illegal to smoke on cars

RRW13 · Post by **RRW13** » 26 Jul 2005 11:27

has anyone heard that in new jersey there trying to pass a law where its against the law to smoke while opperating a motor vehicle.

whats your thoughts on it ?

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 26 Jul 2005 11:46

Many smokers angry over push to ban drivers from lighting up
The Associated Press Updated: 5:41 a.m. ET July 25, 2005

TRENTON, N.J. - Ashtrays have been disappearing in cars like fins on Cadillacs, and so could smoking while driving in New Jersey, under a measure introduced in the Legislature.

Although the measure faces long odds, it still has smokers incensed and arguing it’s a Big Brother intrusion that threatens to take away one of the few places they can enjoy their habit.

“The day a politician wants to tell me I can’t smoke in my car, that’s the day he takes over my lease payments,” said John Cito, a financial planner from Hackensack with a taste for $20 cigars.

Those cigars, pipes and cigarettes would become no-nos for drivers. Offenders would be stung with a fine of up to $250, under the measure, whose sponsor said it’s designed more to improve highway safety than protect health.

Some states, including New Jersey, have considered putting the brakes on smoking while children are in the car. But none have gone for an outright ban on smoking while driving, according to Washington, D.C.-based Action on Smoking and Health, the country’s oldest anti-tobacco organization.

Smokers, feeling like easy targets, say enough already. They argue they’ve been forced outside office buildings, run off the grounds of public facilities, and asked to pony up more in per-pack excise taxes when states feel a budget squeeze.

“With smoking, it’s becoming increasingly fashionable to target legislation or prohibitions,” said George Koodray, a member of the Metropolitan Cigar Society, a 100-strong group that meets in Paterson for dinner and a smoke.

Distracted drivers
Assemblyman John McKeon, a tobacco opponent whose father died of emphysema, sponsored the legislation. He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, 1 percent were related to smoking.

The measure, co-sponsored by Assemblywoman Lorretta Weinberg, a fellow Democrat, was introduced last month just before lawmakers’ summer break. It faces some improbable odds for passing.

Some lawmakers may fear the bill is frivolous compared with more pressing issues like taxes, said political analyst David Rebovich.

And there’s this to consider: Traffic safety groups acknowledge motorists now widely ignore the state’s year-old law against using hand-held cell phones, so why would smoking be any different?

Mitchell Sklar, of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, said police departments may balk at enforcing such a law. “In general, we’d rather not try to incrementally look at every single behavior and make those a violation,” he said.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 26 Jul 2005 11:56

When it becomes illegal to smoke in your own car, then it must also be made legal to ram your vehicle into the side of that SUV driving, talking on a cell phone, reading a book, going 10 miles an hour on the entrance ramp, mofo.

It should further be made legal to drag that sumobitch from the vehicle and proceed to jump up and down on top of their carcass until the urge to light up a stress relieving cigarette is gone.

Also, we will need a CCW law, because with this much tension on the road, it's best that everyone have the right to a gun in the car. I personally find firing one to relieve a great deal of stress.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 26 Jul 2005 12:04

Damn legislation like this pisses me off.

I would like to see another form of legislation , one targetting distracted drivers who have screaming yelling little brats in the car.

It move that someone in Jersey should introduce a more comprehensive law that covers all possible distractions while driving, such as

1) Driving with a passenger in the car
2) Driving with the radio on
3) Driving a car with kids inside it
4) Driving a car while on cough syrup
5) Driving a car if you have allergies
6) Driving a car without having adequate sleep
7) Driving a car that has bags, purses, or other distractions

Driving a car that has any makeup containers inside the passenger cabin
9) Driving a car when the visibility is limiting
10) Driving a car when the visibility is too clear and might be distracting
11) Driving a car in a bad mood.
12) Driving a car while browing porn.
13) Driving a car while eating a twinkie
14) Driving a car while eating a donut
15) Drinking coffee while driving
16) Driving a car on roads with signs, billboards, and other roadside hazards specifically engineered to take the attnetion of the driver off the road.

pips · Post by **pips** » 27 Jul 2005 08:09

Before I read Tsiangkun's replies, I thought that wasn't so bad of an idea, although I didn't totally agree. I think with kids and nonsmokers (who mind), that's a great idea. I also think it's a good idea since it may stop roadside fires caused by cigarettes thrown out of windows, but that could be stopped with a littering fine...keep the ashtrays in cars! When I read Tsiangkun's replies, he reminded me of my sister in the car...not smoking for 4 hours straight. Whew! She blew up at me, because I wouldn't let her drive yet and got in a bad mood so quickly. Then later on, she said, "Sorry, I needed a cigarette." I don't want people like that driving. Drivers are already @ssholes as it is.

This is from a nonsmoker's point of view also...

zachatree · Post by **zachatree** » 27 Jul 2005 14:58

me an my friends drive around an smoke weed all the time. whats gonna stop ppl from geting away with this? we get pulled over all the time an never get cought bc we AXE an hide the shit. im sure this wont stop anyone from shit.

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 27 Jul 2005 16:17

Tsiangkun wrote:...it's best that everyone have the right to a gun in the car. I personally find firing one to relieve a great deal of stress.

lol

As much as I enjoy litigation that angers and punishes smokers (because it's a shitty habit that they should drop), I have to agree with Chrissy on this one. Having worked with 3 VERY hardcore smokers (one smoking break per hour minimum), I can tell you that a smoker that needs a fix is not the type of person that should be operating a motor vehicle.

Besides, legally your car is considered private property, just like your home, and therefore a claim by the government of limiting what you do on your private property has to be pretty strong to become law.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 28 Jul 2005 03:49

The thing I hate about smoking in cars is when people throw their cigarette butts out of the window. Not only is it littering, I believe it's also one of the main causes of bush fires.
I don't care if someone wants to smoke in their car, but they should take their rubbish with them.
There was a billboard on a rural road that I used to pass. It said something like: "Tossers cause bushfires". Or something like that. I think it's too true.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 28 Jul 2005 03:52

SandWraith wrote:Besides, legally your car is considered private property, just like your home, and therefore a claim by the government of limiting what you do on your private property has to be pretty strong to become law.

They've banned the use of cell phones in cars in some states, NJ included, from what I understand. The idea is that you're driving a vehicle, and should have as few distractions as possible.

I don't think they should ban smoking in cars. I agree that throwing the butts out is retarded. Just keep an ashtray in your car and dump the ashtray when you get to your destination/home.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 28 Jul 2005 21:57

Distracted drivers
Assemblyman John McKeon, a tobacco opponent whose father died of emphysema, sponsored the legislation. He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, 1 percent were related to smoking

out of 32,000 accidents, approximately 320 were smoking related. How many more were because of cell phones? What about radios? Children in the car? How many were because of DVD players in the fucking GIANT SUV?

Banning smoking in the car will pose a greater threat: road rage. that is all.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 31 Jul 2005 07:38

I saw a story about a study comparing drivers using regular cell phones, vs. those using a hands-free device (headset?)

The study found that drivers are distracted from driving the same amount, no matter if they used a hands-free device.

I lost the story, but it will no doubt be used to limit ALL cell phone use.

----------------------------------------------------

Smokers should not complain. They need to realize they are the source of all evil in the world. The are sub-human and unworthy of the freedom to make poor choices.

p.s.

Smokers are like the beaten wife who says, "Hit me again".

-n

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 31 Jul 2005 18:59

What? Haha, this made me laugh.

Jamo · Post by **Jamo** » 01 Aug 2005 16:15

My car. My rules.
But ill wear a seatbelt

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » 01 Aug 2005 17:33

Thats just damn retarted thats like saying you cant eat in the car

rory · Post by **rory** » 01 Aug 2005 18:14

Nightmare wrote:Thats just damn retarted thats like saying you cant eat in the car

yea i know, isnt this a free country? arent we allowed to do stuff like that in america, thats what makes the US, the US. i hate polliticans, stupid pansy's

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 01 Aug 2005 18:15

Now that it's been brought up, I gotta admit that I nearly smoked a pedestrian a while back trying to dig some fries out of a fast food bag. Felt pretty stupid at the time, and haven't eaten anything complicated in the car since.

