New Jersey Legislator Wants to Ban Smoking in Your Car

[elehhhhna]

New Jersey Legislator Wants to Ban Smoking in Your Car

thenewspaper.com ^ | 7/9/2005 | thenewspaper.com staff
New Jersey Legislator Wants to Ban Smoking in Your Car New Jersey legislator proposes $250 ticket for smoking while driving. Lighting up while driving would become a crime if legislation proposed by New Jersey Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex) makes it into law. Assembly bill 4306 would allow police to issue an extra $250 ticket to a smoking motorist who is pulled over for a primary offense such as speeding.

[pinkpops]

1. Just MY car?

[UncleSepp]

47. LOLOLOL!!!

Yes, just yours :-D too cute!

[pinkpops]

58. Actualy MY car smokes, so it shouldn't mind being smoked in.

[Daphne08]

2. That's ridiculous.

[Mythsaje]

3. Crackpot...n/t

[seabeyond]

4. how much courage do you have to hate something (smoking)

yet,.....be willing to stand with the smoker and say they have the right. how much courage, how willing are you to stand up for rights, even with something you hate so bad

if you are willing to support a ban on smoking in a car, than you are willing to lose all rights. you have earned the restricting of all rights. even the right to speak out

part of the glory of us as a human, is to be able to dispise something, (for me it is gun and abortion) yet still be able to stand up for the right of another to make that choice

[elehhhhna]

176. EXCELLENT point. Thanks Seabe

[Wetzelbill]

5. yeah, cuz that'll go over well

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. OHFERCRYINGOUTLOUD.

:eyes:

[Ian David]

7. I'm 110% in favor of this. Tell me where to send money.

1) It's a distraction.

2) Smokers leave outrageous amounts of litter on the side of the road.

3) Discarded cigarettes cause fires.

4) Smoking with children in the car is extremely hazardous to their health, even with the windows open.

5) Throwing lit cigarettes out the window at night creates little flashes on the road that distract other drivers.

6) People who smoke in general piss me off.

[trebizond]

13. Indeed- very well said!

[TahitiNut]

16. Self-righteous claptrap

(1) So's the radio; so're the kids; so's talking with a passenger - all more so than smokiing.

(2) Littering is ALREADY a misdemeanor. How about making fast food drive-throughs illegal? (People eating fast food in their cars litter.)

(3) Again, littering is ALREADY a misdemeanor, and so's starting a fire.

(4) Total hogwash.

(5) Delusion.

(6) I hear Singapore has the kind of police state desired.

[pinkpops]

60. I'd vote for a month in Singapore for littering convictions

It really is a drag watching people flip butts out of their car so they don't have to empty that crap out of their ashtrays. It's your habit - keep it to yourself and most people will leave you alone.

[Zhade]

99. How is #4 "hogwash"?

NT!

[Pepperbelly]

124. totally hoghwash ...

I have no kids in my car.

[Zhade]

143. Then it shouldn't apply to you.

NT!

[Vuem]

127. Because 2nd-hand smoke gutter science remains gutter science

No matter how big of a smiley face one might try to put on it.

[Zhade]

145. Is "gutter science" the new rightwing term for "junk science"?

Can you back up your assertion?

[Vuem]

154. Ah, the old canard still smells as sweetly rotten

It is neither right nor left wing to label flawed science and politically motivated conclusions as specious.

And I have nothing to back up. The initial assertion that 2nd hand smoke has been proven to be particularly harmful has never been suffiently supported by the data given. It has, however, been politically twisted and contorted into something utterly unrecognizable by that same data.

Thusly, it is not up to me to prove the claim of the Chicken-Littles who decry the dangers of 2nd hand smoke, as you should already know, and probably already do.

Nice try, though.

[Zhade]

156. You made an assertion that it is untrue.

The burden of proof is decidedly on you.

I'll accept your post as a confession that you can't back up your claim. Oh, and welcome to DU.

[Vuem]

157. Ever the optimist, I see.

You are unwilling to admit that what I was responding to necessitated the belief/assertion that 2nd hand is dangerous. This has never been proven.

Hence, I label the body of data (and its manipulation) necessary to maintain that specious conclusion as 'gutter science', as it cannot do what it supporters claim it to already have done.

But you already know this.

Game. Set.

Match.

[Zhade]

159. Nope, you're simply incorrect.

You asserted that it's "gutter science". That is an assertion you do not provide evidence for - namely, that the science that has shown secondhand smoke to be dangerous is false. You essentially alleged that the science involved was not proper science, and you offered no reasons (say, observational bias, conflicts of interest, etc) to back up your claim. You prematurely declare victory when you haven't even entered the battle for real.

Nice try, though, I'm sure you'll be a hit here on DU. :)

[Vuem]

162. Again, I don't have to.

This grows silly. I was responding with inherent assumptions to an assertion that in turn was supported by inherent assumptions. Rather like the shorthand of argumentation.

If you cannot understand this, it's not my problem.

[Zhade]

165. Yes, you do. But it's clear you will not see it that way.

I will simply dimiss your unsupported claim. Should you actually come up with something to back up your allegation, I'll be happy to check it out.

[Vuem]

171. When you learn fundamentals of argument structure and rhetoric

Please do let me know; we'll have ever so much more to talk about.

Until then, enjoy that mirror.

[Zhade]

173. I can't, you're hogging it too much!

I can't even see around your ego, let me peek.

[mongo]

219. Here's some explaination of the studies

In an article published in the Winter 93-94 issue of Bostonia, a magazine published by Boston University, the EPA Report was vigorously attacked by Dr. John C. Luik, a non-smoker, and a senior associate of the Niagara Institute, Ontario, Canada. As Luik showed, the EPA study was based on some 30 studies from several different countries. These studies dealt, essentially, with the effect of smoking by a smoking husband or wife on a non-smoking spouse. Of the thirty studies, 24 showed no statistically significant connection between ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer. However, while the EPA saw fit to discuss and refer to all 30 studies, it made a statistical analysis of only 11 U.S. studies. EPA conceded that ten of these studies also showed no statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk. One study alone showed such a risk, but to show such a risk, the EPA was obliged to reduce the statistical "confidence factor" which it normally uses in such analyses from 95% to 90%!

The EPA then went on to merge all of the eleven studies together (a statistically invalid procedure since the studies were not all structured the same way), and to reanalyze the results, using the newly reduced "confidence factor". By folding, mutilating and stapling the data, the EPA decided that the spouses of smokers had a risk of developing 119 lung cancers, as opposed to a risk of 100 such cancers in the spouses of non-smokers. Without the reduction in the "confidence factor", no statistically significant risk could have been shown. None-the-less, the EPA branded ETS a "carcinogen".

Writing in Toxological Pathology, Alvan Feinstein, a Yale University epidemiologist quotes another prominent epidemiologist as saying this about the EPA report: "Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society". The "LaLonde Effect" is alive and well!

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap6.htm

Actually, there are many, many more articles that explain how the studies were manipulated to "prove" a health risk from ETS.

[Zhade]

223. I don't know what to make of the information yet...

...but thank you for actually offering some evidence, unlike the poster I originally replied to.

[seabeyond]

185. deleted

[Zhade]

187. WTF? I want smokers to die?

My dad's a smoker, seabeyond. You've never seen, and will never see, me wishing for smokers to die.

And your reference is an opinion site at best. Now, perhaps the poster I was engaged with was merely positing his opinion that the science that shows secondhand smoke to be harmful - nowhere, btw, did I say FATAL - was "gutter science".

In fact, since there was no evidence given that the science is "gutter science", I have no choice but to conclude that he holds an opinion I disagree with, in which case demanding proof is kinda pointless, since it's his opinion.

[seabeyond]

191. i havent wanted to go here

on all the smoking posts for the last year. i didnt want to go here now. my bad. so please excuse me for deciding to delete

[Zhade]

193. I'd rather you acknowledge that I don't want smokers to die.

That's a pretty significant statement to have made, and I don't appreciate the sentiment.

I could care less if smokers want to die faster by smoking. Their call. I don't WANT them to die.

