Each year, the government insidiously passes more laws to intrude further into our lives. Some laws make life better for society overall, but I really think that most laws make our lives worse. Even if a law is written with a good intention in mind, the overwhelming costs and bureaucracy inherent in the conception, approval and enforcement of that law costs taxpayers a great deal of money and a lot of lost efficiency in life, so most of the time it is just overall not worth it. Just because something might be bad, it doesn’t necessarily mean we need to come up with a law against it. Otherwise, we would have pages and pages of laws against profanity, laziness, obesity, telling lies to our parents, picking our noses, wearing flip-flops with dress pants and singing in public with your headphones on.
I confess that I don’t know all the exact details of all the following new laws for 2009, but I’ll offer my opinion on them based on my initial impressions. In all fairness, I will open-mindedly welcome any feedback and education if I’m reading things incorrectly. The list of laws is all taken verbatim from this article as my only source.
Text-messaging while driving: There is a new law “prohibiting the use of text-messaging devices — including cellphones, BlackBerrys and laptop computers — while driving“. Furthermore, “Motorists may not text at a stoplight“
On one hand, when I am driving, I would like the right to my own safety and not have to worry about some other driver causing an accident because of distracted driving. But isn’t unsafe driving already forbidden? If a driver is applying eye shadow while driving, shouldn’t it also be subjected to the same rules? I’m in favor of this law because I personally believe that text-messaging DOES lead to significantly riskier driving and because it affects others. On the other hand, if there were a hypothetical scenario where a drivers are 100% sure that their driving does not affect other people’s lives and property, then I would not care. In that case, let them make the decision whether or not to take the risk of text-messaging. But since our highways and roads are public domain, my rights to safer driving are preserved by this law, enough that it worth the $$$ required to enforce it.
Increase in traffic ticket prices: A separate law, aimed at paying for new courthouses, will raise the price of traffic tickets starting today. Infractions will carry a new $35 assessment, and the fee to process a request to attend traffic school and keep the ticket off the driver’s record will be $49, up from $24. Fines imposed upon convictions of misdemeanors or felonies will result in an additional $30 assessment.
I have mixed thoughts on this. The prices and add-on fees for traffic tickets should reflect a balance between discouraging dangerous driving and not causing outrageous hardship for first-time offenders. Make it costly enough that drivers will think VERY SERIOUSLY before ever considering driving drunk or drag racing, but don’t let making a rolling stop or failing to wear seat-belts result in sending someone to bankruptcy.
Hospital employees anti-snooping law: There is a new law “creating a new state office with the authority to investigate and impose harsh new penalties on hospital workers who snoop without permission in patient medical records”
While it is certainly wrong for a hospital employee to look at one’s medical records for their own kicks, we do not need to create another taxpayer-supported new state office to deal specifically with it. It would be preferable that hospitals that fire employees for this infraction be protected from lawsuits for so-called “wrongful termination”. Many times, hospitals have their hands tied from disciplining or eliminating bad workers out of fear of this type of lawsuit.
Nutrition laws: The nutrition law, which affects restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets, requires brochures to be supplied to diners beginning July 1 and calorie counts on menus starting in 2011. Another measure requires that fruity beverages known as “alcopops” be prominently labeled as containing alcohol, starting July 1.
This law is a waste of paper and time. A few years ago, I grew quite fond of the prime rib sandwiches at Quiznos. In a rare fit of health-consciousness, I grew curious as to how many calories they contained. I googled high and low and found nothing. I then contacted Quiznos corporate office to inquire. They informed me that they don’t have that data available for the public. I was surprised and a little irked. Therefore, I stopped being their customer. Let people choose where they wish to eat. If today’s health-savvy customer truly cares about knowing how many calories are in their restaurant meals, then they should reward the restaurants that make the information easily accessible. I might be more supportive of a rule requiring them to produce the information on demand, but I am against the wasteful regulation of requiring reprinting of menus and brochures. My friends own a restaurant (albeit a mom-and-pop place and not a chain), but if you ask them, they’ll tell you it’s a struggle to keep in business. They don’t need further regulations to waste their time and money. As for the alcopops, personally, if I were ever to order a $9 “Tropical Electric Berry Lemonade”, it’s common sense that I pretty much expect there to be at least $1 worth of rum or vodka in there. Is there really a need for a costly new law?
