Tag: nanny state

USDA Approves Nebraska’s Banning Soda and Energy Drinks From Food Stamps

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued a waiver on May 19 restricting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to buy soda or energy drinks in Nebraska, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in a May 19 statement.

This is the first-ever state waiver banning soda and energy drinks from SNAP, popularly known as food stamps.

“Prior to this waiver, SNAP recipients could buy anything except alcohol, tobacco, hot foods, and personal care products,” said the statement.

The waiver, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, is part of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda, the USDA said, adding that this “historic action seeks to reverse alarming disease trends across the country.”

One in three children between the ages of 12 and 19 is affected by prediabetes, it said. Forty percent of school-aged children and adolescents suffer from at least one chronic condition, while 15 percent of students in high school drink a minimum of one soda per day.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February establishing the President’s Commission to Make America Healthy Again. The agency is tasked with investigating the “root causes of America’s escalating health crisis,” including chronic disease among children, according to a White House fact sheet.

Keep reading

Virginia’s new social media law targets teen access via parental consent, age checks

Virginia is preparing to enforce one of the nation’s most sweeping new restrictions on social media access for teens, requiring parental consent, time limits and age checks for users under 16.

The law, signed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin in May, takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, and applies to any platform that allows public profiles, messaging and shared content feeds.

Senate Bill 854 requires users to use a neutral age screen to determine if a user is under 16 and then secure verifiable parental consent before allowing more than one hour of daily use per service.

It also bars platforms from treating a minor’s data as if it belongs to an adult, even when shared through browser plug-ins or common devices.

Virginia joins more than a dozen states that have passed or proposed laws since 2023 to regulate children’s access to social media, including Utah, Texas, Florida, Maryland and California. While the details vary, most require age verification and parental consent for minors to create accounts or use apps beyond a time limit.

Privacy advocates say the law could have unintended consequences. Jason Kelley, associate director of digital strategy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the measure may increase data collection rather than limit it.

“Any time a company is required by law to collect more information, there are data privacy risks,” Kelley said, noting that platforms may turn to tools like geolocation, facial scans or ID verification to meet the law’s requirements.

He also raised legal concerns, pointing out that similar laws in other states have been paused or overturned in court.

“Like similar laws in other states, it’s unlikely Virginia’s law will survive judicial scrutiny,” Kelley said.

He also raised concerns that verification systems may not work for all families.

“These systems don’t necessarily take into account a large number of non-traditional families,” Kelley said. “Regardless, such restrictions are not enforcing parental authority. They are imposing governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto.”

Supporters of the law say it gives parents a stronger role in managing their children’s online habits. In a written response, Sen. Schuyler Van Valkenburg’s office said the law is enforced under the existing Consumer Protection Act and handled by the Virginia Attorney General’s Office.

Keep reading

Drastic new cigarette rules that will change the way Aussies smoke forever

Aussie smokers will see some types of cigarettes banned under tough new rules designed to make smoking as unappealing as possible. 

The new measures, which are set to come into force from July 1, will outlaw certain ingredients, flavours and accessories. 

For example, menthol, rum and clove-favoured cigarettes and those with crush balls in the filter will be banned. 

‘These mask the harshness of tobacco, make it more addictive, easier to smoke and harder to quit,’ a Department of Health spokesman said.

Cigarette manufacturers will also be banned from using words like ‘smooth’ and ‘gold’ because they can create the false impression that some products are less harmful.

The new rules will also force all cigarettes to be consistent in their size and shape, with unique filters banned. 

Each packet will come with health warnings and contain information cards offering support to quit.

It comes after manufacturers were forced to print grim warning messages, such as ‘poison in every puff’ and ‘toxic addiction’, on the filter of each cigarette from April.

Health Minister Mark Butler said Australia was ‘one of the first countries in the world to include this new public health measure’.

He said the aim was to ‘educate but also dissuade smokers from using this deadly product’.

Cigarette prices in Australia are among the highest in the world due chiefly to heavy taxation. A standard 20-pack costs more than $50, depending on the brand, with 70 per cent of the retail price ($35) going to the government in excise tax.

Cigarette excise taxes increase twice a year in line with average wages. On March 1, the tax per cigarette rose by 2.8 per cent to $1.27816, up from $1.24335.

The regular tax hikes and resultant high prices have created a booming black market, with millions of Australians now buying illegal, counterfeit cigarettes sold in convenience stores.

The lucrative black-market trade has seen tobacco stores taken over by criminal gangs, with violent turf wars and arson attacks. 

And despite the tax increases, government revenue from tobacco has plummeted due to fewer people buying the expensive product – dropping 39 per cent in just four years, from a peak of $16 billion in 2019/20 to $9.8 billion in 2023/24.

