South Carolina's lawmakers look at 'laws that go too far'By Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, March 24, 2008
On the WebTo watch broadcasts of Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell's and House Speaker Bobby Harrell's weekly press conferences, check out www.scetv.org. COLUMBIA — Government has all sorts of creative ways to strike a balance between enhancing your life and regulating it to death, and this two-year legislative session is no different. "There are more inane laws introduced than you could shake a stick at," House Majority Leader Jim Merrill, R-Daniel Island, said. "Somebody at the grocery store says they're having trouble with this or that, and they (some legislators) feel they need to introduce a law about it." Among the several thousand bills filed this session were proposals to stop parents from smoking in cars if a child younger than 10 is riding along, suspend driver's licenses for high school students who are absent too often and require restaurants to post notices if they serve food with trans fats. There's also a proposal that would prevent people from suing restaurants if they get fat. Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, hosted Sens. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, and Larry Martin, R-Pickens, on a recent edition of his weekly news conference sponsored by ETV, a half-hour show where legislators discuss what's going on around the Statehouse. On the show, the panel talked about "laws that go too far," with a focus on South Carolina's gambling legislation. McConnell and Ford co-sponsored a bill that would update what some consider to be the state's outdated anti-gambling laws, which by extension stop people from playing Monopoly at their kitchen table and holding cake raffles at church. No one knows of anyone ever being ticketed, much less being thrown in the slammer, for an innocent board game, but the state's anti-gambling laws did lead to Mount Pleasant police raiding a poker game in April 2006. That game had been advertised via an Internet site set up specifically to attract poker enthusiasts from around the Lowcountry. Players paid a $20 buy-in to join the game, with a percentage of the proceeds going to the house. McConnell and Ford's bill would allow card games and games with dice in homes all over South Carolina as long as the games didn't involve bets or cash. It also would allow churches and nonprofits to hold fundraisers such as cake raffles or games for charities. Another piece of legislation dealing solely with nonprofit raffles is on the Senate calendar for consideration. "No one's going to pick up a gambling habit off buying a raffle ticket," said McConnell, a self-described Republican with a Libertarian bent. The gaming bill, though, appears to be stuck in committee after it faced opposition from Martin and others out of fear of its unintended consequences. Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston, has a similar bill in the House that's been held up since last January. "I can't tell you how many times I broke the law playing Old Maid with my mother," Scarborough joked. Reach Yvonne Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com or 803-799-9051. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 23 comment(s)
Posted by prettywoman2457 on March 24, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree Harpo, but how about the loud music with babies in the car? My windows have even rattled with loud music and I look over and the car has young children in it. Being deaf is not fun nor is having lung cancer. I wonder if the parents ever considered either.
Posted by theronce on March 24, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with both. How about keeping both hands on the steering wheel when young children are in the car. Eating and using the cell phone while driving is child endangerment.
Posted by Nonsense on March 24, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Using a cell phone while driving should be against the law. Period.
Posted by RTC on March 24, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The police need to start monitoring all of the restaraunts in the towns with the smoking bans. I am getting really sick of seeing children running amok in the bar sections, and then drinking parents are putting these same kids in their cars and driving them home.
Make it a law that children are NOT allowed in bars or the bar sections of restaraunts.
Second hand smoke may cause problems later in life, but a drunk parent can end a child's life in a heartbeat.
Posted by theronce on March 24, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree. It ought to be against the law to drink or swear around little children. While we are at it, let's penalize the parents of obese children, a sure sign to anyone with eyes of neglect or endangerment.
Posted by Early on March 24, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know, seems they should have brought up illegal aliens, mercury poisoning, property tax reform and some of the important issues. everybody wants their name by a bill no matter if it's stupid or not. And we pay these guys for what?
Posted by AHLeland on March 24, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with trying to legislate COMMON SENSE - which is what many of these laws do - is enforcement. How are law enforment officials (who already have a hard time enforcing the laws we have) supposed to gauge a child's age or the level of music coming from a car? Besides, I fear that anyone who feels it necessary to smoke in close proximity to their child or play music so loud it shakes windows will not be deterred by laws telling them not to.
Posted by grainofsalt on March 24, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with all the laws y'all have suggested. I think we should have more and more of them. Make it criminal to drink, swear, smoke, or even scratch your butt about children. Make a law that anyone with children can only get ETV and Nick Jr. on their TV. We can't give those people the option of choice or trust their parenting. Some are good, yes. But some are bad, so we should tightly control them all.
Heck, make kids wear helmets full-time if they're not in their beds. After all, it's for their benefit. Any parent breaks these laws, fine the heck out of them so the government can take that money and do good things with it - because we trust them to do so and these laws can only help make more money for our leaders to use as they see fit.
