Lawmakers Considering Banning Smoking In Cars

[celtic_crippler]

But what about at home? How about while they're in the womb?
There's evidence of birth defects caused by mothers drinking and smoking while pregnant. Do we make that illegal too?
What about just being near a smoker who isn't currently smoking but is so saturated in toxins that they emit that smoker-funk?

Mind you, I'd love to ban all smoking. Remember, I visit relatives wearing WW2 surplus gas masks because they smoke so much, and shower immediately afterward.
But what I want, isn't necessarily legal or right.

Give 'em an inch and they'll expect the Grand Canyon

 

[Tez3]

This thread is somewhat confusing! people are complaining about the government controlling things etc etc yet on reading the article it's one state and one man heading this campaign to ban smoking in cars. He may well be over zealous and impractical but it does seem he wants to protect children and surely it can't be that hard to tell him, 'well no this won't work' and have him direct his attention to something his constituents actually want assuming of course they haven't asked him for this. Has there been a big campaign to persuade him to get this law passed btw? There must be something that has him thinking this will be popular!

 

[jks9199]

This thread is somewhat confusing! people are complaining about the government controlling things etc etc yet on reading the article it's one state and one man heading this campaign to ban smoking in cars. He may well be over zealous and impractical but it does seem he wants to protect children and surely it can't be that hard to tell him, 'well no this won't work' and have him direct his attention to something his constituents actually want assuming of course they haven't asked him for this. Has there been a big campaign to persuade him to get this law passed btw? There must be something that has him thinking this will be popular!

Inane ideas like this often start in one state or even one municipality or county, and then spread. Say Mustard City passes a local ordinance prohibiting using your left hand to eat chocolate chip cookies. Then they move in on Condiment County, pointing out how the rules should be the same throughout the county... Repeat this with adjoining Bread and Spice Counties, then they move to the state... and so on.

There's a reasonable line where the State needs to leave the People alone. I'd say this is pretty far over the line... As others have noted, there are places that restrict smoking in public areas, and there have been attempts to prohibit smoking on your own property. (Note: Home Owner Association (HOA) rules are a somewhat different matter; private entity that you agree to abide by the rules when you buy your home.) I don't smoke, I'm not a fan of the smell, and would love to return the hundreds of cigarette butts inconsiderate jerks strew along the edge of my property to them -- but the State doesn't need to reach into my home and car. That's rather intrusive, I'd say...

 

[celtic_crippler]

Lawyers call it "precedent"

 

[Steve]

I'm not for this. (that's a full stop, there).

But there is a precedent for this in the distracted driving laws being passed. the argument that I think would be very compelling isn't that smoking is a health hazard. It's that smoking is a distraction. Car accidents occur all the time because a smoker is fishing for a lighter, lighting the smoke, drops the cigarette, accidentally knocks the cherry off somewhere, somehow or flicks it out the window only to have it fly back in on them, causing them to freak out.

Smoking, along with eating behind the wheel, and texting/using a cell phone are the three leading causes of driver inattention.

My point isn't to say that I'm for this kind of legislation. My point is that, were I trying to market this campaign, I wouldn't waste my time on the "it's unhealthy" argument. I'd focus on the driver inattention, which currently has a lot of traction due to the cell phone/anti-texting and driving movements.

 

[Drasken]

Keep in mind that people go crazy over smoking laws. Most non smokers are for any law making it harder for people to smoke. And smokers are always against even common sense restrictions. I was ok with seperation of smoking sections from general areas. But it didn't stop there. I remember being alright with not smoking inside, ok I get that one I suppose. Then everything started to get crazy.
I've also heard talk of people trying to start campaigns to get electronic cigarettes banned from use indoors, even though there is no conclusive proof that it has any negative effects from second hand WATER VAPOR. It's insane.

That's another point I didn't think of in my first post. What is going to happen when people drive around smoking an e cigarette? Cops won't be able to tell the difference between some e cigarettes and real ones before pulling people over.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Freedom seems to be a lost concept these days...

I am a non-smoker. I don't like the way it smells. I think it's a nasty habit and there are many health risks involved in the activity.

That being said, if you want to smoke that's your choice. It's none of my business what you do with your body any more than what I do with mine is your business.

If an establishment wants to allow smoking, then I am FREE not to patronize it. And, if I do, then I accept the risks involved...freely.

But, do children have choice? Can they make a choice to NOT be around cigarette smoke? Most often, no. My mother smoked, so I would stay in my room or go outside. Point is, you can't legislate responsible parenting. That's the real issue, isn't it? Where do you draw the line? Should we start making people pass tests and physicals in order to obtain a license to have kids? Some may be on board with that... and granted, depending on what kind of dealings I've had with people during the day, I may endorse it at times. However... we can't do that and still consider our society as a FREE one.

You can't have your cake and eat it too... sorry. There's trade-offs and this is one of them.

The best you can hope for is continued education on the hazards and risks of smoking. Teach it early, and hope it sticks. Beyond that... people gonna do what people gonna do. It's about time the status quo realized that and got out of everyone's life.

 

[jks9199]

Smoking, along with eating behind the wheel, and texting/using a cell phone are the three leading causes of driver inattention.

I'd dispute your assessment there, unless you can back it up. In my experience investigating easily hundreds of crashes, the most common driver distraction is talking to another person, whether on the phone or in person. Then you get into messing with car controls like AC, GPS, or radios. After that, it's simple daydreaming/absent-mindedness where the driver is simply not paying attention; they're worrying about a job interview, sick kids at home, and the like. Honestly -- I can't think off the top of my head of anyone investigating a crash where the driver's smoking was a significant contributing factor -- though I'm sure it has happened, as you describe. There have been crashes, especially of motorcycles, caused by carelessly discarded cigarettes hitting another vehicle. As for eating? Again, I can't think of a crash where it was a significant factor. Another big driver distraction is other things on the roadside, like billboards, crashes, police stops, and pretty much anything else.

Note that I'm describing crashes, not mere erratic driving. There -- my personal experience still ranks smoking low, though eating comes up higher. Conversations, again either in person or on phone, are near the top -- but so is simply being tired. (Though some of the most erratic driving I've ever observed was linked to a driver whose fly was down, and his date's lipstick was rather smeared... Draw your own conclusions...)

 

[Steve]

Freedom seems to be a lost concept these days...

I am a non-smoker. I don't like the way it smells. I think it's a nasty habit and there are many health risks involved in the activity.

That being said, if you want to smoke that's your choice. It's none of my business what you do with your body any more than what I do with mine is your business.

If an establishment wants to allow smoking, then I am FREE not to patronize it. And, if I do, then I accept the risks involved...freely.

But, do children have choice? Can they make a choice to NOT be around cigarette smoke? Most often, no. My mother smoked, so I would stay in my room or go outside. Point is, you can't legislate responsible parenting. That's the real issue, isn't it? Where do you draw the line? Should we start making people pass tests and physicals in order to obtain a license to have kids? Some may be on board with that... and granted, depending on what kind of dealings I've had with people during the day, I may endorse it at times. However... we can't do that and still consider our society as a FREE one.

You can't have your cake and eat it too... sorry. There's trade-offs and this is one of them.

The best you can hope for is continued education on the hazards and risks of smoking. Teach it early, and hope it sticks. Beyond that... people gonna do what people gonna do. It's about time the status quo realized that and got out of everyone's life.

I applaud your zeal. I think it's great to think about freedom and to keep it in mind, and I do know that you allege to be a libertarian, so I presume you mean it when you want freedom, as the libertarian platform would be consistent with legalization of all currently illicit drugs, the removal of the government from the issue of marriage (effectively legalizing gay marriage) and many other things. I can sympathize, but I'll admit that I'm not a strict libertarian. I think that there are many instances where our freedom is appropriately limited. I'm for it. We're a Nation of laws.

So, for me, The question isn't "Are we free?" It's,"where do we draw the line?"

I said it in the gun thread and it applies here. We're not talking about whether or not "freedom" is limited in some way or another. Everyone here agrees that we are a Nation of laws and that this in some way impinges upon our freedoms. It's about when and to what degree we limit those freedoms.

Another thing to consider is that, as often happens, the topic is being a little oversimplified. Where businesses are concerned, you have employee health and safety. It's less about the patrons than it is about the employees. Where cars are concerned, you have driver inattentiveness. Where kids are concerned, you have that in the mix. It's not all the same topic. Regardless of your position for or against, the issues are different in each case.

So, to sum up:

1: I don't agree with this law. People should be allowed to smoke in their cars.
2: If I did want to push this law, I'd try to link it to driver inattentiveness. Not focus on health.
3: Either way, feel good posts in which we rail at our loss of "freedom" are, IMO, not helpful or realistic. We are not completely free. We never have been and we never will be. Although we remain more "free" than many.

 

[Steve]

I'd dispute your assessment there, unless you can back it up. In my experience investigating easily hundreds of crashes, the most common driver distraction is talking to another person, whether on the phone or in person. Then you get into messing with car controls like AC, GPS, or radios. After that, it's simple daydreaming/absent-mindedness where the driver is simply not paying attention; they're worrying about a job interview, sick kids at home, and the like. Honestly -- I can't think off the top of my head of anyone investigating a crash where the driver's smoking was a significant contributing factor -- though I'm sure it has happened, as you describe. There have been crashes, especially of motorcycles, caused by carelessly discarded cigarettes hitting another vehicle. As for eating? Again, I can't think of a crash where it was a significant factor.

Note that I'm describing crashes, not mere erratic driving. There -- my personal experience still ranks smoking low, though eating comes up higher. Conversations, again either in person or on phone, are near the top -- but so is simply being tired. (Though some of the most erratic driving I've ever observed was linked to a driver whose fly was down, and his date's lipstick was rather smeared... Draw your own conclusions...)

Whatever you want. It's based on several studies. I don't have the time right now to provide links, but a study was done within the last 5 years or so, and several other studies have been done over the years as well.

 

[Steve]

jks9199, I reread the above post, and I'm afraid it sounds much more flippant than intended. What I should have written is that I am confident I've read several studies, including one that was published within the last 5 or so years. In that study, IIRC, smoking was one of several secondary distractions that caused a lot of accidents. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to do the google-fu to find it.

Also, just to be clear, I don't really think that driver inattentiveness is a good reason to ban smoking in one's car. I'm only saying that, were it my job to sell this legislation, that's the strategy I'd go for. I think it has a lot more chance of resonating right now than the health considerations.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I applaud your zeal. I think it's great to think about freedom and to keep it in mind, and I do know that you allege to be a libertarian, so I presume you mean it when you want freedom, as the libertarian platform would be consistent with legalization of all currently illicit drugs, the removal of the government from the issue of marriage (effectively legalizing gay marriage) and many other things. I can sympathize, but I'll admit that I'm not a strict libertarian. I think that there are many instances where our freedom is appropriately limited. I'm for it. We're a Nation of laws.

So, for me, The question isn't "Are we free?" It's,"where do we draw the line?"

I said it in the gun thread and it applies here. We're not talking about whether or not "freedom" is limited in some way or another. Everyone here agrees that we are a Nation of laws and that this in some way impinges upon our freedoms. It's about when and to what degree we limit those freedoms.

Another thing to consider is that, as often happens, the topic is being a little oversimplified. Where businesses are concerned, you have employee health and safety. It's less about the patrons than it is about the employees. Where cars are concerned, you have driver inattentiveness. Where kids are concerned, you have that in the mix. It's not all the same topic. Regardless of your position for or against, the issues are different in each case.

So, to sum up:

1: I don't agree with this law. People should be allowed to smoke in their cars.
2: If I did want to push this law, I'd try to link it to driver inattentiveness. Not focus on health.
3: Either way, feel good posts in which we rail at our loss of "freedom" are, IMO, not helpful or realistic. We are not completely free. We never have been and we never will be. Although we remain more "free" than many.

A Republic means being a nation of laws, laws that limit government intrustion upon the individual. Laws that respect the wishes of the majority while protecting the Rights of the individual.

The line is drawn where it crosses over infringing on an individual's Rights where no harm comes to another.

And there's the rub, admittedly.

If you truely want to be "free"... then you need to take a stand and be proactive about it. Using the excuse "we've never been truely free" is a cop out. If you truely believe in an ideal then you fight for it. You don't make excuses or choose apathy over ethics.

 

[Steve]

A Republic means being a nation of laws, laws that limit government intrustion upon the individual. Laws that respect the wishes of the majority while protecting the Rights of the individual.

The line is drawn where it crosses over infringing on an individual's Rights where no harm comes to another.

And there's the rub, admittedly.

If you truely want to be "free"... then you need to take a stand and be proactive about it. Using the excuse "we've never been truely free" is a cop out. If you truely believe in an ideal then you fight for it. You don't make excuses or choose apathy over ethics.

Not meant to be a cop out. I think that a line certainly exists. Point I'm making is that there is a line. Saying that you are for unfettered, unrestricted freedom is a cop out, in my opinion. As I said before, the question isn't whether or not we are "free." It's where do we draw the line.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[celtic_crippler]

Not meant to be a cop out. I think that a line certainly exists. Point I'm making is that there is a line. Saying that you are for unfettered, unrestricted freedom is a cop out, in my opinion. As I said before, the question isn't whether or not we are "free." It's where do we draw the line.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The Founders already drew it. When you cross over into violating another's Rights. You have the Right to do whatever you like as long as you don't endanger another's life or property. "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That's the point I made when I stated "...and there's the rub" in regards to minors.

The majority have forgotten, or simply never known this concept because the government's been so invasive and violated this principle continuously in their lifetimes. People today have been "conditioned" to accept it as the way things are. It was not always so; however.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ah. But there's the catch.

You have the Right to do whatever you like as long as you don't endanger another's life or property. "

Smoking endangers your health and the health of those exposed to it. So that makes the question how much exposure is acceptable.


ok, story time.
I have 3 cats. My grandfather is a heavy smoker. When I lived in the apartment above him, all 3 cats would puke constantly. Once we moved, they stopped. Same water, same food, same treats, same toys. Different air.
Neither my wife nor I smoke. We constantly smelled smoke in our apartment. A 5 minute visit with him is enough to require a shower from the toxic air in his flat. When my aunt and late uncle visited the 1 year, there was almost no time when there weren't 2 or more cigarettes burning. The air was clouded and thick, and very hard to breath.

His house. He can do what he wants. Oh, NY and Buffalo both have laws restricting smokers in their own home though. Enforcing those laws would not have stopped the smoking though. Just put money in government hands and an old man whose crime is addiction in trouble.

Have I mentioned I -hate- smoking? Years of exposure, possible health issues, dealing with rudeness and stink. You'd think I'd be in favor of more laws against them.

But I'm not.

Much as I'd love them to outlaw smoking, pass more laws against it, I think we have enough.
No smoking in the work place. Great, now every time I want to shop at the mall I walk through a cloud of toxins from the huddled addicts by the door.
No smoking at the hospital. See above.
No smoking in eating places. See above.

My car, my house, my property are all no-smoking areas. You do with yours what you like, not what the government wants.
Too much regulation, too many rights lost by the slow slide.

Yes smoking's bad for you, yes I hate it, but it's your right to decide your own fate. All these laws against 'distracted driving' don't really do much. People still drink and drive, still text and drive, still phone and drive. All they do is give the cops something more to cite you for after you crack up. We mandate seatbelts (not for cops though), but not helmets.

You have the right to do what you want. Until it impacts my rights. Then we fight for a balance. I think no matter how you slice it though, this is too far.

Yeah, the anti-gun guy who defends guns is also an anti-smoker who defends smokers. Chew on it. LOL!