[seabeyond]

195. absolutely i will

i think a lot of people would challenge me on that yet..........

i can tell you from my own experience with my oh so perfect pc educated holier than thou liberal in laws living in cape cod, they too would deny. it is what is given to me with all the things being said. i hate the smoker. i dont respect a smoker. i dont feel sorry for the smoker. the smoker deserves..........

i am a loving caring good person, i have told my husband i dont want my inlaws at my funeral. if i got hit by a bus, i can see them all with arms crossed at my grave shaking their heads collectively stating, i told her she should have quit smoking. if i were to die of lung cancer, i would absolutely say i dont want them at the funeral. i could see them saying the most hateful things at my grave, to my children, little empathy or valueing all i was and all the while justify it with.......just want to teach the children it is bad

i have heard the ugliest and seen the ugliest attitude torwards smokers. fat people dont even come close to the disdain, but they get the jest of hate, disdain.

homosexuals today are now being attacked about the same from the christian right and it will just continue to get worse, because we feel we have the right........to be ugly. god told us to.

i had a child pray at my kids christian school everyday, god, please dont let mrs XXXX die today because of her smoking. i had to ask her to quit praying to god about me dying., was scaring son, and it feels, really feels as if cancer is being projected onto me

people will easily stand up and quickly say no no we dont want you to die. i say, it exactly feels like you do

take it for what it is worth

[Zhade]

197. It's worth exactly nothing.

I have repeatedly said I don't give a fuck if people smoke, just don't force me to inhale your smoke.

I am completely for self-autonomy, for smokers (both nicotine and cannabis), for women, for everyone.

You can feel free to read into others' words whatever you want, but I will not simply accept your condemnation of me for things I never said and feelings I never shared.

I don't tell smokers to stop. Sometimes I wish they would, because I love my dad and friends who smoke and want them to not be harmed by the tobacco warlords, but I never would wish them harm. Hell, shouldn't it be obvious to anyone that if I wish they didn't smoke that I want them NOT to die?

It's inexcusable for you to suggest I, or anyone, wants smokers to die based on your vague interpretation. I resent the allegation, because it's flatly untrue and inflammatory.

For the last time: I don't want smokers to die, and I don't care if they want to smoke.

Your personal feelings of persecution, no matter how accurate they may be, do not justify accusing nonsmokers of wishing death on you or any other smoker.

Peace.

[seabeyond]

199. worth absolutely nothing, wow.

i just dont treat people that way. just not my way. anyway,....

how old is your father

[Zhade]

213. I'm confused about your "wow".

You're surprised that I would think your continued excusing of yourself for saying I want smokers to die isn't worth anything?

Should I have been grateful for your disinclination to express regret at assigning feelings to me that I don't have? I don't get it.

"i just dont treat people that way. just not my way. anyway,...."

What way, exactly? Not wishing people who smoke dead? Join the club, I don't wish their deaths either. I'm wondering if you're going to admit you were out of line for saying I wished for such a thing. I really don't understand why you even suggested it in the first place, it doesn't seem like something you'd say normally.

As far as my dad's age, whatever that's matters, he's in his fifties. Which makes me 30. Why do you ask?

[Zhade]

222. Wow, I so misread you last night.

You said, right in the subject line, that you would retract what I objected to.

Man, I feel like a dope now. Sorry about misreading your post! :dunce:

[seabeyond]

225. lol lol oh, but thank you for re reading it

hey, all i know is i am not evil. i have a monkey on my back, and no one wants me to quit as much as i do.

i am a kick ass mom.
a kick ass wife
a kick ass person

perfect i am not
evil i am not

i am perfectly imperfect

i figure i am hooked on smoking because.........if i wasnt,..... i would be so holier than thou, no one could stand me. at least, having this particular monkey keeps me damn humble

[Warren DeMontague]

184. Bullshit. You live in an enclosed space with a 2 pack a day smoker

for several years, and it will fuck you up. I don't need "gutter science" to tell me that, I know it for a fact.

[seabeyond]

186. well lets place the kids and smoker in a 10 x 10 room

for 20 years and no ventilation, or relief, jack it up to five packs a day.........

people are saying, even with windows open. people are saying, the smoke from a person in another car??????

[Warren DeMontague]

218. I'm not people, I'm just me;

If you look at my post at the bottom of this thread, you'll see that I think this proposed law is bullshit.

Although, when you're talking about public, enclosed, indoor spaces IMHO it is PERFECTLY legitimate to legislate that smokers can't fuck up the air for everyone else. And every time we have one of these threads, the "poor, oppressed" smokers come out of the woodwork to gripe about how everyone hates them and it's so unfair if they have to go outside the bar, restaurant, oxygen tent- what have you.. to smoke.

Look, the people on chemo who are risking arrest to smoke weed in the privacy of their own homes? Those people are oppresed. Nicotine smokers? Sorry, you're NOT oppressed. Having to go outside to smoke is not "oppression". I'm sorry some folks aren't nice to you, and I'm sorry some folks don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. I also understand that smokers don't smell it, so they often can't figure out what the big fuggin' deal is. Well, I have a neighbor who smokes, and the other day she came home from a road trip and came into my living room for a real short visit. Just from her clothes, and her being in the room for ten minutes, the place smelled for an hour. It did. Does that mean I "don't like" her? No. Does that mean I "don't respect" her? No. Does it mean I wish her to die? Absolutely not. But it DOES mean I think those things make her smell like shit. Sorry, they do.

That said, smoke like a chimney in your own car. I couldn't care less.

[Vuem]

189. Go ahead and support your contention.

Until then, it's bullshit you're spewing, professor.

What you 'know' and 'facts' are two different things.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. I'll support it by the fact that after 2 yrs living with 2 heavy smokers

in an apartment in Chicago, my lung capacity was significantly diminished (a doctor told me that), I felt like shit, and I couldn't breathe... "professor".

So, you know what? You can bloviate and pontificate all you want to justify... um, yeah-- what precisely are you trying to justify?- smoking in other people's faces?

But the FACTS are, breathing smoke -any kind of smoke- all the time isn't. good. for. you. What about that is so hard to fucking grasp?

I don't really give a shit, because fortunately I live in a state where your OPINION on the matter doesn't really carry much weight- if you're in a public space, you need to step outside to smoke, in which case your cigarette isn't my problem.

By the way, speaking of spewing bullshit- why don't you go ahead and support YOUR contention?

[Carni]

203. Just curious...do you drive a car?

Because if you do...

OR if you ride in one (hire one etc) you are a fucking hypocrite.

The crap spewed by cars is FAR more lethal than anything a smoker is going to blow second hand at you.

Anyway, I am assuming you're Amish?

[Warren DeMontague]

215. God, not this fucking argument again.

No, I don't. At least, I don't drive a car INDOORS.

Got it?

Comprende?

Understand why that is relevant?

Now, bitch and moan all you want, but I'm not going to play- I already know how this movie ends.

Instead, I'm going to take a walk past all the bars in town and laugh maniacally at all the poor, discriminated against smokers who have to -gasp!- stand outside and smoke. :nopity: Waaaaaaah!

[Carni]

226. You don't think a hole in the ozone and global warming affect you?

Oh I am so sorry, so your room mates, or your mom and dad, or someone smokes around you and is ruining your health...(I have to wonder why the fuck you don't just move out)

But because cars run *outside* that means they don't endanger you?

And you claim NOT to be smoking something? Yeah, right-

[Warren DeMontague]

233. what the hell are you talking about?

I'm sorry. Please re-read your post. If there is a legitimate question in there, please phrase it in such a way that it is coherent, legible English.

Because, as near as I can tell, the gist of your argument is that anyone who has a problem with second hand smoke, in any situation, and yet still has an ancillary relationship with an automobile, is a quote, "fucking hypocrite".

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

No, no one smokes around me or in my house-- a long time ago I lived with smokers, and I noticed a detrimental effect on my health. But even without that, I would believe that secondhand smoke is bad for people.

And no, thank you very much for the half-assed accusation, but I don't smoke anything. Haven't for a very, very, very long time. I used to, back in the day- smoked a shitload of pot in my "reckless youth", and I don't deny it or make apologies for it. Fortunately I never spent a lot of time smoking cigarettes, at least not enough to get hooked. I'm sure I would have had a helluva time quitting.

