A civil libertarian has every right to rotten teeth. If a man or woman wishes to reject modern dentistry, daily brushing, twice-weekly flossing, even the use of tap water containing fluoride, it's OK with me. American society, through its government, should not force anyone to have an healthy mouth.
The introduction of fluoride to municipal water supplies was once regarded as an "intrusive" government action, a commie plot to poison "our vital bodily fluids" (see Hayden, Sterling; "Dr. Strangelove," 1964). Other groups claimed that long-term exposure to fluoride would cause cancer.
As a result of fluoridation, however, Americans today receive, per capita, half the number of fillings they required in 1959, even though they are now four times as likely to go to the dentist. In addition, half of today's schoolchildren have never had a cavity; just two decades ago, that was true of only 28 percent of kids. As for health risks, mainstream science says fluoride, when added to water supplies in safe but effective amounts, does not cause cancer, kidney disease or birth defects. (The information summarized here comes from the American Dental Association and the National Research Council, and civil libertarians have every right to summarily reject the findings and continue to drink untreated water.)
In America, a citizen has a right to rotten teeth.
This is why, after considering it a few times, I thought the comparison of "going to the dentist" to Maryland's auto emission testing was a poor one. The comparison was made by Maryland's former environment secretary. "It's the kind of thing no one is ever going to love doing," was David Carroll's point. But in making that point, he missed a larger one: Not taking care of your teeth affects, primarily, the mouth of one person; not getting your car tested for pollutants affects the lungs of an entire populace.
But, the emissions-test protesters whine, we know that! Everyone wants clean air! We have been getting our cars and trucks tested! This new test was too elaborate, too intrusive. The state was prepared to touch our cars -- open hoods, fiddle with hoses -- and operate them on some kind of weird treadmill at up to 55 mph!
"There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep cretins out of my Jag," went one of dozens of anonymous faxes received by this columnist during the great crusade against Maryland's new testing plan. "I do not allow dropouts to play with my property. I do not want to have to place an air freshener in the vehicle after the 'tester' leaves the car. You may hope to inflict the unlettered and unwashed upon me. We are still free to treat our property as we see fit."
That's how it goes in the age of the libertarian whine. The mantra sounds something like this: Personal property rights are more important than the common good; government is "intrusive," not merely vigilant; government is "tyrannical," not truly democratic.
In fact, what got us to this point in the auto emissions controversy was democratic process.
Forty years ago, local tributaries and bays were commonly used as sewers and carbon monoxide levels in major cities were unregulated. Congress passed the Clean Water Act to force municipalities to treat their waste water. The Environmental Protection Agency came into being in 1970, during the Nixon administration. In 1990, the Bush administration forged a coalition to amend the Clean Air Act. As a result, auto emissions decreased significantly, but not enough. Not according to standards established by that same Congress.
In Maryland alone, we drive 113 million miles a day (unfettered but for the occasional speed trap and toll booth). Motor vehicles account for 38 percent of the hydrocarbons and 33 percent of the nitrogen oxides released into the air. Last summer, the Baltimore area experienced 11 days of off-the-charts ground-level ozone. Some 600,000 Marylanders are said to suffer from asthma or other chronic respiratory problems.
So the federal government was prepared to push Maryland and other states further toward Congress' cleaner-air goals. Going after our beloved automobiles was the cheapest and most logical way. Maryland, a state keenly sensitive to its environment because of the Chesapeake Bay, was prepared to launch the most comprehensive auto emissions testing program in the region. These "inconvenient" tests would have been conducted once every two years.
But what happened? The big picture answer: We have a president who wants to make everyone happy and is still trying to figure out what he stands for. A narrower view: The Clinton administration waffled. Carol Browner, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, started offering the states "flexibility" on implementing the new tests. In other words, the administration caved in, leaving environmental regulation open to greater assaults. This has had a trickle-down effect.
Here in Maryland, the new governor sounded early retreat, delaying the most controversial aspects of the new system -- the touching of hoses, the treadmill test -- for 18 months. The libertarian whiners won this round; they are still vowing to abolish anything beyond the simple tailpipe test. No one is going to clamor for a more elaborate test -- no one likes to go to the dentist, remember? -- so this will be a true test of political leadership for Parris Glendening. July 1, 1996 -- we will be watching.