The Nanny State Comes to the Chesapeake

[Admin]

In My Opinion by Trevor Bothwell

Apparently not content to confine their legislative excess to Wal-Mart and small business, Maryland Democrats now are threatening the property rights of Maryland boaters, proposing a new bill ostensibly aimed at nothing more than attempting to “protect us from ourselves.”

House Bill 140 is a deplorable and intrusive bit of legislation that would require every individual on a boat to wear a personal flotation device (PFD) while the boat is underway. This bill not only requires the boat’s operator to wear a PFD but also specifically “prohibits an individual from operating or allowing the operation of a vessel while there is present in the vessel an individual not wearing a PFD…” and “[applies] regardless of [an individual’s] age or size of the vessel.”

Considering the fact that federal law already requires all boats to contain one properly-sized personal flotation device for every individual onboard, this bill is a gratuitous display of legislative overreach that all too clearly gives the impression that the state rather than the individual knows what is in the best interest of individual citizens.

One normally would assume that the absurdity of such legislation would defy explanation, but far too many Maryland legislators apparently are either unaware of or unconcerned about the importance of private property rights and the concept of personal responsibility.

The most intimate property right one possesses is the right to own one’s body (let pro-choice Democrats refute that one). In short, if an individual boater feels the need to wear a personal flotation device while on the water, he will do so whether the state mandates it or not. A cursory glance around the Chesapeake Bay on a summer weekend afternoon validates this argument. Maryland’s waterways have been filled for years with hobbyists who fish in small boats and wear life vests for their own wellbeing.

However, given that current state law requires only small children on boats 21 feet or less in length to wear PFDs at all times, it seems there’s even more at play here than a superfluous concern for our safety. According to Boating Statistics 2004, published by the U.S. Coast Guard in September 2005, there were 206,681 motorboats registered in Maryland in 2004 and only 16 boating fatalities. Boating certainly can be a dangerous activity, but these numbers indicate that it is undeniably safe if people are smart about it and observe existing laws.

In this light, one could be forgiven for wondering whether this bill is just another ploy by Maryland legislators to stuff state coffers at the expense of our liberties, along the same line as red light cameras and night vision goggles issued to Maryland troopers to enforce seat belt laws (a project wisely discontinued by Governor Bob Ehrlich last year). Indeed, tucked away at the end of HB 140 is a section estimating that state revenues are expected to increase by as much as $700,000 by fiscal year 2007 as a result of this new law, which would allow the state to fine first-time offenders as much as $500 and slap them with a misdemeanor. A subsequent offense could carry a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment up to a year, or both (!). All for conducting oneself in a manner that is perfectly legal today.

Alas, it is becoming ever more apparent that our bureaucrats increasingly view taxpayers as little more than revenue generators -- serfs to be exploited through violation of bizarre regulations -- through which these lawmakers can finance pet projects for their own self-gratification.

Yet how odd that so few among us are incensed by such behavior. How strange that so many of us seem oblivious to the idea that if enough freedom-stomping legislation is passed, eventually we’ll all be guilty of some crime or another, many of which are simply manufactured out of whole cloth at the hands of our politicians.

Whatever Maryland’s motives, perhaps the most offensive aspect of such nanny-statism is the undeniable fact that as government further purports to assume for its citizens the responsibilities individuals should retain for themselves, dependence upon it only increases. Extrapolated to its logical conclusion, such abuse of government authority will slowly encourage and compel citizens to surrender their liberties to the point where we effectively become wards of the state.

This article originally appeared on RealClearPolitics on February 8, 2006. Trevor Bothwell is a freelance writer living in Maryland. He welcomes comments at bothwelltj@yahoo.com.

©2006 Trevor Bothwell

[blacklabman]

So, let's see. If I want to take a cruise ship from Baltimore I have to wear a life preserver after it leaves dock, at least until it sails into Virginia waters south of the Potomac. That would do a great deal for the fledging cruise industry in that city.

This is the reason I have never voted Democratic and never will.

[oldman]

Trevor - I of all people do not want to be told how to live my life especially by the government. Being a fisherman I have never worn a flotation device while doing so, however; I never wore a seat belt while driving my cars before it was the law. My one bad accident I wasn't wearing one and fortunately was thrown out a door with no ill effects less some bumps but yet I read that wearing seat belts saves lives. Common sense tells me that is probably true. I have also been thrown out of a boat. Luckily it was summer and I was young. I wonder what those that been thrown out and didn't survive would say about house bill 140 and PFD's. I understand your point and cannot really disagree but at the same time I have to admit this specific bill very likely will save lives.