But I'm solidly libertarian on the right of consenting adults to smoke cigarettes, or pot, or whatever strikes their fancy... Just not in enclosed, public spaces where other people have to breathe it in. Privacy of your own home, outside, inside your own car? Nope, in my mind, it's none of the gov'ts business, although in the case of pot you really shouldn't be driving high. Despite the fact that I watched my dad die of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, and I personally think it's a stupid habit, I don't think there's anything intrinsically 'wrong' with smoking cigarettes OR pot- but people who smoke need to understand that when they smoke in a bar, or a restaurant, they are making the people around them smoke, too.

I really don't get why that's such a difficult concept to grasp, or why it causes such spasms of indignation among people who are presumably cigarette smokers.

[Vuem]

221. Yawn.

Doctors can say a lot of things, not all of which are accurate or even pertinent. And, no, I'm not trying to justify anything, but thanks for asking.

No one is arguing that breathing in any type of smoke is good for you, so why is it so fucking hard for you not to project that onto the arguments of others?

My support of the contention that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous is gutter science extends to the fact that the data used by the supporters doesn't support their conclusions.

I'm not suprised you had to ask.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. You're not surprised I had to ask what?

Oh, fuckit, nevermind. Unlike some people, I have better things to do here. Go smoke yourself silly, smart guy. I watched my dad die of lung cancer. I know what I know, and I also know second hand smoke is bad for people, "gutter science" or no.

Fortunately, it won't be my family's problem, at least not in this state. Goodnight.

[Bouncy Ball]

227. What I don't get is how anyone can think

being confined with that much smoke from nicotine and tar WOULDN'T do something to your lungs?

Hell's bells, they've seen what it does to the smoker's lungs, do people actually believe it does nothing to the person who is breathing in that smoke on a daily basis?

:rofl:

Yeah, ok.

[formernaderite]

19. wow..you sound like Gestapo to me....

why don't you run down a list of all the things you don't like or would like to ban.

This is one of those grey areas where I see bored legislators who also happen to have a "D" next to their name. What, are they sitting around thinking...hmmm...what new idiotic laws could we enact today?

[LSK]

21. and its stupid laws like these that Freeps use to make Dems look bad n/t

[Romulus]

63. too, too true . . . (n/t)

[Carni]

204. YOU GOT IT!

The law against low slung pants goes hand in hand with this.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Oh bullshit.

What about the people who never take their eyes off the road while smoking?

What about the smokers who NEVER, EVER litter with their butts or package?

What about the smokers who NEVER, EVER throw their cigarette out a car window?

What about smokers who NEVER, EVER smokes in their car with their children in it?

What about the smokers who NEVER, EVER discard a lit cigarette to cause a fire?


Your argument is absurd and way too generalized. This is big brother at it's worse. Next up...YOUR bedroom!

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Ian David]

80. Oh, god... smokers are the Jews in The Holocaust?

Dude...

That's just so profoundly wrong on so many levels...

anyway, that ends any civilized debate on the matter.

[in_cog_ni_to]

87. You completely miss the point of the Niemöller post.

Take the rights away from one group, the next group, the next group and eventually they will get to you.

as for having a 'civilized' debate, that ended with your post.

[RetroLounge]

27. Tough Shit, I say to you.

I'll smoke in my car, regardless of some stupid rights-infringing law, and you can kiss my nicotine-stained middle finger as I point it at your idiotic freeper-like post.

By the way, any other rights you wish to remove?

RL

[Ian David]

82. See, that's exactly the attitude that makes people hate smokers...

"Tough shit, I say. I'll smoke anyplace I want."

"Tough shit, I say. I'll throw my cigarette butts anywhere I want."

The bottom line is, we make these rules because smokers don't know how to play well with others.

They're mad about being self-destructive drug addicts so they manifest their self-loathing and guilt outward by intentionally taking it out on the rest of the world.

If they want to be productive, they should direct their anger at the tobacco companies (subsidized with our federal tax dollars) and at their own parents who usually lead by example.

"Tough shit, I'll throw my cigarette butt and the empty pack in your front yard as I drive by your house, and if I set your mulch on fire, tough shit."

So, boo friggin' hoo when the civilized world sets limits on them.

It's PRECISELY that attitude that gets smokers the bad rap that so many of them deserve.

Tough shit.



If they'd behaved in the first place, we wouldn't be making these rules.

[Jakey]

89. i fart in....

your general direction

[RetroLounge]

93. Again, I say tough shit, deal with it.

1) I don't don't smoke anywhere I want.

2) I don't throw butts out the window.

3) I don't throw empty packs on the ground.

4) I don't give a fuck what you think.

But nice strawman bullshit you set up here. Putting quotes around something NO ONE HERE HAS SAID. Very lame and dumbass way to argue a point. Shows lack of actual knowledge of subject matter.

So Deal with it, or don't, I don't give a flying fuck whether you like smokers or not. I do care that you are willing to limit rights just because you don't like something. That in itself says more about you and you issues.

"self-destructive drug addicts"? :rofl: Yeah, remember that the next time you have a beer...

_|_

RL

edit: spelling

[Dorian Gray]

101. Oh, please...

the poster said that they would smoke in THEIR OWN CAR... not any place that they would want.

This whole argument burns my butt, primarily because in our own personal property we should be able to smoke legal products. If they try to make tobacco illegal, then that's "their" choice. But, I will cry foul. (And I am now a non-smoker.)

[Ian David]

106. I wasn't speaking of the particular poster, but of attitudes in general

It's the "Tough shit" attittude of smokers that makes the rest of civilized society put limits on them.

[Bake]

113. What?? So now we're UNCIVILIZED??

Your insane bias shows more every time you post.

No wonder people think Democrats are the "Mommy" Party.

I repeat, screw you and the rest of the Smoke Nazis.

Bake

[mongo]

122. and it's the nanny state facists that give us the tough shit attitude.

[seabeyond]

210. with you mongo.......all the way

and tomorrow, when i say the nanny state is the issue i have with democrats, all the dems will say, what what, we dont do it. what are you talking about

i am remembering a law trying to be passed in boston on spanking. same thing

[Bake]

112. I don't throw my butts out, nor do I throw my empty packs out

What is clear is that you simply hate smokers. Screw you.

Bake

[Bake]

120. However, IanDB, if you'll give me YOUR address,

I'll be SURE and drop by and dump my ashtray and empty packs in YOUR yard.

Bake

[Pepperbelly]

123. my thoughts exactly ...

I bet he's one of those people who make those fake little coughs when they go by someone smoking. That always earns them a fuck you from me.

[Pepperbelly]

121. You are an oppressor ...

I, too, fart in your general direction. Telephone tough guys make me sick to my stomach and the web is filled with them.

[seabeyond]

131. smokers are "making" you hate me. huh n/t

[Sapphocrat]

134. See, that's exactly the attitude that makes people hate homosexuals...

"Tough shit, I say. I'll act gay anyplace I want."

"Tough shit, I say. I'll kiss my lover anywhere I want."

The bottom line is, we make these rules because homosexuals don't know how to play well with others.

They're mad about being self-destructive sex addicts so they manifest their self-loathing and guilt outward by intentionally taking it out on the rest of the world.

If they want to be productive, they should direct their anger at the moral relativism of society (subsidized by the liberal media) and at their own parents who usually fail to lead by example.

"Tough shit, we'll hold a parade right in front of your house, and if your kids are exposed to our wicked, wicked ways, tough shit."

So, boo friggin' hoo when the civilized world sets limits on them.

It's PRECISELY that attitude that gets homos the bad rap that so many of them deserve.

Tough shit.

If they'd behaved in the first place, we wouldn't be making these rules.

[seabeyond]

35. people like you in general piss me off

ban on all self righteous, all live as i say, kinda people

you think a smoker really cares if you dont like them. it says who you are as a person, not the smokers. it show your limitation, not the smokers. this post is about what kind of person you are, not the smoker.

[dogday]

37. And while you are at it, why not

Ban

Those who sing in their cars

Those who eat in their cars,

Those who pick their noses

Those who put on make up



crazy, plain crazy

[Generic Other]

72. don't forget people who pass gas

or have combovers.

[Joey Liberal]

48. I agree with IanDB1

I do think the fine is excessive, but I agree with everything that IanDB1 posted. Smoking and driving do not mix. Now, if we could also stop the loud car stereos.............

[seabeyond]

54. i have been smoking 23 yrs, havent had accident 27 yrs

prove it to me please.

all people that have had accident, ......take license away. the inadequate, inept driver having no distraction and getting in accident is way more scary to me

how many of you anti smoking people have had accidents.

come one share

death, i tell you. what if you got me on the way out., bad bad.

you dont get to create me in a lie. you dont get to say i am a dangerous driver when my record says the total opposite. i get to believe my history, not your story

[Pepperbelly]

125. anything else we can do to not irritate you?

:eyes:

[UncleSepp]

50. Sounds more like a ban on littering

This is already illegal. Throwing a lit butt out in most states incurs an enormous fine.

I suspect the only actual reason you have is #6, and the rest are made up to support #6. If #6 is your actual opinion, let it stand on its own. It's honest and direct and says what you feel, and doesn't try to make it about the litter or 'the children'.

[FourStarDemocrat]

51. It is not a distaction, and cars have ashtrays...that legislation is BS

"6) People who smoke in general piss me off." People who generalize about a whole group of people piss me off. Maybe we should make that illegal too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

228. Cars do NOT have ashtrays anymore

Mine is a 2002 and has no ashtray. Dealer said they stopped putting them in cars in 2000.

[FourStarDemocrat]

229. Then the smokers can put in an ashtray. Case solved.

If a smoker chooses to smoke in their own car, then it's their own business. Not anyone else's.

[proud2BlibKansan]

231. I agree n/t

[Maine-ah]

53. then they should give tickets to people who litter and those

who smoke with children in the car.

how about this.

1. no cell phones, not even with headsets, or freehand

2. no beverages or food.

3. no dvd players

4. no music/radio/cd's

5. no singing to your music - I saw a girl go by in a convertable the other day who didn't even have her hands on the wheel, and was clapping and singing to her music...

come on people, this is going overboard.

yeah, so some of my suggestions are extreme, but think about it, all of these things are distractions from driving.

[SammyWinstonJack]

62. No passengers, so that the driver isn't distracted by

conversation.

[Maine-ah]

68. oop's missed that one.

how about no mothers turning around while they're driving to check on their babies?

[CrispyQ]

178. I saw a guy driving on the highway with a guitar on his lap

& trying to play it!

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

77. At first I thought this legislation was a bit

much. I am completely in favor of smoke free bars and restaurants though. You made six very good points and I am reconsidering my position on this.

[Beelzebud]

81. I'm a non-smoker. After reading your post, I'm tempted to start smoking.

Oh what a mockery some people make of the "land of the free"....

[napi21]

90. Send your $$ to ME! It'll help pay for my cancer sticks!

Don't tell me about road side litter! Take a ride down any road around here and you see McDonald wrappers, drink cups, beer bottles, and every other damn thing people are too stupid to just take home with them for disposal.

What you won't see while driving down the road are cigarette butts! They're way to small to even notice!

TS that you hate smoking. Then just don't do it! I conceded all the restaurants to you, most of the bars, my office, public buildings, etc. NOW STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY CAR!!!!

[Endangered Specie]

91. I somewhat agree with you...

1 - so are alot of other things, not sure if this is the best argument

2 3 - already punishable offenses

4 - Best reason of all 6, smoking with minors ought to be a crime :thumbsup:

5 - eh, really? the people I cant stand at night are high beamers. :shrug:

6 - Cant say I totally disagree with this one.

[OnionPatch]

98. Disagree

Smokers should be punished for littering, of course. I would be all for stricter enforcement.... a wildfire was recently started just across from my house by a careless smoker tossing a butt. But you're advocating punishing even the responsible smokers. I can't go there. That's bullshit.

[Goldmund]

114. People whom smokers piss off piss me off.

[mongo]

117. Facism is still facism if it comes from the right or the left

Keep your damn nose out of my business.

Our country started going to hell in a handbasket when people accepted the seat belt laws.

You and the government are not my nanny.

[Zhade]

164. Are seatbelt laws for children "fascism"?

Or not letting adults expose their children to secondhand smoke?

Most of the reasons given by Ian are bullshit, especially #6, but I agree with #4.

[mongo]

220. The rally cry of of those that would take our liberties away

"It's for the children!"

Did I mention children and seat belts? No.

[Zhade]

224. Uh, I never said you mentioned them.

I merely asked a question. Do you think there should be laws requiring children wear seat belts?

Thanks for your strawman-induced attempt to label me a fascist though, it's real classy. :eyes:

[LeftyMom]

167. Seat belt laws?

Last I heard (I was last in Ohio in '03) Ohio had one of the loosest seatbelt laws in the country. Most places all passengers have to wear a belt, in Ohio last I checked none were required in the back seat. Children over the age of four aren't required to be in car seats, and aren't even required to buckle up, except in the front seat, where they shouldn't be anyhow.

It just seems funny that someone in a place with hardly any seat belt requirement, and one that does not meet the minimum standards needed to protect children, would complain about those oh-so-facist seatbelt laws.

Normally I agree with you, but you're way off base on that one.

[bpilgrim]

166. what about the POISON emissions from YOUR tailpipe?

MUCH more dangerous & destructive than second hand smoke.

peace

[blockhead]

190. um, i think a smoking passenger can do all the same things. n/t

[The Traveler]

208. I suspect it is reason number 6

that is your real motivation. Control freaks like you really piss me off. Here's a dollar ... buy a life.

[Dez]

8. Outrageous! He has a cell phone

I'm sure, and they're as dangerous as a drunk driver! Why don't they outlaw cell phones?? No way, they would have to hang up the friggin phone then!

[Ian David]

10. What if they're talking on the phone AND smoking??

If you ban smoking in the car, at least you won't have people smoking and talking on the phone at the same time.

And cellphones generally don't start fires if you drop one in your lap.

[RetroLounge]

29. Yeah, right

Lets ban cell phones, and radios, and changing CD's, and kids in the back seat fighting, and the passengers who want to talk while I drive, and heaters and A/C adusting while driving, and while we're at it, drive-thru windows lead to eating while driving.

Duh...

:eyes:

RL

[etherealtruth]

61. Can we please ban kids in the back seat fighting?

[RetroLounge]

79. Okay, I'll back that one.

that's why cars have trunks :D

RL

[Zhade]

160. My dad hit a tree when I was a baby and wouldn't stop fussing.

Mom hit the windshield - pregnant with my brother. Everyone survived, thankfully!

The only thing I support is a law against smokers exposing their children to their secondhand smoke. Otherwise, I don't see the merit in restricting smokers' rights (and I despise cigarettes for their enormous taxing effect on public health, kinda like booze).

[msongs]

9. ummm I already ban smoking in my car :-) nt

[CrispyQ]

11. Unbelievable!

These guys live in fantasy land while the rest of us struggle with keeping jobs, getting health care, finding time to protest our eroding civil rights, & on & on & on.

We have serious problems & issues to deal with & they waste time with legislation like this?

[Zhade]

168. Good point.

NT!

[Deja Q]

12. Insane. Absolutely insane and greedy. Apart from $, WHY?

I don't smoke, but this is getting very fascist in here. Time to open the windows.

[Ian David]

14. OK, I'd compromise

1) Make it a fine to throw cigarette litter from your car, and a misdemeanor to throw a lit cigarette out.

2) Make it a felony to smoke with a minor present in your car.

That would be enough to make me happy.

[LSK]

17. good compromise n/t

[shraby]

26. Felonies mean jail time

and you think it's wise to send a parent away from the children because they smoked in the car? Please please go back under your rock.

[Ian David]

85. Fine with me, so long as nobody smokes under my rock, ok? n/t

It should be a felony if you have children whose clothes smell like cigarette smoke.

It's child abuse.

You're poisoning your kids.

Then again, they're YOUR kids, I guess.

