Published: January 31, 2007 09:53 am            

Two topics appear interesting

Things are starting to get good at the Statehouse in Des Moines, where lawmakers finally are taking up issues that could impact just about everyone who lives or works in Iowa.

Two issues that surfaced Monday look to provide ample fodder for commentators and interested citizens over the next few months, so let’s not waste another moment.



Issue 1: Lawmakers to review sex offender residency law.

Although a dashing young columnist argued against this law about this time last year, no one in Des Moines seemed to notice. Legislators were awful proud of themselves when they voted to prohibit sex offenders convicted of crimes against children from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center. Some towns took it another step, with Dyersville notably banning all such offenders from living in the city limits.

And yet, all of the residency laws failed to draw the connection between where a person gets their mail and where they’re free to travel. Some people want to create safe zones around school and child care centers that convicted sex offenders could not enter without permission.

The obvious question is this: Who’s going to be safeguarding the perimeter of the “safe zones?” And if the answer is no one (which it will be, since the cost of that would be astronomical), then aren’t we just talking about another case of good intentions with absolutely no practical value?

One fact has not changed: If we are so worried about where people live or where they are allowed to go… why are we releasing them from the criminal justice system? If they’re such a danger to re-offend, they ought to be locked up and monitored, because no other system can balance individual freedom and community safety.

With that said, I want to make very clear that I also don’t agree with the state’s definition of who should be placed on the offender registry. That issue also needs to be cleared up, perhaps even before the residency rule is revisited.



Issue 2: Lawmakers unveil workplace smoking ban legislation.

I’m no fan of smoking, but I am kind of attached to personal liberties. I’ll be very interested to see what comes out of the initial committee review scheduled for this week.

We all know secondhand smoke is bad. I don’t know if I could agree to work in a place where colleagues could smoke next to me. But I also don’t know how many of those places even exist.

This just seems to be a decision better left to individual employers, who have a feel for their working environment and employee demeanor. Loud music is damaging — not nearly as much as tobacco, of course — but who wants the state putting volume controls on people’s desktop radios?

Democratic Sen. Matt McCoy is right when he says “People should not have to risk their health to work.” But I worry that once smoking is out of the way, lawmakers will start to look at all of the other things at workplaces that risk some aspect of health.

Could I be forced to type on an ergonomic keyboard while I sit in a posture-promoting chair? Is someone going to mandate I look away from my computer monitor every so often so as not to fry my retinas?

As much as I abhor tobacco — really, I’m not even sure why it’s legal at all if we’re going to have so many restrictions on its use — I can’t shake the feeling that when the people who know better come looking to take away my bad habits, all of the smokers will be too busy saying “I told you so” to offer any assistance.

Perhaps smoking is and should be different because it harms not just the user but anyone in the vicinity. If I want to slouch and risk carpal tunnel and worsen my already awful eyesight, I guess that’s my own fault, right? Of course, if I want to supersize my order of fries, that should be my bed to lie in as well, yet those opportunities also are under attack.

Both issues reveal a Legislature concerned with protecting Iowa’s citizens. That is indeed a noble goal. Yet broad legislation that tells people where to live and how to act runs the risk of robbing our communities of any control over daily life and stripping individuals of the chance to live an otherwise normal life.

These questions are worth asking now before we get any more laws on the book that do more harm than good.

Scott T. Holland’s column appears every Wednesday in the Clinton Herald. His e-mail address is scottholland@clintonherald.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.