[willie]

Delegate Pugh is from Baltimore City. What could be her motive in this brainfart?
.
HB 140 Status as of January 25, 2006: Bill is in the House - First Reading Environmental Matters Heard
FEBRUARY 8
1:00 p.m.
Sponsored By Delegates Pugh, Anderson, C. Davis, Goodwin, Harrison, Kirk, Marriott, McIntosh, and Paige
Entitled Public Safety - Personal Flotation Devices - Mandatory Use
Committee
Assignments House: Environmental Matters

[kom526]

Let me get this straight. Nine people from Baltimore City want me to wear a pfd while I am out fishing? OK

Also I cannot allow the operator of the vessel to be on the vessel w/o a pfd?
I can't let anyone else be on the vessel w/o a pfd?
Do I look like the USCG or DNR? Where is the money going to come from to ENFORCE this law?

Friggin Baltimorons
I just did the math...It will cost $5.1 million for start up and purchases and hirings, plus an additional $3 million to keepthis project floating. The hope is reap a whopping $700,000 in fiscal 07 with the INCOME dwindling to $220,000 by 2011. Let's see, even if you were guaranteed 700k a yr the TAXPAYER would still be losing money. 700,000 x 4 = 2.8 million. These delegates need to be more concerned about the state of education in Baltimore City.

[tikipirate]

This bill is yet another ploy to bring the laws of the water in line with the laws of the highway.

Years ago, my best friend and I rented a boat and took it out of Solomons on a Thursday afternoon. I told him, "We are clear of the 'No Wake' zone, open it up." MSP with a radar gun pulled us over. MSP boarded our boat, saw that there was a beer can in the holder, and administered a breathalizer to my friend. They then cited us for numerous violations...on a USN rental boat!

I am very old-school. Safety equipment is there for one reason, and a USCG courtesy call is just that. I swim like a brick, and choose to wear a type-III PFD to save my fat non-swimming ass. But MSP barging in on the waters, and setting up 'speed traps' and 'safety checks' is just another way to set up a DUI checkpoint. Luckily, since I can't swim, I also don't drink afloat.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by oldman

I have also been thrown out of a boat.

I have been thrown from a horse. I've also fallen off bicycles, dirt bikes and playground slides. I've fallen skiing - both water and snow. And I've lost count of the number of times I've been flung out of a tube and hit the water like hitting a brick wall.

Requiring safety devices, or outlawing those activities altogether would save lives. If snow skiing were against the law, Michael Kennedy and Sonny Bono would be alive today.

Trevor says:

Alas, it is becoming ever more apparent that our bureaucrats increasingly view taxpayers as little more than revenue generators -- serfs to be exploited through violation of bizarre regulations -- through which these lawmakers can finance pet projects for their own self-gratification.

and that is exactly correct. They pass these silly laws, supposedly to "save lives", but the real goal is to saddle law enforcement with the burden of nanny-ing the populace in order to write tickets and earn money for the State of Maryland.

Seatbelt laws are a great example. Not once, but twice I've been nailed for not wearing my seatbelt. I was not endangering anyone, nor was I breaking any other traffic laws. Yet some cop had to spend his valuable time writing me up so the State could make $50 - time that could be better spent catching robbers and murderers, of which Maryland has no shortage.

It's absurd.

[dems4me (Premo)]

And I thought this thread was about the SuperNanny tv show coming back

[dan0623_2000]

Originally Posted by oldman

Trevor - I of all people do not want to be told how to live my life especially by the government. Being a fisherman I have never worn a flotation device while doing so, however; I never wore a seat belt while driving my cars before it was the law. My one bad accident I wasn't wearing one and fortunately was thrown out a door with no ill effects less some bumps but yet I read that wearing seat belts saves lives. Common sense tells me that is probably true. I have also been thrown out of a boat. Luckily it was summer and I was young. I wonder what those that been thrown out and didn't survive would say about house bill 140 and PFD's. I understand your point and cannot really disagree but at the same time I have to admit this specific bill very likely will save lives.

Saying it saves lives is the same as saying the end justifies the means. How much more are you willing to give up to "save a life".

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by dan0623_2000

Saying it saves lives is the same as saying the end justifies the means. How much more are you willing to give up to "save a life".

This conversation reminds me of a Bloom County strip I saw once, where Opus was having a mock-debate with Milo. (This is circa 1988ish - so the Bush reference is toward is George H. W. Bush - not Dubya.)


Milo: I understand my opponent supports the 55 miles per hour speed limit on our highways.

Opus: Saves 50,000 lives per year. I'm definitely in favor of saving lives!

Milo: Then maybe my opponent would like to save another 30,000 lives per year by reducing the speed limit to 45.

Opus: 45?

Milo: Or perhaps save another 25,000 lives by reducing the speed limit to 35!

Opus: Well, 35 is pretty slow.

Milo: Apparently my opponent would send 55,000 men women and children to fiery mangled deaths so he can zip along to his manicurist at 55!

Opus: I DON'T HAVE A MANICURIST!

Milo: He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't.

Opus: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!

Milo: Rebuttal?

Opus: Uh... Bush is a wimp.