[POLL] New Jersey Bill Would Ban Smoking While Driving

[cyberhap]

No smoking in restaurants I completely understand. But no smoking in your own car? That is a little far-fetched.

I'm not a smoker and I would side with the smokers on this one.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I hate all this pussyfooting around. If it's so evil and vile, just ban it already.
Oh, wait, that's critical tax income.

Ban it? Never taken a history course?

You don't have to ban it Howard. Telling people they cannot do something only breeds resistance. It will happen eventually but it a much more indirect way.....for instance DENYING health insurance for smokers completely, not paying higher premiums, they simply will be denied coverage. Then you see how peoples choices differ.

You seem so ready to throw away other people's freedoms, how quick will you be when it's your freedom that's being targeted?

I'm a smoker, and I agree with many-many smoking restrictions, but this is BS.

Denying health coverage on that basis is too. I'm sure you do plenty of non-healthy things. Eat too much fat in your diet? Fried food? Any other unhealthy/risky activities? Like drinking alcohol? Mountian climbing? Snowboarding?

Do you see where I'm going with this, or are you going to argue the details of smoking?

 

[chowmein]

what's this about jersey being the lamest state? 😛

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Whether you like it or not this will eventually happen, and it will happen everywhere. At some point in time you will only be allowed to smoke in your HOUSE. I get tired of smelling smoke coming from the cars in front of me in traffic. I am allergic to it, it is not like I just don't like it. I deal with it but if smoking was banned in cars I would definitetly not complain. I wouldn't even complain if they banned all smoking outside for that matter. Five months out of the year I don't run the AC and I have the windows open and I get tired of the smoke from my neighbors blowing in my windows....it makes it as if someone is smoking in my house. Pretty soon here there will be no smoking in restuaraunts (Sept 1st I think) and it is only a matter of time before it will be banned in all public buildings of any type....from there it will just get worse. Face it people, whether you like it or not the vast majority of people don't smoke and can't stand it so laws banning it in different places will keep on coming. It wouldn't be so much an issue if your desire to smoke didn't infringe on other's right to breathe.

Your allergies are your problem, not everyone else's. If we banned all objects and substances that people may be allergic to, we'd all live in hypoallergenic rooms never allowed to leave.

As for smelling smoke outdoors, tough sh!t. I smell LOTS of things that bother me in the world. Should we ban BO as well?

BTW, before you make ignorant assumtions, I do not smoke, nor do I like the smell.

Before you get your panties in a ruffle I didn't mean "you" as in YOU....merely to smokers. I understand that the allergies are my problem but it isn't like I have a choice to have or not have them. They do not even bother me much anymore but the smell of smoke still does. I usually agree with what you say but it seems as if at times you simply crusade for the sake of the crusade. Smoking is on it's way to being banned in just about all areas except in the HOME. Like it or not that is the way things are going to go and I agree with it. You seem to be all about personal RIGHTS but when one person's right infringes on another's then it no longer is a right....and thus legislation to ban smoking in certain instances.

Your rights stop at my property. If, per chance, you catch a whiff of my rights, tough sh!t. The home is not the only personal property. All private businesses are personal property as well. So are cars.

You seem to be of the mind that as long as it's not your bull being gored, who cares? Well, sooner or later they WILL come for your bull... and you wont have a leg to stand on because you allowed everyone else's bull to be gored for one selfish reason or another.

While I tend to agree with you the argument will go that although your land/house/car is YOUR property the AIR is not. Ever heard of a Game Warden? I own property that has deer and wildlife on it, they are on my property but I still cannot shoot them with impunity, I must follow the game laws like everyone else ON MY PROPERTY. How come the local Fire Department at my lake house can tell me I can't burn on MY PROPERTY because of the dry conditions and the fire hazard it poses? That is how it will go down whether you, I, or anyone likes it or not. I'm just telling you it is going to come to this eventually. The only reason smoking isn't already flat out banned everywhere in this country is the tax revenue, which is the only downside of a flat out ban because the chumpkins on the hill will push those taxes onto the rest of us before they cut their spending.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Whether you like it or not this will eventually happen, and it will happen everywhere. At some point in time you will only be allowed to smoke in your HOUSE. I get tired of smelling smoke coming from the cars in front of me in traffic. I am allergic to it, it is not like I just don't like it. I deal with it but if smoking was banned in cars I would definitetly not complain. I wouldn't even complain if they banned all smoking outside for that matter. Five months out of the year I don't run the AC and I have the windows open and I get tired of the smoke from my neighbors blowing in my windows....it makes it as if someone is smoking in my house. Pretty soon here there will be no smoking in restuaraunts (Sept 1st I think) and it is only a matter of time before it will be banned in all public buildings of any type....from there it will just get worse. Face it people, whether you like it or not the vast majority of people don't smoke and can't stand it so laws banning it in different places will keep on coming. It wouldn't be so much an issue if your desire to smoke didn't infringe on other's right to breathe.

Your allergies are your problem, not everyone else's. If we banned all objects and substances that people may be allergic to, we'd all live in hypoallergenic rooms never allowed to leave.

As for smelling smoke outdoors, tough sh!t. I smell LOTS of things that bother me in the world. Should we ban BO as well?

BTW, before you make ignorant assumtions, I do not smoke, nor do I like the smell.

Before you get your panties in a ruffle I didn't mean "you" as in YOU....merely to smokers. I understand that the allergies are my problem but it isn't like I have a choice to have or not have them. They do not even bother me much anymore but the smell of smoke still does. I usually agree with what you say but it seems as if at times you simply crusade for the sake of the crusade. Smoking is on it's way to being banned in just about all areas except in the HOME. Like it or not that is the way things are going to go and I agree with it. You seem to be all about personal RIGHTS but when one person's right infringes on another's then it no longer is a right....and thus legislation to ban smoking in certain instances.

Your rights stop at my property. If, per chance, you catch a whiff of my rights, tough sh!t. The home is not the only personal property. All private businesses are personal property as well. So are cars.

You seem to be of the mind that as long as it's not your bull being gored, who cares? Well, sooner or later they WILL come for your bull... and you wont have a leg to stand on because you allowed everyone else's bull to be gored for one selfish reason or another.

While I tend to agree with you the argument will go that although your land/house/car is YOUR property the AIR is not. Ever heard of a Game Warden? I own property that has deer and wildlife on it, they are on my property but I still cannot shoot them with impunity, I must follow the game laws like everyone else ON MY PROPERTY. How come the local Fire Department at my lake house can tell me I can't burn on MY PROPERTY because of the dry conditions and the fire hazard it poses? That is how it will go down whether you, I, or anyone likes it or not. I'm just telling you it is going to come to this eventually. The only reason smoking isn't already flat out banned everywhere in this country is the tax revenue, which is the only downside of a flat out ban because the chumpkins on the hill will push those taxes onto the rest of us before they cut their spending.

IF you do anything other than eat granola and hug trees all day you should just shut the fvck up...

Why do I need the government to protect me from myself? Better yet, why do I need a corrupt state government to take that responsibility?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
While I tend to agree with you the argument will go that although your land/house/car is YOUR property the AIR is not. Ever heard of a Game Warden? I own property that has deer and wildlife on it, they are on my property but I still cannot shoot them with impunity, I must follow the game laws like everyone else ON MY PROPERTY. How come the local Fire Department at my lake house can tell me I can't burn on MY PROPERTY because of the dry conditions and the fire hazard it poses? That is how it will go down whether you, I, or anyone likes it or not. I'm just telling you it is going to come to this eventually. The only reason smoking isn't already flat out banned everywhere in this country is the tax revenue, which is the only downside of a flat out ban because the chumpkins on the hill will push those taxes onto the rest of us before they cut their spending.

OK, follow me here.

The taxes are increased on cigs why? To justify public costs associated with them, right? That's what I hear EVERY time they want to increase the taxes (again) on tobacco.

Haven't I paid for the right to at least smoke, at least in my car?

Oh, but don't ban cigarettes, we NEED the tax revenue... :roll:

BTW, know why you see more people smoking in the car? Because its one of the few places left.

Anyways, you "public air" arguement is very shallow. You even cite WHY the other restrictions are in place, but fail to show where tobacco falls in with those. So I'll fill the gaps.

Game warden: I'm not aware tobacco is used to hunt, perhaps you can expand on your argument to make some sense.
Fire department: tobacco isn't burned openly like trash out in the boonies. When tobacco is burned in the open, it's not creating 15' flames like burning trash (trash burning is why that ordinance is in place).

Now, you could make the claim that used butts that aren't extinguished are creating fires. However even that's already illegal, so no need for anohter law.

 

[monk3y]

I hate smoking but I don't see why a person can't do it in their own personal space.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Anything that requires using your hands should be banned while in a moving vehicle. I hate seeing some dumbfvck cruising around with a smoke in one hand and a cell phone in the other driving with his knees. Get a damned hands free cell setup for your car. Oh and also, stop smoking you dumbfvcks it's bad for you.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: notfred
With the number grass fires started along the sides of the highway every summer, this doesn't really sound like such a bad idea to me. Smokers love to fling lit cigarettes out the window when they're done with them.

