Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to make the city the first in the country to ban the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies such as Walgreens and Rite Aid.Because the madness of the Sunday morning rush hour simply makes hula-hooping an impossibility!
And that's only the city's latest effort to make us all healthier.
The supervisors also voted to require chain restaurants to post nutritional information, including calories and fat content, on menus. This follows the creation of a program to recognize restaurants that don't use trans fats and an idea by Mayor Gavin Newsom to levy a fee on retailers of sugary sodas.
The board is also taking up legislation to dramatically curb where smokers can light up, including prohibiting puffing in taxis, lines for ATMs and common areas of apartment buildings. And Newsom wants to close some streets to cars on select Sundays so people can jog, hula-hoop and lay out their yoga mats on the pavement.
These moves strike me as self-preserving. Liberal leftism is most viable in a high IQ, industrious population whose members have a meaningful stake in their society.
Make it more difficult and expensive for people to get their smokes or starchy fructose by restraining the retailers who provide it, and people who consume that stuff will find the place less livable. They can be replaced by whiterpeople who love the idea of punitions on such sinful, er, unhealthy behaviors. This puts further upward pressure on property values (making the city even less affordable for the wrong kind of white people) and adds even more liberal-left heft to the city's Board. This leads to more votes that make life ever less tolerable for the left half of the bell curve. You see, we want you to be as rectitudinous as us, that's all. (And if you aren't up to it, you should probably hit the road, although we'd never explicitly tell you so!)
With a high IQ, whiterpeople population, generous welfare policies, libertine laws on social behavior and drug consumption, bike lanes on every road, economically unviable public transportation, and the like all become possible. It is permissible to allow people to do potentially self-destructive things when most of them are in little danger of hitting the self-destruct button.
By permitting these things, the population is able to look down on other municipalities for not only being more repressive than they are, but for also being objectively less successful. It's the "I smoked up from high school through college and now I manage several mutual funds, while that dullard Jim, who wouldn't even drink carbonated stuff, works in construction." ("Yes, you had other advantages--most notably a lot of firepower upstairs--to make it in spite of being a pothead.") . This posturing doesn't need to be stated explicitly to be tacitly understood.
Demographic changes can be the death knell for all of these things, however, as crackdowns on prostitution and drug use in the world's most liberal city, Amsterdam, demonstrate.
The presence of people who will make liberal use of welfare benefits and who are most likely to fly off the tracks when anything goes must be minimized if the whole thing isn't to collapse on itself. Subsidizing "undocumented, unaccompanied and monolingual" immigrants might seem self-immolating. But the immigrants will be hard-pressed to permanently stay in a whiterpeople city. Additionally, they make the place less livable for the wrong kind of white people who are more likely to live near them than whiterpeople are. They are also more politically marginalized than the wrong kind of whites are.