New Jersey Legislator Wants to Ban Smoking in Your Car

Sarah Monroe wrote:
> "Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:33:32 -0700, ©hri§tÇræm® <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I smoke. I smoke in my car. All you control freaks can go **** yourselves.
>>
>>You throw your butts onto the ground, don't you? This is precisely the
>>sort of attitude one might expect from a litterbug...
>
>
> Cigarettes are biodegradable

Are the filters biodegradable?

Jim Yanik wrote:
> ©hri§tÇræm® <> wrote in
> :
>
>
>>I smoke. I smoke in my car.
>
>
> It's not our fault smokers have abused the privelege.
> People are tired of putting up with smokers and their foul habit.
>
> And yet smokers still are not getting the message.


This is not about smoking. It is about personal freedoms.
The government has no right to tell me what I can or
cannot do in my car (as long as it does not endanger
others) or my house.

What's next? Banning smoking in peoples' houses?

And no, I dont smoke.

Beelzebub wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
> .umich.edu:
>
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A 20 oz water bottle, with some water, is a better place for a burning
>>>cigarette than a plastic bag. Same idea though, just less chance of
>>>burning up my car.
>>
>>Quit smoking; problem solved.
>>
>
>
> Smoking is not illegal. What is it with people in our society who are so
> concerned with what others are doing instead of taking care of their own
> pointless lives?

Exactly. Or some redneck slut going on and on about the great dangers of
gay marriage or cloning, etc.

On 11 Jul 2005 16:15:50 GMT, Jim Yanik .> was
understood to have stated the following:

>Many employers will not hire a smoker these days,health insurance costs
>more for them,and the public is enacting more and more laws restricting
>smoking.

It's been about 12 years, but one of the reasons I choose to go to
work for my prior employer was that he allowed us to smoke in our
offices. I miss that job for many reasons, this being one of them.

On 11 Jul 2005 16:13:19 GMT, Jim Yanik .> was
understood to have stated the following:

>> I have a very cool plastic bag type thing that's small enough to fit
>> in your pocket unobtrusively. It's lined with some type of foil so
>> that if you were to put a lit butt in it, it would go out. It also has
>> mechanism in it that allows it to seal tightly, confining the odor to
>> the bag. Though I always field-strip my cigarettes, when I'm at a
>> non-smoker's house I'll put the butts in the bag as opposed to leaving
>> the butts on my pocket to cut down on the odor. When I get back in the
>> car I dump the bag's content into the ashtray or into an outside trash
>> receptacle.
>>
>>
>>
>
>You are the rare exception,rather than the norm.

Agreed, although my current set of smoking coworkers is much like
this. My coworkers from my prior employment situation had no problems
throwing their butts on the ground.

On 11 Jul 2005 16:12:15 GMT, Jim Yanik .> was
understood to have stated the following:

>
>No,you can't pass the blame like that.
>Most smokers flick their butts out the window even though they have an
>ashtray,and that's still NO excuse for emptying their ashtray on the ground
>anywhere.

Years ago when a friend of mine and I were out cruising, we stopped at
a convenience store to get some gas. I asked him to empty the ashtray,
as he had contributed to filling it, while I filled the gas. I watched
him dump it on the ground. I told him that if he wanted a ride back to
his house, he had better make sure all the butts made it into the
trash can.

>And no excuse for smokers to not provide their own ashtray in cars that
>don't have one,nor any excuse for smokers to drop butts on the ground when
>walking.

Agreed.

On 11 Jul 2005 16:08:31 GMT, Jim Yanik .> was
understood to have stated the following:

>> I'm all for banning morons who drive around without a properly
>> maintained vehicle.
>>
>>
>
>Yet most states have dropped periodic inspection requirements.

Really. They did this in my state about 8 years ago, if memory serves.
Interestingly enough, on the way in today, I heard a radio
announcement that stated several nearby counties were re-instating
vehicle inspections.

Comrade Yamamoto wrote:

> meanwhile we have a huge trade deficit with China, etc....

On account of wanting cheap consumer goods. Can't be done using 1st world
factories. End of story.

You want cheap ? You'll have a trade deficit.

Graham

Jim Yanik wrote:

> "speed-related" gets slapped on crashes regardless of whether it actually
> was or not.It's practically meaningless.

Indeed.

> All part of the "speed-kills" lobby.

Which is totally not focused on the real issue. Which is that *bad driving
kills*. It seems to be easier to deal with a mere factor rather than the true
cause.

If you're going to be involved in a crash it's obvious that high speed is
going to be a problem. Maybe some ppl would like to return to the days in
England when you had to have a guy with a red flag walking in front of your
car ?

I would be totally in favour of more rigourous driving tests ( maybe starter
- intermediate - advanced ) with possibly a 'staged' driving license. Not
sure how you'd enforce that - but it's an idea.

Graham

Sarah Monroe wrote:

> Much better than those non-biodegradable plastic forks,spoons, cups etc that
> people throw out of their car anyplace and anytime they feel like it.

This must be a US thing. Never seen it in the UK or elsewhere I've been.

Graham