It's a $500 fine in Seattle if you do. I smoke in my car and it smells like I smoke in my car because I use my Ashtray. It really annoys me as well when people throw a cig on the ground. I will walk a few blocks with the butt in my hand looking for a garbage can.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Ronstang
While I tend to agree with you the argument will go that although your land/house/car is YOUR property the AIR is not. Ever heard of a Game Warden? I own property that has deer and wildlife on it, they are on my property but I still cannot shoot them with impunity, I must follow the game laws like everyone else ON MY PROPERTY. How come the local Fire Department at my lake house can tell me I can't burn on MY PROPERTY because of the dry conditions and the fire hazard it poses? That is how it will go down whether you, I, or anyone likes it or not. I'm just telling you it is going to come to this eventually. The only reason smoking isn't already flat out banned everywhere in this country is the tax revenue, which is the only downside of a flat out ban because the chumpkins on the hill will push those taxes onto the rest of us before they cut their spending.

OK, follow me here.

The taxes are increased on cigs why? To justify public costs associated with them, right? That's what I hear EVERY time they want to increase the taxes (again) on tobacco.

Haven't I paid for the right to at least smoke, at least in my car?

Oh, but don't ban cigarettes, we NEED the tax revenue... :roll:

BTW, know why you see more people smoking in the car? Because its one of the few places left.

Anyways, you "public air" arguement is very shallow. You even cite WHY the other restrictions are in place, but fail to show where tobacco falls in with those. So I'll fill the gaps.

Game warden: I'm not aware tobacco is used to hunt, perhaps you can expand on your argument to make some sense.
Fire department: tobacco isn't burned openly like trash out in the boonies. When tobacco is burned in the open, it's not creating 15' flames like burning trash (trash burning is why that ordinance is in place).

Now, you could make the claim that used butts that aren't extinguished are creating fires. However even that's already illegal, so no need for anohter law.

You obviously missed the point. The examples given were to show that the state can tell you what you can do with and on your own private property. The EPA tells you that you cannot vent refrigerants in to the air, you cannot paint a car in your garage....etc. etc. etc. That is the point, I wasn't trying to relate hunting and burning a pile of trash to smoking.

I really don't care what happens to smokers or smoking. The problem really has no affect on me as the important places I want to go are smoke free, the rest are minor nuisances but I deal with them and can usually avoid them so it is not a problem. I am simply saying that smoking is in the crosshairs and eventually it will be eliminated in all but your own home whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not? Claiming personal property rights isn't going to protect you was my only real point as the government already regulates your use of your own property whether you realize it or not. I say smoke up and enjoy as long as you are willing to pay an much larger health insurance premium than the rest of us who don't willingly chose to ill affect our health.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
You obviously missed the point. The examples given were to show that the state can tell you what you can do with and on your own private property. The EPA tells you that you cannot vent refrigerants in to the air, you cannot paint a car in your garage....etc. etc. etc. That is the point, I wasn't trying to relate hunting and burning a pile of trash to smoking.

I really don't care what happens to smokers or smoking. The problem really has no affect on me as the important places I want to go are smoke free, the rest are minor nuisances but I deal with them and can usually avoid them so it is not a problem. I am simply saying that smoking is in the crosshairs and eventually it will be eliminated in all but your own home whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not? Claiming personal property rights isn't going to protect you was my only real point as the government already regulates your use of your own property whether you realize it or not. I say smoke up and enjoy as long as you are willing to pay an much larger health insurance premium than the rest of us who don't willingly chose to ill affect our health.

No, I didn't miss your point. I see the examples you gave, and don't feel tobacco smoke meets the estabolished standards. IE the "harm" created by smoking in your car doesn't come close to the "harm" created by trash burning. There isn't enough need because there isn't a problem. QED.

Let me try this another way. What is the greater public harm caused by smoking in a car vs. smoking in my house? IE what does the car have to do with it? I think we covered the "it smells" earlier in the thread (IE I don't see you mandating showers and deoderant), as well as "I'm allergic".

You don't need to tell me smoking is in the crosshairs, I'm paying those taxes we like being paid, I'm the one having to go here, or go there to smoke. 😉

As far as premiums go, you missed my point like the coyote trying to catch the road runner. So I'll just ask a question. What do you do that is "risky" that the average person doesn't do? See my above list for examples.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Ronstang
You obviously missed the point. The examples given were to show that the state can tell you what you can do with and on your own private property. The EPA tells you that you cannot vent refrigerants in to the air, you cannot paint a car in your garage....etc. etc. etc. That is the point, I wasn't trying to relate hunting and burning a pile of trash to smoking.

