The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a government agency that has no business existing, recently enacted ridiculously stringent guidelines that severely threaten the cigar smoking and pipe tobacco hobbies.

Amongst the asinine measures enacted by the FDA that went into effect last August is what amounts to a ban on charitable donations of tobacco products. Including those intended for the troops.

Via The Tampa Bay Times:

Among the regulations is what many interpret as a ban on the charitable donation of tobacco products. Premium cigarmakers and retailers like Thompson that have donated thousands of cigars each year risk fines or other sanctions if they keep giving.

Their hands, they say, are tied.

“The troops are out there putting their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, rights and privileges, and the federal government is taking away those same freedoms and rights,” said Rocky Patel, owner of Rocky Patel Premium Cigar Co. in Bonita Springs. “This is how we can give back to our country and it’s amazing the FDA unilaterally seeks to take that away. It just hurts me we’re not going to be able to do this anymore.”

…

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Darron Wright, deputy commander, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, smokes a cigar after crossing the border from Iraq into Kuwait, more than seven years after he drove into Iraq during the US invasion. (AP Photo/ Maya Alleruzzo)

The freeze on donations is a troubling development for Mark Van Trees.

Van Trees runs Support the Troops, a Wesley Chapel-based nonprofit organization that sends care packages to bases in locations such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Cigars are the second-most-requested item in those packages, behind coffee and ahead of toothpaste and tube socks, Van Trees said.

…

“It means the world to these guys who love to sit by the fire and smoke some sticks,” Van Trees said. “This is going to put a huge hole in what we do for them.”

Retired Army Sgt. Charles Claybaker of St. Petersburg knows firsthand the joy of puffing on a fine cigar far from home.

In 2009, Claybaker was serving with a 3rd Ranger Battalion platoon at a base in a remote, mountainous part of Afghanistan when a “Support the Troops” package arrived with cigars and playing cards, among other items. As a commanding officer, Claybaker was charged with keeping up morale, and the stogies helped.

“After a long mission and you get into a firefight or something like that, it’s nice to have a cigar and play cards with your buddies,” he said. “For a few minutes, it just makes you feel like you’re back home, like you’re American again, especially in a place like Afghanistan that culturally is so extraordinarily different.” Read More…

U.S. Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL 14th District), is leading the fight in Congress to help put premium cigars back in the hands of our soldiers.

“The FDA’s regulation of individually-rolled, premium cigars in general is unreasonable and has led to unintentional, but very real consequences, like halting one of the most popular charitable donations to our troops,” Castor said in a statement, according to FOX News.

Yesterday, Castor filed H.R. 5955, a bill that would once again allow for the charitable contribution of premium cigars to U.S. soldiers serving the country around the globe.

HR 5955 is summarized as, “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow the charitable distribution of traditional large and premium cigars to members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.”

Now 1) I would rather have our soldiers back home instead of nation building in the Middle East and 2) I’d rather see a bill that not only ends the FDA’s stupid regulations of the cigar industry but ends the FDA itself — but this is a good start. It’s not often that I get the opportunity to salute a Democrat, but kudos to you Representative Castor!

Last week brave and honorable government officials in Overton, TX, took down two violent criminals who were poisoning local residents by selling beverages without the proper permits.

No, that’s not what happened. Not even close.

Some government assholes shut down a lemonade stand run by two little girls who were trying to raise enough money for a Father’s Day present for their dad.

Andria and Zoey Green, two evil business owners running an unlicensed establishment, taken down by heroic government officials.

Via KLTV:

OVERTON, TX (KLTV) – A little summer fun was spoiled by police in Overton, and state health laws. Andria and Zoey Green wanted to raise $105 for a Father’s Day present.

“We were trying to raise some money to take our dad to Splash Kingdom,” 8-year-old Andria explains.

Their mother, Sandi Evans says her daughters have an entrepreneurial spirit.

“The girls are always into making their own money,” Evans says.

The girls initially wanted to start a paper route, but decided on a lemonade stand to make money more quickly.

…

“A code enforcement officer and the chief, she called me to the side and said we needed a permit,” Sandi recalls.

The City agreed to waive the $150 fee for a ‘Peddler’s Permit,” but the health department would prove a bigger problem.

Police Chief Clyde Carter explains, “It is a lemonade stand but they also have a permit that they are required to get.”

Texas House Bill 970, or the Texas Baker’s Bill, prohibits the sale of food which requires time or temperature control to prevent spoilage. Since lemonade technically must be refrigerated to prevent the growth of bacteria, by law, the girls can not sell it without an inspection and permit. Read More…

The most asinine part of the story is that the fucking assholes who busted up the lemonade stand know that it was a pretty shitty thing to do, but they are going to keep on doing it anyways.

“We have to follow by the state health guidelines,” said Carter. “They have to have a permit if they’re going to do the lemonade stands.”

For the mental midgets out their that say ‘the police are just doing their job, they have to enforce the laws even if they are stupid.’ Here are a few stupid laws currently on the books in Texas, that I seriously doubt are enforced:

• When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.
• It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
• Up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos.
• The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

Police officers can, and should use discretion when choosing which laws to enforce. You’re not a good cop that’s just doing your job by shutting down a child’s lemonade stand, you are a fucking asshole.

You hardly ever saw Grandaddy down here
He only came to town about twice a year
He’d buy a hundred pounds of yeast and some copper line
Everybody knew that he made moonshine
Now the revenue man wanted Grandaddy bad
He headed up the holler with everything he had
It’s before my time but I’ve been told
He never came back from Copperhead Road

— Steve Earle “Copperhead Road“

Prohibition, one of many profoundly stupid ideas from “progressive” Democrats who just love to ban things, was repealed in 1933. In 1978, one of the only good things that piece of garbage ever did, Jimmy Carter signed into law legislation that made the private home brewing of beer legal. Why the hell then is “moonshining” still a thing?

Reason.TV recently sat down with Jaime Joyce, author of Moonshine: A Cultural History of America’s Infamous Liquor

Click the image to by the book on Amazon.

It is fucking despicable that over 80 years have passed since the repeal of prohibition, over 2 centuries have passed since we over-threw a tyrannical government and home distilling is still not a legal thing in this country.

The government shouldn’t even have the fucking right to even think about banning stuff like that.

Da’von Shaw, a Sophomore at Bedford High School in suburban Cleveland, brought some apples & craisins to school as part of a “healthy eating” presentation he was giving in one of his classes. During the presentation he took out a knife and used it to slice an apple.

What happened next? A classic over-reaction.

Via WOIO:

“When I took out the knife the teacher then told me that I couldn’t use it, so I didn’t hesitate I just gave it to her,” said Da’von.

He continued with his other classes, but late in the day was suspended for five days. The suspension letter charged him with having a weapon at school.

His mother Shakila Wilson is angry, saying, “I can take off my belt and use that as a weapon. Pens and pencils can be used as a weapon. You can’t take a person with no intentions to harm and put them as a criminal because that’s what you normally do.”

She feels the punishment is too much, didn’t take the circumstances into account and worries about her son missing classes and assignments. Read More…

I’m actually kind of shocked that the zero-tolerance, over-sensitive freaks that control schools didn’t kick the poor kid out.

When questioned by WOIO’s Paul Orlousky the school’s superintendent insinuated that Shaw’s 5-day suspension could have actually have been much worse: an entire year’s suspension. That’s nice the idiots decided not to completely ruin the kids young academic life for something ridiculous.

A Homework assignment given to students at Mapleton Junior High School in Utah has brought the school under fire, and rightfully so, after a parent posted it on Facebook complaining. Onika Harris, a concerned mother of a student, also sent a note to the school’s principal and the teacher that issued the questionable assignment.

