Another NY gem of legislation being proposed

[Mookelboo]

I really hope this is in the right place, and apologies if it isn't - mod's please feel free to move as necessary.

I came across this article today about how NY wants to pass legislation that would extend the smoking ban to your vehicle when children are present. Since I'm in the "Garden State", I tend to watch to make sure stupid doesn't come across the Hudson. Considering NJ has, I am led to believe, included e-cigs in it's smoking ban, it really made my ears perk up.

Now, I do have strong feelings personally about cigs around kids generally but, I'm feeling just a little bit incensed by this. Particularly since I had no idea this sort of law had passed in other areas. Thought I'd share.

 

[yvilla]

The New York proposal covers smoking in vehicles when children under the age of 14 are present. It does seem doubtful that it will pass this session however, as the Senate version at least is still in committee, and the session is due to end next week.

You can follow it if you are interested, here: S3082-2011 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Prohibits smoking in private passenger cars, vans or trucks where minors less than 14 years of age are passengers in such vehicles; penalties for violation - New York State Senate
And the Assembly version, reported out of the Rules Committee today, can be followed here: Bills

There are several states that already do have such laws on the books.

 

[firechick]

This isn't new or surprising, but now it's out in the general media.........

George Mason University Study says New York is 'Least Free' State - NYPOST.com

 

[Bill Godshall]

As the one who first advocated state legisltion to ban smoking in cars if children are present (in PA back in 1993), I don't understand why anyone would oppose it (unless they think little children should be involuntarily exposed to hazardous levels of tobacco smoke pollution).

tobacco smoke pollution harms little children more than adults, and the highest levels of tobacco smoke pollution have been measured in cars (at greater levels than in smokey bars).

 

[moonlessnight]

A smoker has a choice of when and where to lite up a cigerette a child does not. I smoked for many many years and never once did I smoke in a confined space around my children or anyone else for that matter. As someone who vapes now I have smoking roomates who have the whenever wherever mentality and it pisses me off that they smoke around my children. My children have the right to clean air and as children they don't have that right because no one listens to them...after all they're just kids who cares right?

So while I get tired of big brother telling me what to do and when to do it I am all for the protection of children. Someone needs to look out for them.

 

[Vapor Pete]

As the one who first advocated state legisltion to ban smoking in cars if children are present (in PA back in 1993), I don't understand why anyone would oppose it (unless they think little children should be involuntarily exposed to hazardous levels of tobacco smoke pollution).

Tobacco smoke pollution harms little children more than adults, and the highest levels of tobacco smoke pollution have been measured in cars (at greater levels than in smokey bars).

And thats about the extent of it.

While Im no fan of NYS telling me what to do, there are people who choose to subject their children to cigarette smoke both in the home and in the car. While the home typically offers a child more space to retreat, the enclosed confinement of a car does not. If someone cant understand that smoking in a car with a child is unhealthy, and that they are forcing a child to submit to their habits, then they NEED something to make it illegal.

These types of laws are designed specifically for those people.

 

[firechick]

While I understand your positions, I must respectfully stand on the other side of this one. No one SHOULD smoke around their kids, or anyone else's kids. BUT, and here is where we differ, it is a parent's responsibility (and their right) to protect and guide the lives of their children in the way they see fit.
Every time we allow the government to dictate what decisions we can't make for ourselves or our our children, we take another step onto a slippery slope that will lead to them making more decisions for us and removing all of the freedom of choice we have left. If I decide that I want or do not want my child to have a medical procedure, or a vaccination, or whatever, and the government over-rides me, I am no longer truly the parent of that child. If we begin allowing others to dictate our decisions, we are no longer free. Our children will be even less so.

 

[Vap0rJay]

While I understand your positions, I must respectfully stand on the other side of this one. No one SHOULD smoke around their kids, or anyone else's kids. BUT, and here is where we differ, it is a parent's responsibility (and their right) to protect and guide the lives of their children in the way they see fit.
Every time we allow the government to dictate what decisions we can't make for ourselves or our our children, we take another step onto a slippery slope that will lead to them making more decisions for us and removing all of the freedom of choice we have left. If I decide that I want or do not want my child to have a medical procedure, or a vaccination, or whatever, and the government over-rides me, I am no longer truly the parent of that child. If we begin allowing others to dictate our decisions, we are no longer free. Our children will be even less so.

"all freedom" ... It'll only go so far. When every last citizen in the country (all 310+ million) finally say enough is enough and storm the gates of parliament -- they will have no choice but to listen

God lets hope it never has to get that far. Considering two people cannot even decide on what to eat for dinner sometimes (classic argument I have every night with the one closest to me), good luck getting that many people all for a single cause though.

 

[ACM]

New York, both as a state and in its various smaller legislative bodies, has been anti-smoking on an almost religious level for years, now. I am not at all opposed to any law that prevents children from the bad effects of secondhand smoke, but some of the laws on the books throughout NYS border on the absurd. Case in point, NY City's mayor Bloomberg recently pushed through city legislation banning smoking in city parks and on city beaches. The spin was that it would protect people from the harm of secondhand smoke, which is true, but the air pollution in NYC from car exhaust is far more prevalent. Also, many apartment buildings in NYC have begun banning smoking in ANY apartment. If you rent in some of these apartments, you cannot smoke in your own place. The idea is that the smell permeates into the hallways, offending non-smokers. This isn't a law, per se; it's a policy. But it's one that has no grounding in health. It's simply about some people finding the smell of tobacco smoke to be offensive. It's a virtual police state in NY when it comes to smokers' rights.

 

[Turco Chips]

As the one who first advocated state legisltion to ban smoking in cars if children are present (in PA back in 1993), I don't understand why anyone would oppose it (unless they think little children should be involuntarily exposed to hazardous levels of tobacco smoke pollution).

Tobacco smoke pollution harms little children more than adults, and the highest levels of tobacco smoke pollution have been measured in cars (at greater levels than in smokey bars).

I understand the hazards of smoking around youngsters...BUT...a nanny state is something I do NOT want. Where is the line drawn? Government can't find their .... with both hands....stay out of our lives.


TC

 

[t9c]

Also, many apartment buildings in NYC have begun banning smoking in ANY apartment. If you rent in some of these apartments, you cannot smoke in your own place. The idea is that the smell permeates into the hallways, offending non-smokers. This isn't a law, per se; it's a policy. But it's one that has no grounding in health. It's simply about some people finding the smell of tobacco smoke to be offensive. It's a virtual police state in NY when it comes to smokers' rights.

Agree with it not being a health issue, but renters do not own their apartments/houses. The property owners should have the final say whether smoking is allowed or not, period. I have several rental properties and smoking isn't allowed inside the residences, although I'm pretty sure some do sometimes. My main reason, though is that it is a ..... and costly to get rid of the smell when the renter leaves and that's all the reason I need.
As for the children in confined space, it seems logical enough to most responsible adults that it shouldn't be done, but damnit the cops have enough on the plate already don't they? And while they're busy ticketing someone for smoking in their car, another real crime is being committed and ignored. That's another true fault of these nanny state laws.

 

[Thulium]

As for the children in confined space, it seems logical enough to most responsible adults that it shouldn't be done, but damnit the cops have enough on the plate already don't they? And while they're busy ticketing someone for smoking in their car, another real crime is being committed and ignored. That's another true fault of these nanny state laws.

Prohibitionists like to blur the line between what you "should" do and what you "must" (by rule of law) do. There are many things in life that you should absolutely not ever under any circumstancer ever do in your entire life, but that does not mean that drinking orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth needs to be a crime.

 

[ahardrain]

This isn't new or surprising, but now it's out in the general media.........

George Mason University Study says New York is 'Least Free' State - NYPOST.com

The most ironic part of the report praises New York for relaxing laws of "other" illegal plants used in smoking.

 

[ardelleg]

From Ayn Rand:
"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

 

[TomCatt]

Prohibitionists like to blur the line between what you "should" do and what you "must" (by rule of law) do. There are many things in life that you should absolutely not ever under any circumstancer ever do in your entire life, but that does not mean that drinking orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth needs to be a crime.

+1 ........

 

[Jerk]

Prohibitionists like to blur the line between what you "should" do and what you "must" (by rule of law) do. There are many things in life that you should absolutely not ever under any circumstancer ever do in your entire life, but that does not mean that drinking orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth needs to be a crime.

There is no way a normal person could compare brushing your teeth and drinking orange juice with exposing your children to poison on a regular basis for your own gratification.

Personally I am indifferent, I am a strong proponent of all liberties but innocent children suffer because their parents can't wait till they get to their destination before having a cigarette.

 

[Vap0rJay]

There is no way a normal person could compare brushing your teeth and drinking orange juice with exposing your children to poison on a regular basis for your own gratification.

Personally I am indifferent, I am a strong proponent of all liberties but innocent children suffer because their parents can't wait till they get to their destination before having a cigarette.

My argument STILL stands. Ban the chirldren. Leave my liberty alone.

 

[Thulium]

There is no way a normal person could compare brushing your teeth and drinking orange juice with exposing your children to poison on a regular basis for your own gratification.

Of course not, I chose a ridiculous example to make the point very clear that even extremely strongs "SHOULDs" are still not "MUST". Anecdotal evidence, common sense, or even intuition can be good guides to determine what things you should or should not do; but that does not mean they are valid justifications for making a LAW.

Depending how you define "poison", parents expose their children to thousands of poisons on a regular basis. If there is solid empirical evidence that SHS is a SERIOUS health threat, THAT could be a reason to make a law, but that is a much different burden of proof than what a free and rational person would use to determine what they should or should not do.

 

[Mookelboo]

I should have checked into the forum a bit more regularly. This has turned into more of an Outside type of discussion I think. There is precedent that where NY goes NJ goes, hence my concern. My main point was had to do with states (e.g. NJ) that have grandfathered in e-cigs into their smoking bans which means that I wouldn't be allowed to vape in a vehicle either.

I am against smoking in a car with a child and personally made a choice not to do it when I still smoked. That being said, it always makes me angry when busy-bodies try to legislate to fix personal bad choices. It can't be done. Laws are created for those that are willing to abide by them and bad choice makers usually don't. Which leaves the majority of the population at a loss (and having to show Photo ID to get allergy tablets, for example).

There are poisons under one's kitchen cabinet, used to disinfect, washing one's clothes, leeching into bottles, making more milk, growing bigger tomatoes, etc. Plus, there are other legal ways to mess up your child, candy, trans-fats, fizzy drinks, video games, tv, etc. Is the next step going to be that I can get pulled over if I'm in a vehicle that has a child eating an ice cream cone? I propose there's a point where one has to trust in the personal responsibility of the parent.

Maybe an ad campaign would have been a better place to start, rather than going full-bore into legislation. Not a you must quit campaign, and un-patronizing one that says, "hey, maybe not such a good idea to drive in a confined space with a child".

 

[Vocalek]

On the 600 mile drive back home from a funeral, my 16 year old son and I ran into snow storms. About once an hour, I had to pull over and stand outside the car to smoke part of a cigarette....not because I was having a "nicotine fit" but because the flurrying snow would start to hypnotize me and I would be close to falling asleep at the wheel. The cigarette would wake me up and I was good for another hour. I was not about to allow my 16 year old to take over the driving during a snow storm. Finally, my son took pity on me and told me to go ahead and crack the window and smoke in the car.