Skip to comments.
NY SENATOR PROPOSES BAN ON SMOKING IN CARS
NYS Legislative Information ^
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.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: pufflist; smokingban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-262 next last
To: gridlock
If some bright young man invented cigarettes today, would he be permitted to sell them? Lets just ban the damn things and get it over with. The same argument applies to aspirin. If aspirin had been invented in the last 20 years, it would be a prescription-only drug.
41
posted on
09/23/2003 8:11:20 AM PDT
by
MortMan
(Tag - Does this mean "I'm it"?)
To: gridlock
Are you under the illusion that all smokers are going to quit smoking if tobacco is made illegal? Or that the people who have their doors busted down and themselves hauled off to the slammer by the smoke cops will be "more free"? Or that the government is not coming after you fat people next?
Giving the government more power over private lives and property does not result in smaller government.
42
posted on
09/23/2003 8:20:52 AM PDT
by
per loin
To: per loin
Giving the government more power over private lives and property does not result in smaller government. Eliminating the legal trade in tobacco will require much less government personnel and intrusion than it takes to regulate tobacco use to ever increasing levels of control.
As for regulation of tobacco as an illegal substance, this is stuff the government is doing already through the regulation of a whole host of addictive and non-addictive psychoactive products. Tobacco will just be one more.
Of course, one would hope that smoking would become so inconvenient that the vast majority of addicts would quit. But we must recognize that the addict is not always rational about such things.
43
posted on
09/23/2003 8:27:30 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11/01)
To: per loin
Will fat people still be allowed to eat in their cars?
To: gridlock
"When we look down the road, I would say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably be outlawed in the United States."
Tom Constantine
Administrator of the DEA
in an interview with ABC TV network, 1998
45
posted on
09/23/2003 8:31:55 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: Dan from Michigan
Gee, where is the ACLU on this ? What a joke !! People are too apathetic to do anything about it. They (NYorkers) should organize and fight this dumb a-- move. Government is out of control.
46
posted on
09/23/2003 8:33:15 AM PDT
by
estrogen
To: StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; Black Agnes; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; DKNY; ...
ping!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent miscellaneous ping list.
47
posted on
09/23/2003 8:35:28 AM PDT
by
nutmeg
("The DemocRATic party...has been hijacked by a confederacy of gangsters..." - Pat Caddell, 11/27/00)
To: per loin
Will the food nazis inspect the trash of fat people, and the shelves in their kitchens and refrigerators, and their freezers for food "dangerous" to their children? Will taking the kids to Chuck E. Cheese be child abuse? Will parents of fat kids have them taken away--for the good of the children? Will anyone under 21 be barred from working at McDonald's?
To: Wurlitzer
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.Exactly. There should write a law which requires all future laws to be written in manner understandable by anyone with a public high school diploma.
49
posted on
09/23/2003 8:37:49 AM PDT
by
dubyagee
To: publius1; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...
For crying out loud! These people are coming out from under ROCKS! Let me read this more...........
50
posted on
09/23/2003 8:38:19 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: publius1
The key word here is PRIVATE!
51
posted on
09/23/2003 8:39:03 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: Wolfie
I believe Mr. Constantine is telling the truth. In twenty years, smoking
will be outlawed in the United States.
The only question, to my mind, is how much damage we are going to do to our freedoms before this outright ban is achieved. Control of smoking is giving the government purview over ever greater and greater areas of what was previously private activity. This trend will only continue. Yesterday they were looking in the window of your private office. Today they are looking in the window of your car. Tomorrow they will be looking in the window of your bed-room. We would all be better off if the issue were settled quickly.
52
posted on
09/23/2003 8:39:10 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11/01)
To: publius1
Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke in a private passenger car, private passenger van or private passenger truck where minors under sixteen years of age are passengers in any such vehicle. Is this a back door attempt to stop abortion and to stop people from having kids???!!!
This makes ME never to want another child AND never to be around any of them ever again! Give them all to the STATE to raise. heh!