Students were sent home with a worksheet that instructed them to go to their family medicine cabinet and write down a list of all of its contents, both over-the-counter and prescriptions. The assignment also instructed the students to describe what the medicine is used for, what the directions are for use, whether or not the user follows the directions, whether or not the medicine is still used, and whether or not the medicine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Via KSL-TV:

MAPLETON, Utah County — What’s in your medicine cabinet? It’s a pretty personal question, but that was the assignment students in one health class at Mapleton Junior High School brought home.

Concerns were raised when a copy of the assignment started circulating on social media websites. Nebo School District officials said not only was the assignment a violation of privacy, but also state HIPPA laws.

“This was an innocent mistake,” said Lana Hiskey with Nebo School District. “It was part of a health unit. (The teacher) wanted parents to know how to clean their medicine cabinets.”

At the top of the assignment, it explained how a major reason for drug abuse in Utah County is people aren’t safely disposing of medications.

The instructions then ask students to go home, look in their medicine cabinets and report back medication names, what the medication is being used for and if it’s still being used.

“(Teachers) create their own lesson plans every day, so something like this can slip through without someone else knowing it,” Hiskey said.

Hiskey describes the first-year teacher who assigned the project as someone who teaches with enthusiasm and wanted to send home meaningful homwork. Read More…

There is no doubt in my mind that this “enthusiastic teacher” is a hard-core liberal idiot.

The shear stupidity that is government has struck again, this time in Nebraska.

Nebraska’s Supreme Court has struck down two exceptions to the state’s public smoking ban, a move which is very likely to destroy some small-business owners as it will outlaw enjoying a fine cigar inside a cigar lounge or tobacco shop. However, the court’s decision has sparred exceptions that allow for guests to smoke in some hotel rooms.

The decision was made this past Friday, in the case of an Omaha pool hall, Big John’s Billiards, whose owner sued the state after it enacted a public smoking ban in 2009. The Nebraska smoking ban had outlawed smoking in all public buildings and private businesses. The law, however, did allow exceptions for cigar lounges, tobacco stores and some hotel rooms.

In a split decision, the Nebraska Supreme Court has decided that because hotel guestrooms are “akin to private homes,” the exception for hotel rooms is permissible. It decided however that the exception for cigar lounges and tobacco shops is “unconstitutional”.

Via The Lincoln Journal Star:

Jason “Hutch” Hutchison fears Jake’s Cigars and Spirits’ bottom line will suffer a serious blow after a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling Friday essentially banning smoking in cigar bars.

The 39-year-old bar owner said the state’s cigar bar exemption allowed him to expand his business in Lincoln and Omaha, hire more staff, start new ventures and give back to the community.

Now, he expects he may lose up to 10 percent of his revenue in light of the Supreme Court decision, which also struck down exemptions to the state’s indoor smoking ban for tobacco shops.

The court upheld the overall smoking ban.

“It’s disappointing that one business threw a temper tantrum, and now they’ve basically ruined it for cigar smokers all across the state,” Hutchison said.

Big John’s Billiards, an Omaha pool hall, has fought the state’s ban since its inception.

Instead of scrapping the ban, the Supreme Court struck down exemptions in the law which it considered special legislation and contrary to lawmakers’ initial intent.

The lawyer for Big John’s said he now hopes state lawmakers will level the playing field in regard to the smoking ban.

But cigar bars and tobacco shops fear their revenue will suffer, and with no immediate guidance on enforcement from the state, some owners may voluntarily end cigar smoking before their permits are up to stay out of trouble. Read More…

Here in Ohio we have a smoking ban as well, but thankfully we are still allowed to go to our local cigar lounge and enjoy a smoke with fellow cigar lovers. Hopefully stupid nanny state loving liberals don’t try to end that here as well.

Seriously stop the fucking planet, I want off.

I wrote a poem once in High School for submission to the schools poetry book, it was deemed too dark and violent for a high school publication. My punishment? It wasn’t included — that was it, I do think I got an A on the project though. It was a good thing that my poem was rejected anyways as it wasn’t entirely original, I took a Metallica song and added extra verses to it.

