Common Sense Laws

By Chris Stamas

While walking through campus recently, I keep finding myself in the same situation.  I'll have someone walking directly towards me, but not notice me as they are completely engulfed in the world of their cell phone.

I'm a bigger guy, and if I don't move I might knock this innocent pedestrian over.

In my head it's a battle, my kind side, which says to get out of the way, versus my stuborn side, which says no, I dont want to.

I don't see why I must move; I'm walking perfectly straight while aware of my surroundings and should therefore be entitled to the space in front of me.

Unfortunately, it is not my decision to make. The person's text or tweet or whatever they are doing on their phone is so engaging that they still do not notice me. If I do not move then a collision is inevitable.

Don't worry; I'm not about to go on a rant about technology and its detriments to society, although I do hold strong beliefs on the topic.

Instead, it is interesting to note related legislation that several state politicians have proposed: a ban on crossing the street while using an electronic device or wearing headphones.

Some people who are more distant to technology might see this as a triumph, something that forces society to become less reliant on all its gadgets.

Others will consider it an outrage; an overstepping of the government into citizens' private lives. But regardless of your beliefs, it begs a very serious question: to what extent can the government legislate our lives?

Several examples from the past have pushed the envelope in these regards. Currently in the state of New York, the sin tax on a pack of cigarettes is $4.35, raising the cost of an average pack of cigarettes in the state to about $15.

When compared to Missouri, where the current tax on a pack of cigarettes stands at 17¢, New York's policy seems more outrageous. Sin taxes are just one example of a way in which the government has allowed its far reaching hand to meddle in our lives.   

For some, it's downright scary. The government seems to be forcing citizens to not partake in a simple right: the freedom to smoke a cigarette.

Similarly in 2009, Illinois raised its taxes on sugary sodas, sports drinks and candies from a rate of 1 percent to 6.25 percent.

The Illinois tax increase startled quite a few more people than the cigarette tax. Every human being has to eat, and for the government to indirectly tell its people what food they can consume appears far too restrictive.

Obviously, the government has a vested interest in the health of its citizens. It must pay for the eventual health effects associated with smoking cigarettes and consuming sugary foods and drinks.

But if the government was truly worried about our health, why haven't we seen the price on fast food increase?

A double cheeseburger at McDonald's is $1, which, when you really think about it, is bizarrely cheap. Arguably, it is just as unhealthy as a cigarette, sometimes leading to heart disease, the number one cause of death today.

In reality, the government has a less altruistic reason for taxing certain items. Given the amount of debt state governments are currently swimming in, a new source of revenue is always welcome.

Choosing to tax the wrong product, however, can be political suicide. This is why certain items (cigarettes) are increasingly taxed every year, while others (double cheeseburgers) are not.

Similar to taxing burgers and candy bars, it seems a bit absurd for the government to ban using a cellphone or listening to music near a major roadway.

But trust me, such a law is a very real possibility. It is the next logical step after making it illegal to talk and text on the cell phone while driving.

Still, this law in particular might be taking things a bit too far.  I too  detest those walking around aimlessly while texting.

But at some point you have to draw the line.  Citizens deserve certain freedoms regardless of any safety data.

I think most will agree that crossing the street while on the phone isn't the safest idea. But that doesn't mean there should be a law on the books to stop people from taking such perilous action.

It takes common sense, which cannot be legislated.

Chris Stamas is a senior political science major.