This Washington Post op-ed from career Nanny Statists Joe Califano and Louis Sullivan reads like your standard public health talking points: Unless adult-orietned products taste nasty, bitter, and disgusting, the companies who manufacture them will forever be accused of “marketing to children.”

Here’s my favorite part:

Buoyed by its success in pushing candy-flavored cigarettes, Reynolds has now introduced alcohol-flavored smokes. To make them appealing to our kids, Reynolds has marketed them with names based on gambling lingo as well: ScrewDriver Slots, BlackJack Gin, Snake Eyes Scotch and Back Alley Blend (a bourbon-flavored cigarette).

Color me befuddled. So R.J. Reynolds is guilty of preying on kids because it’s marketing cigarettes (which can only be purchased by people over 18) that taste like alcohol (which can only be purchased by people over 21) with gambling-themed names (only people over 18 (21, in some states) are permitted to gamble)?

Everything about those products is adult-oriented! Yet for Califano and Sullivan, this is evidence that R.J. Reynolds is targeting youngsters.

Less than 24 hours after Ben Roethlisberger’s motorcycle crash, the Cincinnati Post runs an editorial demanding federal motorcycle helmet laws. Nut quote:

At one time all states required helmets, but under pressure from those who advocate “freedom” lawmakers in 30 states have rolled back those laws, including in Ohio and Kentucky.

Ben Roethlisberger is a grown-up. He made a grown-up decision. Consciously (he has boasted about not wearing a helmet when he rides). He’s now paying for that decision. It’s not the government’s job to regulate away risk. It’s telling that personal freedom is so scarce these days that editorial writers feel the need to put the word in scare quotes.

Last November, Jacob Sullum wrote an excellent piece for Reason on why motorcycle enthusiasts were able to beat back helmet laws, and why, by comparison, Nanny State foes couldn’t defeat mandatory seat belt laws.

Thanks to Jessie Creel for the tip.

From the PR wires:

As part of this partnership, the “CARS” World Premiere will include a new safety public service announcement developed for the Department’s “Click It or Ticket” campaign. The ad contains a strong safety message about the need for families to wear safety belts, and will be distributed to the Department of Transportation’s national, state and local highway safety partners.

Swell.

That’s the subject of my Fox column this week.

Any wonder why kids are fat?

Is there real danger on the modern playground?

Safety advocates say yes and want to eliminate it.

Their first target: swing sets.

They’ve convinced Portland Public Schools to remove all swings from elementary schools playgrounds.

[...]

Portland Public Schools have also rejected merry go rounds, tube slides, track rides, arch climbers, and teeter totters.

At Grant Park in Northeast Portland, some parents embrace a new plastic enclosed play area, noting that the construction of the play equipment does not have sharp corners, and soft surfaces are used in many areas.

[...]

Now, it seems, anything with moving parts is a lawsuit liability, and in some places, that even means moving legs.

In Broward County, Florida, there’s a new rule on the playground: no running.

A parent there commented that “no running on the playground, that’s kind of like no playing on the playground” and another called for a review of what exactly was “safe” or unsafe.

So what can kids still play?

Not dodge ball or tether ball, that’s still too dangerous. And in Beaverton, at Barnes Elementary School, rules there forbid the game of tag.

In Salem, an elementary education director says “we don’t encourage the game of tag because it encourages fights.”

My favorite part of the story comes when dueling public health activists start jabbing one another with scary statistics:

One child psychologist points to the rising trend of childhood obesity in defense of letting kids play like kids.

National statistics indicate 34 percent of kids are overweight, with obesity projected to be nearly 50 percent in the year 2010.

But safety advocates point to different numbers, saying playground accidents cause 200,000 injuries nationwide each year, and 17 deaths.

What’s a good Nanny Statist to do?

The Nanny State grows too bizarre for satire.

Here’s The Onion in 1998:

According to a controversial Federal Trade Commission report released Tuesday, food manufacturer Hostess may have intentionally marketed “Twinkies”—a dangerous snack cake linked to obesity and hyperactivity—to minors.

There is substantial evidence supporting the claim that, for decades, Hostess has carried out an aggressive marketing campaign with the goal of promoting Twinkie use among underage consumers,” the FTC report read. “Our nation’s children have been targeted for the consumption of these fattening, unwholesome cakes at a vulnerable age, before they are old enough to make responsible decisions about health and nutrition. “The report also stated that “as a result of Hostess’ targeting of minors, millions of young bodies have been exposed to potentially harmful substances such as fat, sugar, cholesterol, polysorbate 60, calcium sulfate, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and caramel color.”

Among the questionable Hostess marketing tactics the FTC report cites: positioning Twinkies billboards in the direct view of schoolyards, airing Twinkies ads on Saturday-morning TV and, most notably, developing and aggressively promoting “Twinkie The Kid,” a smiling, lariat-wielding cowboy cartoon mascot shaped like a Hostess Twinkie.

Believe it or not, here’s an actual press release from the FTC, issued yesterday:

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services today released a report recommending concrete steps that industry can take to change their marketing and other practices to make progress against childhood obesity.

[...]

“Responsible, industry-generated action and effective self-regulation are critical to addressing the national problem of childhood obesity,” said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. “The FTC plans to monitor industry efforts closely, and we expect to see real improvements.”

This isn’t the first time the Nanny State has caught up to an Onion parody. See here, for example. Or here. Or here.

For an explanation why SpongeBob Squarepants isn’t to blame for childhood obesity, check here.

Longtime readers know I’ve been warning for some time that we’ll soon see the day when every car in the country comes equipped with an ignition interlock device, requiring the owner to blow into a tube and pass an alcohol test before he can start the car. Estimates vary, but most I’ve read suggest the devices would add about $1,000 to $1,500 to the price of a car.

The idea found some fertile ground in New Mexico, where it passed the statehouse but not the senate, and it has been repeatedly introduced in New York by state Rep. Felix Ortiz, possibly the single biggest Nanny Statist in all of American government.

Until now, though, the idea hasn’t been taken seriously outside a core of hardcore neoprohibition types. Even MADD has in the past stopped well short of supporting mandatory installation on all cars, instead opting for the devices for repeat offenders.

No more. New MADD president (and public health revolving door veteran) Chuck Hurley now supports the idea. Not only that, but it has now entered the realm of “serious public discussion,” meriting a front page story in USA Today.

It’s not just that ideas as absurd as this one are slowly gaining acceptance, it’s that the lapse of time these Nanny State gimmicks must traverse to get from absurd to mainstream grows shorter by the day.

Distressing developments in the Nanny State wars:

Longtime Agitator reader Evan Williams writes:

That’s really disappointing to hear about Cooks’ foray into Nanny Statism.

We subscribe to their online mag, and I don’t think I’ve ever had a bad recipe or recommendation from them. Now I’m torn. Their recipes are so fucking good, I don’t think I can afford to cancel my subscription, but I’ll definitely write them to tell them what I think of their stupidity.

However, you should also know this (and this is what REALLY strikes me): their anti-junkfood message is unbelievably hypocritical. I’m talking, like, looking up “hypocrisy” in the dictionary and seeing a picture of
their magazine. Why? Because: virtually none of their recipes are especially health-conscious. They routinely use regular butter, heavy cream, vegetable oil, etc. For example, just this past week, I made their “skillet chicken pot pie”. It was absolutely delicious. Blew my mind, best pot pie I’d ever had. But check out some of the ingredients:

-3/4 cup Heavy Cream
-14 (yes, FOURTEEN) tablespoons of butter.
-One whole chicken
-2 tablespoons regular sour cream
-1 teaspoon vegetable oil

We’ve made tons of their recipes, and often, we are forced to tone down the fat/butter content, because we’re gym rats and try to keep it to minimum. I dunno, maybe there’s some kind of good explanation here, but, damn, how can you decry the perils of junkfood and call for government bans on it, while you routinely publish recipes that include “unhealthy” ingredients…like 2 sticks of butter in a single pie?

Mmmmmmmm. Fooouuurrrteeennn Spppooonnnsss of Buuutttttteeerrr.

I find that more often than not, this anti-obesity craziness is a thin mask for anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism. That would explain why an outfit like Cooks’ could take a bold stand against Coca-Cola and the like while still encouraging such creamy, buttery deliciousness in its magazine.

Mom stuffing us fat with made-from-scratch goodness somehow seems less nefarious than a bunch of soft drink executives in dark suits and thin socks making us fat from the boardroom, doesn’t it?

The Nanny State marches on:

Smoke-free bars and public houses will attract more female customers and could fuel the rise in binge drinking among women, a report warns.

It points out that as bars and pubs become more appealing venues to women, female customers are more likely to consume larger amounts of alcoholic drinks than before.