Alternative fuel: Allows drivers who run their vehicles on restaurant kitchen grease to skip most of a $300 fee previously required of anyone who hauled used vegetable oil or other grease away from an eatery. Veggie-oil users will now have to pay $75 for a license.
Reading this was a bit confusing to me. I guess I’m in favor of reversal of a previous wrongful tax. I would not be in favor of the government taking $300 from someone who simply wanted to haul used veggie oil away from a restaurant, so I guess I should be happy that they are reducing it. If this would encourage McDonald’s not to reuse their oil as much or if it will decreased gasoline consumption, then why not do away with the old tax altogether, rather than pass a new law to modify an old law that should not have been in place anyway? Ugh.
Computer bullying: Allows school officials to suspend or recommend expulsion for pupils who engage in bullying by electronic means, including over the Internet.
Do we really need a specific law for this? Bullying is by definition a crime of one student against another. Schools should have the authority to take action to remedy this situation whether the bullying consists of posting nasty things on someone’s MySpace or of incessantly chanting “Fatty fatty two by four. Can’t get through the kitchen door”
Carpool lanes: Makes it a crime to forge, counterfeit or falsify a clean air sticker issued by the DMV to certain low-emission vehicles, allowing them to be driven in high occupancy vehicle lanes. A separate law permits drivers of fully enclosed three-wheel motor vehicles to use carpool lanes.
Isn’t falsification of government-issued documents and stickers already illegal? I wonder how much it costs in time and money for somebody to come up with these things. I get the sense that there government agencies feel driven to manufacture busywork so as to justify their existence.
Dangerous chemicals: Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt a plan to identify and evaluate dangerous chemicals in consumer products.
Red light. Red light. I am suspicious when a law calls for “adopting a plan” or “appointing a committee” or “launching a fact-finding mission”. It usually means let’s give somebody a job, paid for by taxpayers to delude ourselves into feeling good that we are doing something.
Drunk driving: Drivers on probation for DUI convictions face suspension of their license and towing of their vehicle if they drive on California highways with a blood or breath alcohol level of .01% or higher.
This would only apply to drivers who have already been convicted of a previous DUI, so I think it’s fair. My understanding that mouthwash an hour ago or a slice of chocolate rum cake would not result in levels even this high. It would take at least one alcoholic drink. Anyway is it a good idea for drivers previously convicted of DUI not be allowed to drive even if they’ve had just one beer? Yeah, why not?
Emergency calls: Increases penalties for people who knowingly use 911 emergency lines for calls other than emergencies. The penalty is a written warning on first offense, $50 on second, $100 on third.
About time we had this law. I have heard of people using ambulances to get a ride. Someone wants to visit their friend who lives close to the hospital. They call 911, get the benefit of the world’s speediest chauffeur service and then sign out AMA when they get to the ER. Even though, it doesn’t sound very harsh the way it’s written.
Emergency planning: Merges the governor’s Office of Emergency Services and Office of Homeland Security into a single cabinet-level agency.
Er, is this consolidation and downsizing? Sounds good if it is. The cynical side of me doubts the government would be voluntarily reducing their own scope. I don’t know enough about this to have a strong opinion.
Fire prevention: Improves measures to prevent damage from wildfires, including a requirement that homeowners clear brush from a 100-foot perimeter around their houses. Another law requires California forests to be better managed against tree-killing pests and to make it easier for fire departments to access firefighting equipment.
As you know, I’m usually against government telling us what to do with our homes and property, but since this affects other people, at least in theory, I would tend to support it. As for the second part, it sounds like another example of vague talk. How can you pass a law requiring the government to have better management. Is this in contrast to the current official policy of the government having crappy management against tree-killing pests.
Foreclosure consultants: Provides a registration and bonding process for foreclosure consultants and bars such consultants from entering into certain agreements with homeowners.
I’m not as excited about this law as most people. Yeah, of course it’s bad when consumers get ripped off or misled by the shadier foreclosure consultants as opposed to dealing with the registered, bonded ones. So it’s necessary to have anti-fraud measures in place. However, the opposite extreme occurs when you get too far in the direction of protecting people against their own stupidity. Maybe it’s not quite the same thing, but if I’m going to have my hair cornrow braided by an unlicensed cosmetologist as opposed to a bonded, registered, licensed one, that is the risk that I take.
