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 was outside the library when I smelled cigarette smoke. The man smoking was trying his best to smoke in the other direction, so as not to bother me. Which is even funnier, because I soon found out I had unknowingly been standing next to the Designated Smoking Area sign.
My wife knows better.
I pay for every car I've ever driven.
If she's unhappy in any way, she can buy her own.
I once had a neighbor who seemed normal. A few years ago, I bought a Jeep Cherokee which I needed for my work. I would drive home only on weekends, because the job site was 140 miles away.
One day I drove it home and my neighbor saw it for the first time.
He looked at the cigarette I was smoking and said," you know, the leasing company does not like it when you smoke in their vehicles!"
My response to his naked presumption was brief and to the point: "Neither you not anyone else has anything to say about a vehicle I have bought and paid for".
Oh yes, he was an ex-smoker.
More accurately, it was a compilation of portions of many many studies, choosing only the parts that would support their premise.
At least one Federal Court determined it was incompetent and clearly fraudulent.
Yet, most existing laws across the country are "based" on that "study".
So if eating/breathing/marriage/living regulations were initiated at the local level that would be OK?
Your agenda is showing.
Here is one that would really drive you nuts. I know a guy who would make a big deal of hacking whenever he SAW a smoker. We were at the mall once and I had seen someone smoking across the food court. The person was behind him. I had noticed this for at least five minutes. It wasn't until the guy turned around to get up that he started hacking and coughing about the cigarette smoke. It really was irritating.
More proof that our elected betters have nothing constructive to do, but at least one assemblyman gets it.
The car belongs to me. The title is in my name. I pay the insurance and for most of the gas. I allow my husband to drive it. He does not have his own car because he turned in his lease last year.
Even though he claims he drives with the windows down, I can still smell it, and IT STINKS.
He got me one of those air fresheners shaped like a leaf that you hang from the rearview mirror, and those things also stink and they give me a headache.
LOL!
You're right touchy-feely up close and personal tyranny is so much better than national tyranny!
I suppose you'd like to come around and give us all a personal lesson in behavior, eh Adolph?
more cradle to grave socialism..
nuff said.
These Libs do not care about children, it's just another evil underhanded and sleazy way to fine people for using a legal product. They should ban it, or shut up. They are the very same people refusing to keep pedophiles in jail, or even give them stiffer sentences, refusing to come down on teachers who molest children, and refusing to stop sex teaching of small children in school. Yeah.............it's for the children.
Another reason to never set food back in that socialist state.. and I dont even have kids.
Next up, regulating of fatty foods in homes with children. Scary police state stuff indeed.
The antis wont listen until something THEY are "addicted" to is banned by big brother.
Mission creep gaurantees that this law will morph into child abuse. How long before smokers have their kids taken away by the state?
Who are they supposed to listen to?
Could you please define "behave accordingly"?
Nope, they never fail to dissappoint.
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.