NY SENATOR PROPOSES BAN ON SMOKING IN CARS

NYS Legislative Information ^

[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.

[gridlock]

Why can't he discuss a LEGAL activity?

As I said before, I was just trying to construct a more accurate analogy. Smoking and over-eating are not directly analagous, so I was attempting to make the characteristics of the food in question more closely resemble tobacco, to demostrate the point. Of course, nobody is seriously defending feeding ground glass to the unsuspecting public. Who could possibly be in favor of the mass marketing of an inherently dangerous product?

To make another go of it, how would you view a chain of restaurants that intentionally added an addictive susbstance to food that was, by and large, unhealthy? Should this be permissable?

[Conspiracy Guy]

I don't litter cause it's a gin the lahw. But I am guilty of many drive by smokings.

[Conspiracy Guy]

So on your planet shouldn't the ban be on doctored tobacco rather than all tobacco? What color is the sky there and how many moons are there?

[Gabz]

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.

i don't know where you live, but those things have already happened in lots of places.

[per loin]

Perhaps against littering laws in some cases, but watching a smoke-gnazi go full agast, (face reddening, veins bulging to the fat's surface, wordless lips flapping up and down) makes the crime acceptable to me.

[gridlock]

So on your planet shouldn't the ban be on doctored tobacco rather than all tobacco?

Well, since in this country all mass marketed tobacco is doctored tobacco, the sky is blue where I am and there is just a sliver of a moon tonight.

If it would make you more comfortable to construct the analogy to say that the restaurant chain in question intentionally made the food out of ingredients that were inherently addictive, I guess that would work as well.

[SheLion]

But we must recognize that the addict is not always rational about such things.

I resent being called an ADDICT! Coke and Pepsi are legal, and I have plenty of friends who can not FUNCTION in the morning until they get their soda fix. Do you call them addicts as well?

If tobacco is so deadly, how did so many of us remain alive all these years. If tobacco is so deadly, why didn't they pull it off the market back in the 70's when the Surgeon General POOP started all this BS?

Think about it.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Yes! Yes I am! How about you?

[andy58-in-nh]

Question:
Which of these behaviors is a bigger threat to public health:

A. Smoking cigarettes in a privately-owned vehicle.
B. Unprotected anal intercourse between homosexual males.

Liberals want to ban one behavior and offer legal protection for the other. Guess which is which?

[SheLion]

Government is out of control.

It sure IS out of control!

[Darnright]

>I'm not a smoker and honestly I can't stand to be around it, but this goes too far. How can you pass a law stating that you can't smoke in your car, hell lets go all the way and just make smoking illegal.<

I second the above. I'd think the same protections a person has in his private residence would apply in his private automobile. I don't smoke, but someone has to speak up for the rights of people who choose to use tobacco products.

All I ask for is a non-smoking area in public places. A total ban is going a bit far.

[Gabz]

We would all be better off if the issue were settled quickly.

WRONG.......................

We would all be far better off if more people did not have your attitude and stood up the nannies and fought these ridiculous invasions of privacy.

Just because you don't like smoking does not give you the right to dictate what others do on their private property.. If you don't like smoking stay away from where people are smoking.

But for pete sake don't advocate for making more laws - you should be advocating that these type things cease and desist. Not by outlawing the product. Didn't we learn anything from Prohibition??? or the WOD????

And BTW - alcohol is addictive and causes disease and death and pain and suffering, do you advocate making that illegal again, as well?

[SheLion]

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.

GUN CONTROL IS NEXT.

[Just another Joe]

We all know, and I am an ex-smoker now closet smoker, the effects of smoking around children.

And what would those affects be?

[SheLion]

Something must be done and soon. If not for us all, for the children.

[SheLion]

Exactly. Let's start with cigarettes, and move on to the drug war.

How about we move on to the GUN war? Do you know how many people are killed in Los Angeles every DAY from drive by shootings? Lets start there.

[gridlock]

I resent being called an ADDICT!

Pardon me, but I never called you an addict. I don't even know whether or not you are a smoker, much as per loin does not know whether I weigh 195 pounds or 395 pounds.

My comment regarding addiction was that addicts are often not rational about making choices, such as the choice of whether or not to smoke when smoking becomes progressively more inconvenient.

[SheLion]

I have to admit that I can not stand seeing people chain smoking in their car with an infant in the back seat and the windows rolled up. We all know, and I am an ex-smoker now closet smoker, the effects of smoking around children.

Lets put that kid in an enclosed car with a chain smoking driver. How long do you think that child will live compared to the child that is left alone in a hot car on a summer's day?

I would venture to say the child exposed to SHS is going to far outlive the child locked in a hot vehicle.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Yeah.

[gridlock]

Generally speaking, killing children is a bad thing. I don't want to be judgemental here or anything, but I think we can all agree on that.