Rep. Greenlick unleashes wave of Nanny State Bills…again

dog logo stamp Rep. Greenlick unleashes wave of Nanny State Bills...againBy Taxpayer Association of Oregon

No one works harder at advancing Nanny State bills than State Representative Mitch Greenlick. His common theme is to have Oregonians surrender personal liberty and responsibility in exchange for intrusive government bureaucracy and new criminal laws.   Here are a few at an early glance…

Greenlick wants adults to require doctor’s permission to obtain tobacco by making it a controlled substance (HB 2077). Imagine how long the lines at the local pharmacy will be and how long seniors will have to wait in these lines to get their life preserving medicine because Greenlick’s law will explode prescription requirements and turn our pharmacies into something like an old-style Russian bread line. Then of course he wants to tax tobacco with additional higher taxes (HB 2275) so as to punish any doctor who dares write a permission slip.

Greenlick wants drivers to obtain a permit to use studded tires (HB 2277) that comes with a hefty $500 fine. He then wishes to tax those studded tires (HB 2278) just in case you do get a permit.

Greenlick wishes to extend the failed Westside Commute boondoggle train from Wilsonville to Salem (HB 2338). Well, we suppose this train which has under-performed and at over-cost to taxpayers would not be a successful government project unless you double down on failure by spreading the financial misery with other taxpayers across the state.

Greenlick wishes to remove local control of health decisions by creating 8 regional health care authorities (HB 2348).  Because consumers, businesses and even local governments cannot be trusted with their own health care decisions. Here is the description

“Establishes eight regional public health authorities. Transfers responsibility for public health services in each county to regional public health authority with jurisdiction for county, regional public health administrator, regional registrar and regional medical examiner, from local, county and district entities and officers.”

Greenlick is also trying to (as it appears) to merge Washington and Clackamas County into one massive Multnomah Super County (HJR 2). Something he tried in previous Sessions. I guess one outcome could be that the Multnomah bureaucratic big-brother model would be pushed upon its neighbors into one super-giant-mega size bureaucratic government machine pending voter approval.   Notice how Greenlick is making it easier for governments to get bigger but not allowing people the freedom to leave  to form their own smaller counties.

– We cannot help but feel that the sacred nature of our personal liberty and freedom get diminished when politicians toy around with far-reaching measures to take our freedom of choice away – even if these laws never become enacted.

(Note: Some of these newly released bills still under analysis).

tt twitter big4 Rep. Greenlick unleashes wave of Nanny State Bills...again tt facebook big4 Rep. Greenlick unleashes wave of Nanny State Bills...again tt linkedin big4 Rep. Greenlick unleashes wave of Nanny State Bills...again tt reddit big4 Rep. Greenlick unleashes wave of Nanny State Bills...again

Posted by at 04:55 | Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    You know what may be equally creepy? Sam Adams supposedly has become executive directive of the Portland City Club. This means he’s staying around, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see him run and get elected to the City Council once again. 8 years of truly juvenile governance in Portland, and many more years of juvenile influenced governance before that under the Katz administration as her chief of staff.

    I don’t call Portland Portlunia for nothing (admittedly not all lunatics are as burdensome as those created and/or employed in Portunia politics).

    • DavidAppell

      Many of the people I know who live in Portland like its attitude, and have voted for Adams, Hales. They believe it should work towards greater sustainability…. So maybe that makes you the lunatic.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Karlock/100002941973847 Jim Karlock

        Sustainability is a crackpot idea.

        NO ONE KNOWS what is sustainable.
        120 years ago reserving millions of acres of land for horses looked required.
        A few years ago people were screaming about runaway global warming, without noticing that the warming stopped 10-20 years ago (depending on which data sets you use.) Or stopped in the 1930 if you use NOAA’s unadjusted data.
        (shut up David!)
        Thanks
        JK

        • DavidAppell

          Few to no scientists have ever screamed about runaway global warming; in fact, they’ve been quite reasoned about extreme conditions:

          “The worst-case Scenario,” Stephen Schneider, Nature 4/30/09
          http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/schneider09nat.pdf

          And greenhouse warming certainly has not stopped in the last 10-20 years, as some simple mathematics shows:

          “Global temperature evolution 1979–2010,” G Foster and S Rahmstorf, Environ Res Lett 6 044022 (2011)
          http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

        • DavidAppell

          One thing we do know is that changing the climate for the next 100,000 years (at least), which today’s emissions will do, is not considered “sustainable” by anyone’s definition.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Karlock/100002941973847 Jim Karlock

            Quit lying. You know the models used to make that sort of prediction are pure crap. They even failed to predict the current stasis. Further you KNOW that CO2′s alleged effect on climate is a log function that is flattening.

            Thanks

            JK

          • crabman34

            One gets the sense that Jim Karlock remembers the idea of log functions from high school but knows not what they mean any more. So he just comes up with something that sounds pseudo-scientific to use to shore up his nonsensical arguments.

            “A log function that is flattening! Yeah, that’ll show those scientists that I know what I’m talking about.”

        • 79 Wistful Vista

          $100 million says Al ‘Jazeera’ Gore invents more hot air than David Appell on global ‘alarming’ – yet Chuck Wiese really knows what to question attending what’s jeopardizing U.S.

  • crabman34

    There’s no reason that prescriptions for tobacco can’t be filled wherever
    there is tobacco for sale. Or do it like medical marijuana. Either way, how is this the nanny state? Smokers refuse to pay sufficient monies to cover the costs of treating them later in life, so if they won’t pay for taxes or health care accounts to cover they habit, they should have additional obstacles placed before they can damage their bodies. Yes, they are their own bodies, but the healthcare that they demand and expect later in life for their cancer and emphysema is paid for with my tax dollars, earned by using my body and mind. Why do they get to infringe on my life but I can’t do the same?

    Studded tires cause damage to roads that we all pay for. Why shouldn’t the people using them have to pay more? You need a permit to drive, why not for specific tires that mess up our roads? This seems like a libertarian bill not a nanny state bill. After all, why should we all have to pay for the damage a small minority causes? As an Austrian economist would say, I don’t want to pay for your library, if you want to read books there, you pay for it. I also don’t want to pay for your roads, if you want to mess them up, then you pay for it.

    What freedom exactly is being diminished here? Your freedom to mess up your body in ways that only taxpayer dollars can fix? Your freedom to mess up public roads with your tires and not pay for it? I know you guys hate taxes, but its so pathological as to border on insane.

    • murphmobile

      This is where socialized medicine starts to show its ugly side, when being used as a justification to impose on how someone decides to live their life. The argument in the UK, btw, is that smokers die earlier, and are a net contributor to pensions and the NHS.

      For the tires, it’s a great point. Charge based on usage.

      • DavidAppell

        It’s inherently unfair for anyone to get the huge protection that insurance provides, while avoiding the extra costs their choices create.

        • murphmobile

          There is a huge premium for tobacco users.

          • DavidAppell

            Is is above their extra costs? Regular, long-term tobacco is an extremely unhealthful activity that causes serious and costly diseases.

            If tobacco was discovered today, it would never be approved for sale.

          • murphmobile

            It is tacked on to the premium. It’s terribly unhealthy, of course, obesity is an even worse problem. US insurance companies don’t seem to take that into account like European insurance companies do.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, it’s tacked onto the premium. Is the extra premium out of line with the extra costs?

            Is obesity an even worse problem? In what way? It’s definitely a problem, and a costly one, but unlike smoking obesity has genetic components (i.e. it is not purely a choice) and some obvious societal components (i.e. many are experiencing the same problem in recent decades).

          • murphmobile

            Apparently for-profit insurance companies don’t think so. They’re in the business of pricing risk,

            Obesity is most definitely more of a drain on the healthcare system. The Mayo Clinic published a decent study on it. Regarding the genetic components, while I do agree that is a factor, I think the overwhelming contributor to the obesity epidemic in America is poor choice in diet and a lack of exercise. I don’t know of anyone who takes in less calories than they burn and then gain weight. As far as psychological aspects, the same argument could be applied to smokers.

          • DavidAppell

            What is the Mayo Clinic study (link)?

            Tobacco is a product that, when used as designed, causes serious disease. It ought to be outlawed on that basis alone — other products that cause far less damage are.

            Today, anyone who chooses to start smoking is aware of those risks, and certainly those who choose to continue it know they are doing cumulative damage to their health. That specific choice places it in a different category than obesity.

            The obese don’t choose to be obese. But smokers do make a choice that they know will be unhealthful.

          • murphmobile

            http://www.acoem.org/CostsObesityvsSmoking.aspx

            I digress 100% about the obese, Those who choose to take in more then they burn become obese.

          • DavidAppell

            No one “chooses” to burn fewer calories — obesity is much more complex, associated with genetics, changes in the type of food that is available and promoted, time constraints due to marketplace and societal demands, etc.

            But people do make a discrete choice every time they smoke — a choice they know, every time, is unhealthy.

  • Andrew Riley

    Note that Rep. Whisnant (R-Sunriver, and hardly a “nanny state” kind of guy) is also sponsoring HJR2, which is designed to allow financially distressed counties a method to avoid bankruptcy. Nothing mentions Multnomah or Washington Counties.

  • DavidAppell

    Phil Jones’ comment was from at least 2 years ago… and the oceans continue to warm strongly (over 90% of the extra heat goes there).

    11-15 yrs is too short of time period to definitely discern greenhouse warming — there’s too much natural variability possible in short intervals.

    No scientist “fudges” data.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)