# Proposed NJ Legislation Would Snuff Driver Smoking Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 25, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009 "2005-07-25T04:43:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/101 "2005-07-27T13:59:50Z")
I never claimed to be an anarchist, **Otto**. I’m Liberal with Libertarian leanings. I acknowledge that government has a role to play in society; but I think it should be limited to specific and useful activities. Of course I object to “state exercise of power to restrict rights in a manner with which you personally disagree”. Everyone does. That a sophist arguement to even make. I think there should be explicit reasons for any legislation. ALL legislation should have to pass at least a rational basis test, as would speed limits and stop signs. Any legislation that infringes on a person’s personal freedom should pass at least a heightened scrutiny test. Specific references to Constitution authority and specific goals should be listed. Additionally, I’d like to see legisltation that is subjected to heightened or strict scrutiny have sunset provisions after which time the effectiveness of the law should be reviewed and result in revisions, continuation or expiration. A statistically significant amount would be a number that is large enough that random chance isn’t more a factor. Furthermore, when I reread the AAA press release, I see that I conflated two numbers and overstated the number of accidents potentially affected by smoking. The study shows that 8 out of 100 accidents are caused by distracted drivers. Only 1% of those are caused by smoking. So we’re talking about creating a fine that at the very most will affect **one accident in 1000**. “Unknown distractions” cause more than 8 times as many. Other occupants cause 12 times as many. This is an ineffectual measure. It is even less useful than the random bag checks in the New York subway system. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/102 "2005-07-27T14:02:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Frankly, I thought that was _your_ position. > > You still haven’t explained why gays should have the same rights as straights if rights belong to the government. Why should they be given something to which they have no claim? If something is government’s to give, then it isn’t yours to demand. On the other hand, if you already were born with the rights, but government is obstructing them, then your claim to those rights is clearly legitimate. I’d like to incorporate **Liberal** ’s post into mine by reference. And eagerly await a reply from **Otto**. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/103 "2005-07-27T14:27:06Z")
When did I say rights belong to the government? I’m reasonably sure I said in this very thread that governments have _no_ rights. Governments have powers. You’ll forgive me I’m sure if I refuse to be led down this particular garden path. It smells a little strongly of red herring. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/104 "2005-07-27T15:36:05Z")
Otto, you didn’t. It was someone else who apparently dropped out of the thread. I guess his pot plants needed watering. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/105 "2005-07-27T15:41:30Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > This is exactly right, actually: anything not prohibited is permitted. > > However, when we speak of “rights,” at least in the legal sense, we generally aren’t just referring to the mere absence of prohibition, because that can be changed in a legislative moment. I don’t want to get into a discussion of how we define “rights”. That is a whole 'nother discussion altogether. I saw how ugly it got in some of the threads you linked and want to stay away from that. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/106 "2005-07-27T15:54:05Z")
Here’s how you’ve characterized my position. > [@Otto](#): > > So what you’re saying is, you have no problem with government regulations which infringe upon your liberties. Just so long as you personally believe that the regulation serves some legitimate government purpose. So in other words, like **Eyer8** , it’s not state exercise of power to restrict rights that you object to per se, it’s state exercise of power to restrict rights in a manner with which you personally disagree. Does this describe your position also? If not, then please explain why you think discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional when, as **Dewey** is quick to point out, orientation is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the text. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/107 "2005-07-27T17:19:10Z")
I’m not the one arguing against this measure on the basis of its being a Violation Of The Rights Of Man. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/108 "2005-07-27T17:52:33Z")
As usual, this has wandered out of left field, across the road and into the trees where we can’t see the forrest anymore. ::: sigh ::: ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/109 "2005-07-27T17:57:09Z")
Do you have an argument for _any_ limits to government power beyond those mentioned explicitly in the Bill Rights? This discussion is about more than this single bill. Your obstinate refusal to engage in discussion rather than trying to score witty bon mots is puzzling. I find it out of character for you to willingly accede to government control so easily. Perhaps you’re in favor of banning smoking all together. If that’s the case, then it would explain why you seem to be willing to focus on the single issue of smoking in the car and separate it from the general idea of free persons being free to do what they want without unnecessary government interference. **Lib** raises a good point. If you’re willing to stop someone else from engaging in their own free choices, what gives you any standing to then cry foul when other want to infringe upon your rights? Yes smoking in a car is not significant in itself. But it is symptomatic of an unhealthy submission to authority. As I said before, I don’t smoke cigarettes. I only indulge in a cigar once or twice a month or two and could easily give that up. However, my own sense of the proper role of government requires that I stand up and at least make known my own outrage that government wants to trample upon the rights of others for no good reason with no discernable benefit. If I don’t how can I expect them to stand up for me? I don’t own a gun and don’t want one. But I’ll be damned if I stand by idly if the government tried to abolish the Second. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/110 "2005-07-27T17:58:24Z")
> [@GusNSpot](#): > > As usual, this has wandered out of left field, across the road and into the trees where we can’t see the forrest anymore. ::: sigh ::: What do you see as the forest? Unnecessary government interference or an ineffective safety regulation? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/111 "2005-07-27T18:11:13Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > What do you see as the forest? Unnecessary government interference or an ineffective safety regulation? Both. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/112 "2005-07-27T18:38:59Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > However, my own sense of the proper role of government requires that I stand up and at least make known my own outrage that government wants to trample upon the rights of others for no good reason with no discernable benefit. And so we come full circle, right back to the simple facts: smoking is not a right, driving a car is not a right, and smoking while driving a car is certainly not a right. As I’ve said a number of times, I think this proposal is silly. The fact that it’s silly is reason enough to oppose it without making yourself look like a lunatic screaming about rights that don’t exist. But even assuming that either driving or smoking is a right, you have yet to articulate any reason why regulating smoking while driving is beyond the already-existing power of the state of New Jersey to regulate both public smoking and driving. “It won’t accomplish anything” doesn’t count. “It’s another attempt to marginalize smokers” doesn’t count. I agree that there ought to be a good reason for government action, but the lack of what you believe to be a good reason does not, in and of itself, mean the government may not act. That might be how it ought to be or how you’d like it to be, but it’s not how it is and it’s not how it’s likely ever to be. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/113 "2005-07-27T18:53:35Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > That might be how it ought to be or how you’d like it to be, but it’s not how it is and it’s not how it’s likely ever to be. Particularly if the proles never raise a fuss over it. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/114 "2005-07-27T19:03:32Z")
Why do you think smoking is not a right, whether it is recognized by the government or not? Why are you focusing on this one niggling detail instead of the greater principle of being free to do with your own body as you please. It is yours. Why should I be able to limit what you do with and to yourself? Why should you be able to tell me what to do with my own body? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/115 "2005-07-27T19:48:22Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > And so we come full circle, right back to the simple facts: smoking is not a right, driving a car is not a right, and smoking while driving a car is certainly not a right. Is marriage a right? Is screwing while married a right? I don’t even understand what you mean by “a right”. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/116 "2005-07-27T21:03:38Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Why do you think smoking is not a right, whether it is recognized by the government or not? Irrelevant. Even if smoking is a right, it is certainly not an absolute right. Smoking is subject to regulation and you have offered up nothing to demonstrate that the proposed regulation is outside the existing power of the government to regulate smoking. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Why are you focusing on this one niggling detail instead of the greater principle of being free to do with your own body as you please. Because I see no need to engage in a sweeping discussion of philosophy in opposing this proposed law. I need go no further than calling it stupid and pointless to justify opposing it. I see no need to cheapen the concept of individual liberty by demanding that smoking while driving be recognized as a right. > [@](#): > > Why should I be able to limit what you do with and to yourself? Why should you be able to tell me what to do with my own body? I never said you should have that power, nor that I should have it. What I did say, over and over and over again despite its not penetrating your skull, is that _the state of New Jersey_ has that power _in this instance_. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/117 "2005-07-27T21:14:08Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Because I see no need to engage in a sweeping discussion of philosophy in opposing this proposed law. I need go no further than calling it stupid and pointless to justify opposing it. I see no need to cheapen the concept of individual liberty by demanding that smoking while driving be recognized as a right. I think you’re looking at it from the wrong direction. I’m not claiming smoking while driving is an absolute right. I’m decrying the willingness of too many people to assent to government instrusion on the most mundane issues when it has no conceivable reason to do so. I find these little things to be important indications about the attitude towards governmental authority. If you quitely let them infringe on the little things, they are slowly empowered to do more and more until one day it’s too late to stop them from doing anything. You hardly notice the changing light minute to minute. But you can tell the difference between noon and midnight. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/118 "2005-07-27T21:14:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Is marriage a right? Is screwing while married a right? Marriage is a fundamental right in the United States (see Loving). “Screwing while married” would fall under the right to privacy (see Griswold). The several states have the power to regulate marriage (setting minimum age requirements, authorizing people to solemnize them, creating methods for their dissolution, and so on) and the power to regulate “screwing while married” (outlawing public sex, for example). Such regulations are limited by the rights retained by the people. Despite its being wildly off-topic, to answer your next question, it is my opinion that states do not have the power to ban same-sex marriage because of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of this has anything to do with the simple fact that smoking while driving is not a right, and even if it were it is subject to state power to regulate it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/119 "2005-07-27T21:17:12Z")
It sounds to me like you’re making stuff up as you go along. Just like your rights-dispensing governors. Good luck ever gettings yours… erm, I mean, theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009/120 "2005-07-27T22:37:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It sounds to me like you’re making stuff up as you go along. Paraphrased, you have no actual response so you pop off with this noise. > [@Liberal](#): > > Just like your rights-dispensing governors. I have no idea what this even means. > [@Liberal](#): > > Good luck ever gettings yours… erm, I mean, theirs. I appreciate your good wishes, and will now go back to my standard practice of paying absolutely no attention to anything you say ever. have fun, insane-o. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-nj-legislation-would-snuff-driver-smoking-rights/314009.md?page=7)