Brett Hayfield, owner of the Island Grill
on Bainbridge Island was recently quoted as saying, "I'm not a
fan of big government but in this politically correct society
it won't be too long before they tell us what to do."
To what was Mr. Hayfield referring? Smoking. His restaurant
had instituted a smoking ban, which resulted in a drop in bar
sales, an increase in "food customers" -- and an overall
reduction in business.
The "they" to which he refers are the elected government
officials and now, un-elected advisory boards. As of this
January, smoking was banned in all restaurants, bars, bowling
alleys and nightclubs in Pierce County. But it wasn't elected
officials regulating smoking. It was the Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department, an un-elected advisory body.
As an ex-smoker, I no longer enjoy smoke-filled rooms while
I'm eating. But neither do I welcome the heavy hand of
government control exercised when its not needed, especially
when it comes from an agency not elected by the voters. Over
65 percent of restaurants in both Pierce and Kitsap counties
ban smoking. Only about 20 percent of Washington residents
currently smoke. The imposed smoking ban was overkill.
A group calling itself the Entertainment Industry Coalition
successfully challenged Pierce County's smoking ban. Pierce
County Superior Court Judge Ronald Culpepper ruled the health
department didn't have the authority to order the ban. The ban
also was in conflict with Washington's Clean Indoor Air Act,
which exempts bars, bowling alleys, casinos and restaurants.
But overturning the smoking ban won't stop these types of
assaults on individual freedom of choice by those who think
they know what's best for us all.
"If you believe that individuals are the best judges of
their own welfare, giving them choices does more to enhance
collective welfare than any universally imposed government
program could." So said Barry Schwartz, psychology professor
at Swarthmore College, in a recent New York Times editorial.
At first glance, this thought seems quite reasonable until
you realize he's really questioning whether
"individuals are the best judges of their own welfare."
He goes on to say, "... increased choice forces people to
take personal responsibility for all choices that turn out to
be less than perfect. ... While a life without any freedom of
choice would not be worth living, it appears not to be true
that more choice inevitably leads to more freedom and greater
happiness ... there may be a point when choice tyrannizes
people more than it liberates them. The implication ... is
that sound social policy simply cannot consist of throwing an
ever-greater menu of options at the American people."
So, where does the supposed dilemma of "too many choices"
lead us? The logical conclusion would be to a limitation on
individual freedom of choice and a "sound social policy"
promulgated by those enlightened, well-meaning governmental
entities like the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.
Welcome to the Nanny State, where you're well taken care of
by hordes of bureaucrats and their ideas of what's best for
you. No longer will you have to take personal responsibility
for your actions, because your choices will be limited. So, if
something goes awry, don't blame yourself. It wasn't your
fault.
We're not that far away from this state of limited choices.
Pierce County's smoking ban was an example. So was the Kitsap
County Health District's recommendation for mandatory usage of
bike helmets last year.
Commissioner Jan Angel got it right when she said,
"Everyone agrees on the safety issue, but no one agrees that
this is government's place to do this."
Not everything that makes good sense needs to be enforced
by ordinances and regulations, unless of course you believe
people can't be trusted to make their own decisions.
Proponents of Smart Growth talk about governmental bodies
deciding where people will live as opposed to individuals
making those choices for themselves. The health police
constantly inform us of the dangers of various foods, from
Twinkies to red meat. Many laud Canada for its cheaper drugs,
but those prices are only possible because the state decides
which drugs you can buy.
Professor Schwartz's notion that too many choices create
pressure on the populace ultimately leaving individuals
frustrated and unhappy is typical liberal, academic poppycock.
The fact that too many people don't take personal
responsibility for their behavior is the real problem. Blaming
others and seeing yourself as a victim diminishes the options
you have.
The Nanny State can only exist when we shirk our
responsibility and expect others to make decisions for us.
I'm afraid Mr. Hayfield may be right when he fears
government could end up dictating what we can do. But it
doesn't have to be that way if we remain vigilant against
whatever politically correct governmental scheme is currently
in vogue.
PAM DZAMA
columnists@thesunlink.com
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=spacer}
