What’s proper role of government?

Posted 3/10/16

What is the proper role of government? In which aspects of daily life should the state be involved, and to what extent?

Such questions have been at the center of American political life for …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

What’s proper role of government?

Posted

What is the proper role of government? In which aspects of daily life should the state be involved, and to what extent?

Such questions have been at the center of American political life for centuries. For many, government authority – particularly at the federal level – represents a threat to economic growth and individual liberty, and a usurper of powers that should remain on the state and local levels. To many others, government is viewed as a force for good – a means to make a positive difference in people’s lives, help even the playing field, and protect the rights of all citizens.

Rhode Island lawmakers have, in recent weeks, introduced and considered several measures that may be viewed and debated within this context. One’s ultimate stance on the various legislative proposals likely correlates to one’s view of government itself – although a particular bill seems to be less a test of political thought than of basic common sense.

Rep. Teresa Tanzi and Sen. Cynthia A. Coyne have brought forward, in their respective chambers, a bill that would push the minimum age at which people may purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21. If approved, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2017.

Rhode Island would be just the second state to adopt the new age restriction, joining Hawaii. It should be noted, however, that scores of municipalities across the United States – including 80 in Massachusetts – have adopted similar ordinances.

The dramatic, negative consequences of smoking and tobacco use have been clear for decades now. Nearly half a million Americans – and nearly 2,000 Rhode Islanders – die annually as a result of tobacco use. A statement from Tanzi and Coyne puts the state’s yearly health care costs related to smoking at more than $639 million.

Is it the place of government to restrict the free access of adults to a legal, albeit highly dangerous, product? In this case, we believe it is, particularly since the same age restriction is already placed on alcohol. Increasing the smoking age to 21 represents a reasonable, positive step in the ongoing effort to confront a major public health issue.

The answer is somewhat less clear with regard to a proposal sponsored by Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski, which would ban the use of hand-held mobile devices without a hands-free accessory.

The bill – which provides exemptions for emergency situations and public safety personnel – would institute a fine of up to $100 for first-time offenders. That charge could subsequently be suspended with proof of a hands-free accessory being acquired by the operator.

Connecticut and Vermont have similar restrictions in place, while the Massachusetts Senate has approved a measure of its own. Sosnowski’s bill has passed committee and was set to be considered by the full Senate this week, although it has previously gotten to that point without receiving needed approval from the House and the governor.

Rhode Island has already taken the obvious step of banning texting while driving, and we understand the support for putting that same restriction on hand-held cell phone use. Distracted driving leads to needless accidents, injuries, deaths, and cell phone use clearly plays a part in that – although in a less clear-cut manner than texting.

We have concerns over the double standard the bill creates for public safety personnel, and would note that not all Rhode Islanders have the means to obtain the hands-free technology cited in the legislation. Regardless, we are inclined to be supportive of the proposal, given that safer roads are in everyone’s interest.

As for the common-sense test mentioned earlier? An overwhelming majority in the Rhode Island Senate failed it recently, approving a measure aimed at controlling the leaves and needles from plants.

The bill – which passed on a 26-6 vote – would institute a $500 fine for homeowners who do not “maintain and control any and all debris generated by a tree or shrubs that create a nuisance to the abutting property owner.”

Its sponsor, Sen. Frank Ciccone, has said the intent is to target needles and sap from pine trees in response to constituent complaints. But the vagueness of the bill’s language – and the obvious fact that no one controls the wind or weather, and thus where leaves or needles may blow – makes its quick approval truly stupefying.

The proposal presents enormous questions in terms of practicality and enforcement. Intended or not, it would also likely carry many negative consequences – exacerbating or even creating petty disputes between neighbors, for example.

The tree and shrub debris bill now heads to the House, where we hope common sense prevails. We believe this is one area in which most reasonable people can agree government has absolutely no place.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here