Green jobs: Requires the state to develop a comprehensive approach to the needs of California’s workforce associated with its budding “green” economy.
Read the wording. I’m sure you know my view on this. Sounds all nice and fluffy.
GPS devices: Allows a global positioning system device to be mounted on the windshield of a motor vehicle only in the 7-inch square in the lower corner farthest from the driver or in the 5-inch square in the lower corner nearest the driver.
You mean drivers are forbidden to stick a GPS device right in front of their faces? By all means, let’s institute an expensive law to explicitly forbid this. But, oh I think a 5-inch square is not strict enough. But let’s just institute this and next year, we can kill a few hundred hours of busywork revising it to a 4-inch square.
Hospital infections: Requires hospitals to develop more comprehensive policies and procedures to ensure that patients are not infected in medical facilities.
I think you’re catching on by now. You can never ENSURE that patients are not infected, nor ensure against any adverse event in medicine. Requiring the “development of policies” means somebody is going to spend many hundreds of hours writing down some rules like “All nurses will wash their hands for 60 seconds every 20 minutes with sterile water running at a stream of no less than x feet per second and have each handwashing event witnessed and signed off by a minimum of 2 supervisors “, with no real evidence that it would do more good than harm.
Human trafficking: Voids any provision of a contract that purports to allow a deduction from a person’s wages for the cost of the person immigrating and being transported to the United States.
Human trafficking is terrible. But I really don’t think this law will put a dent in it. How many of the really bad cases of human trafficking even involve some sort of legitimate contract? Human trafficking is already a crime. Just enforce it.
License plates: Creates a California Gold Star Family license plate for families who have lost loved ones in wars.
Warm fuzzy gesture. How much is this benefiting working Californians? Is this the best use of our state budget?
Meat safety: Makes it a misdemeanor to buy, sell or butcher sick and some disabled animals for human consumption.
This is currently not illegal? I’m not sure of the specifics. If a healthy cow slips and strains his ankle on the way to the slaughterhouse, does this disqualify him from becoming food. Sniff. Just thinking of all this will make me teary-eyed the next time I have kal-bi.
Medical care: Requires doctors treating terminally ill patients to give them comprehensive information about end-of-life options, such as hospice care at home and the right to refuse treatment.
I am a doctor, but I don’t care for terminally ill patients, so I don’t know how much information they actually have regarding their options. To me this sounds like another sheet of paper for patients to sign to add to the killing of trees, but I’ll reserve further comment other than saying quality doctor-patient communication is a very good thing. New regulations specifically dictating what we should or should not say is not a good thing.
Medical insurance: Requires that when insurers cancel someone’s coverage, they allow other members of the family to keep theirs.
No. No. No. Don’t dictate details. Then consumers will have limited choices. Leave things alone and give consumers an option. Do they want to give their business to the insurance company that has this option? Or would they prefer to give their business to the other insurance company that doesn’t have this option but has other things they want, like lower premiums and better mental health coverage?
Another law prevents insurers from refusing to pay the medical bills of customers injured while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Again, allow the insurance companies and consumers to agree on this ahead of time. If I anticipate falling down in a druken stupor and injuring myself on a regular basis, then I sure better choose an insurance companies that does not refuse to pay under these circumstances. However, if I feel reasonably confident that I can avoid these types of injuries, then allow me to do business with an insurance company that has other perks that are more attractive to me, but which will not be responsible if I injure myself while drunk or high.
A third new law requires insurers to pay for HIV screening.
Give me a choice. I can either buy insurance that will cover my screening, or I can buy the other insurance that doesn’t cover it, but has other things I want, like lower cost.
Medical techs: Requires California’s Emergency Medical Services Authority to establish and maintain a statewide registry of the status of emergency medical technician licenses. Also mandates that beginning July 1, 2010, all EMTs undergo mandatory criminal background checks.
I’m not sure how EMTs are screened nowadays. However, in general, I think it should be the decision of the employer. I wonder how much the database companies which sell background checks contribute to the lawmakers who passed this law. What’s next? Mandatory criminal checks for waiters who handle our food and vets who care for our dogs?
Click here for part two.
