Posted on 09/23/2003 5:17:15 AM PDT by publius1
STATE OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________________________________
189
2003-2004 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
(Prefiled)
January 8, 2003 ___________
Introduced by Sens. HOFFMANN, MORAHAN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Health
AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to restricting areas where smoking is permitted
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem- bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. Section 1399-o of the public health law is amended by 2 adding a new subdivision 2-a to read as follows: 3 2-a. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke in a 4 private passenger car, private passenger van or private passenger truck 5 where minors under sixteen years of age are passengers in any such vehi- 6 cle. 7 § 2. Subdivision 1 of section 1399-q of the public health law, as 8 added by chapter 244 of the laws of 1989, is amended to read as follows: 9 1. Private homes, private residences and private automobiles except as 10 provided in subdivision two-a of section thirteen hundred ninety-nine-o 11 of this article; 12 § 3. Section 1399-v of the public health law, as added by chapter 244 13 of the laws of 1989, is amended to read as follows: 14 § 1399-v. Penalties. 1. The commissioner may impose a civil penalty 15 for a violation of this article in an amount not to exceed that set 16 forth in subdivision one of section twelve of this chapter. Any other 17 enforcement officer may impose a civil penalty for a violation of this 18 article in an amount not to exceed that set forth in paragraph [f] (f) 19 of subdivision one of section three hundred nine of this chapter. 20 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one of this section 21 any person who violates the provisions of subdivision two-a of section 22 thirteen hundred ninety-nine-o of this article shall be liable for a 23 civil penalty of five hundred dollars for a first offense, up to an 24 amount not to exceed one thousand dollars for a second offense, and up
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD02074-01-3
S. 189 2
1 to an amount not to exceed one thousand five hundred dollars and/or ten 2 days in jail for a third or subsequent violation. 3 § 4. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed- 4 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
Food is necessary to sustain life. Tobacco is necessary to...
But that is not the right analogy. Say I wanted to market a certain type of crackers, that included nicotine. They would no doubt be very popular, because people like nicotine, and it is addictive.
But suppose that, for some strange reason, I included ground glass in the crackers, and they killed one in twenty people who ate them for long periods of time. Would I be allowed to sell them?
You're right about that. The Government is collecting blood money, but they don't have the guts to cut spending or tax at a sufficient level.
What's this part about? Can you find the current section 1399-q and see what the change has to do with smoking in private homes? Sounds ominous.
Being fat is not. And I notice that you avoid answering my question on whether or not you are fat. Are you?
As for your silly ground glass question, if you don't know the answer, try selling such crackers. If you do know the answer, then your question is not really a question, as it seeks no information.
The purpose of my question, in case you could not figure it out, was to offer a more accurate analogy to the matter of food and tobacco. Obesity is caused by eating to excess, but food in appropriate amounts is beneficial. Smoking related disease is caused by smoking to excess, but tobacco products include addictive substances that compel people to smoke to excess.
Therefore the analogy of tobacco to food and tobacco related illness to obesity is not accurate. The purpose of offering the alternate question, where the food is both addictive and inherently dangerous, is an attempt to offer a better analogy. I have no desire to sell such crackers or to kill people.
And the fact that you can bounce a quarter off of the rock hard abs connected to my lithe 195 pound frame really adds no information to the discussion, which is why I have not offered it until this time.
LOL. I'll believe that as much as I believe your:
"I believe, generally speaking, that the government that governs best governs least."
But the reason for my asking about your weight problem was twofold. First, I've seen that so many of those who speak against smoking are grossly overweight. Second, they are coming for you fat folks next.
That's what we had before all this nonsense started. Any bar that wanted to be non-smoking, was.
Sure, just list the ingredients.
Crackers= flour, salt, baking soda, ground up glass.
Cigarettes= tobacco.
No problem, sell as many as you can.
I don't EVER want to hear anyone call incrementalism 'the slippery slope fallacy'.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a routine method of control, clearly demonstrated in this case by the very person using it.
Exactly! However, the politicians seeing that we acquiesce to small incremental government invasions into our private lives and private property have no reason to stop. I detest smoking, but damn if we don't fight for our individual rights and our property rights we will get more of this on a daily basis.
As a side note, I love how this trash is written. With so many references to external paragraphs, sub-sections a normal person's eyes glaze over by the 3rd sentence.
If I want to light up a cigar there, I will. And if this passes here in MI, I'd light one up right in front of the state capitol building as a middle finger.
In the current situation, for instance, it would suddenly become the government's concern whether or not you had a child in the back seat of your car. There is no reason for this to be a concern of the government, but the situational regulation of tobacco will make it so. So it is just a matter of time before the tinting of rear windows of automobiles becomes regulated, because the government will have a legitimate need to ascertain what is in the back seat of every car.
Similarly, it should be of no concern of the government how many barstools are in the corner pub, but the regulation on smoking in public places requires the definition of restaurant and bar, and that makes it the government's business. Add on all sorts of controls on room size, seating arrangements, ventilation, taxes, vending machine location, age limits, reletive location of windows and the whole laundry list of government regulations that go along with the continued availability of tobacco, and we would all be more free if the product were just unavailable.
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.