Sounds like something the government should get involved with.

This month’s Esquire features a lengthy article by Joshua Foer on Irwin Leba, an eccentric Texas who wants to institute a federal tax on people based on body weight. I read the article when it came out, mentally shrugged it off as the usual Nanny State BS, and reminded myself to save it for my files.

Apparently the article is a hoax — an April Fool’s day joke perpetrated by Foer, Esquire, and Alan Abel, described in this Washington Post article as “America’s most famous hoaxter.”

What’s weird is that it never occured to me that the article could be a hoax. On it’s face, the proposal put forth by Abel acting as Leba is really no more ridiculous than anything proposed by John Banzhaf, Kelly Brownell, CSPI, or any of the other usual gang of healthist busybodies.

I’m not the only one. The hoax apparently completely escaped Esquire’s fact-checkers, most of its readers, and considering that the issue’s been out for nearly three weeks now, most of the media. The Post just figured out the joke on Saturday, after visiting the fake website for Leba’s fake think tank, and finding a hidden message revealing the prank.

Tells you just how deep into this obesity nonsense we’ve fallen.

Hillarious. I’ve always suspected as much, I’ve just never had the econ skills to crunch the numbers myself.

The Register adds up all the “costs” various Nanny State groups say a given vice costs British society (read: smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.). And the paper finds that if you take all of these busybody organizations at their word, vice costs society more money than actually exists. The paper notes that its figures don’t even include costs associated with accidents, disease, and pensions.

Someone should sit down and compute the same kind of stats for annual deaths. My guess is, if you add up all the deaths each year that groups like MADD, CSPI, ONDCP, and various other alarmist groups claim are associated with various bad habits in this country, you’ll get a number that’s actually greater than the total number of annual deaths.

Amusing as it is to point out the inflated claims of these groups, the unfortunate thing is that when healthists then take those claims to policy makers, our public officials often take them at face value, and then make laws that put restraints on individual liberty in the name of saving the public money. Such measures are wrong in principle, of course. But they’re also wrong for the obvious practical reasons.

Britain’s only a few years ahead of the U.S. in Nanny State flabergastery (a word I just made up). First up:

Hundreds of thousands of smokers will be banned from lighting up in their own homes when nurses or other health workers visit them, under controversial new rules drawn up by the nurses’ professional body.

The move dramatically widens the scope of the public clampdown on passive smoking - taking it from the workplace or the pub into the living room. It will trigger fresh debate over the nature of personal freedom versus public health.

The Royal College of Nursing argues that nurses, midwives and health visitors whose jobs involve going out to visit new mothers or the frail and elderly, should not be forced to inhale smoke just because ‘their workplace’ is in other people’s homes.

Not difficult to see how this could apply to housepainters, carpenters, babysitters, plumbers, housecleaners, butlers, and cable guys, is it? In fact, any time anyone other than a member of your immediate family steps into your home, you could probably argue that your home ceases to be “private,” and is now a part of the “public.”

Michael Tacelosky just got an erection.

Next sacrifice at the altar of “public health,” artistic freedom:

The Arctic Monkeys were forced to defend the artwork on the cover of their debut album after a public health official condemned its depiction of smoking.

[...]

He said: “Although the band is from Sheffield, thousands of youngsters in Scotland will buy it because it is good music. It is the fastest-selling album in British history but it gives out the wrong image. With a blatant image of a guy smoking, it will be seen by many as a cool thing to do. It reinforces the idea that smoking is OK and even something you might want to emulate.”

Um, but smoking is cool. It’s a proven fact.

To give you an idea of how much power these idiots have accumulated, check out the reaction from the record label:

Johnny Bradshaw, the product manager for the band at their label, Domino Recording, refuted the claims that the photos made smoking seem appealing.

He said: “I personally think the image is not portraying smoking in a positive light. If anything, it is doing the opposite. The picture is a real photo and a real image. You can see from it that smoking is not doing him the world of good.”

Coward. Here’s the image. And here’s the all-time champ of the genre.

You know what would be fun? A coffee table book filled with pictures of children with cigarettes in their mouths. And they should all look pretty cool. Someone needs to make this happen. My guess is that within a week of publication, you’d get hysterical media coverage, followed by demands from earnest public health officials calling for a ban on pictures of children with cigarettes in their mouths.

Thanks to Dan Rothschild for the links.

If you’ve ever wondered what goes on in the mendacious little minds of anti-smoking activists, you’re in luck. Philip Dawdy, who penned the excellent Seattle Weekly piece on that city’s emerging Nanny State, sends along a jaw-dropping email exchange that took place after Bill Godshall of Smokefree.net sent a nasty reply to his article.

Godshall wrote:

Your op/ed failed to mention lots of other freedom hating laws that infringe upon people’s self perceived rights to urinate, defacate, spit, fornicate, assault others, shot guns, blow up bombs, etc. in public.

Just as you think it should be a right to force carcinogenic tobacco smoke into other people’s lungs, other people also think its their right to force a part of their body into another part of someone else’s body. But rape was also outlawed.

The alternative to your so-called nanny state is anarchy.

Welcome to civilized society.

Dawdy replied:

Ok Bill. Do you now have peer-reviewed data on secondhand exposure in front of coffeehouses? Can you prove to me that it is equivalent to rape??

Or do you guys just get to presume about everything you don’t like in modern society now, because you ‘know?’

Hey, and don’t be shy–my phone number is easy to find.

To which our friend Bill, who obviously missed Dawdy’s point, replied:

I’m not aware of any peer reviewed data on rapes that occur in front of coffeehouses. But that’s not a valid reason to repeal the prohibition of rape in front of coffeehouses.

Forcing anything (especially something that increases risks for cancer, heart disease, asthma and other illnesses) into someone else’s body without the consent of the affected person is not just disrespectful and uncivilized, its grounds for charges of assault or attempted murder. You should be pleased that public health advocates have proposed more lenient charges for those who force cigarette smoke into other people’s lungs.

Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes got it right when he said, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”

The Holmes quote is popular with the anti-smoking crowd. But it’s not quite accurate. The Ban the Ban folks always responded to it by saying that given that patronizing smoking bars is strictly voluntary, the proper analogy would be for you to run full speed into my closed fist, then complain when you walk away with a bloody nose.

Frankly, even that is probably giving them too much credit. Given the science on secondhand smoke, you’d have to run into my fist several dozen times per day for about 30 years before you’d even begin to see the first signs of a bloody nose. But of course, as soon as one person out of several thousand did get a bloody nose, you’d start agitating for laws calling for the arrest and imprisonment of people who stand around with close fists, lest some anti-smoking activist accidentally bump into one.

I’m quoted in this nice pice on paternalism in the Emerald City.

Chicago’s new health commissioner is nanny statist writ large:

But Dr. Terry Mason, a glib urologist and part-time radio talk show host, said at his confirmation hearing Tuesday that he is determined to make Chicago a healthier city, and he wants to start right at City Hall.

Mason said he plans “report cards” for the mayor and the aldermen, an early step toward getting all Chicagoans to evaluate their health and make lifestyle changes as necessary.

“Obesity is not just a problem in the city of Chicago,” Mason told members of the council’s Health Committee. “It is a problem for the United States of America.”

[...]

sked about the city’s response to AIDS and HIV, Mason told committee members that the Health Department “without question” needs to expand its prevention program.

But he said that the top two causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer.

“There is already a pandemic,” he told the aldermen. “Once every 72 seconds, somebody dies in America from a heart attack. … While I am not trying to minimize AIDS or any other diseases, heart disease, cancer, diabetes are taking their toll in much, much larger numbers, and we have not done our job both in terms of providing the kinds of information [needed] as well as partnering with communities” in trying to live healthier.

[...]

“Two-thirds of cancers are related to obesity, diet, exercise, as well as tobacco,” said Steve Derks, CEO of the Illinois Division of the American Cancer Society. “The fact Dr. Mason will be focusing on this issue and people’s own ability to lower their risk is a wonderful opportunity for partnership with the American Cancer Society and its agenda. It is right in line with what we want to achieve.”

I’m calling bullshit on that last statement (see my debunking of the obesity and cancer link here), as well as the idea that we’re in the midst of a heart disease “pandemic.” As regular readers of this site know, heart disease is in rapid decline, and has been for twenty years, now. Same for nearly all forms of cancer. Life expectancy is at an all-time high. The “our love handles are killing us” line is a canard, almost always followed-up by pleas for massive government intervention. Watch yourselves, Chicagoans. Probably only a matter of time before the city starts browsing not only the health records of its aldermen, but also of its citizens. Expect your own report card in the mail in due time.