I couldn’t imagine what sort of punishment I would get in today’s over-sensitized liberal dominated world of ridiculous zero-tolerance policies. The school year is barely even a few days old and already a 16-year-old student at Summerville High School in South Carolina has been not just suspended but arrested as well. All because of a gun.

Not just any gun, this violent juvenile delinquent was sent to jail for the most dangerous gun of all, a fictional one.

That’s right, the poor kid didn’t actually bring a gun to school, he didn’t even threaten to bring the gun to school or make any threats at all. In a class project where the kid wrote an obviously fictionalized version of what he did during the summer, the suspended and arrested student wrote that he had purchased a “gun” to kill his neighbors pet “dinosaur.”

Via WWBT NBC12:

Alex Stone said he and his classmates were told in class to write a few sentences about themselves, and a “status” as if it was a Facebook page.

Stone said in his “status” he wrote a fictional story that involved the words “gun” and “take care of business.”

“I killed my neighbor’s pet dinosaur, and, then, in the next status I said I bought the gun to take care of the business,” Stone said.

Stone says his statements were taken completely out of context.

“I could understand if they made him re-write it because he did have “gun” in it. But a pet dinosaur?” said Alex’s mother Karen Gray.”I mean first of all, we don’t have dinosaurs anymore. Second of all, he’s not even old enough to buy a gun.”

Investigators say the teacher contacted school officials after seeing the message containing the words “gun” and “take care of business,” and police were then notified on Tuesday. Read More…

Police then arrested the poor kid and charged him with “disorderly conduct.”

This story proves that the best way to keep kids away from drugs, is to make them “uncool.”

Kurt Britz cleans jars that will hold recreational marijuana at 3D Cannabis Center in Denver, December 30 2013. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

Studies by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment have shown that teen ganja use has gone down slightly since the state legalized recreational pot-smoking in 2012.While the dropdown is only about 2 percentage points down from before weed smoking became legal, it is still a far cry from the claims of the drug warriors that legalization would destroy America’s youth.

Via The Washington Examiner:

“Even if it’s not statistically significant, Colorado is bucking the nationwide trend,” said Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “You couldn’t argue that marijuana use is somehow worse among teens in Colorado than other states or the nation as a whole.”

Another data point that should hearten Colorado’s concerned parents, via the Phoenix New Times: National teen marijuana consumption has gone up a few points in the previous years; so Colorado’s high schoolers don’t seem to have hiked up their pot consumption since it became legal. Thus, legal-weed opponents seeking data that indicates legalization hurts teens may have to look elsewhere.

While these results might surprise some, they haven’t really raised eyebrows in Colorado’s cannabis business community. Kayvan Khalatbari, a businessman who co-founded the state’s second-oldest marijuana dispensary, said people shouldn’t have expected teen weed consumption to go up after legalization.

“Cannabis, now that it’s legal, kind of is an old person’s drug,” he said. “It’s something that kids are seeing adults use all over the place. It just doesn’t seem as cool to kids anymore.” Read More…

In their never-ending quest to control every aspect of our lives (except for the murder of unborn children) progressives are at it again. A year after former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to ban big gulp cups in the city, another libtard is attacking the sugary drink industry. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Communist, Conn) is seeking a National Soda Tax.

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (C., Conn) or is that Jane’s Addiction frontman Perry Farrell?

The disgusting communist pig, DeLauro, introduced the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Act, also known as the “SWEET Act,” on Wednesday, which would impose a 1 cent excise tax per teaspoon of caloric sweetener in soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, and sweet teas.

From The Courant:

“There is a clear relationship between sugar-sweetened beverages and a host of other health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, obesity and tooth decay,” said DeLauro, a Democrat from New Haven who is serving her twelfth term in Congress as a representative for the state’s third district. The bill is titled the SWEET Act. Milk, and milk substitute products, as well as fruit and vegetable juices, would be exempt from the tax.

