Every week I seem to find that I am shaking my head more than the week before at the weird laws I keep finding. When I first started writing about weird laws, I was a bit worried that I wouldn’t be able to find enough new material to write about. However, that fear was quickly quelled. I learned that given the chance, people will make sure that there are enough weird laws to go around. Criminals will be criminals, lawyers will be lawyers and in general, people will most often act without thinking ensuring that the flow of weird laws will not be interrupted. However as much material as there is out, I think I am most amazed at how often new weird laws come into being.
On top of this, I am a bit more perplexed at how often and how hard the lawmakers seem work to create new weird laws. I mean, it really seems to me that there is a secret committed that has to review proposed legislation and I am starting to believe they have a stamp that is frequently used which reads, “This isn’t WEIRD enough – revise and resubmit.” Either this or a large group of lawmakers have switched from decaf to 80 proof. So, in the spirit of legislative action, I thought I would talk about a couple of just plain silly legislative proposals.
Readers will recall that not too long ago I discussed the ban on the sale of foie gras in Chicago. As bizarre as I found this legislative action (or even why you would have to legislate to keep people away from liver!), it seems that New York City got all of their bureaucrats together and discussed what action they could take to one up the city of Chicago’s ban on fatty livers. I will give it to New York City they have done just that in proposing a weird law of their own. The New York City Department of Health has proposed a ban on trans fats, you know the pesky fat this comes when oil is partially hydrogenated for increased shelf life. It keeps longer, but is a bit hard on the heart.
The proposed plan would limit restaurants to serving dishes that contained more than .05 grams per serving. To quantify this, according to McDonalds.com, a small order of fries weighing 2.6 ounces has 3.5 grams of trans fat. This means that a serving of McDonald’s fries, to be acceptable under the ban would amount to approximately .4 ounces, or perhaps 10 or so fries. Ouch!
Prior to this proposal, the department had engaged in a year-long campaign to educate the masses on the ills of the pesky fat; however, the department has deemed their earlier efforts a failure which is a resounding indication that a ban will work to limit trans fats. Department officials have said that it will be quite easy for restaurants to take steps to produce food with an acceptable level of trans fats and that the change will have little impact on the taste or texture of the food.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade, you’re probably aware that a diet of excess fat is just bad. Unless you’ve been deep under that rock you probably also realize that if faced with a cantaloupe verses an order of fries the fries have a higher fat content. My problem with all of this is do we really need the government telling us what we can and can’t eat. What’s next? Mandatory jogging? A dozen sit ups before you come into the restaurant? It has to stop somewhere. If a person wants to eat a bag of fries, let them. I think everyone is pretty well on board that a diet high in fat means a body high in fat. If you legislate the fats out of restaurants and other businesses, people will go elsewhere to find them. For instance, you can’t by crack at any store, but those people that want it know where to get it. Next thing you know people will be pulling into a dark alley and saying, “Give me a couple of rocks and a glob of fat.”
Next we venture to Charleston, South Carolina where we have another wonderful proposal by a member of the city council.
Last week a few children, ages 14, 12 and 9 apparently got bored and decided to go out and stir up a little action. The trio went on a walking tour of downtown Charleston and found themselves outside a local video rental store. After a few minutes of discussion, a cunning plan was hatched. The 14 year old would take the BB gun she was carrying and go inside to rob the store while the two boys waited outside. Fortunately the children were apprehended by police and no one was hurt. However the whole incident clearly bothered one member of the Charleston City Council.
Councilman Larry Shirley, playing a modern day Jonathan Swift, had a modest proposal of his own. No, Shirley’s proposal didn’t include a cauldron of boiling water, or even a propane grill as is more common to South Carolina. His idea was a bit more surgical. Shirley feels that the solution to curbing juvenile criminal acts is to hold the parents responsible, or at least being preemptive with the parents. Shirley feels the parents, the mother specifically, should simply be sterilized. He was quite equal in the proposed application of his plan. He was clear in saying that regardless of the socio-economic background of the parent, be they “yuppie” or “crack-head,” if a mother has a child and the child is out running the streets up to no good, then the mother should be sterilized. He was even willing to consider the sterilization of deadbeat dads. As he put it, “Once they have a child and it’s running the streets, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable.”
Wow. Now that would be a weird law!
There’s not a whole lot I can say about this one. I can only imagine what it would be like to be one of the councilman’s own children. Yikes!
So, you see, it is not always an accident that we end up with more weird laws. Sometimes people actually put their mind to it in an effort to come up with the weirdest possible.
Have fun and see you next week!
Thanks to the Charleston Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina for information on this story.