The ATO now estimates that nearly one in five cigarettes smoked in Australia comes from criminal syndicates that evade taxes and sell at deep discounts.

Keep reading

Virginia passes law to limit time teens spend on social media to one hour a day

Virginia teens under 16 will soon face limits on their social media usage after Governor Glenn Youngkin signed new legislation into law.

The law requires social media companies to set default time limits of one hour per day for users under 16 years old, with parents having the ability to adjust that time up or down.

“It’s a good first start, and it’s a good way for parents to be able to have better control over how much social media their kids are on,” said Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D – Henrico), who co-sponsored the legislation.

VanValkenburg, who teaches in Henrico County schools, has witnessed the impact of excessive social media use firsthand.

“You see how much it hinders their ability to do well in school, and you see how much it hinders their socialization with their friends,” VanValkenburg said.

Keep reading

Religion Is Not The Only Thing That Should Be Separated From The State

The Act of Supremacy of 1534 declared that King Henry VIII (and his successors) was “the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England” and not the pope of Rome. The Treason Act of 1534 made it an act of treason, under punishment of death, to deny the Act of Supremacy. During the reign of Queen Mary, the daughter of Henry VIII, the Act of Supremacy was repealed, but was enacted by the English Parliament again in 1559 after Henry’s other daughter Elizabeth became the queen. The British monarch is to this very day still the head of the Church of England or Anglican Church, which is the established church in England. This is one of the main differences between the United States and Great Britain. Although the United States has a National Cathedral where some state funerals are held (most recently for Jimmy Carter), it is actually an Episcopal church (part of the worldwide Anglican Communion), not owned or controlled by the federal government. The “separation of church and state” is a hallmark of the American system of government.

The First Amendment

The Constitution was drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and took effect in 1789. It established the United States as a federal system of government where the states, through the Constitution, granted a limited number of powers to a central government. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was ratified by the states in 1791 in response to criticisms of the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution contained no explicit protection of speech, assembly, religion, or the right to bear arms.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It was President Thomas Jefferson who, in an 1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, equated the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the “separation of church and state”:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

That the “separation of church and state” applied to just the federal government is evident by the fact that some of the states still maintained established churches at the time the Constitution was adopted. The phrase was resurrected by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). But as Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center has observed: “The federal government’s use of the First Amendment to prohibit religious displays in local parks, to force the removal of the Ten Commandments from public schools, or to ban prayers in public assemblies would horrify the founding generation.” Massachusetts was the last of the original states to fully disestablish its churches in 1833. The idea of the “separation of church and state” is now enshrined in all state constitutions.

But religion is not the only thing that should be separated from the state. Unfortunately, the very people who talk the loudest about the separation of church and state never call for the separation of anything else from the state.

Keep reading

New York City Considers ‘Accelerator Restrictors’For Habitual Speeders

For those of you who’ve had your share of speeding tickets, just imagine putting your pedal to the metal, only to have your car’s accelerator top out at — or below! — the speed limit.

A new measure under consideration in New York City could really clamp down on repeat speeders with accelerator-restrictor technology … particularly focusing on speeders cited on surface streets and in school zones. The city could end up mandating the accelerator restrictors to force chronic speeders to involuntarily slow down.

The devices are part of a pilot program known as Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA). Some use GPS data and maps to determine the correct speed depending on your car’s location. Some makes and models already have this technology installed as of a year ago. Vehicles that do not currently have ISA would have to be modified to add the technology.

If approved, New York would join Virginia, Georgia and Washington, D.C., in enacting new state laws requiring convicted speeders be forced to install ISA devices to curb their ability to accelerate beyond legal limits.

Keep reading

They Really Do Want Us To Be Weak Physically, Mentally, Emotionally, Financially, & Spiritually So That We Will Become Dependent On Them

It takes strength to be free.  That is why they want us to be weak.

When we are weak, we are much more likely to become dependent upon the system to survive, and that makes us much easier to control.  So they give us junk to eat, they put poisons into our air and water, they “dumb us down” from a very early age, they feed us a steady stream of “programming” that makes us depressed and afraid, they get us hooked on legal and illegal drugs, and they constantly try to get us into as much debt as possible.

Something that a rapper known as Zuby posted on Twitter sums this up perfectly…

Keep reading

Trump Administration Squashes Biden Plan to Ban Menthol Cigarettes

As you may recall, the Nanny State under Joe Biden was planning to ban menthol cigarettes. They first planned to do it early last year, but then decided to postpone the plan to after the election because they were afraid it would cost them votes.

Now that the election is over and Joe Biden lost, the plan was hanging in the wind.

The new Trump administration just ended the plan for good. Isn’t it nice when adults have the freedom to decide these things for themselves?

The Hill reports:

Trump FDA officially withdraws long-delayed menthol cigarette ban

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has withdrawn a rule that would have banned menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, putting a formal end to a policy that had been indefinitely delayed under the Biden administration.

A regulatory filing showed the rule had been “withdrawn” on Jan. 21, President Trump’s second day in office. The move is a significant blow to public health groups who said banning menthol had the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives, particularly among Black smokers.

“There is no justifiable reason to withdraw the FDA’s proposed rule to ban menthol,” said Kelsey Romeo-Stuppy, managing attorney at Action on Smoking and Health. “Tobacco industry profits should never be prioritized over American lives, but unfortunately, that’s what has happened with the FDA withdrawing the proposed rule to ban menthol in tobacco products.”

The FDA declined to comment, pointing to a newly-ordered temporary ban on public communication.

Keep reading

The FDA Proposes a De Facto Cigarette Ban, Which Would Expand the Disastrous War on Drugs

On its way out the door, the Biden administration has proposed a rule that would effectively ban cigarettes by requiring a drastic reduction in nicotine content. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which unveiled the proposed rule on Wednesday, says the aim is to make cigarettes unappealing by eliminating their “psychoactive and reinforcing effects.”

In addition to cigarettes, the FDA’s proposed rule covers cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco (except shisha for waterpipes), and cigars (except for “premium” cigars). All of those products would be limited to 0.7 milligrams of nicotine per gram of tobacco. That cap technically complies with a federal law that bars the FDA from banning tobacco products or “requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero.” But the negligible amount of nicotine allowed under the rule would amount to both in practice.

The FDA, which first considered this policy under Scott Gottlieb during the first Trump administration, has abandoned the idea of gradually phasing in the nicotine reduction because that would initially result in “compensatory smoking.” That is, current smokers would be apt to inhale more deeply, take more or bigger puffs, or consume more cigarettes to get the nicotine dose to which they are accustomed, which would increase their exposure to the toxins and carcinogens in tobacco smoke. But avoiding that pitfall by mandating an immediate cut to a negligible nicotine level would magnify the black-market effects of de facto cigarette prohibition.

Given the disastrous results of the war on drugs, it is hard to fathom why a government agency in 2025 would think it is a good idea to expand that crusade to include products that are regularly consumed by nearly 30 million American adults. The proposed nicotine cap “would effectively outlaw almost all cigarettes currently being sold,” which would “benefit organized crime by igniting a robust illicit market for cigarettes and other tobacco products,” the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) notes in an emailed press release.

Keep reading

Be Skeptical of ‘Beneficially Coercive’ New Rules for Booze

A new warning from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy that links alcohol to cancer ought to raise questions about the purpose of such public health edicts—especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw a dramatic decline in Americans’ willingness to trust such expertise.

Is the goal of public health to provide scientifically accurate information so Americans can understand the risks and trade-offs that are an inevitable part of life?

Or is the goal to change public behavior to eliminate risk, and to force that change if people are unwilling to go along?

Writing in The New York Times, physician Rachael Bedard argues for the latter. She likens Murthy’s new warning about alcohol to vaccine mandates: A “beneficially coercive” policy that “can evolve over time as people get used to new expectations and restrictions.”

“The way that public health most effectively helps people change their habits is by changing the incentives, pressures, and opportunities in the culture around them,” she writes—as if human beings were wild animals that the state is charged with domesticating, rather than rational actors with free will.

But Bedard is merely stating the quiet part out loud—even as she admits that “a majority of Americans might not be in the mood for the surgeon general’s advice.” Indeed, she also acknowledges that the surgeon general’s report isn’t meant to convince ordinary Americans to change their behavior—like her husband, who apparently rolled his eyes when told about the advisory. Rather, these “recommendations, like the one to change alcohol labeling to highlight cancer risk, are policy ideas.”

In other words, they’re not meant to convince you to do anything differently. They are meant to convince policymakers, who will then make the decision for you.

It’s a safe bet that Americans are in no mood to be scolded by public health officials these days, when the noble lies, shifting science, and officially authorized misinformation from the pandemic is still fresh in mind.

That would be true even if Murthy’s edict was based on sound science.

It’s not. Murthy’s report claims that drinking beer, wine, and liquor is “a leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States” and that “evidence shows that this risk may start to increase around one or fewer drinks per day.”

The evidence actually tells a far more complex story. Of the more than 740,000 cases of cancer worldwide in 2020 that Murthy says could have been prevented by abstaining from alcohol, more than 75 percent were attributable to people who had more than two drinks per day. 

Keep reading