“We in the midst of dual epidemics, with obesity and diabetes afflicting our nation and the related, astronomical health care costs,” DeLauro said. Read More…

The Founding Fathers would be ashamed at us for the scumbags we’ve allowed into congress.

Cleveland City Councilman Zack Reed, booking photo from his 10-day jail sentence for his third drunken driving conviction 09/25/2013

In an effort to curb violent gun related crime in the City of Cleveland, Ward 2 City Councilman Zack Reed is proposing to ignore the basic 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and implement a “stop & frisk” policy in the Cleveland Police Department. Reed’s idea, which is not yet an official piece of legislation that has even been proposed to City council, comes on the heels of a very violent Monday night which saw four men injured in four separate gun-related incidents.

In an interview with WKYC’s Tom Beres, Reed said:

“We’ need to get in their face. Let them know if you are carrying a gun we are going to get it. You commit a crime you are going to jail. We are going to do all these aggressive things to put in their mind this is not the Wild Wild West.”

As a Clevelander, albeit one that has moved out and escaped to the suburbs and as a decent human being, I can sympathize with Councilman Reed’s desire to make the streets of my hometown safe for everyone. However, as is typical of the idiotic politicians that make up Northeast Ohio, Reed’s idea is not just an ass backwards way of trying to solve the gun violence problem, its also unconstitutional.

Thanks to the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The key words there are “unreasonable” and “probable cause.” The type of “stop & frisk” situations that would be used, much like the policy that was used in New York City until it was struck down by a Federal Judge would neither be “reasonable” or take legitimate “probable cause” into account. Time and time again studies have shown that the type of “probable cause” used by police officers is their suspect being young, black and in the inner city.

On October 31, 1963, in Cleveland none-the-less, Police Detective Martin J. McFadden saw three men loitering in front of a jewelery store near E. 13th and Euclid Ave. and peering into the windows. Believing that a robbery was about to take place, McFadden approached all three, identified himself as a police officer and then patted them down. During his search he found weapons on two of the three men and they were eventually charged with and convicted of carrying concealed weapons.

The law at the time only allowed police to stop a suspect after a crime was committed, the convicted men appealed their case and it eventually made its was to the United States Supreme Court. In a landmark decision on June 10, 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the court’s opinion that McFadden’s action, called a “Terry Stop” after one of the suspects, was justifiable.

Councilman Reed says that he wants to put in the minds of the criminals in Cleveland that “this is not the Wild Wild West.” The problem with the version of “stop & frisk” that Reed wants to implement, the same version that was struck down in New York is that it is “Wild Wild West” law enforcement. In New York much of the time not only was there no “reasonable” suspicion used in patting down American citizens, but no suspicion at all was used.

On NYPD’s stop & frisk program, via the American Prospect:

At the core of the constitutional challenge to the department’s practices is a comprehensive study by Professor Jeffrey Fagan at Columbia University. Fagan’s study provided overwhelming evidence that New York’s aggressive stop-and-frisk policy was arbitrary and discriminatory. The sheer numbers are staggering—more than 5 million searches have been conducted under the current policy. Nearly 90 percent of the searches did not turn up anything that could justify any kind of arrest or summons. Blacks and Latinos comprised 87 percent of those searches.

More in-depth analysis confirms what the general numbers suggest. Fagan’s study found that a minimum of 6 percent of searches were “apparently unjustified.” As Scheindlin observes, the 6 percent of unjustified stops is a floor rather than a ceiling. Scheindlin made extremely charitable assumptions—including taking the unchallenged reports of officers at face value. The percentage also doesn’t consider the occasions in which a stop-and-frisk goes unreported.

Even if we were to assume that “only” 6 percent of searches were completely unjustifiable, this still represents 200,000 people whose rights were violated. The number of people subject to unjustifiable searches is certainly far higher. For example, Fagan did not classify searches justified by the officer solely based on allegedly “furtive movements” by the suspect, although it is clear that this is reasoning that cannot meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard. Virtually anybody can be accused of “furtive movement,” and the standard is so useless that Fagan’s study showed that people who displayed “furtive movements” were actually less likely to be arrested than those that did not.

What’s even worse is that the arbitrary searches are not distributed randomly. Racial minorities are searched far out of proportion to their percentage of the populations. New York City has defended this by arguing that racial minorities are also disproportionately represented among those arrested for violent crimes. Scheindlin disposes of this defense by noting that since nine out of ten people stopped are innocent, this defense is irrelevant. Moreover, “[t]he NYPD carries out more stops where there are more black and Hispanic residents, even when other relevant variables are held constant.” The singling out of racial minorities cannot be justified.

Given the data, Scheindlin had little choice but to find that the stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth Amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A large number of searches have been conducted without reasonable suspicion, and these suspicionless searches have disproportionately targeted racial minorities. Of 19 individual stops, the court found that 9 of the stop-and-frisks were unconstitutional, 5 of the frisks after stops were unconstitutional, and 5 were constitutionally permissible.

Instead of trying to find actual ways of influencing the culture and dealing with the root problems of crime and poverty in the inner-city Zack Reed’s idea would only take away the rights of every citizen in an effort to weed out the bad apples, turning the city into a NAZI-style police state. I’m sorry Zack Reed but the Fourth Amendment applies to everyone, white guys in the suburbs like myself and minorities in the inner-city as well.

Are you a cigar enthusiast? Well guess what, Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration is set to have their grubby big-government hands ready to choke the life out of your hobby. If the government prevails the cost of stogies is going to skyrocket.

The FDA is planning a whole new slew of big-government regulations that would completely change the way that cigars are treated in the eyes of the law.

Call your congressman and have them say ‘hasta la vista baby’ to these FDA regulations.

Amongt these proposed regulations? Part of being a ‘premium’ cigar would mean that it would be required to cost at a minimum $10 a stick. That’s right the federal government wants to step in and actually dictate the minimum pricing of a consumer product. Even though currently over 80% of cigars sell for less then that and the vast majority are not any less ‘premium’ then the more expensive smokes.

Do you have a local cigar lounge with a nice walk-in humidor that you enjoy visiting? Well if Obama’s FDA get’s their way you can kiss that goodbye. Because the FDA would put a ban on self-serve sales.

Do you enjoy infused or flavored handmade cigar? Cigar’s like Rocky Patel Java, Drew Estate ACID, CAO Flavours and many more? Or even cigars whose wrapper’s are aged in rum or bourbon barrels? Kiss those goodbye if Obama’s FDA have their way.

The proposed FDA regulations would define a ‘premium’ cigar as the following:

• wrapped in whole tobacco leaf;
• contains a 100 percent leaf tobacco binder;
• contains primarily long filler tobacco;
• is made by combining manually the wrapper, filler, and binder;
• has no filter, tip, or non-tobacco mouthpiece and is capped by hand;
• has a retail price (after any discounts or coupons) of no less than $10 per cigar;
• does not have a characterizing flavor other than tobacco;
• weighs more than 6 pounds per 1000 units.

On the surface most of those aren’t really bad until you get to the minimum price point and flavor definitions.

The FDA also wants to more closely monitor the coming-to-market process, and require cigar manufacturers to submit new blends for testing and approval. The FDA estimates that between 10 and 50 percent of the cigars on the market today will exit the market after the proposed regulation due to the increased costs. Thus possible forever taking your favorite cigar away from you.

Bipartisan legislation is in the works to attempt to fight the FDA’s power grab, in the House of Representatives, Republicans have submitted House Resolution 792, introduced by Florida Rep. Bill Posey. This one is currently in the House Subcommittee on Health. Democrat Senator Bill Nelson has introduced Senate Bill 772 which is also still in committee.

Both bills essentially exempt cigars from FDA regulation.

I enjoy going to my local cigar lounge. It is a chance to meet with friends and make new ones. The cigar hobby brings together people from all walks of life and all sides of the political spectrum, like the barber shop or local hardware store in days of past.

The federal government has no business interfering with that type of camaraderie, fellowship, and personal pursuit.

If these bills fail and the FDA big-government power grab succeeds it will just be more freedom lost at the hands of the power hungry Obama administration.

Call your member of Congress. Tell them how you feel about this federal act of tyranny against our passion for great cigars.

While most of the nation is caught up in the post Super Bowl period and the various controversies about the different advertisements that were shown during the game, the Federal Government today announced plans to go forward with a plan that would require all vehicles to be equipped with vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems.

This past August the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) completed a year-long study in Ann Arbor that cost taxpayers 25 million dollars to see if connected cars would make driving safer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to release the findings “shortly.”

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx claims that this technology could potentially save “…thousands of lives and even prevent accidents in the first place.” He hopes to submit the regulation by the time Obama leaves office in January 2017.

From The Detroit News:

The technology — which involves vehicles repeatedly sending wireless signals to each other — can help alert cars if a oncoming car is about to drive through a stop sign. It can detect threats from hundreds of yards away and tell drivers if they can pass safely or make a left turn.

“DOT believes that the signal this announcement sends to the market will significantly enhance development of this technology and pave the way for market penetration of (vehicle-to-vehicle) applications,” the department said.

Acting NHTSA chief David Friedman said the technology is a “game changer” and “nothing short of revolutionary.”

“Decades from now, it’s likely we’ll look back at this time period as one in which the historical arc of transportation safety considerably changed for the better,” Friedman said.

Foxx said the technology will not compromise driver privacy and won’t record the location of drivers. Some privacy advocates and conservative websites have raised concerns.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group representing Detroit’s Big Three automakers, said much work needs to be done. Spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist said devices to connect vehicles “may play a larger role in future road safety, but many pieces of a large puzzle still need to fit together. We need to address security and privacy, along with consumer acceptance, affordability, achieving the critical mass to enable the ‘network effect’ and establishment of the necessary legal and regulatory framework.” Read More…

Just exactly what we need, more government in our lives… said no founding father, ever.

The State’s never-ending battle to invade our privacy never ends. The latest attempt to violate the right to privacy comes from the California (where else?). Next week a City Council Committee in San Jose is going to discuss a proposal introduced last Thursday by Councilman Sam Liccardo, that would ask for homeowners to give access to their home security access to the Police for, you know, “the greater good.”

From The San Jose Mercury News:

Privacy groups say the latest proposal is part of a broader trend toward a world where authorities have more surveillance access to places that once were considered private.

“To me the really interesting and troublesome part of it is the way we are starting to privatize government surveillance — to enlist private citizens in a way that is kind of unprecedented and could be potentially really dangerous,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit. “Once you give the police unfettered access 24/7, you’re relying on them to exercise their restraint.”

Retired judge LaDoris Cordell, the city’s independent police auditor, said the proposal is the next logical extension of technological advances that have helped provide cops with more video of crimes. It’s common now for onlookers to take cellphone videos of officers, and the San Jose Police Department is working on a new program to equip officers with body-worn cameras.

“You tend to behave when the cameras are on you,” Cordell said. She doesn’t see the idea so much as an “intrusion on privacy” but as a way for residents to “know what’s going on in their neighborhood.” Read More…

I’m reminded of this great Benjamin Franklin quote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.“

Bill Ray—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Image. Hells Angels, California, 1965.

Now that the steaming pile of garbage that is Obamacare is upon us, the desire of progressives everywhere to limit freedom “in the name of whats good,” is beginning to rev up. Amongst the ways that Big Brother wants shackle the ambitions of freedom lovers is a renewed push for mandatory helmet laws. You know, for “our own good.”

Via a Press Release from the American Motorcycle Association:

PICKERINGTON, Ohio — A federal task force is poised to recommend that all states have mandatory helmet laws for all motorcyclists, which the task force says would reduce injuries and deaths as well as result in economic benefits, the American Motorcyclist Association reports.

The AMA has repeatedly expressed its belief that motorcyclists would be best served if regulators and legislators focus on programs to prevent motorcycle crashes from occurring in the first place. The AMA also said that any economic benefits would be insignificant since health care costs related to motorcycle crashes are miniscule in the context of total health care costs nationwide.

“The AMA continues to strongly encourage the use of personal protective equipment, including gloves, sturdy footwear and a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet federal safety standards,” said Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations, on Nov. 7. “But we also believe that adults should have the right to voluntarily choose to wear a helmet.”

The Community Preventive Services Task Force, whose 15 members are appointed by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, makes recommendations to the CDC and reports to the U.S. Congress about community preventive services, programs and policies to improve health. The task force is preparing to recommend that all states have universal helmet laws, which means that all riders, regardless of age, would be required to wear helmets.

The task force is ready to make the recommendation based on its belief that a universal helmet mandate would reduce motorcyclist deaths and injuries, and that mandating riders to wear helmets would result in economic benefits. The task force believes health care costs for injured helmeted riders wouldn’t be as high as those of injured unhelmeted riders, and also that universal helmet laws would result in fewer missed days of work for injured riders.

The CDC, which oversees the task force, is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in Atlanta. Its official mission is to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the United States. “Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same,” the agency says on its website.

Explaining the AMA’s opposition to the proposed recommendation, Allard cited the official AMA position on voluntary helmet use.

“The AMA strongly advocates helmet use, but helmet use alone is insufficient to ensure a motorcyclist’s safety,” said Allard. “There is a broad range of measures that can be implemented to improve the skill of motorcycle operators, as well as reduce the frequency of situations where other vehicle operators are the cause of crashes that involve motorcycles.”

In its position on voluntary helmet use, the AMA noted that mandatory helmet laws do nothing to prevent crashes.

“The AMA supports actions that help riders avoid a crash from occurring, including voluntary rider education, improved licensing and testing, and expanded motorist awareness programs,” said Allard. “This strategy is widely recognized and pursued in the motorcycling community.”

Concerning the task force claim of economic benefits, the AMA noted that injured motorcyclists are less likely than the general population to use public funds to pay for injuries sustained in crashes, and are just as likely to be insured as other vehicle operators.

In addition, the AMA said the costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for a tiny fraction of total U.S. health care costs. An even smaller portion of these costs is attributable to unhelmeted motorcyclists, the majority of which are paid by privately purchased insurance. In 2000, for example, approximately 1.55 percent of total U.S. health care costs were attributable to all motor vehicle crashes. Motorcyclists involved in crashes represented a miniscule percentage of this figure.

To read the AMA position on voluntary helmet use, go to www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/PositionStatements/VoluntaryHelmetUse.aspx

cross posted at ...On Liberty

The city of San Rafael, CA, recently enacted one of the strictest anti-smoking measures in the Nation. It is now illegal for anyone to smoke within the confines of their own home if that home shares a wall with another residence. That includes not just renters but property owners as well.

The Nanny

Via ABC News:

Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the San Rafael City Manager’s office, helped craft the ban, which took effect Nov.14. “We based it on a county ordinance,” she told ABC News, “but we modified it, and ended up making it the strictest. I’m not aware of any ordinance that’s stronger.”

Cities with similar but less severe smoking restrictions include Cambridge, Mass., and other California cities, including Walnut Creek and Tiburon. In June, the Related Companies became the first developer and property owner to ban smoking in all 40,000 of its rental residences in 17 states.

Jessica Scaperotti, a spokeswoman for Related, said the ban had been popular. “There are more people who want to live in smoke-free environments than there are apartments available. Demand far exceeds supply.”

It is one thing for a landlord to ban smoking inside residences that are rented out, that’s privately owned property. Just as renter’s agreements can ban pets, repainting walls, etc. However to ban free private-property owners from doing being allowed to light up within the walls of their own private residence is just plain authoritarian.