State prohibitions of fireworks is an indicator of how much the state legislators and voters trust the average person with being responsible for handling of fireworks. Restrictive fireworks laws or outright prohibitions implies a severe level of state nannyism.
Hunter orange: only Alaska, Idaho, Vermont and New Hampshire do not require the use of hunter orange garments.
Hunter training: Montana is apparently the only state that does not require hunter training.
Source: http://www.ihea.com/infodb/
I would not call this kind of law anti-gun. You are talking about hunting, not necessarily gun rights. Nowadays hunting is largely a state- sponsored activity. State agents help with the management of wild herds, the cost of a license goes towards this and to help pay for anti-poaching measures, enforcement, feeding stranded herds, hunter training.
These laws do not allow you to use a gun for a whole 1/7th of the week. I thought ME had a pro-gun culture but this law is very anti-gun.
Alaska- prohibited workplace smoking by law and penalty by fine, penalty or civil tort action. Smoking in any form is a nuisance and a public health hazard and is prohibited in the following vehicles and indoor places, except as allowed under AS 18.35.310 :What follows is perhaps more useful in analyzing the states . . .
Delaware= effective November 27, 2002, " Violators will be subject to a fine of $100 for the first violation and a minimum of $250 for each additional infraction.
--Idaho- Indoor clean air act. Smoking prohibited on elevators, unchartered buses and other forms of conveyance open to the public,entry areas, exit areas, ticket and registration areas (where a line may form), grocery stores,and within areas as applicable to food safety and sanitation hazards for food establishment, places where smoking could cause explosion hazard, and designated smoking area decided by proprietor with restrictions on area and amount of seclusion for non-smoking patrons and must provide non-smoking area except by application for smoking waiver costing $10. Proper sized signs to designate non-smoking areas. Signs must be posted in non-smoking areas. Fine=yes penalty provided in Section 39-5507 (for proprietor violations), Any violation may be reported to a law enforcement officer. 18-5906. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. A violation of section 18-5904 Idaho Code, is punishable by a fine of not less than five dollars ($5) nor more than ten dollars ($10), apparently, this is penalty to the smoker.
Maine- provision of smoke-free work spaces for employees who request them mechanisms by which employees may complain about violations of smoking rules assurances that employees will not be retaliated against for enforcing workplace smoking policy. and punishable by penalty or fine or civil tort action.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says Maine improved its rating from No. 3 a year ago to No. 1. in smoking prevention spending.
--
Montana- prohibited workplace smoking by law and penalty by fine, penalty or civil tort action. Employers are free, by statute to charge smokers higher health insurance premiums.
--
New Hampshire- provision of smoke-free work spaces for employees who request them mechanisms by which employees may complain about violations of smoking rules. assurances that employees will not be retaliated against for enforcing workplace smoking policy. prohibited workplace smoking by law and punishable by penalty or fine or civil tort action.126-K:7 Use of Tobacco Products on Public Educational Facility Grounds Prohibited. – I. No person shall use any tobacco product in any public educational facility or on the grounds of any public educational facility. II. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and, notwithstanding RSA 651:2, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $100 for each offense. Source. 1997, 338:8, eff. Jan. 1, 1998.
--
South Dakota S.D. (2002) Employers are, by statue, free to charge smokers higher health insurance premiums.
---
Vermont- provision of smoke-free work spaces for employees who request them,mechanisms by which employees may complain about violations of smoking rules assurances that employees will not be retaliated against for enforcing workplace smoking policy. Punishable by penalty or fine or civil tort action. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 1742 restricts smoking in public places, including restaurants. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 1744 only allows restaurants issued a "cabaret" license to permit smoking.
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 140 prohibits any person from using tobacco products on public school grounds and prohibits students from using tobacco at public school sponsored functions.
--Wyoming- 1999 Employers are free, by statute to charge smokers higher health insurance premiums.
--
Lawful product laws (pro-smoker, not free-market):
The state mandates that employers are not able to make employment decisions based on whether someone uses tobacco or not (some exceptions such as for religious organizations apply): Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota.
Of the above states, WY,MT,SD have lenient provisions that allow employers to require a non-smoking employee if hiring a smoker would be contrary to the mission of the business, such as employees working in an anti-smoking taskforce.
States that participated among 29 states that participated in tabacco lawsuit were:
(All)
Existence of "nicotine dependence treatment programs" contingent upon accepting money are in place in all of the candidate states.
American Lung Association Report card:
(http://lungaction.org/reports/rank-states.html)
From most free to least free:
WY(Ranks #50 in nation)
Smokefree Air F
Youth Access F
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending D
Cigarette Taxes F
ID (Ranks #28 in nation)
Smokefree Air F
Youth Access B
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending F
Cigarette Taxes F
ND (Ranks #27 in nation)
Smokefree Air F
Youth Access F
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending F
Cigarette Taxes D
MT (Ranks #25 in nation)
Smokefree Air F
Youth Access F
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending F
Cigarette Taxes F
SD (Ranks #17 in nation)
Smokefree Air F
Youth Access F
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending F
Cigarette Taxes D
NH (Ranks #13 in nation)
Smokefree Air F
Youth Access C
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending F
Cigarette Taxes D
AK (Ranks #8 in nation)
Smokefree Air F
Youth Access B
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending C
Cigarette Taxes B
VT (Ranks #4 in nation)
Smokefree Air B
Youth Access A
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending B
Cigarette Taxes B
DE (Ranks #2 in nation) --based on
Smokefree Air A
Youth Access F
Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending D
Cigarette Taxes F
I think the motorcycle helmet issue is a good indicator because there is likely to be strenuous opposition to it. If it passes nonetheless, that's saying something. However there is probably not much motorcycle riding in these northern states! :P
The taxes, #4, are probably just another way to loot the public pocketbook, again having little to do with nannyism (I think the money usually goes into the general fund - it does in my state, anyway).
And, interestingly enough, some states are now beginning to use portions of sin taxes to fund children's programs. There was a recent debate on raising the cigarette tax here in South Carolina for just that purpose.
"Money is fungible", as they say. Unless I'm mistaken, there really is no so thing as dedicated funding of programs. It's just a PR ploy. Just like the notion that corporations pay taxes, or half of your Socialist Security "contribution".
I'm trying to simplify things, Robert. If you want to generate a more comprehensive anti-smoking index, you're welcome to it. ;)
New Hampshire has no helmet or seat belt laws.
All of our candidate states exempt adults from helmet laws except Vermont.
source:
http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html
___
All other states have some form of seat belt law.
Here is a ranking of the Maximum 1st fine offense if caught without a belt:
Idaho = $5
Vermont = $10
Alaska = $15
Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota = $20
Wyoming $25 (driver)/ $10 passenger -- is reduced by $10 for good behavior. ;)
Maine $50
None of our states require standard enforcement on the road for non- use.
Source:
http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain3.htm
Hunter training: Montana is apparently the only state that does not require hunter training.
Source: http://www.ihea.com/infodb/
Why don't we just simplify this problem.I Agree.
There are 4 categories,
1) Smokefree air
2) Youth access
3) Tobacco prevention and control spending
4) Cigarette taxes
We and probably a lot of FSPers agree with ALA on #2. The prevention stuff, #3, is probably just the typical government rathole for tax dollars, more than any good litmus test or indication of nannyism. The taxes, #4, are probably just another way to loot the public pocketbook, again having little to do with nannyism (I think the money usually goes into the general fund - it does in my state, anyway).
That leaves #1, Smoke free air. This is surely the most egregious example of nannyism, based on junk science. The issue is not clouded by revenue generation or spending on bureaucrats; it is just plain old force. So I'm proposing we just use this measure.
I couldn't find the raw scores anywhere (except that DE and CA got perfect scores of 36!) so I have emailed them for these scores. If they don't give them to me, then I will just use the cruder letter scores in my big spreadsheet.
You might want to look into that a little closer. To the best of my knowledge (as a resident hunter in MT who had to take a Hunter Safety Class) MT does require hunter training.
Child Care Regulations themselves are too complex of an issue, what I would do is the following:
BTW I just thought of a good one - child care regulations. However I was unable to find any kind of state ranking based on the regulations and licensure, probably reflecting that that is hard to quantify. If anyone has any ideas let me know. This site points to the various state regulations, but nothing I can put in a spread sheet:
http://nrc.uchsc.edu/states.html
More importantly, perhaps is an examination of Child Protective Services caseload and see if the state rewards those bureaucrats for having a large number of children in the system, or if it is a strict law- based and means tested. I would look into parental rights issues and see how far the state respects the right of parents to raise their children.I don't see anything.
Is there already data on the FSP state research page dealing with interference from Child Protective Services caseloads?
Different federal funding streams financing child welfare, Title IV-E, and Title IV-B result in the perverse incentive to remove children from their homes rather than preserve families.http://www.aphsa.org/reauthor/executive.asp
Assigning numerical values to the State Compulsory Auto Insurance. . .
Alaska = 2.0
As to hunting laws, See this thread.I would lower ME and DE (if that is possible) because they do not allow hunting on Sunday. Unless, you already did that. Sunday is one of the two big hunting days so for some people that cuts their hunting time by almost 50%. I would make DE last and ME second to last.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1091
my subjective ratings (putting myself in the boots of a youngster of 8, 10 or 12 again)
WY = 10
VT = 10
MT = 9
AK = 8
ID = 7
ME = 5
ND = 3
NH = 2
SD = 1
DE = 0
Wyoming allows you to play cards in your own house.
I'd like to know to what extent prisons in each of our states participate in torture, "diesel treatment", inter-prison transfers, holding of political-prisoners, etc.
. . . The more that this can be privatized (or decreased or done at a local level), perhaps the better since it is at least a start. But some private facilities do have major problems because cost cutting is priority one. Some just “warehouse†prisoners.
Percent in Private Facilities (Table 3)
33.5% Alaska
23.9% Idaho
21.3% Wyoming
05.1% North Dakota
I'm not sure how useful this prison population and prison admission stuff is for us. After all, some people deserve to be in jail. They aren't all political prisoners!
Well, yes and no. Necessity can also be a strong impetus for reform. I am particularly concerned about Alaska:
The privatization issue is what jumped out at me from this information. That's definitely something we could use as being reflective of a state's possible willingness to embrace de-regulation and libertarian reform.
Well, yes and no. Necessity can also be a strong impetus for reform. I am particularly concerned about Alaska:
The privatization issue is what jumped out at me from this information. That's definitely something we could use as being reflective of a state's possible willingness to embrace de-regulation and libertarian reform.
I'm not sure how useful this prison population and prison admission stuff is for us. After all, some people deserve to be in jail. They aren't all political prisoners!
| STATE | IBC | ICCEC | IECC | IFC | IFGC | IMC | IPC | IPMC | IRC | IPSDC | IZC |
| VT | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | |
| ME | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| DE | L | L | L | X | L | L | |||||
| SD | X* | L | L | L | L | L | |||||
| WY | X | L | L | L | L | L | L | ||||
| MT | X | X | |||||||||
| ND | X | L | X | X | L | X | |||||
| NH | X | X | L | L | X | X | L | ||||
| AK | X | X | L | X | L | L | |||||
| ID | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |