New Georgia Law will make smoking in your car a crime

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
New Georgia anti-smoking Law:

If you are caught smoking in a car with small children you are committing a crime:

2-5-2004 Bill Bans Smoking in Cars With Kids

The measure would be the nation's first ban on smoking in private vehicles...

The measure would allow police to pull over drivers for smoking while driving children in a car safety seat, required in Georgia for children under age 4.

?[A] friend of mine saw a little kid gasping for breath in a car where a man was smoking a pipe,? he said. ?They?re young, they can?t roll down their windows, they have no defense.?

Smith, when asked if the proposed law would be violating the personal space of a private citizen, said, ?I realize some of them fell that way, but we told them to put car seats in for the kids, didn?t we? So, what?s the difference??

No other state makes it a crime to smoke in private cars, although Indiana and New Jersey have laws against smoking on school buses...
Gotta love Georgia. Why don't they replace that "divisive" flag with one that has a pacifier on it?

CkG
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
Really not that crazy a law. The key here is that they are smoking with an infant/toddler in the car. Your title makes it sound like they are making smoking in your own car in general illegal, which would be crazy.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Should they be allowed to have a whiskey bottle open and be glugging it while driving? Should they be allowed to masturbate while driving with the kids in their car? How about committing suicide with the kids in the car? Are you ok with that? In every state if you attempted to take your life and the lives of your children by suicide in a car you would be prosecuted for attempted murder. How is smoking any different? SMOKING IS SUICIDE. Only those with a morbid death wish or an out of control addiction smoke.

Furthermore, the social costs of smoking are enormous. Conservatives should be opposed to smoking because it raises the costs of caring for people under Medicare, Medicaid and under all state health plans. I don't care what libertarians think because they have about 1% of the vote. More or less. :)

-Robert
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: chess9
Should they be allowed to have a whiskey bottle open and be glugging it while driving? Should they be allowed to masturbate while driving with the kids in their car? How about committing suicide with the kids in the car? Are you ok with that? In every state if you attempted to take your life and the lives of your children by suicide in a car you would be prosecuted for attempted murder. How is smoking any different? SMOKING IS SUICIDE. Only those with a morbid death wish or an out of control addiction smoke.

Furthermore, the social costs of smoking are enormous. Conservatives should be opposed to smoking because it raises the costs of caring for people under Medicare, Medicaid and under all state health plans. I don't care what libertarians think because they have about 1% of the vote. More or less. :)

-Robert

The first argument is weak at best. The "social costs" also isn't a good argument against smoking while driving.
If you want to ban smoking because of the health costs then do and say so. Don't hide behind some BS argument. Smoking doesn't impair driving like Alcohol, masturbating, or suicide does - find a new argument please.:)

But be careful with your "social cost" argument;) Homosexuals have a shorter life expectancy than others too. Should we ban that too?;)

CkG
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,420
11,644
136
Just one more law that will discourage more people from wanting to have children. Without children, our nation will not survive.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
CAD:

You obviously haven't watched someone smoke and drive. Smoking does impair driving. I won't bother to spell it out to you, but the impairment is obvious and well documented. Many, many accident occur because people smoke and drive. I was hit from behind by a guy who dropped his lighter and bent down to get it. Smoking is also widespread, so the incidence of impaired driving is very high. Much higher that DUI or masturbation (only intended as a throw away attention getter).

The exact reason the legislator proposed the ban on smoking in the car is the social cost-to children-because their health is at stake. If you think there is ZERO social cost to children of driving and smoking then you are woefully uninformed. If you think it isn't significant, then you are also woefully uninformed. Passive smoke in a small, enclosed space is harmful.

Any homosexuals who knowingly infect another peson with AIDS should be, and they have been, prosecuted. But they are adults for the most part. We are talking about children. Should a parent force a child to smoke? That's what's happening.

I say hang 'em high, or hang 'em low, but hang 'em. :)

-Robert
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Vic:

Go away, you Libertarian rascal. :)

Doesn't your AK47 need it's barrel cleaned, or something. :)

-Robert
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

You obviously haven't watched someone smoke and drive. Smoking does impair driving. I won't bother to spell it out to you, but the impairment is obvious and well documented. Many, many accident occur because people smoke and drive. I was hit from behind by a guy who dropped his lighter and bent down to get it. Smoking is also widespread, so the incidence of impaired driving is very high. Much higher that DUI or masturbation (only intended as a throw away attention getter).

The exact reason the legislator proposed the ban on smoking in the car is the social cost-to children-because their health is at stake. If you think there is ZERO social cost to children of driving and smoking then you are woefully uninformed. If you think it isn't significant, then you are also woefully uninformed. Passive smoke in a small, enclosed space is harmful.

Any homosexuals who knowingly infect another peson with AIDS should be, and they have been, prosecuted. But they are adults for the most part. We are talking about children. Should a parent force a child to smoke? That's what's happening.

I say hang 'em high, or hang 'em low, but hang 'em. :)

-Robert
So are you for banning anything that "distracts" a driver? Radio, eating, drinking(non-alcoholic), etc? Because that's what smoking is the same as, so that argument is BS.

Now back to your "social costs" - where do we stop with "social costs"? Do you ban parents from taking their kid to McDonalds? That can kill them too
The kid doesn't have a choice - the parent just does it. Do they get a McDonalds ration card stating they can only eat there X times per month?
What else should we "ban" because of your "social concerns"? Got anything else that "concerns" you?

The homosexual lifestyle has been studied and reports show that it decreases life expectancy. On states that a 20 year old homosexual male will live 8-20 years less than other men. Hows that for "social concern"?;)

BTW - I'm not arguing that smoking doesn't affect kids, only a moron would try to insinuate I am. The issue here is the gov't forcing "social concern" by partially banning a perfectly legal thing. Like I said - ban smoking if it really is a "concern". But anyway - it should be interesting to see how this is enforced. Smoking is addictive...and addiction is a disease - no?;)

CkG
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
CAD:

I'm in favor of not allowing parents to smoke when their kids are in the car. Period. Stop. Quit putting words in my mouth. Go blow some weed and chill..... :)

-Robert
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

I'm in favor of not allowing parents to smoke when their kids are in the car. Period. Stop. Quit putting words in my mouth. Go blow some weed and chill..... :)

-Robert
So what else should we be "concerned" about? Where is the line drawn? When will people say enough is enough to gov't regulating our every move?

CkG
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,420
11,644
136
I always find it odd that people think that Libertarianism isn't a viable or sustainable form of government. During the roughly 150 years when the US had what was essentially a "Libertarian" form of government, and that was considered the norm, our country was always growing and expanding. We went from a poor backwater to the greatest and most powerful civilization in human history. Now that we have moved away from being a free country and gone to the Nanny State, we are in rapid decline. Go figure.
Of course, for the majority of people, the solution is not to return to what worked, but to compound our folly with more and more ridiculous laws.


Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

I'm in favor of not allowing parents to smoke when their kids are in the car. Period. Stop. Quit putting words in my mouth. Go blow some weed and chill..... :)

-Robert
So what else should we be "concerned" about? Where is the line drawn? When will people say enough is enough to gov't regulating our every move?

CkG
I find this exchange quite informative and ironic.

