Proposed NJ Legislation Would Snuff Driver Smoking Rights

This stuff is really getting over the top, anymore. I’m a former smoker and it pisses me off to see those who still wish to do so treated like crack addicts. Rather than digressing into arguments about the workplace and public places, this pitting isn’t about that. A meathead in NJ wants to make it illegal to smoke in your own car! This is utter bullshit, along with the fine structure which represents nothing more than another unlegislated tax. When will the busybodies go the fuck away?

About the time we manage to entice them all down into subways, and then nuke the exits.

What did the crack addicts ever do to you?

Why do people always get worked up about idiots proposing futile legislation the only purpose of which is to get people worked up?

For the simple reason that these are paid idiots on the public dole, who should be doing something useful such as fellating winos at the bus terminal rather than introducing futile legislation.

As far as I’m concerned, the gist of all that’s wrong is found in this paragraph from the article:

His latest measure, co-sponsored by fellow Democrat, Assemblywoman Lorretta Weinberg, comes on the heels of a proposal to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and the state’s casinos. The smoking while driving ban shifts the smoking debate to private property.

Um, bars, restaurants, and casino’s ARE private property. It is the fact that people no longer know what private property is that makes these sorts of intrusions by nanny government so increasingly commonplace and unremarkable.

Not only what danceswithcats said, but people who introduce this kind of crap will usually get a small cult following. And it’s these small minority groups who try to force legislation on everyone else. Remember the Janet Jackson Boob thing? What was it, 1 or 2 people who actually complained?

From the Associate Press report of the FCC decision to fine CBS-owned stations:
“The breast-baring song generated a record number of complaints to the FCC – more than 500,000.”

Of course, there is some indication that many of these were generated by various conservative groups:

  • there were 0 complaints on the day it occurred – they only started the next day, after various groups had sent out email appeals for people to complain.
  • many of the complaints used identical wording.
  • many of the complaints originated from the same web address.

But there were clearly more than 1 or 2 who complained.

Well, they are private property, but they operate publicly. They are (I’m sure wrongly, in your opinion) already subject to a wide variety of rules regarding what may and may not go on inside. In my home, I’m not required to follow health department rules, for instance.

In the car, they are proposing it as a safety measure, such as with cellphones. Of course, the legislature will make up new laws, rather than just focus on enforcing the old ones. Because, of course, the way to affect the world is to make a bunch of laws that everyone ignores.

And the same sort of logical license may be used to justify banning smoking in cars, which operate on public roads. Once a contradiction is made to exist, all is fantasy. Remember, contradictions prove everything.

That’s true, they can justify banning whatever activity they want in cars, if it is only banned while you are driving on a public road.

In that sense, claiming this is a shift to “private property” is a useless distinction. A car is very similar to a bar in that it is private property operating in a public space, and subject to rules to protect the public.

It’s still crappy law since the person taking a puff off a cigarette is “distracted” while the guy stuffing his face with a Big Mac is apparently not.

The contradiction has no limit. It can be argued that the deed to your house is a public trust, and therefore you can’t engage in behavior X there either. And so on. The problem is not public versus private, but legitimacy versue usurpation. A government is legitimate when and only when it has the free and willful consent of all those it governs.

There is so much wrong in this story my head hurts.

Near as I can tell, they are using private as an antonym for commercial.


Unless you’re talking about a taxi service, the latter is commercial while the former is not.

I would normally use “residential” as an antonym for “commercial”, but in the context of cars, “residential” doesn’t make much sense. I might have used “private” just as they did, but it may have been better to use the more awkward term “noncommercial”. Is that the gist of your specific complaint, Lib?

Neither smoking nor driving are rights. Regulating smoking while driving isn’t a violation of anyone’s rights.

Both are legal means of pursuing happiness, which is a right.

So I’m off by what 499,998 people or so? What does that prove? :wink:

The Constitution lays out our rights. Please find where “pursuing happiness” is enumerated on the Constitution.

sigh. It saddens me that this idiotic proposal comes from 2 Democrats. Nothing like adding fuel to the caricature created by the right.

Get off my side you idiots.