I really don't care what happens to smokers or smoking. The problem really has no affect on me as the important places I want to go are smoke free, the rest are minor nuisances but I deal with them and can usually avoid them so it is not a problem. I am simply saying that smoking is in the crosshairs and eventually it will be eliminated in all but your own home whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not? Claiming personal property rights isn't going to protect you was my only real point as the government already regulates your use of your own property whether you realize it or not. I say smoke up and enjoy as long as you are willing to pay an much larger health insurance premium than the rest of us who don't willingly chose to ill affect our health.

No, I didn't miss your point. I see the examples you gave, and don't feel tobacco smoke meets the estabolished standards. IE the "harm" created by smoking in your car doesn't come close to the "harm" created by trash burning. There isn't enough need because there isn't a problem. QED.

Let me try this another way. What is the greater public harm caused by smoking in a car vs. smoking in my house? IE what does the car have to do with it? I think we covered the "it smells" earlier in the thread (IE I don't see you mandating showers and deoderant), as well as "I'm allergic".

You don't need to tell me smoking is in the crosshairs, I'm paying those taxes we like being paid, I'm the one having to go here, or go there to smoke. 😉

As far as premiums go, you missed my point like the coyote trying to catch the road runner. So I'll just ask a question. What do you do that is "risky" that the average person doesn't do? See my above list for examples.

I wasn't trying to relate levels of harm, so yes you missed the point again. The point is the state does and can regulate what you do with and on your private property....that is the ONLY point. Because of this if they choose to not allow you to smoke in your car, kinda ridiculous, then they can and you won't be able to do much except pay the fine. While the car is private property the roads you are driving on are public property and open to regulation by the state....so once again they CAN regulate what you do with and in your private property. That is my only point here. If you want to smoke in your car I really do not care. But telling me the state has no right to prevent you from doing so is absurd since thousands of laws and ordinances would prove your claim useless. I understand how you feel about the issue but that does not change the facts or the reality. Why can the state tell me I HAVE to wear a seat belt? Once again....the level of harm is irrelevant.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

I wasn't trying to relate levels of harm, so yes you missed the point again. The point is the state does and can regulate what you do with and on your private property....that is the ONLY point. Because of this if they choose to not allow you to smoke in your car, kinda ridiculous, then they can and you won't be able to do much except pay the fine. While the car is private property the roads you are driving on are public property and open to regulation by the state....so once again they CAN regulate what you do with and in your private property. That is my only point here. If you want to smoke in your car I really do not care. But telling me the state has no right to prevent you from doing so is absurd since thousands of laws and ordinances would prove your claim useless. I understand how you feel about the issue but that does not change the facts or the reality. Why can the state tell me I HAVE to wear a seat belt? Once again....the level of harm is irrelevant.

See, you're reaction to the bolded statement above is where you differ from some of us. Just because the government has abused, infringed upon, and bastardized our rights before, is no reason to allow them to continue to do so. Even if a person doesn't smoke, they should still be upset at this, because eventually they'll come for our rights, and we'll have even less of a leg to stand on.

There's really no reason to ban smoking while driving. But in the case of cell phones for example, there is a very good reason to ban them.

 

[Amused]

Folks, Ronstang is just showing us how the slippery slope works by blindly justifying it.

Ron's basic argument: Because the government can ban/limit one or more freedoms and rights, they can ban/limit all freedoms and rights.

What's the use in arguing against that?

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks, Ronstang is just showing us how the slippery slope works by blindly justifying it.

Ron's basic argument: Because the government can ban/limit one or more freedoms and rights, they can ban/limit all freedoms and rights.

What's the use in arguing against that?

Why would you want to. The government is just looking out for our best interests.


:roll:

 

[laketrout]

How about a bill to just stop that idiot in the back of your car that burns holes in your set because he is lazy? Thats what the government should protect me from...idiots.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Anubis
thats retarted, i dont even smoke, this is total BS

Wow, 23.96% of ATOT are stupid.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: Anubis
thats retarted, i dont even smoke, this is total BS

Wow, 23.96% of ATOT are stupid.

That estimate is LOW

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks, Ronstang is just showing us how the slippery slope works by blindly justifying it.

Ron's basic argument: Because the government can ban/limit one or more freedoms and rights, they can ban/limit all freedoms and rights.

What's the use in arguing against that?

Why would you want to. The government is just looking out for our best interests.


:roll:

Looking at sex and nudity might provoke someone to rape or god forbid sodomy...

Violence might cause one to harm animals or may make you more prone to using violence to solve disputes.

Why not just make all the channels in America broadcast Barney and the Teletubbies 24/7?

 

[PingSpike]

I'm really beginning to think we need a good bloody purge of government like in the French Revolution.

 

[Aharami]

it will never get passed.

 

[Preyhunter]

Originally posted by: HDTVMan
Jersey Government Sucks. The wondefull democraps are screwing that state so bad its going to have an economic collapse. Houses are overpriced for junk ones and the average person cannot afford to buy a home. I know guys making 75K who cant afford to buy a home in NJ. Property Taxes are rediculous as well and they just increased on my remaining friends still there. Car insurance is insane. Not to mention all the other hidded BS charges in that state.

I donated a car to a kids organization and the wonderfull governer passed a law that only allows a 500 tax deduction for the cause. When the dontation center told me that I asked the girl why would anyone donate a car any more and she started to cry and said I know.

Way to screw the charities gov! Didnt they learn anything from Florio?

My wife and I recently moved out of there to North Carolina. As much as I love the people I have to laugh that all my neighbors are from NY and NJ. Seems everyone is moving down here and many of the big companies up in Jersey are also looking down here. So there go the jobs in Jersey. Merck is looking to move thier data centers here and it wont be long before the rest do the same. Jersey loses Pharma and it will collapse. Trust me when I tell you that I worked for 4 of them and guess what 4 of them were investigating alternate locations. Lucent even moved most operations to Illinois.

NJ is doomed. Only the new yorkers moving to the train lines are keeping it alive. That wont last.

It would never be enforced.

Are these people moving south the same ones that voted the idiots into power up there in the first place? If so, they really shouldn't be moving to other locations. They need to keep that crap up there where they asked for it and not spread it around to other parts of the country. I'm not speaking to you specifically, but the ones that migrate and yearn for "the good old days in the greatest land of all."

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Kalbi
i guess that democrat hasn't ever heard of a thing called the constitution.

Democrats have their own version of the constitution which constists of Amendments 5 and 14, twisted to be applicable in any situation they choose. They threw out the 2nd amendment and disregard the rest of them.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Whether you like it or not this will eventually happen, and it will happen everywhere. At some point in time you will only be allowed to smoke in your HOUSE. I get tired of smelling smoke coming from the cars in front of me in traffic. I am allergic to it, it is not like I just don't like it. I deal with it but if smoking was banned in cars I would definitetly not complain. I wouldn't even complain if they banned all smoking outside for that matter. Five months out of the year I don't run the AC and I have the windows open and I get tired of the smoke from my neighbors blowing in my windows....it makes it as if someone is smoking in my house. Pretty soon here there will be no smoking in restuaraunts (Sept 1st I think) and it is only a matter of time before it will be banned in all public buildings of any type....from there it will just get worse. Face it people, whether you like it or not the vast majority of people don't smoke and can't stand it so laws banning it in different places will keep on coming. It wouldn't be so much an issue if your desire to smoke didn't infringe on other's right to breathe.

Your allergies are your problem, not everyone else's. If we banned all objects and substances that people may be allergic to, we'd all live in hypoallergenic rooms never allowed to leave.

As for smelling smoke outdoors, tough sh!t. I smell LOTS of things that bother me in the world. Should we ban BO as well?

BTW, before you make ignorant assumtions, I do not smoke, nor do I like the smell.

Before you get your panties in a ruffle I didn't mean "you" as in YOU....merely to smokers. I understand that the allergies are my problem but it isn't like I have a choice to have or not have them. They do not even bother me much anymore but the smell of smoke still does. I usually agree with what you say but it seems as if at times you simply crusade for the sake of the crusade. Smoking is on it's way to being banned in just about all areas except in the HOME. Like it or not that is the way things are going to go and I agree with it. You seem to be all about personal RIGHTS but when one person's right infringes on another's then it no longer is a right....and thus legislation to ban smoking in certain instances.

You know, if people got half this worked up over issues that really mattered, it'd be a better world.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Kalbi
i guess that democrat hasn't ever heard of a thing called the constitution.

Republicans have their own version of the constitution which constists of the Patriot Act, twisted to be applicable in any situation they choose. They kept the 2nd amendment to keep Billybob and Cooter happy and disregard the rest of them.

Fixed.