Posted on 08/14/2006 7:32:01 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Targeting a new frontier in the fight against smoking, California lawmakers may ban motorists from lighting up near young passengers.
The measure would mark the first time that Californians would be prohibited from smoking legal tobacco products on private property not open to the public or employees.
No state had passed such a vehicle smoking ban until this year, when Arkansas and Louisiana set a precedent by barring the practice when passengers are under 6 or 13, respectively.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, a West Hollywood Democrat who proposed California's ban, Assembly Bill 379, said some parents don't seem to know -- or care -- about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
"If you're too stupid to recognize that on your own, then we have to pass a law to tell you, 'Don't be an idiot, don't smoke with your small kid in the car with you,' " Koretz said.
AB 379 makes no exception for vehicles whose windows are open to increase ventilation. It applies to motorists whose passengers are younger than 6 or lighter than 60 pounds.
Violators would be subject to a base fine of up to $100, which could rise to more than $350 through penalty assessments for courts, jails, trauma centers and other programs.
Opponents call AB 379 another example of "nanny government" in which lawmakers intrude into private lives or property rights.
"I think we try to micromanage people's lives to an extent that's getting ridiculous, whether it's health or dietary or lifestyle decisions," said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg.
Canciamilla predicted that if AB 379 succeeds in limiting smoking in vehicles, other private property will be targeted next.
"The argument would be the same: Why would you let someone smoke in a car with children present? Then, why in an apartment? Or a house?"
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I knew he looked familiar! lol. Thanks.
Tweddle Dee & Tweddle Dumb.
Breathe free while you can. Next up - taxes on each breath you take of that 'clean air'. Regulations indicating how deeply you can breathe and how often.
All brought to you by your government. After all, they are only there to help.
Supporters of Koretz's bill say two relatively new developments improve prospects for passage:• In January, the California Air Resources Board became the nation's first air regulator to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant, on a par with cancer-causing diesel soot, asbestos and lead.
Shouldn't we be more worried about the fact that those kids obviously aren't in carseats? (Or that a convertable with the top down is far less likely to contain any smoking residue than a sedan with the windows closed?)
What's next for California, concentration camps?
I remember having candy cigarettes as a kid. They were among my favorites. They certainly didn't turn me into a smoker.
Conditional custody only will be granted the Breeders, revokable without notice upon violation of any part of the Canon of Liberal Utopia.
BUT, BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This idiot is sooo obviously obese and therefore in danger of having a heart attack that his DL should be revoked immediately!
I have warned my husband not to smoke in my car but he does anyway.
The smoke gets into the upholstery and the HVAC and it stinks up the car.
Funny. Everyone of our liberties has either been stripped away for the children, or some other special interest group. I keep hearing those jackboots...
Nanny State PING.
This isn't about smoking folks, it goes far deeper than that.
Shouldn't we be more worried about the fact that those kids obviously aren't in carseats? (Or that a convertable with the top down is far less likely to contain any smoking residue than a sedan with the windows closed?)
When I started posting that picture, everyone got a big kick out of it, just like you! Kids standing up in an open convertible. No seat belts. LOL
That's Maine Health Department for you! haha!
We know, even though you should be.
"Next up - taxes on each breath you take of that 'clean air'."
It's been that way since the 'Clean Air Act' has been passed.
This statement, itself, is the epitome of stupidity.
Most people are too disengaged or apathetic to care where this is leading. Two observations should be sufficient to validate the absurdity of the movement:
When closer to 50% of adults smoked, the incidence of so-called "second-hand smoke" related illnesses was lower. So, empirically, the assertion fails the reality test.
Second, scientific studies carried on by legitimate non-agenda groups have found flat out that there is no connection between second-hand smoke and the illnesses claimed, specially the absurd "50,000 a year deaths". The largest (by far) such study by the U.N. World Health Organization, incidentally initiated to justify a war on second-hand smoke, done by true scientists, forced them to accept the science conclusion: there is no connection. I fact, they may have made a slight beneficial corelation.
The study was quietly shelved, and details have never been released.
Now, who is the stupid one Mr. Dork Koretz?
Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.