Anti-smoking extremist Robert here advises that CAD should himself smoke another dangerous and noxious weed and (in extreme irony) to "chill". Discounting the weed comment (which I personally feel should be legal along with tobacco smoking), a great irony exists in the "chill" comment. Isn't it Robert's lack of "chilling", i.e. his stress over parents' smoking, that drives his anti-smoking advocacy? That he will not suffer his neighbor his vices and faults?
CAD correctly asks where the line in all this should be drawn. After all, when do we stop? When will our distrust and hatred of our fellow man (for his petty vices) end? No time soon, I predict. The problem is that people like Robert believe that they are creating the perfect utopia. No one will suffer anymore, no one will be exposed to harm anymore, all will be well. The issue is that what they want, while seeming ideal, cannot be created the way they want to create it, if at all. And so we descend towards the deepest, darkest form of tyranny.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
I always find it odd that people think that Libertarianism isn't a viable or sustainable form of government. During the roughly 150 years when the US had what was essentially a "Libertarian" form of government, and that was considered the norm, our country was always growing and expanding. We went from a poor backwater to the greatest and most powerful civilization in human history. Now that we have moved away from being a free country and gone to the Nanny State, we are in rapid decline. Go figure.
Of course, for the majority of people, the solution is not to return to what worked, but to compound our folly with more and more ridiculous laws.


Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

I'm in favor of not allowing parents to smoke when their kids are in the car. Period. Stop. Quit putting words in my mouth. Go blow some weed and chill..... :)

-Robert
So what else should we be "concerned" about? Where is the line drawn? When will people say enough is enough to gov't regulating our every move?

CkG
I find this exchange quite informative and ironic.

Anti-smoking extremist Robert here advises that CAD should himself smoke another dangerous and noxious weed and (in extreme irony) to "chill". Discounting the weed comment (which I personally feel should be legal along with tobacco smoking), a great irony exists in the "chill" comment. Isn't it Robert's lack of "chilling", i.e. his stress over parents' smoking, that drives his anti-smoking advocacy? That he will not suffer his neighbor his vices and faults?
CAD correctly asks where the line in all this should be drawn. After all, when do we stop? When will our distrust and hatred of our fellow man (for his petty vices) end? No time soon, I predict. The problem is that people like Robert believe that they are creating the perfect utopia. No one will suffer anymore, no one will be exposed to harm anymore, all will be well. The issue is that what they want, while seeming ideal, cannot be created the way they want to create it, if at all. And so we descend towards the deepest, darkest form of tyranny.
More Laws, More Laws, we can never have enough Laws.

You will submit.

Edit: Very first Georgia Politician I met last year. He gets up and starts his presentation:

"I am here because if I don't submit Bills to become Law then I am not a Lawmaker and can't justify my job".

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Vic:

Feel free to check out of the Ayn Rand Reality Clinic once a single libertarian is elected to the U.S. Congress. Until then, I think we can safely ignore Libertarians.

Did you get that AK47 cleaned? God loves a man with a clean gun barrel. :)

-Robert
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,420
11,644
136
Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

Feel free to check out of the Ayn Rand Reality Clinic once a single libertarian is elected to the U.S. Congress. Until then, I think we can safely ignore Libertarians.

Did you get that AK47 cleaned? God loves a man with a clean gun barrel. :)

-Robert
Why would the people vote Libertarian? Everyone has a "What have you done for ME lately?" mentality about government. So they vote for whoever will raise their Social Security or Medicare benefits, or whoever will pass that law they want to punish their neighbors or give their business/industry a big tax break or subsidy.
As though the government can possibly give without taking....
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

Feel free to check out of the Ayn Rand Reality Clinic once a single libertarian is elected to the U.S. Congress. Until then, I think we can safely ignore Libertarians.

Did you get that AK47 cleaned? God loves a man with a clean gun barrel. :)

-Robert
Why would the people vote Libertarian? Everyone has a "What have you done for ME lately?" mentality about government. So they vote for whoever will raise their Social Security or Medicare benefits, or whoever will pass that law they want to punish their neighbors or give their business/industry a big tax break or subsidy.
As though the government can possibly give without taking....
I hear you on that. I think some here on the Conservative side have forgotten is this very thing. I'm working from within trying to keep things inline - you seem to have chosen other means to air your voice. Someday I hope Republicans start understanding you and I better, even though we(you&I) may disagree on certain other "issues".

CkG

**note - Yes, I know what&who I said, and yes I did so on purpose.:)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY