Posted on 08/28/2006 8:05:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO
Californians who smoke in motor vehicles carrying young children could be slapped with $100 fines under a bill approved Monday by the state Senate.
But a measure to force automakers to produce more lower-polluting, alternative-fuel vehicles fell four votes short of passing.
The smoking ban, in a bill by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, would cover vehicles carrying children who were required to ride in a child safety seat.
Under current law, that would be children who were younger than 6 or who weighed less than 60 pounds. But a bill on the governor's desk would require children younger than 8 years to ride in child seats unless they were at least 4-foot-9.
Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, said the Koretz bill was an attempt to "protect the health of children who cannot protect themselves."
"We all know that secondhand smoke is hazardous," she said, particularly for young children whose lungs are still developing. "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."
A 23-14 vote returned the bill to the Assembly, which initially approved it last year when it dealt with a different subject.
The alternative fuel bill, by Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, would require the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations requiring that at least half the new cars and light trucks sold in California starting in 2020 be classified as clean-running alternative vehicles.
Battery-powered cars, vehicles that ran on ethanol or another alternative fuel, and vehicles that used a fuel mixture that was less than half gasoline would meet that standard.
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, said the bill would "help move us away from our 99 percent dependence on petroleum for motor vehicle fuel."
But the bill, which did not generate debate on the Senate floor, received only 17 votes. It needed at least 21, a bare majority of the 40-member Senate, to pass. Eighteen senators voted against it.
Supporters indicated they would take up the measure for a second vote before lawmakers adjourn their 2006 session on Thursday.
Here's a rundown of some of the other bills voted on Monday:
POOL SAFETY By a 28-7 vote, the Senate approved another bill designed to protect children. The measure by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, would require homeowners to install fences, door alarms or another anti-drowning device when they remodel a swimming pool or spa.
The bill, which goes back to the Assembly for a vote on Senate amendments, extends requirements that now cover new pools to older pools and spas when they are remodeled.
CELL PHONES The Senate, by a 23-16 vote, approved a bill by Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, that would give consumers 21 days to rescind a new cell phone service they found dissatisfactory.
The measure now goes back to the Assembly for a vote on Senate amendments.
DARFUR By a 29-7 vote, the Senate approved another Koretz bill that would attempt to pressure Sudan to stop genocidal violence in the Darfur region.
The bill would prohibit California's two giant public employee pension funds, the California Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System, from investing in oil and other energy-related companies that operate in Sudan but haven't taken steps to stop the violence.
The measure also would bar the funds from investing in companies that supply weapons to Sudan.
Sen. Jack Scott, D-Pasadena, said a similar investment ban helped bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING The Assembly approved a bill by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would extend public services such as refugee cash assistance, Medi-Cal benefits and employment services to non-citizen victims of human trafficking, domestic violence and other violent crimes.
In order to receive state and local aid, those individuals would have to show that they were taking steps to meet eligibility requirements for federal benefits.
The bill passed 45-4 and now goes back to the Senate for a vote on Assembly amendments.
WAL-MART The Assembly voted 41-31 along party lines to approve a bill by Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys, that would require so-called "superstore retailers" such as Wal-Mart and Costco to provide cities and counties where they wish to build with a detailed economic impact report.
The reports would include an assessment of the effects the superstore would have on local retailers.
Assembly Republicans argued that the bill would create a hostile business environment and harm healthy competition among retailers.
It now returns to the Senate for a vote on Senate amendments.
___
Associated Press Writer Robin Hindery contributed to this report.
___
On the Net: http://www.assembly.ca.gov and http://www.senate.ca.gov
;^)
The California legislature is lately resembling the Iranian mullahs. I reckon Fabian Nuñez would be the head ayatollah.
Oh yes. It must be a very good song for the smoke nazis. LOL
"I for one am NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH THIS LAW."
Thanks Mom
"> Keeping smokers from smoking because the nanny state doesn't like it. Thats all any of these laws are about.... It's not about anyones health anymore.. its a move toward prohibition and control."
"I'm afraid you're absolutely correct.
And what are we going to do about it?"
If everyone stopped patronizing establishments where smoking is banned for a couple months, the bans would be reversed. People need to stand up to this insanity...and not just on message boards...it needs to happen in real life! I've not gone to a bar since the ban started in my area. I miss it, but it's just wrong and I just don't feel comfortable in a place that is so restrictive.
I have to differ. The vast majority of bars and restaurants don't want the bans -- they argued and lobbied against the ban from the git-go. A lot of them went out of business when the bans went into effect, and more of them nearly did. All that would happen "if everyone stopped patronizing establishments where smoking is banned" is that the ones that survived would finally succumb.
This is the real evil of the nanny state -- there's no recourse that works. Petitions are ineffectual, lawmakers are in the grips of P.C. B.S. The only actions that make any difference are civil disobedience (e.g. a bar that flouts the law and lets patrons smoke under the guise of being a private club or other exempt establishment).
I used to smoke; I quit over 30 years ago for health reasons. I could do without it but I have no axe to grind in either direction -- I don't care if other people smoke around me, it doesn't bother me unless I'm singing (I'm a musician) in which case the non-smoking is actually a plus for the band. But it's hell on attendance.
I saw friends of mine who owned bars and restaurants lose 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars to the smoking ban. I saw a friend lose his life savings worth of capital investment due to the ban. I hate the ban as much as some people hate smoking.
There must be a way to change the law. But putting economic pressure on the establishments isn't going to help, in this case.
> I agree with this too...there needs to be more civil disobedience.
These days, with regard to smoking, I have to rely on others to do it. I had to quit for health reasons long ago (severe allergic rhinitis and bronchial problems), so the best I can do today is cheer on my smoking friends. At the same time, of course, warning them that they're killing themselves.
The point is, they should have the right and means to kill themselves. Freedom is not just the freedom to do safe things. It includes the freedom to do dangerous, stupid things too.
I'll leave the argument about whether it includes the right to make somebody else pay higher insurance premiums, for another day and another thread...
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.