2 smart 4 knives. (or the padded path to doom)

Just a reminder about banning guns: if we ban guns we will just ban knives next (because criminals will just use them instead). And we aren't just talking about big knives but I also mean steak knives. It sounds stupid but England is showing us our society without guns:

"As knife crime remains a problem in many of our towns and cities, it beggars belief that so many traders are still prepared to sell potentially lethal weapons to children," said Ron Gainsford, chief executive of the Trading Standards Institute (TSI).

...

Knives have become a status symbol among some young people and the increase in searching by police officers means some young people dash into shops to buy knives for "instant arming".

article

Yeah.

How about we just hold our children accountable and make them responsible. It is the child that is babied his whole life that utterly fails when grown up, the same is true for societies.

Mom knows best. (p.s. Mom = Government)

Well... it's not like this is a surprise.

The Senate Finance Committee today is hearing proposals on how to pay for President Obama's proposed universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.

"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems," Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods."

Previously on "As the Government Bans":

You came for the drugs, and I said nothing, because I had no drugs.
You came for the cigarettes, and I said something, because I saw where this was going.
You came for my food, and I am getting really pissed off.
(full post)

Due up in 2012: Ban on trans fat
In the batting circle in 2016: Ban on large portions of food
Clean up in 2024: Ban on "unhealthy" food
(full post)

The "in" thing right now is for cities to ban smoking in public places. This is because "innocent" people (who choose to go to the restaurant or work at the restaurant) have to breathe the second hand smoke.
(full post)

A sin tax is the first step to bannage.

Up in smoke.

Another election, another slice of freedom gone, but this time it doesn't effect me directly since I am in Tulsa.

Manhattan (Kansas) passed their ban on smoking in public places this time around. Now everyone can enjoy their "freedom" of eating in a smoke-free environment at the cost of business owners deciding what legal activity their patrons can partake in.

Freedom doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want, how you want. Freedom means that the government will not limit what you can do.

Due up in 2012: Ban on trans fat
In the batting circle in 2016: Ban on large portions of food
Clean up in 2024: Ban on "unhealthy" food

Suck it personal choice, hurray government dominance!

Update: Ever since starting my job here in Tulsa I felt the need to post again about how no one does correct statistics in their studies. However, my comment that I left is close enough to scratching that itch that I will just post it here and be done with it (for now).

The first time that I actually looked at a study that was conducted, just to see what it had to say, was a study that the American Heart Association did on second hand smoke. What I found shocked me.
While the study was used to say that second hand smoke was dangerous and bad, the study actually found that unless you live with a smoker that smokes multiple packs a day for many many years second hand smoke does not hurt you.
They were lying to us about the outcome of the study.
This got me interested in other studies, mainly global warming, since the quick analysis that is presented to the general public is flawed. Sure enough, they aren't finding anything like they are claiming, but some how it gets reported that the problem is dire and completely our fault.
Now that I work answering statistical questions from people doing studies all over the world it is quite obvious -
It is rare for someone to do an actual statistically valid study.
I don't think that people are intentionally misleading people, or doing bad science on purpose, I think that it is a matter of not knowing what they are doing statistically.
And it is sad to say, but if you do the best experiment in the world, but then do a wrong analysis or misinterpret the results your study is for naught, or worse you come to the wrong conclusion.
So here we are with "evidence" for a need to protect peoples health with a smoking ban. Policy is made without regard to actually knowing the truth.
But we can all sleep better at night, right?

Ban bans

Here is the down low. I value my freedoms of making decisions more than whatever is the current ban buzz. If I think that something is bad I have the ability myself to avoid the bad situation/product. The problem is that some people works everybody up on some pseudo-science and then they gets the public support for their pet ban. This is not a good idea. Take the following examples.

The "in" thing right now is for cities to ban smoking in public places. This is because "innocent" people (who choose to go to the restaurant or work at the restaurant) have to breathe the second hand smoke. People have been told that second hand smoke is very dangerous, when in fact if you look at the sighted studies most find that there is no statistical (real) effect on health with second hand smoke. If we really want to save lives let's ban alcohol. Alchol kills more innocent people than second hand smoke does. But since everyone drinks and not everyone smokes it is easier to ban smoking. And everyone has warm fuzzies inside because they are doing "the right thing".

The next hot topic is banning incandescent light bulbs. The reasoning is that light bulbs is a one cause in the release of green house gases that possibly leads to the ill-named "global warming." (It is a different post about why global warming is a bad label for what the scientists mean -global climate change.) But I have have a better solution, instead of banning cheap lighting for people lets ban bottled water. So much energy goes into making something that already comes out of the tap (which you can put your own filter on). It is really insane that people that are "champions for the environment" also drink bottled water. But I guess they only want to ban things that will not inconvenience them, just other people.

The real problem is that these bans will not stop, once something is banned they will move on the the next hot topic. I can see that we want to protect people in the workplace, so they don't want smoking, but it will not end there. What about high fat diets (already working on those bans), what about high sugar diets (started there too). What if Jenette finds that sound-making toys do reduce dramatic play, should we ban toys that make sound? It sounds stupid now but what if a movement gets going and starts to rally for that ban?

And that is what this all comes down to. I don't want to inhale second hand smoke, so I tent to go to restaurants that do not allow smoking, in fact I don't go to Bobby T's anymore becasue of the smoking there. But it was the restaurants choice to not allow smoking. I had hallogen bulbs in my home, but that is because of my choice. (I stoped getting them besuace the lamp that I put them in burned through them much quicker than normal light bulbs.) I avoid unnecessary fat and sugar in my diet. So if I want an extra large soda, or fries I can have it. The goverment should not be our babysitter. And with every ban that is passed we have one less freedom, and that is not the way America should be.

So go ahead and post why I am wrong. I know that for some contrary people out there that just the fact that I posted that bans are wrong will now make you believe that bans are the best thing ever, and that is ok. Just keep in mind that I think that people can think for themselves and that I value freedom. Try to form your rebuttal within that framework. If you can't that is fine, but realize that I already know that some people think that the government need to protect people at all costs, so I don't need to hear that one.