A cool study came out a couple days ago showing that younger teenagers are not inherently worse drivers than older teenagers. As states have been putting more restrictions on teen drivers and increasing the minimum age to get a permit or a license, fatal crashes among 16- and 17-year-olds have decreased. But, contrary to what supporters of stricter laws thought would happen, fatal crashes among 18- and 19-year-olds increased by approximately the same amount.
This suggests that the stereotype of teenagers as reckless, overconfident, and irresponsible is false – they tend to get into more car crashes not because they are inherently worse at driving, but because they simply have less experience. By forcing people to wait till later and later ages before they can learn to drive, governments aren’t helping anyone. Perhaps if the driving age was lowered, say, to 14 or 15, then 16- and 17-year-olds would have fewer accidents. This study is good news for anyone who, like me, supports individual liberty and is opposed to stereotypes of people based on age.
Out of the three Massachusetts ballot initiatives, this is the one that I am the least opinionated about. Question 2 would decriminalize the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and instead institute civil penalties. Convictions for marijuana possession would no longer give people a criminal record or hurt their chances of getting into college, getting a job, receiving student financial aid, public housing, or public assistance.
On the one hand, I don’t think the government has the right to prevent things that it has decided are “harmful,” “dangerous,” or “bad for people.” The government doesn’t have the right to ban things that could lead to harmful consequences, so opponents of Question 2 are wrong to argue that marijuana use should be penalized because it could lead to the use of more dangerous drugs. Additionally, the purpose of the law is not to deter crimes but simply to punish criminals.
On the other hand, I don’t see anything wrong with the fact that marijuana users are penalized in their chances for college admissions, jobs, or publicly-funded assistance. Because using (or not using) marijuana is a choice, it does not seem fundamentally unfair for schools and employers to take it into account when determining an applicant’s merit. Another thing I don’t like about Question 2 is that it would force offenders under age 18 to complete a drug-awareness program or else have their fine raised to $1000 (which the parents would be responsible for if the kid didn’t pay it). This is ageist and demeaning. I am opposed to the idea of forcing offenders to undergo educational programs because I believe the purpose of the law is to punish criminals, not to rehabilitate them. I also don’t believe in holding parents responsible for their children’s conduct, because everyone is responsible for his or her own conduct. And why not treat people of all ages equally?
So in conclusion, I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with the current marijuana laws. A “yes” vote on Question 2 wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, but why fix something that isn’t broken? I don’t think Question 2 would make the laws any more just than they are now, so I’m going to vote “no” on it.
I saw an article in the Boston Herald about a new ban on junk food in Newburyport, MA schools. I think this is just ridiculous. The state government has basically turned into the gun police, the driving police, the health police, and now the food police.
Sadly, there are a lot of schools that have decided not to sell desserts, soda, and other good-tasting food in their cafeterias. Saying that you’re not going to sell junk food is one thing, but telling people they can’t bring it in violates people’s rights on a whole new level. One could argue that the school has a right to decide what products it wants to sell, but the school has no right to tell kids what they can and can’t bring in.
Kids in Newburyport now are forbidden from bringing in all sweets, from candy to pastries. So much for making school fun. Now kids can’t even look forward to eating something tasty at lunch time.
Dr. Caroline Apovian of the Boston Medical Center was quoted as saying, “I’m all for it. We have an obesity epidemic in children, and candy is just empty calories. I can’t imagine a parent being upset that schools are banning candy.”
I beg to differ. Candy is not empty calories – it tastes good. That’s the whole point of candy.
Maybe people would be healthier if all they ate was fruit, vegetables, and plain, boring meat, but what’s the point of living if you’re not allowed to do anything fun? A life without candy and sweets is not a very high-quality life. People of all ages should have the freedom to decide what they want to eat.
Recently, it seems like every law the Massachusetts State Legislature passes restricts our liberty. Here are some examples:
- In 2006, it became illegal to ride in a car without a seat belt. Officers now have the power to stop a car just because they see someone not wearing a seat belt, and issue a fine to the “offender.”
- Since 2006, all Massachusetts residents are required to have health insurance. This is a blatant violation of people’s rights to choose how they want to spend their own money. I guess it didn’t occur to the Legislature that in a capitalist country, the economy should be based on people choosing to buy the products and services that they want, not being forced to buy what the government thinks they should.
- In June of 2007, the Legislature killed a measure to allow the people to vote on whether or not to ban gay marriage. There goes the people’s right to democracy.
- On September 1, 2007, getting a license became a lot harder for teenage drivers. Thankfully, the legislature didn’t raise the driving age to 17 1/2, as some people wanted, but they increased training requirements from 6 to 12 hours behind the wheel at drivers’ education and from 12 to 40 hours driving with a parent or other adult.
- A law went into effect on July 10, 2008, that requires all children under age 8 to sit in booster seats or car seats while in the car. Personally, I started sitting in the front seat of the car without a child seat of any kind when I was 4 or 5, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Forcing a 7-year-old to sit in a booster seat is ridiculous. The government has no right to tell people how they have to sit in their own cars.
- On July 31, 2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed the repeal of the 1913 law that prevents out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. This spreads gay marriage to the entire country and violates the rights of citizens from other states to set their own marriage laws.
- According to ban kids under 14 from riding all-terrain vehicles, and require everyone who rides an ATV to wear a helmet. The House is in the process of discussing the bill.
Perhaps these laws have made the state safer, but collectively they have made Massachusetts a lot less free. The State Legislature seems to be slowly but surely shrinking the amount of things people are allowed to do, and that is not good. Governments simply do not have the right to ban things that aren’t immoral and don’t hurt other people.
Ronald Reagan once said, “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” I couldn’t agree with him more.
I would like to give a short eulogy for Betty Friedan, who has died today. Friedan practically founded the modern women’s rights movement by writing The Feminine Mystique and co-founding NOW, the National Organization for Women. Friedan supported equal wages for women and wanted to liberate them from undignified, un-individualistic lives as mothers and housewives. Additionally, she opposed the condemnation of old people to tyrannical, meddling nursing homes. Friedan was a courageous, influential fighter for equality, not only for women but for all people.
