If you want to argue property rights then lets…the roads are publicly owned , maintained and is perfectly reasonable for the state to dictate under what conditions those roads can be used. And they do, they set limits on how fast you can drive on their roads, for example. So it is not an issue of rights, IMO. If you have a thousand acre ranch you are more than welcome to drive all over it while smoking to your hearts content, as fast as you want. But it is still a stupid proposed law.
What about your rights to you most important property*, yourself? Yes the government has the power to set reasonable regulations for the use of public roads. However this law is not reasonable.
*dammit, Lib, I’m going to end up in your camp if I keep going like this.
So, after all the noise, we all seem to agree it is a stupid law, and each of us has our own reason. Now what? Any ideas on how to stop stupid laws? I assume none of us has huge amounts of cash or insane amounts of power to “leverage” the process.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis. "
A thief does not own the property he has stolen, just as a kidnapper is not the child’s new guardian.
Don’t vote for people who vote YES on stupid laws. This is also fairly localized, you can write your local rep, get all your neighbors to write about how dumb this law is.
This particular law, I believe, is going nowhere. It’s the pet project of an anti-smoking zealot. The article mentioned “long odds”, I think that’s being charitable.
What’s your point? That the government doesn’t own the roads because they stole them?
Sometimes, it is the case that they steal the roads. Sometimes, it is the case that they steal the land, and then build the roads. But always, they steal the money to procure the land, the roads, the materials, and the labor.
Didn’t you say that our rights are those enumerated in the Constitution?
Pray tell, where does one find the right to privacy in the Constitution?
I’m gay, and therefore am quite aware of the dangers in permitting the government unchecked power to regulate the way we act in our private lives. Being a member of a minority group that already has fewer legal rights than the majority, it seems clear to me that permitting the government to invade our privacy in this way is particularly dangerous to folks like me.
I guess you don’t feel the same way.
Did I? I don’t think I did…
:::reviews thread:::
Nope, didn’t say it. Closest I came was back on page 1:
Please. You’re playing the gay card on me? I invented playing the gay card. Ask SolGrundy; he’ll tell you in great detail.
And where did I ever say anything about allowing the government “unchecked power” to do anything?
:rolleyes: That was kind of the point.
Oh. That was pretty stupid of you. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I mean really, it was almost criminally dumb.
But running with your idiocy for another moment, you talk about giving the government power to interfere in your private life. Could you please explain how exactly smoking while operating a motor vehicle on a New Jersey road is an aspect of anyone’s private life?
Your door is ajar.
Well, I still feel that pointing out the fragile, non-Constitutional basis of certain rights that I feel are self-evident was a relevant comment. Sorta makes me leery to gladly advise the government to take more of my rights away, you know? Don’t want 'em getting too comfortable with it. If you disagree, you’re welcome to explain why.
However, I agree that it’s almost criminally dumb to expect you to listen to reason. I should have realized that long ago.
I’ve explained this a number of times already. Do try to keep up.
Smoking in public is not a right.
Driving is not a right.
Smoking while driving is not a right.
Let me say that again.
**Smoking in public is not a right.
Driving is not a right.
Smoking while driving is not a right.**
Should this silly little bill pass, the number of rights held by the good people of the state of New Jersey will be reduced by exactly zero. They will have exactly zero fewer rights if the bill passes than if the bill doesn’t pass.
And one more time, for the particularly slow-witted amongst us, even if any of the three, smoking, driving, or smoking while driving, are actually rights, they would all be rights subject to state regulation. This really is not that complicated, so I don’t know why you’re having such difficulty with it. Perhaps if you explain specifically what part of it is causing your poor head to swim so, I can come up with an even more dumbed down way to explain it.
Now it’s your turn to explain how exactly smoking while operating a motor vehicle on a New Jersey road is an aspect of anyone’s private life.
I’ll make you a deal. You start speaking reason and I’ll start listening to you speak it.
Where does it stop? Even if something is not a RIGHT, strictly speaking, why give it away if there is no discernable reason? Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege - You are completely right there. It is regulated. That is because a car can kill people if you lack the skills or attentiveness to drive properly. There are plenty of people who don’t smoke, drink, or talk on cellphones and yet are a fucking menace behind the wheel. Yet, they drive every day. Why not simply make the driving test more stringent and weed them out instead? Because there are more of them than smokers I bet. It looks like this stupid law is just a political ploy by an idiot, to say he “did something” and he singled out what he saw as an easier target.
Can you or someone else let me know how many times I need to say I think this is a stupid proposal before everyone stops pretending like I support it?
I think this is a stupid proposal. It’s political grandstanding and it won’t accomplish anything. I feel quite comfortable opposing it without tacking any rhetoric about rights onto it.
I’m not getting on your case, I’m just venting about this stupid law. If it looks like I’m dumping on you, then I should just back off. Maybe part of my bile comes because of where I live right now - California. If you think the anti-everythings are bad where you are, you should try living out here for a while. No matter what you do, no matter how harmless it appears to be, some asshole wants to control or ban it.
You’re wrong. Not only that, you’re contradictory. You maintain that a man has a right to go into a so-called public place, but not to go on a so-called public road. You maintain that he has a right to do whatever he wants with his penis, but not with his lungs. Your weak argument parallels that of your enemies, who do not believe you have a right to be gay, nor a right to be married while gay. I can see why, from your point of view, this bill will reduce your rights by exactly zero. After all, nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
Are you under the impression that this is actually some sort of argument? Defining things you don’t particularly care about as “not rights” and things you do as “rights” is not an argument. Legally speaking, for us queers, getting married is not a right. And you’ll find a hundred million people in the United States willing to tell you that it’s not. There’s nothing more rational or persuasive when you do it than when they do it.