[Pepperbelly]

129. I think you AND that doofus in Jersey should both MYOB.

You are so angry and you know what? So am I.

[Ian David]

152. I'm not angry. I'm sorry if I made you angry. I'm not mad at anyone here

I don't take this personally, and I hope none of you guys do.

I like all of you.

Despite our disagreements, we're all on the same side.

I hope I'm not the only one here who remembers that.

:grouphug:

[mongo]

130. Children's services have enough real problems to deal with.

Why don't we take away all the kids whose parents have habits you don't like, and put them in large camps, so they can be trained up right by the government?

[Zhade]

169. That's unreasonable.

I mean, what if the clothes smell like smoke because a parent lights up in the laundry room? You'd have them go to prison over a stupid act like that? (Stupid because the once-clean clothes are no longer fresh and clean, I mean.)

I agree that parents shouldn't expose their kids to secondhand smoke. I completely disagree that they should go to prison for it. Fines are better, and more likely to work to keep kids away from smoke.

A lot of smokers are rightly pissed at you for what you've advocated. I hate cigarettes, hate secondhand smoke, and think kids should be kept away from the clouds of smoke that contain so many terrible chemicals, but prison? That's nuts.

[elehhhhna]

179. You forgot obese children, what of their parents?

Where you gonna draw the line, here?

[Grooner Five]

28. Sounds like a good way...

...to send more poor folks to prisons. Smart.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Well, you do know that

our prisons aren't already over crowed, right? :sarcasm:

[Zhade]

170. Yeah - with OTHER kinds of smokers (of a beneficial plant).

How ironic!

[in_cog_ni_to]

188. Those nasty pot smokin' criminal hippies!

:smoke::hippie:

[Zhade]

194. Isn't it crazy that something as bad as cigs are legal, and marijuana not?

We are a nutso country.

[Warren DeMontague]

201. In a word...

yes.

[RetroLounge]

33. Well, since it's NOT ABOUT YOU

and making you happy, I guess you'll just need to deal with it...

RL

[Endangered Specie]

94. Why cannot people support a law even if they dont

participate in it what so ever? I have nothing to do or any stake in abortions (there "NOT ABOUT ME"), yet I support pro choice laws. :shrug:

[RetroLounge]

97. "That would be enough to make me happy"

He said "That would be enough to make me happy" but laws aren't written to make him happy.

That was my point.

RL

[Endangered Specie]

103. pro choice laws make me happy...

I think he meant happy in the sense of being "satisfied" with a compromise on the law in question. :shrug:

[RetroLounge]

107. Yes, and i CHOOSE to smoke, that makes me happy too

Get it?

RL

[QC]

140. You mean the whole world doesn't revolve around IanDB1?

I'm sure he'll be shocked to hear about this!

[RetroLounge]

161. Shocked! Shocked I Tell You!

:hi:

RL

[TahitiNut]

42. Here's a "compromise" for you ...

... Don't smoke in your own car. :shrug:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ButterflyBlood]

126. Really? It causes cancer?

I can't think of any damage to me that would be on the level of cancer. And I'm still a liberal. But let's not let anything get in the way of your bigoted "all Christians are right wing fundamentalist assholes" stereotype, shall we?

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[etherealtruth]

66. Shall we make it a felony to feed a minor fast food from the drive through

A capital crime to toss those wrappers (littering) from that vehicles window? Yes I AM being ridiculous.

People engage in risky behaviors, they do "stupid" things ... Those on the right are attempting to legislate our behaviors and values ... I don't want to be part of a movement on the left that attempts the same thing.

[blue northern]

71. Make it a FELONY to smoke w/ a minor in the car?

Your never gonna be happy then.
That's absurd.

[WyLoochka]

196. "enough to make YOU happy"???

You only have the right to the "pursuit of happiness" not a guarantee that everything that pisses you off personally will be outlawed. You may be one of those pain in the arse, anal retentive, fuss budgets who has a low "piss off" threshold, who can never be made happy no matter what accomodations are made for you. You are coming off that way in this thread.

Litter of any kind, thrown from a car, has been a finable offense, all across the country, in every state, for many decades.

Starting a fire has been on the books as against the law much longer than litter laws.

This isn't enough for you - doesn't make you "happy." Too bad. Be sad then.

As to the exposure of minors and your proposal to make this a felony, should we also make it a felony to feed minor children Happy Meals, pizza and carbonated, caffeinated fluids? Should we make it a felony to let them watch gory, violent movies? Play violent video games? There are all kinds of unhealthy things that parents expose their children to or let them be exposed to. Making these parents into felons, in order to make Ian "happy", will be very helpful to the millions and millions of children whose parents aren't perfect, I'm sure.

A felony - fer chrissakes, way overboard Ian. Smug people who want to have laws written to control others and thereby make themselves "happy" really really piss me off. I'm having a difficult time differentiating your control freak mind set from the Fundies' control freak mind set, Ian.

[LSK]

15. as much as I hate smoking..

I hate the Government telling me what to do even more. I think cell phone use in cars is 100x more distracting to drivers than smoking. So I support cell phones in cars bans.

And if smokers want to kill themselves, thats fine. I dont see how Im catching second hand smoke from another car.

I dont not support this.

[formernaderite]

20. Ahh...a voice of reason.

thank you.

[NV Whino]

24. Actually you do catch second hand smoke

If you have your vents open, it sucks it right in. Drive behind someone smoking a cigar and you will be sure to notice it.

When it happens to me I curse and give appropriate hand gestures. However, I think the law is ridiculous. And it would infringe on my right to curse and give appropriate hand gestures.

[Maine-ah]

55. hmmmm,

what about the exhaust fumes you're getting from other vehicles?

of course, I would hate to see any of our rights infringed on concerning the hand gestures. Though last time I did that the SOB followed me to my destination, got out of his car and started screaming at me. It must have made him feel like a real man, considering I'm a 4'11" very small female (but with a very large mouth).... I don't do that anymore.

[Zhade]

172. "what about the exhaust fumes you're getting from other vehicles?"

I think most of us have problems with that, too - we should have zero-emission cars by now, damn it!

[Sannum]

18. Can't we get back to this when the real problems are solved?

I don't smoke, but I do have the ability to MOVE MY LAZY ASS if I do not want to be near it:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. Wow. I don't hear THAT sentiment very often.

A non-smoker who can actually remove himself from a smoker's airspace? daaaaaaamn! I didn't know you people existed. :)

[Cats Against Frist]

45. LOL!

[Endangered Specie]

95. What gives smokers the right to a larger amout of

airspace than the rest of us :shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

132. if you don't want to be around smokers, then stay away.

But don't try to legislate my behavior just because you don't like it. I am certain that there are many, many things about you that would irritate me but that does not give me the right to try to mnake you a criminal for it.

[Endangered Specie]

149. if Im standing somewhere in a public place

and you come up near me and puff up a big one, then I am not the one who should move.

It is more than just irritation, its a threat to my and other peoples health, I have chronic asthma.

[Pepperbelly]

150. if i am standing in a public place and you come up to me ...

should I still move?

[Endangered Specie]

151. if you are already smoking

I wont move near you, but its very rude to smoke around alot of people in confined spaces, either inside or outside, or to 'block' a passageway with a cloud of toxins.

(btw, when I say me, I also mean nonsmokers in general).

[catnhatnh]

23. I call horseshit...

...I am a smoker and sick to the point of puking with sanctimonious anti- smoking zealots. If you really hated smoking then the only true point of attack would be to propose that the manufacturing and distribution of cigarettes be a felony. I wouldn't necessarily agree but I could at least then admire an uncompromising stance.But the ugly unspoken truth is that smokers are seen as a hugely profitable milk cow with a nearly unending set of udders.Though we are are seen as weak and stupid it seems no one in government feels any compunction to end the ongoing economic rape of people that even the tobacco lobby now admit were lied into becoming addicted to a "legal" product.So put up or shut up-the idea that super-taxing an unpopular minority for every budget shortfall (because it is "good for us") goes way past mere unfairness to social nazism and targeting the smoker instead of the manufacturer is far past hypocracy....

[bbgrunt]

69. exactly!!!

[Zhade]

174. I agree - go after the tobacco warlords.

Until then, don't force nonsmokers to be exposed to your smoke. If you're not doing so, feel free to smoke up!

[BiggJawn]

25. In Indiana....

A memeber of the "House of Bubbas" (state legislature) had a butt flipped from a car ahead of him land in the back seat of his rag-top, burning the seat cover.

Now it's a $1,000 fine to toss a cigarette butt from a moving vehicle in Indiana.

Interesting to note that when I'm out riding, I can tell if the car that just passed me has people smoking in it or not.

Somebody should have introduced a companion bill or amendment requiring McKeon to help pay everybody in the state's car payment, since he presumes to want to tell them what they can or can-not do with their own personal space.

[onehandle]

31. Good.

Just like cell phones, it's a proven distraction that causes accidents.

And on a personal note, I'm tired of having to seal my car's vent everytime I pull up behind a chain smoker with his windows open and/or an open vent. If they "enjoy" it so much, why don't they seal their vent and close their windows.

Just because people are Addicted to this drug, doesn't give them the right to share these dangerous fumes with others.

[RetroLounge]

36. I call bullshit.

The fucking exhaust from the car will kill you faster than a whiff of cigarette smoke. Should we ban cars? Or just the car in front of you?

Get your lazy ass in the next lane, and deal with it...

RL

[Bake]

75. Right on, Retro!!

I couldn't agree more. I join you in raising a nicotine-stained middle finger to this bullshit!! Looks like the Smoke-Nazis have struck again!

Meanwhile, I'm going to get in my car, light up a smoke, look up a number on my cell phone and make a call before I get to the drive-thru at Micky D's to get some lunch, which I will eat while DRIVING and changing the CD!!!

Oh, by the way, I haven't had a wreck in years. And I dump my car's ashtray every couple of days. In a garbage can.

Bake

[onehandle]

198. The vitriol from people addicted to nicotine is amazing.

The worst threads on DU are the ones invoving smoking.

Smokers need to get help to get away from this drug.

[RetroLounge]

206. Oh, just close your car vents, you'll be fine

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

RL

[Bake]

211. Excuse me, but the vitriol started with the Smoke Nazi, IanDB.

We're simply defending our freedom of choice, as adult Americans.

Vitriol? Yeah, we get almost as pissed about this as we do about the Patriot Act!

Stop it, you're killing me!!

Bake

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. OMG.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

OMG! You had to close your car vents? Wow. That must have been grueling for you. SEND 'em all to PRISON! Someone else had to close their car vents because a smoker was smoking in his OWN car! OMG. OMG. OMG. OMG. OMG. Nevermind the toxic fumes from the exhaust. Let's worry about a little cigarette smoke? GEEZUSKRIST.

When they OUTLAW smoking....then you have a right to complain about what other people do in their OWN vehicle.

I have NEVER, EVER, EVER smelled a smoker's smoke from their vehicle. EVER.

This is ridiculous.

[mcscajun]

32. Absurdity In Action.

McKeon must be an idiot.

I'm as anti-smoking as the next woman, but smokers DO have some rights. And so do we. If a smoker is alone in his/her car and that person wants to smoke, I figure it's their business, not mine. I don't like the idiots who flip their butts (lit or NOT) out of their car windows, but we have lots of idiots in the world, and no amount of legislation will ever change the percentage. We also have enough laws to cover whatever the intent of this proposed law is already.

Littering is already an offense.
Careless or reckless driving is already an offense: it doesn't matter WHAT the cause was.There are a host of things that cause driver distraction; are we going to legislate against: combing your hair, putting on makeup, talking on the phone, eating, having a beverage (non-alcoholic) while driving, reading, talking to your passengers, using your PDA, chastising your kids in the back seat, drumming the steering wheel to Pink Floyd? Where would it end? What would it cost both to pass the laws and to enforce them? Where and when would respect for the law begin to erode?

Legislators should really stick to the urgent issues that most people have real concerns with, leave the softball nonsense issues alone, and leave our rights intact.

[seabeyond]

39. anti smoker i see a pattern of i dont respect, like i hate the smoker

you do know, the smoker doesnt really care.

you dont like me because i smoke, if you make me evil, because i smoke, if all i am is a smoker to you, i dont really care an iota about what you think.

to think anyone would be impressed with a statement of i hate smokers. i dont respect smokers

how little does that make you. you feel you are making me less, that is the whole intent, but reality, it shines a lite on who you are. i wouldnt want to share your company.

if all you see in me is a smoker, dismissing the honest me, the good and kind me, the smart me, the hard worker me, the kick ass mom or wife me, or sister and daughter me...........because i smoke, that is your loss, not mine. i am still all of those things, you just cannot appreciate or experience those parts of me, because you are limited

smokers dont care if you dont like them
we dont care if you hate us.
it is your darkness to live, not mine
creating me an evil that i am not.

[leesa]

40. My only beef with smokers in cars, besides their constant littering, is

I wish they would roll their windows up so that I, in the car behind them, don't have to inhale it.

[TahitiNut]

43. But that carbon monoxide is just fine, right?

The exhaust emissions from the cars and trucks totally dwarfs any effect of ETS.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

49. LOL... You didn't just say that, did you?

Gawd!

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. I've NEVER littered with a cigarrette or the package...ever.

If I don't have an ashtray around, I put out the cigarette and stick it in a tissue or bag or something I have on me and wait until I have a garbage can available. I have even put old cigs in my jean pocket just so I didn't have to throw it on the ground. Now, my rights should be taken away from me? BULL.

and for the smoke flowing out of a car window....me thinks the exhaust fumes will kill you first.

[Goldmund]

115. Yes! And farting in your car should be punishable by death.

And what's with all those UGLY people in my rear-view mirror???

[Zhade]

175. Not fair to allege that all smokers constantly litter.

And it's unlikely you will be exposed to smoke from another car long enough to have ill health effects.

Now, if you were consistently forced to ride in the car, your point would make sense.

Keep in mind that I'm saying this as a non-smoker who would never pick up what I consider to be a filthy habit that a lot of smokers kid themselves about not being as dangerous to their health as it really is.

EDITED, because I don't think smokers kid themselves about damage to their HEATH (bars?). Typos suck.

[WyLoochka]

200. This is hyperbole

You are threatened far far more by the exhaust fumes from your own car and all the other cars and trucks and buses than from an occasional puff of cigarette smoke from an open window that is largely dispersed by the time it reaches your open window.

My advice to you would be to buy yourself some protection and get a gas mask to wear when driving your car.

[Bake]

212. It would take the perfect combination of breezes for you to smell my butt

Cigarette butt, that is, if you're in the car behind me. I think that's a total fabrication, and I call BULLSHIT on you!

Quick, tell me, do I smoke regulars or menthol? Assuming you can smell it over the exhaust fumes.

BAke

[FourStarDemocrat]

230. Smoke from a driver's window dissipates inthe air. It does not go into

It does not go into the windows of the car behind them. I've driven behind many a smoker and have never smelled smoke. That one's a bit of a stretch..

[Maestro]

41. Yet again politicians trying pass assinine legislation

while not really tackling real problems. Oh well, he is just modeling what he sees at the federal level. Asshat!

[Joey Liberal]

44. I agree with McKeon

I'm sick of watching smokers flick cigarette butts out of their car windows. I do think loud car stereos are a more pressing issue though.

[Robb]

59. ...which is already a crime.

I've seen cars get pulled over for flicking butts out the window. Hell, I watched one get pulled over for tossing an apple core.

Quick, more laws. :eyes:

[Zorra]

56. Geez, the next thing you know they will force us to wear seatbelts,

forbid us to drink beer and whiskey, use cell phones, and smoke dope while we drive.

Everyone should stop smoking corporate produced tobacco anyway because tobacco companies overwhelmingly support republican candidates, especially Bu*h, with mega financial contributions and they are partly responsible for bringing you the fascist government that you now enjoy.

[Ian David]

86. Now, I wouldn't mind over-turning seatbelt bans

I don't think any adult should be required to wear a seatbelt.

Same thing with motorcycle helmets.

Although I would prefer that anyone killed without a seatbelt or helmet would automatically be an organ donor, I know that isn't going to happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. OK. And, radios, kids, pets, makeup, cellphones, food, farts, singing,

outdoor advertising, hairbrushes, nailclippers, kleenex, and anything else that might distract the driver.

As for the litter. People should be ticketed for littering..not smoking.

[Pharlo]

64. I don't smoke. For me, tobacco smoke is a migraine trigger.

But, I do not think this law should pass. First their cars, then their houses. Nope.

If we're not careful, smokers may just get so disgusted they give up smoking altogether.

Lord, God Almighty!

If we lose that tax revenue, property taxes or generic sales taxes may go up.

I say leave them alone in the privacy of their homes and cars. Don't like it, stay out of their homes and cars.

If on the other hand, you want to raise taxes on tobacco products sufficiently to cover social medical costs created by the use of tobacco products, well I'm all for that.

If, as a result, many smokers find themselves unable to continue smoking due to the cost - well, Hell!, that's just the workings of the Free Market System, American Style - And, if you don't like that, well, then you need to ask yourself if you're a true Halliburton-loving 'Muriken.

[livinginphotographs]

74. If you think rising prices will cause people to quit

You obviously don't know a lot about smokers.

[Pharlo]

76. Well, I know my mother smoked,

but when cigarettes reached $1.00/pack, she quit. Cold. Never smoked again. Her perspective: "That's to God Damn much. I can't afford it."

Prior to that, she smoked about a pack and a half a day.

So, while it may not stop everyone, I'm sure there are some who may find it a deterent.

[Dorian Gray]

109. Yeah, I quit for a few reasons,

but one of them was that I didn't feel like paying $7.50 a pack anymore. Four packs a week... that's $$30 per week. A year... over $1500.

Just remembering that has helped me stick to my guns.

[damntexdem]

65. I'm all in favor of banning smoking ...

in my car. I do already, anyway.

But what would be the rationale from banning all smokers from driving? If it's that lighting up is a distraction from driving, then there should be an exemption for those following the old 40s-movie approach: the driver asks a passenger to light a cigarette and then place it in the driver's lips.

[gulliver]

67. If there are minors in the car, then fine.

I think smokers should not be allowed to smoke in the presence of non-smokers who object. And for legal purposes, it should be assumed that all minors automatically object.

[RPM]

73. greed - if you have kids in the car, no smoking

we don't let them smoke first-hand till18, why should second hand be any different?

[Endangered Specie]

111. Yeah, a child cant just order a parent to stop smoking

or refuse to ride in the car.

[Obamarama]

70. I am rabidly anti-smoking, but this is just NUTS....

I am a former smoker, was elated when they were banned from planes, and would definitely advocate blanket "no-smoking" legislation for restaurants, etc...

But in someone's own CAR? Ridiculous. If smokers want to inhale carcinogens, so be it. Doing it on/in their own property is their RIGHT. This is whacked!

[Endangered Specie]

110. what if children are in the car?

[Pepperbelly]

137. what if, what if, what if ...

Jesus Christ on a crutch!

[Endangered Specie]

142. what is that supposed to mean?

you failed to answer my question

[Pepperbelly]

147. you don't have a question ...

I am just sooooo tired of people trying to push their beliefs off on me and legislating me into being a criminal. And that is exactly what this is. Nanny state bullshit is one of the biggest reasons that people do not trust us. Hell, I wouldn't trust us to run things without checks.

We are just as smarmy, sanctimonious and fucked up as the other side.

[Endangered Specie]

148. read my post #116

[Zhade]

177. It's an appropriate question.

NT!

[elehhhhna]

180. The children can't smoke in the car 'til they're 18.

[OrlandoGator]

78. I'm all for banning smoking in cars when children are also inside.

Otherwise...it's their lungs, who cares?

[DiverDave]

83. I bought the car

I keep my insurance up.
I drive and smoke...don't like it?
I couldn't care less, it ain't none of your damned business.
Oh, I've been driving a car since 1973, a big truck since 1993, and have YET to get a ticket or accident...EVER.
Yeah, lets tax me more, and take what little rights I have left...I'm just a dumbass smoker.:sarcasm:

[WillowTree]

84. Just one more reason...

....for me to avoid New Jersey.

[Endangered Specie]

88. Smoking and trying to drive can be shown to be

dangerous, much like talking and driving (course, same is with eating fastfood on the run). More importantly, children can be harmed by the high concentrations of smoke so...

A compromise, no smoking in your car if you have children in it.

[napi21]

92. Having children in the car causes the most distractions!

Do you want to ban them too?

[Endangered Specie]

102. Where did I say that we should ban based on distractions?

Im somewhat on the fence when it comes to banning stuff because it distracts driving... however, Im all for protecting the health of minors, and that means not exposing them to smoke in their developing years. Would you allow your kids to sniff chemicals, thats what you do when you smoke around them in confined spaces.

[napi21]

105. That was not what this bill in NJ was talking about. It said no

ban smoking in your car! I don't have any kids, so the only one I would be bothering is ME!

You mentioned distractions by a lot of things, and I agree. I however think kids, cell phones, eating, drinking, and smoking are all distractions, in that order.

I just think this nut from NJ is pushing the envelope too far!

[Endangered Specie]

108. Yeah, I agree with most that...

I guess I should have added that I think the law proposed is over the top... and was suggesting a compromise/what I think would be the right course of action.

No kids? = smoke away!


I also think fines for littering cigarattes should either = or be slightly greater than regular littering fines, which I imagine in NJ are quite high (a higher fine bc cig butts can catch stuff on fire)

[seabeyond]

96. compromise, mind your own business

i am not negotiating my life with you, nor anyone.

[Endangered Specie]

100. compromise, develop a nicer attitude...

One does not have to be affected by something to argue for or against legislation (thats kinda like saying I cant be pro choice since I have no personal stake in it either way).

[foreigncorrespondent]

104. Well!

I must say I am shocked with a lot of the self righteous people who have responded in this thread in support of yet another bullshit piece of legislation which takes rights away from some and not all. Funny how that is starting to be common place in the left wing of the world society, isn't it?

If you are a person who supports this piece of crap then I suggest you think about the things you do in your car. Like:

Listening to music/radio:

Do you sing along to the tunes being played? If you do, then realize that is a distraction. That takes part of your mind away from being 100% in control of te car.

Do you turn a favorite tune up? If you do, then that is not just noise pollution, but also yet another distraction which takes your mind away from being 100% in control of the car.

If you listen to talk back radio, do you abuse the radio when you hear someone that doesn't agree with your line of thought? Realize, that is yet another distraction which takes your mine away from being 100% in control of the car.

Kids in the car:

Do your kids talk constantly in car? Do they fight amongst each other? Do they constantly ask "are we there yet?" If you answer yes to any of these then realize again, that they are all distractions which take your mind away from being 100% in control of the car.

Friends/family in the car:

Do you take passengers in the car with you? If so, do you strike up conversation with that/those passenger/s in the car either on long or short drives? Yet another distraction from taking your mind away from being 100% in control of the car.

Do you talk sexy with your partner in the car? Do you kiss your partner at traffic lights? Do you hold your partners hand while driving? Perhaps you keep your hand on their leg? All these are just more distractions which take your mind away from being in 100% control of the car.

Food and drink:

Do you take coffee in the car with you on long drives? Do you like to grab food to take with you in the car? Do you drink at a pub then head home (and don't tell me you have one or two, because the moment you have just one, it begins to infringe on your capabilities.) Realize yet again, they are all distractions which take your mind away from being in 100% control of the car.

I could list more, but I won't. The point I am trying to make is, we are all guilty of doing one, two, three, or all of the things I have stated above. Does that mean we are all bad drivers because we do these things? If you answer no, then realize, just because someone smokes behind the wheel doesn't make them a bad driver. Just because someone smokes behind the wheel doesn't mean they are going to throw their butts out the window. Just because someone smokes behind the wheel doesn't mean you are going to see their empty pack fly out the window. Just because someone smokes in the car doesn't mean they have kids in the car (when my sisters kids are in the car with me, I do not light up. No matter how long a drive I am on. If I want to smoke, then I pull over.)

Realize, if you support this legislation then you ultimately support the governments right to intrude on your life, and take your rights away at any God given moment of the day or night.

[napi21]

119. Thanks for inserting a bit of lreality into this thread.

Does everyone here realize that you're reacting the same way to an issue that we constantly criticize the RW of doing?

I guess we all have to accept that we have extremists on both sides, huh?

[Endangered Specie]

116. Let me try and reclarify my 2 cents stance on this...

1) the law proposed is over the top, excessive, bad, wrong, the end.

2) Whether or not smoking, or any other distractions, should be banned or not because they are distractions (and which ones should be banned) Im a bit on the fence on.

3) However, if someone who was in the middle of a cig, putting it out, or fumbling with a lighter, and causes a wreck, its their fault. Much the same way if you are choking on a burger, plucking an eyebrow, or yelling at the kids to STFU, or driving drunk and cause a wreck, it should be your FAULT, for insurance, civil, and criminal purposes.

4) More importantly, if you have kids, you should not be allowed to smoke around them in a car, or house. That smoke can cause nasty long term damage to them, much like sniffing chemicals would, and children cannot refuse to enter a car like a consenting adult can. It should also be illegal to smoke when pregnant.

[seabeyond]

135. over the top, excessive, bad, wrong, the end.

which is my point. you suggest i have a poor attitude. it has nothing with attitude. has everything to do with a no

the end

not a compromise, not negotiate. it is over the top, excessive, bad, wrong
the end

[trebizond]

136. message deleted

I can admit when I'm making a bad situation worse

[Endangered Specie]

141. seems to me both extremes are causing the doom of this thread...

:shrug:

That seems to happen around here alot

[ButterflyBlood]

118. oh well, I've got no sympathy for smokers really

They're the ones dumb enough to engage in their disgusting cancer-causing habit. I don't do that shit, and I don't have to worry about this at all. The only thing I do is them breathing that sickening shit in my face. If I don't have to deal with that anymore, then I might care.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

128. Ban kids. They eat up resources, tax dollars, and are annoying.

And, the sin police won't have to worry about them growing up to be smokers.

[name not needed]

133. Fuck that! Let's ban everything!

Car radios? Banned! Wouldn't want anyone causing a 600 car pileup cause their favorite Journey song's being played! Let's ban kids and fast food, and ugly people, cause you end up looking at the void that is their ugliness, and meanwhile, that bus of homeless orphans you just smaked into went flying off the bridge! And put smokers in zoos! They're not human, just cancerous filth which should be caged for our amusement!

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

146. Ban the morality police who want to ban naughty things like smoking.

[elehhhhna]

182. Bumper sticker readers. Should be shot?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

138. Would that be with the windows up or down?

Just in case the driver should drive through any municipality where they are planning to ban outdoor smoking, lighting up with the car window rolled down might be doubly prohibited.

[neebob]

139. I usually put on makeup before smoking in the car

If I still had a little kid, I'd be a triple threat. Good thing I don't live in New Jersey!

[AutumnMist]

144. My Goodness

In your own car? Thats ridiculous!

[TreasonousBastard]

153. I live in New Jersey and...

I can safely say that tobacco smoke is one of the least noxious things in much of our air. At least it's organic.

In fact, nonsmokers might be advised to take up the habit on certain parts of the Turnpike since air fresheners just don't cut it and something needs to kill the aroma. Would incense be illegal?

It is, btw, now illegal under our littering laws to toss a butt out the window. I personally know several people who got nailed for about 150 bucks and now use the ashtray. Alas, the ones who toss the McDonald's bags are not caught nearly enough.

Overall, I see it as partly another of the annual asinine thousand or so morality bills that never see the light of day in Trenton, but mainly as a revenue producer. Most of the smaller towns in NJ rely on traffic tickets to help balance the budget, and this is just another way to pick our pockets without the horror of raising taxes.

[name not needed]

183. Compared to that smell from the refineries,

cigarette smoke is quite pleasant.

[atomicdawg38]

155. Hmm reminds me of...

The United States is a non-smoking nation! No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!

America land of the free!

[Stinky The Clown]

158. This is exactly the kind of pure bullshit that gives Dems a bad name

[Kathy in Cambridge]

163. nanny statism BS

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Your car is your business.

And I'm one of the people who thinks the bans on smoking in indoor PUBLIC establishments like bars and restaurants is one of the best things California ever did. Ever. Ever. Ever. :woohoo:

(And no, I'm not going to debate that. Nope, not with you, either. It fucking RULES and if it did nothing else, it removed forever that awful wet dog smell from the clothes of everyone who walks into a bar for five minutes- and that alone was worth it.)

That said, this is a BAD idea. People should have the right to do what they want with and in their own property (and no, commercial establishments are NOT the same thing- I said I wasn't going to debate it, didn't I?) ... If someone throws butts out their window, lit or not, they should be prosecuted for that. People who force their kids to breathe it in, particularly with the windows up, that's something else entirely and even, possibly in extreme cases the domain of something like child protective services--- IMHO of course.

But, adults in a car? Not in any way shape or form, the government's business.

[slutticus]

202. As long as they don't ban getting BJs while in my car...

That would really suck.

:D

But seriously ...how much of a distraction can smoking be?

And not everyone who smokes is a litter bug.

This is pretty stupid IMO.

[thespiritualzebra]

214. Ban hummers in hummers!

Jesus said all the law and commandments can be summed up in Love the Creator and Love Your Neighbour - so I think his tendency was to reduce the number of laws on the books.

Having pontificated however, I wouldn't drive without a seatbelt even if it was legal and I'm glad I was forced to. In principle though I don't believe I have the right to force another licensed driver to wear one.

In Australia it's illegal to talk on a phone while driving (unless it's hands-free). This is counterproductive imo as it means that at any moment there are 1000's of drivers talking on the phone *and* looking for police cars so they don't get caught. This is distracting and reinforces the idea that the police are punitive parents to avoid rather than equal adults.

[GeekMonkey]

207. This is just plain silly

I don't smoke anymore, but damn I'm tired of the BS around smoking.

I think we should concentrate on people that are too stupid to drive, whether they smoke or not!

Some people can multitask, some can't. Trying to draw us all down to the lowest common denominator is stupid.

I'm tired of poor drivers causing good drivers to have insanely low speed limits, stupid helmet and seat belt laws, and other safety-nazi bullshit.

How about the right to the pursuit of happiness?

I can't stand the nanny state bullshit. Stop treating people like idiots and maybe they'll stop acting like idiots.

[seabeyond]

209. i like you.......i was about going mad here

i started chanting to myself just now, going down the thread, just remember it is a small minority saying this bullshit. really small minority saying take away kids. really really small minority saying put in jail

the vast majority are sane rational reasonable adults. this is not indicitive of the party

then i came to your post. and .........i am at peace.

boston had a law trying to pass, spanking outlawed. and again it was the same thing.

but there are always the few that are so willing to dismiss all a person is for the agenda.....and profess to take the children away

texas homosexuals, take the kids
spank, take the kids
smoke, take the kids
fundamental christian, take the kids

arent you all concerned what we are becoming
i am

[Kool Kitty]

216. GeekMonkey and seabeyond,

what you both said. Well said. And I, too, am afraid of what we are becoming.

I smoke. I will smoke in MY car. I will smoke in MY house. My son is 32. If you want to take him away from me, he's all yours. This rep from NJ is an ass. He's afraid of second-hand smoke? He's not worried about the crappy air quality from the refineries, the traffic, the chemical industry in this state? Piss-poor representation, I'd say. Do something about the forest, pal, before you look at the trees. I'm sick of the congress and senate turning themselves inside-out over things that bit by bit allow them to ban or regulate things that really are none of their business.

[Fescue4u]

217. Will be a good revenue stream for NJ

They'll just use it as an ad on ticket for speeders.

$100 bucks for speeding, and "oh I see that you are a smoker, make that $350 total"

Hopefully they'll put the money to good use.

While I don't agree with the law, it will encourage folks to quit smoking and help with the tax deficits