God how I miss carving up a turkey while chugging a beer, switching gears, and switching lanes. 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

mahhkohh · Post by **mahhkohh** » 07 Aug 2005 04:00

haha...i mean...haha...poor new jersey...someone should try too illegalise some suff i do i my car!...haha...i mean,its gettign worser here in germany every day too,i must say i´m a no-smoker,and all of my friends respect that and do not smoke in my car,and they ask me(!) if i have something against when i drive in theyre car!so...i my opinion this is a totally unnessesary law...like"youre not allowed to pass the border to *i forgot the state* with a chicken on your shoulder!"...yes there are such laws in amerika...at least thats what the guy in tv was telling latly!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 07 Aug 2005 07:03

I don't know what the laws are in the US but in Australia if you cause an accident and are distracted due to smoking, eating or anything else - you are liable for the crash and can even be charged with manslaughter. There's also laws that could technically be used - should the prosecution want to - to prosecute you for those things even if you don't have a crash. "reckless driving" etc. So in Australia at least (and I'd be very surprised if the US didn't have the very similar laws regarding driving) you can already be charged for drving while smoking if the judge/jury can be convinced that smoking made you a danger on the road - which is likely since in Australia it's illegal to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel unless changing gears or something like that.

So basically this law is almost certainly only a very very very small change to the laws anyway because it's very likely that most people who smoke while driving are taking one hand off the wheel sometimes and are breaking the law anyway.

Maybe the US is more lax on driving than Australia but personally I doubt it - the "two hands on the wheel" is a fairly universal driving rule in countries with strict driving laws.

Regarding the "free country" arguement. I think it's important to take into account that becoming distracted could easily lead to you having a crash with another car. As far as I'm aware you're not free to crash into other peoples cars and kill or injure them. Clearly the government in this case has decided that saving lives is more important than the freedom to smoke in a car. I am sure that the arguement could be put forward that if these laws only prevent one car crash in the entire existance of humanity they will have done more good than harm. Some people would say that not being able to smoke while driving is a very trivial matter compared with being killed in a car crash - no matter how statistically unlikely.

About 700 people die each year in New Jersey from car crashes. According to the statistic that 1% of crashes are related to smoking it could be estimated that approximately 7 lives would be saved every year because of this law.
source regarding deaths in New Jersey

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 07 Aug 2005 08:06

I think this law is already enforced in New Zealand. Does'nt bother me one bit, I hate smoking, its a waste of money and good health.

FYI, smoking is also ilegal in any business place, including pubs and bars, this is awesome because it means I can go play pool without my lungs colapsing! So basicly the only place you can smoke is at home (it is too cold down here to smoke outside!

)

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 07 Aug 2005 08:27

He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, 1 percent were related to smoking.

Jeremy, buddy, what have I told you about those statistics? I believe that you've mis-read that last one. The study said that 1 percent of accidents LINKED TO DISTRACTION where related to smoking. It says nothing about them being fatal accidents. Of the 700 accident-related deaths in New Jersey each year, it could well be that the vast majority are not related to "distraction" at all. Any accident that can be blamed on bad weather (we get ice, snow, and rain here), on speading (people drive recklessly and crash, even when they are not distracted) on mechanical failure (yeah, breaks can fail, as can stearing), etc. would not fall under the "accidents related to distraction", of which 1 percent are smoking related. It could even be that accidents related to distraction are less-often fatal than those related to weather or speeding (after all, just because you're distracted doesn't mean that you are traveling at unsafe speeds). It could be that none of the 700 driving deaths here each year are caused by cigarettes at all.
Jeremy, please be more careful with your statistics. You're drawing some pretty poor conclusions based on these mis-readings.