53
posted on
09/23/2003 8:41:23 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: nutmeg
This is totally one of the most stupidest ideas I've ever heard bump.
54
posted on
09/23/2003 8:41:57 AM PDT
by
Freedom2specul8
(Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)
To: SheLion
I said it the other day in jest knowing I wasn't jesting.
Repeated below and on my profile page. Drive by Smoking.
Some info on the latest second hand smoke threat, drive by smoking. In many areas of the country this horrendous crime is on the upswing. A perfectly healthy smoke gnatzie (5'4" 275 lb) is standing on a street corner. Suddenly a car stops with the windows down and smokers inside waiting for the light to change. While this is happening the smoke gnatzie is exposed to huge amounts of second hand smoke. The light changes and the criminals drive away. Who can the smoke gnatzie sue for damages? In most cities these crimes are committed by smoke gangs, "The Menthols, The Non-Menthols, The Filters, The Non-Filters, The Regulars, and The Kings." Something must be done and soon. If not for us all, for the children.
55
posted on
09/23/2003 8:42:08 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Living fast is fine as long as you steer well and have good brakes.)
To: gridlock
Marketing any product should be totally legal; this is a free society and people are free (well, they should be) to make their own choices about what is healthy and acceptable behaviour for them.
"Either that or remove any shred of government protection from liability afforded to the tobacco companies and let nature take it's course."
Exactly. Let's start with cigarettes, and move on to the drug war.
Anyone have any ideas on how to spend the billions and billions we otherwise waste every year on the drug war?
I say let's start with border security and work from there.
Think about it: if we seriously secured the border, we would stop a lot of hard drugs. You would need a license to import a (now legal) product like cocaine or heroin into the country, and no South American or European drug lord is going to get that. That alone would be a huge boost in eradicating dangerous, unregulated narcotics from the streets.
56
posted on
09/23/2003 8:42:29 AM PDT
by
bc2
(http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
To: Rocket1968
I'm always amazed that the party that states it is "for the children" still supports the murder of millions of unborn children every year. Go figure. Exactly
57
posted on
09/23/2003 8:42:32 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: randita
I would never have patronized that bar if it was full of cigarette smoke. It provided a great mid-afternoon respite from shopping and sight seeing. Too bad that bar didn't invest in the big smoke eaters. Then EVERYONE could have been happy and his cash register would still be ringing.
58
posted on
09/23/2003 8:43:53 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: gridlock
As for regulation of tobacco as an illegal substance, this is stuff the government is doing already through the regulation of a whole host of addictive and non-addictive psychoactive products. Right, with methods like:
Road blocks
Drug tests
No knock raids home invasions - often at the wrong address
Gun control
Largest prison population per capita ON EARTH
Zero tolerance in schools, expelling kids for things like aspirin
Mandatory minimums
Death penalty for non-violent 'kingpins'
Phone taps
Snitches
Asset forfeiture without due process, or even without chargees, or AFTER an aquittal
Creation of dozens of government agencies at every level of government
And on and on and on with no end in sight....
Prohibition and the drug war have spawned some of the largest increases in the size, scope and powers of government, second only to the New Deal. Now you want to add cigarettes to the list thereby creating instant criminals out of literally millions of Americans , and you think that will make government smaller, and you honestly expect us to believe you???
You must take us for fools with very, very short memories.
59
posted on
09/23/2003 8:45:58 AM PDT
by
freeeee
To: gridlock
Eliminating the legal trade in tobacco will require much less government personnel and intrusion than it takes to regulate tobacco use to ever increasing levels of control.Uh, yeah. Prohibition and the War on Drugs have shown how easy it is to eliminate "legal trade". Unfortunately, once you eliminate the "legal trade" in a substance widely desired by the public, an illegal trade rapidly springs into existence.
As for rationality, I'd suggest that it is those, who believe that the government has the right or the ability to effectively dictate what vegetable substances a free man decides to use, that are the nutcases.
60
posted on
09/23/2003 8:46:07 AM PDT
by
per loin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-262 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson