcester pediatrician and the President of the Massachusetts Medical Society, Dr. Lynda Young, calling on local politicians to ban cigarette sales in pharmacies.  Her reasoning was that cigarettes were bad for you and should not be sold in a place where health care products are sold.  I can barely contain my fascination with such a well put together argument.  I am curious to know how long it took her to research and come up with the conclusion that cigarettes are bad for you.  She claims that cigarette smoke is the leading cause of death in the world.  That is a well thought out and valid argument, it is also inaccurate.  The top two leading causes of death in the world are Heart Disease and Hunger, this pulled from data from the Center for Disease Control.

This is where the Nanny Staters (yep, that’s what I am going to call them) just absolutely drop the ball and have lost all touch with reality.  Just like the other bans they fail to see the big picture and haven’t figured out that people aren’t as dumb as they think they would like them to be.  Does anybody remember the Volstead Act?  Probably not, because it happened in 1920.  But banning products or forcing people to purchase things is not only borderline unconstitutional but completely irrelevant.  I mean this ban isn’t a complete ban on cigarettes, just in pharmacies.  But this isn’t 1950 where stand alone pharmacies exist.

The problem with all of these bans/regulations is that they cater to the exception rather than the rule.  The 4Loco ban was an outrage because a couple of idiots went binge drinking with it.  Then why wasn’t all alcohol banned?  The ban on fireworks has really helped control the possession during the 4th of July holiday.  The ban on dog racing was the dumbest thing ever.  It forced local businesses to close and put hundreds of people out of work.  The only ones who didn’t lose their jobs were the dogs themselves, being shipped to racetracks out of Massachusetts.  The residents of Massachusetts still got to bet on those dogs, they just have to travel to Rhode Island, Connecticut or New Hampshire.

Like I said, what Dr. Young supports is not a complete ban but a ban of cigarette sales in stores that have pharmacies.  That’s just idiotic.  Everything is bad for us, so if we ban cigarette sales in pharmacies because they are a contributing factor to lung cancer then just think of this:  One of the biggest problems in the country is obesity.  That would mean all candy, soda; chips and other junk foods would need to be removed from those same shelves.  That would mean all the cosmetics products that have been linked to cancer need to be removed.  The Wal-Mart’s that have pharmacies would need to remove their firearms from their shelves because shooting accidents have also been a large cause for death in the U.S. according to the CDC.  Let us not forget the grocery stores that have all these items in their stores with pharmacies

So basically the Nanny Staters would rather see business done elsewhere rather than in Massachusetts.  Because if you tell CVS, Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreens etc to remove damaging products from their shelves because they have pharmacies we will see them drop that service.  My assumption is that the sales of the other products outweigh the pharmacy sales and I can’t even imagine home much they enjoy dealing with the insurance companies.  So Dr. Young should stick to what she knows best, diagnosing the “owies” and the “sniffles” to the many kids that come into her office.  I am sure she is a wonderful doctor but she should leave the legislation to the legislators.  I am sure she would feel different about writing a script to a pharmacy that has a drive-thru, since car accidents are also a major contributor to deaths in the U.S.

3D (is back)
and Comin right Atcha!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *