I love Massachusetts. Honestly, I do. I love that it was founded on freedom, remains forward-thinking and liberal and was on the forefront of allowing same-sex marriage.
That's why I try to forgive Massachusetts when it passes unnecessary new laws.
I give Massachusetts the benefit of the doubt, because it's my second-favorite state, next to Rhode Island. Although it is literally next to Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Rhode Island often have very different rules.
This should come as no surprise, given the history of the two states.
Massachusetts was created when the Pilgrims wanted some freedom of religion and founded their own colony. They landed at Plymouth, and Governor Winthrop proudly proclaimed, "Now we have a colony where we will enjoy the freedom of our religion."
"Pardon me, governor," said Roger, "You mean everyone can enjoy the freedom of their chosen religion, right?"
"Everyone is free to have our religion," clarified the governor.
"That doesn't sound fair," said Roger.
"Then leave and go make your own state," said Winthrop.
So Roger did. His little state grew up to be just like him, ignoring what other people told it, celebrating holidays everyone else promised to forget about, and so on. Rhode Island, like Roger, was very big on freedom.
The funny thing about people who support freedom, however, is that many of them tend to be like Governor Winthrop. They like having the freedom to do what they want
Massachusetts has the advantage there. But every time Massachusetts passes a new law that says "you must" or "you can't," I get displeased. (Sadly, most laws fall into this category.) I'd prefer that more things were allowed -- even things that I personally dislike, such as greyhounds smoking marijuana.
Last year's ballot voters felt otherwise.
But there are two new Massachusetts laws that were passed just last Wednesday, both born of good intentions. The first law bans drivers of trains, street cars and buses from using or carrying mobile phones at work. This was passed soon after a trolley collision in Boston.
The other new law requires chain restaurants to prominently display the calorie information for their foods right on all of their menus, both inside the restaurant and on their drive-thru menus. This was passed because, statistically speaking, you are obese.
Like most laws, these are both based on good ideas. We'd love for people to pay attention while driving and for people to be able to know how healthy the food is that they're about to eat. But the application of the laws seems a bit silly.
Take the mobile phones (please!). I hate cell phones even more than the next person, but is it really mobile phones that we object to? Would we be safer being driven by someone who is reading a book, knitting, writing a poem, putting on makeup or turning around to talk to his friend? Shall we ban all those? Would a voice-activated, hands-free headset phone still make us feel unsafe if carried by a driver?
And sure, calorie information should be available about all food at chain restaurants. But wouldn't calorie brochures and/or a listing on a board be sufficient? Must we emblazon every menu with the calorie counts? It's one thing to make information easily available to those who want it; it's another to demand that companies put giant cigarette-like warnings on their food. (Not that they've been very effective on cigarettes. )
I never eat at McDonald's or Burger King while Jack's is open, but when someone just wants a greasy burger, they don't need to be told "THIS IS A GREASY BURGER AND YOU WILL GET FAT" right on the menu. We know, honestly. If we want a reminder, we'll grab a calorie brochure or look at the calorie board.
So I understand that the intentions behind these laws are good. It's just a shame that good intentions don't lead to good laws.
Seth Brown is the author of "Rhode Island Curiosities," the creator of GodToVerse.com, and writes columns that, however bad, are based on good ideas. His column appears weekly in the Transcript and weakly on his Web site, www.RisingPun.com.
Font Resize
