The nanny state gone wild

Well I for one am certainly glad that the Ontario Provincial Police are unstinting in their pursuit of crooks, villains, evil doers, criminals of the highest order, and assorted other ne’er do wells. Why just last week they stopped a trucker on the 401 and charged him with … not speeding, or improper passing, or dangerous driving, or having an unsafe load, or road rage. No, they stopped him for smoking!

According to this article in The Toronto Star, the driver was pulled over and given a $305 ticket for smoking in the cab of his rig.

The man, who hails from London, Ont., was headed for Windsor when he was pulled over Wednesday along Highway 401 and given a ticket under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

The law, considered a Canadian standard-setter when it was passed in 2006, forbids smoking in all workplaces and enclosed public spaces, including buildings, structures or vehicles worked in or frequented by employees, according to the government's website.

What makes this so egregious is that it is his own rig. He’s an owner-operator and it’s his property, his home away from home. Yet the long arm of the state still thinks it has the right to reach in and legislate what he can or cannot do in his own property.

What’s next for Ontario’s finest? Will they be raiding my home office to see if there’s an ash tray on the desk? How about busting the farmer flouting the law by having a quick puff in the cab of his tractor? Oh and don’t forget those dastardly real estate agents who might want a quick nicotine fix in their car with the agent’s name and logo on the side – clearly a workplace in need of protection.

And while they’re doing that perhaps they could, if they get a chance, keep an eye out for the guys who have broken into several homes in this area over the past couple of months, or find the hit and run driver who put a friend’s son in hospital, or maybe even try to find some of those many missing native women. That is if they’re not too busy with important stuff like this.

And they wonder why respect for the law is decreasing.

Infantilizing drivers

There’s been quite a debate over Ontario’s latest move to further restrict the freedom of its younger citizens when it comes to driving privileges. Supporters tend to be parents and politicians (Dalton McGuinty: “If that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until they reach the age of 22, then, as a dad, I am more than prepared to do that ... We're going to take special steps, special measures, to protect our children."), while opponents, not surprisingly, tend to be the young drivers themselves (and quite a few parents, it must be said).

The proposed legislation combines drinking and driving restrictions (which virtually nobody opposes) with limits on the number of passengers young drivers may have in their vehicles. Under the current legislation, a G2 license holder faces restrictions on the number of passengers during the midnight to 5 a.m. period only. The new law, if passed, will restrict any under-20 G2-licensed driver to no more than one passenger aged 19 and under until they have had their G2 for at least one year (i.e. approximately 2 ½ years driving experience).

It’s this latter restriction that’s getting the most attention as opponents claim it will seriously curtail the ability of young people to have a designated driver, for example, when planning a night out. Car pooling to school, hockey practice, even church on Sunday will become illegal if more than one non-related passenger is in the vehicle. Age discrimination, pure and simple, the more polite say.

But there’s another, more serious issue at play here. As Robert Sibley points in Saturday’s Ottawa Citizen, these restrictions on young motorists may have such unintended consequences as removing “the requirement of responsibility from those most in need of acquiring it”. Dubbed infantilism, the concept is that by taking the ability away from people to make their own decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions (good or bad), we effectively encourage a continued level of immaturity in young adults.

But it seems to be a selective immaturity. It’s hard to reconcile such legislation with the fact that these very same young men and women are deemed old enough and mature enough to vote at 18; they are deemed old enough and mature enough to enter into binding legal contracts including, ironically, buying a car; they are deemed old enough and mature enough to get married and raise families; and they are deemed old enough and mature enough to fight, and die, on foreign soil for the very rights and freedoms which they are being denied by the nanny state back home.