And speaking of laws - we should definitely continue to outlaw card games and other "sinful" activities. In fact, maybe we should outlaw rock, paper, scissors in schools. It's really a form of gambling and we can't let them start that early. And let's just be done with alcohol - outlaw it too. And let's have some public indecency laws. Heavy fines or even jail for any woman wearing anything other than bloomers and long sleeves on the beach. While we're at it, why don't we reintroduce the Blue Laws, but take them a step further. Let's outlaw the use of electricity on Sunday. It's good enough for the Amish full-time. It's certainly good enough for us one day a week.
And you're right, enforcement of all these exciting new laws is a problem. That's why we need a police state where the authorities have unlimited power to uphold these necessary laws. And enough of this election garbage. Let's hope a good dictator comes to power and takes control so all of you law-happy folks can live in peace... and oppression... which I guess you all seem to want.
With fine citizens like you suggesting all those great new laws, I think I'll just check out some property in Costa Rica or something.
(Too subtle?)
Posted by AHLeland on March 24, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
grainofsalt- That was the best post I've read on this forum. Too funny.
Posted by Lenny on March 24, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey last I checked this was America land of the free... You want these Laws go to China, are you kidding me? How about a law that says you must have an IQ to post on websites?
Posted by eyfigueroa on March 24, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
grainofsalt: Hear! Hear!
voters, be careful of what you ask for. you may just get it.
Posted by AHLeland on March 24, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lenny- Great idea. Goes right along with having to pass a test to vote!
Posted by theronce on March 24, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
grainofsalt, you are so dead on. I really liked the one about TV. Why not require the cable companies to help police the public and refuse certain channels to houses that have children. In this day and age, we could get everyone on line and we could enter and submit our planned week by the hour for what we plan to do in the coming week. After approval, we just need to track what and when we actually did those activities. To save time and headaches, we would only need to report on the exceptions, the deviations from our approved plan. With a little practice, we could learn to follow our plan exactly, thereby having a few more minutes in the tub or something. This could reduce crime, help us to live healthier, and raise everyone's children better. Before you know it, the pressure of daily living would probably ease a little.
Posted by KidYendor on March 24, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lots of over-regulation occurs from the legislators being in Columbia for too long during the year. Lets shorten the session to two months out of the year to give them less time to think up and enact their draconian laws and focus on budgets, welfare dismantlement, and illegal immigrants. The robbers at the SCDOR manipulate the legislators to pass SCDOR mandates stifling SC business and showering small business with mountains of paperwork for income reporting.
Posted by RTC on March 24, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Remember that these laws are passed not by us, the voters, but by those that we have elected to represent us.
They always promise one thing, but once they get in office they all seem to develop amnesia.
My point was if the government is going to tell private establishments what they can or cannot do, then they might as well ban everything. Pretty soon it will be illegal to drink, smoke, curse, or whatever in your own home.
Where is the line going to be drawn concerning government interference?
The people are losing more and more voice in government decisions and it is only going to get worse.
Posted by Thomas1776 on March 24, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If state lawmakers are breaking the law playing cards, then why are they not be prosecuted? hahahaha!
Posted by Thomas1776 on March 24, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally, I think these state lawmakers are wacko and should be replaced.
Posted by ForPnC on March 24, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
grainofsalt - Great post! Couldn't have said it better!
Posted by Carolina_Politics on March 24, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can’t believe I am actually hearing a lawmaker acknowledge this. I mean, he’s right. There are a lot of stupid laws out there and there are people in government who think that another law is the solution to every problem. Those kind of people do not belong in Columbia or Washington. There was a state legislator in Pennsylvania a few years back who introduced a bill that would have required people to seat belt their dogs when they have them in the car, had it passed. This inanity is a waste of lawmakers’ time and our tax dollars at work.
Now that they acknowledge that such silliness inhabits the law books I would like to see them start introducing bills to repeal some of these laws.
http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com
Posted by lillycollette on March 25, 2008 at 3:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All those who want more laws protecting children should study the Children’s Code http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t20c007... before asking for more laws.
Posted by lillycollette on March 25, 2008 at 3:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to know why men who are falsely accused of paternity are not granted the right under S.C. Code § 20-7-952 to initiate a paternity action to clear their names.
http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t20c007...
SECTION 20-7-952. … C. An action to establish the paternity of an individual may be brought by: (1) A child; (2) The natural mother of a child; (5) A person who claims to be the father of a child.
Under this law a man can only initiate a paternity action if he -- CLAIMS TO BE THE FATHER -- of a child.
If a man is falsely accused -- he can bend over and kiss it "goodbye".
Posted by dmwallac on March 25, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is priceless! A story about legislators looking to get rid of stupid laws leads to a discussion board parade of ideas for more stupid laws.
Posted by lillycollette on March 25, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Take a look at the following:
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/mar/...
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
..."Collections were $11 million when I took office in 1993. Due to the growth of the family court system, as well as our aggressive enforcement, we collected -- $31 MILLION -- in 2007," …
Posted by lillycollette on March 25, 2008 at 8:53 a.m.:
And I firmly believe a forensic audit of this office is shamefully overdue!