+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: California - The Nanny State (/showthread.php?tid=46790)
California - The Nanny State - freeradical - 01-08-2008
A lovely new law in California that bans smoking in your own car.
Next on the agenda - who knows.
Maybe we should just taser anyone who smokes - or drinks.
Maybe we should use asset forfeiture laws to ensure these dangerous criminals comply with the law.
http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/614162.html
"Never before has California banned smoking on private property used exclusively by members of the owner's family – until now.
Beginning this month, motorists can be fined $100 for lighting up a cigarette, cigar or pipe in their own car, even in their driveway, if one passenger is a child.
The law marks a new frontier in more than two decades of state smoking restrictions that focused on workplaces, public buildings, restaurants, airplanes, tot lots and gathering spots.
It also comes as cigar-smoking Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is teaming with Democrats to push a proposed ballot measure that would increase cigarette taxes by $1.75 per pack to expand health insurance.
Lawmakers returning to the Capitol this week will consider pushing the state's smoking prohibitions even further.
Sen. Jenny Oropeza, the Long Beach Democrat who proposed California's new vehicle-smoking law to lower children's exposure to dangerous smoke, already has proposed legislation to ban smoking on state-owned beaches or parks."
Re: California - The Nanny State - MacMagus - 01-08-2008
'Still better than 'Jersey.
Re: California - The Nanny State - SDGuy - 01-08-2008
So I take it you're a smoker?
Re: California - The Nanny State - freeradical - 01-08-2008
[quote SDGuy]So I take it you're a smoker?
No, I'm an ex smoker. I quit smoking in 1983.
Re: California - The Nanny State - RgrF - 01-08-2008
He's a child welfare advocate with a nicotine habit, extremely conflicted.
Re: California - The Nanny State - ho'ard - 01-08-2008
Kinda hard to research stuff that happened in the seventies, but I think my wierd uncle Carl was responsible for the first smoking ban in Palm Springs. He used to send us clippings of his victories, and we didn't quite understand "activism" and didn't know what to make of them.
Re: California - The Nanny State - Anthony - 01-08-2008
Hmmm...
Something about protecting the health of a child who can do nothing about the situation because he/she is under legal custody of someone who doesn't get that secondhand smoke is dangerous and harmful...
Sounds pretty rational to me.
Re: California - The Nanny State - cbelt3 - 01-08-2008
The sad reality here is the smoking 'ban' is accompanied by an increase in tax. Want to ban smoking? Outlaw tobacco. Eradicate the crops. Close the manufacturers. Burn the fields. Go after it like you go after Marijuana. And drop the 'taxes'. It's so effing hypocritical.
I do wish there was a total ban on tobacco. My wife smokes, and I wish she wouldn't. She's quit a half a dozen times (and did quit for every baby). She smokes outside or in the garage so the kids don't get it.
Her dad died of emphysema from smoking. She knows she's going to go the same way. But she can't bring herself to quit. It's a horrible way to go- imagine drowning to death. Over the course of four years. Slowly. And knowing that's what is happening.
" Please. If you smoke, find a way to stop. If you know someone who smokes, MAKE them stop."
William F. Buckley Jr., 2007
Re: California - The Nanny State - Don Kiyoti - 01-08-2008
As there has to be a child in the car for the law to apply, Freeradical's post seems just a bit panicky and paranoid. I'd oppose a ban on smoking at public beaches if only smokers could keep their damn butts to themselves and not strewn all over the beach. But they can't, so bring on the ban.
Re: California - The Nanny State - freeradical - 01-08-2008
[quote Anthony]Hmmm...
Something about protecting the health of a child who can do nothing about the situation because he/she is under legal custody of someone who doesn't get that secondhand smoke is dangerous and harmful...
Sounds pretty rational to me.
Sorry son, he's a smoker...
