'More Than Libertarians Concerned': It Must Be a Real Issue

Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health and now health editor at U.S. News & World Report, comes out against car smoking bans aimed at protecting children from exposure to secondhand smoke (one of the "nanny government" measures mentioned in the Inside Bay Area story I discussed earlier today). "This particular anti-smoking campaign has more than libertarians concerned that government is going too far in policing behavior and trouncing privacy," she writes. "Next, the health police could ticket parents for buying children junk food or for letting them get too much sun at the beach." She also argues that the bans will fail to improve children's health, unwisely divert police resources, and disproportionately affect women of modest means.

 [via The Rest of the Story]

Comments

[Christopher Monnier]

> more than libertarians...

If it's just libertarians, then who cares, they're all wackos...but if it's beyond libertarians, well, then it must not be that crazy after all.

[lunchstealer]

Oh no, we're still crazy, they're just pointing out that there are a few pro-nanny state swans among all the looney libertarian ducklings quacking away on this issue.

[Rimfax]

Wait! Are you saying that they don't take us seriously?!!!

[Charlie]

I wish they would ticket farting in the car. My girlfriend does this all the time, and I'm getting tired of it.

[Mitchell J Laurren-Ring]

" disproportionately affect women of modest means"?

Poor women smoke more?

[Mo]

Mitchell,
Yep.

Poor people tend to smoke more. Poor women are more likely to be driving a child than poor men. So the overlap of poor and female gets the disproporionate effect.

[Mo]

P.S. I know this is faulty reasoning, but I believe that a greater percentage of poor women smoke than women of less modest means.

[Paul]

pfft, too late Bernadine. I won't even say "I told you so." Where were you ten years ago? Bugger off. The office of Freedom Preservation is now closed and no longer accepting applications.

[Aresen]

"She also argues that the bans will fail to improve children's health, unwisely divert police resources, and disproportionately affect women of modest means."

But it does make the lawmakers feel virtuous.

[Bob Smith]

>disproportionately affect women of modest means.

I guess they would have no objection if it affected men of modest means.

[Larry A]

Poor people tend to smoke more. Poor women are more likely to be driving a child than poor men. So the overlap of poor and female gets the disproporionate effect.

And they don't have the extra cash to pay the fines.