From the AP:
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.
Or they could just take it, once the Supreme Court extends eminent domain to moving vehicles. Which—let’s face it—cars hold their value far better when they are pre-owned by non smokers—and higher-valued cars are subject to increased tax revenue, the collection of which is a clear case of acting for the public good. But I digress.
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.
Answer me this: how would such a rule not set the precedent that leads, following the logic of “highway safety” advocates, to a future ban on radios, fast food, cell phones, oral sex, lipstick, chapstick, manual transmissions, Big Gulps, open windows, the voice boxes of other passengers, and a host of other potential “distractions” that can take place inside the cockpit of an automobile?
I mean, why not just cut to the chase and ban drivers?
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.
[…] 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.
Oh. Well, then. 320 instances in which cigarettes were involved, and only 31, 680 in which they weren’t.
I stand corrected. Legislate away. Because clearly, these distracted, yellow-toothed tar demons need to be stopped before the republic crumbles in their hacking, phlegmy wake.
(h/t Wizbang)
They’re already banning cell phone use in cars in Illinois.
So, I assume oral sex would be on the banned list as well?
Another kind of smoking entirely, but sure, why not.
I can tell you at my level that the “Smoker Street” is highly pissed. As soon as we stop coughing, we’re going to chant some pretty cool slogans.
This is only the start. The Dutch just banned any loose object in a car because it can become a projectile in a crash.
Carin – you just reignited the quest to get those cheerleading pictures blogged.
Whether or not that was your intention is irrelevant.
So Wonkette can’t drive around in the Netherlands, Matt?
ZING!!!
Another exciting episode of “The Marching Morons”…
Cyril Kornbluth, I think.
<i>So Wonkette can’t drive around in the Netherlands, Matt?<?i>
*snicker*
Nice.
I live in NC, and I can’t really see that law making it to the books down here, being it’s a tobacco state and all.
Plus, that would put about 80% of all the school bus drivers in the state out of a job.
Hmmmm.
“to a future ban on radios, fast food, cell phones, lipstick, chapstick, manual transmissions, Big Gulps, open windows, the voice boxes of other passengers, and a host of other potential “distractions†that can take place inside the cockpit of an automobile?”
What the hell. I don’t see blowjobs on that list so it can’t all be bad.
Unless someone can show that blowjobs cause emphysema. Now that would suck.
They just can’t resist the totalitarian impulse, can they?
“Suck! Suck! Blow is just a figure of speech!”
— Old Joke
You’re going to have to update your post Jeff–New Jersey has already outlawed talking on a cell phone while driving.
Moved to this god forsaken state less than a year ago. Still not sure what I was thinking.
Cell phone use while driving is already illegal in D.C.
These are the same safety zealots that want to mandate seat belts in school buses.
Givadamn what the cost to the taxpayer.
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!
Soon we’ll be riding in slot-cars, no pesky steering involved.
Distracted driving is already illegal. What’s with this trend of reduntant legislation? (see also: hate crime)
Obviously if one law is good then two (or sixteen) is better.
Hmmmm.
@ Beck
“Moved to this god forsaken state less than a year ago. Still not sure what I was thinking.”
It’s like being stuck in boiling quicksand. Once you’re in, it’s extremely hard to leave. And you kinda get used to the daily dosage of pain.
It’s wierd really. For those of you who don’t live in New Jersey. Get a friend to take half the money in your wallet every day, give you a kick in arse every morning and a whack on the head with a heavy stick every night. Then eat a slice of really good pizza.
If you used to live in Jersey, it’ll be like you never left.
I do not have yellow teeth.
And my cough sounds more watery than phlegmy, although after I have that first cig in the morning the hacking sounds much more like a dry heave.
And leave my tar demon out of this!
NY has that law too.
What cracks me up is that in the 70s or 80s NY made it against the law to listen to people sing with headphones while driving but in 200? they made it illegal to listen to people talk without headphones while driving. That’s pretty funny.
This is what one gets by allowing full-time professional legislatures
They just aren’t happy unless they ar’a legislatin’ … and putting the squeeze, like the Mafia rackets of old, on anyone that COULD legislate against unless the legislators can see the green.
I’m a non-smoker. Never smoked in my life and I think this is just wrong.
Hell, if I was given the choice that my kid would either be a drinker or a smoker, I’d choose smoking.
Actually, see, it’s just a non-culturally-offensive way to stop jihadists from lighting up bombs in their cars!
It’s no accident that you to pay to get out of New Jersey but they let you in for free.
Eating at the wheel is the real driver distraction culprit. Drive-ins and convenience stores are the villains. Close down these killers.
Hmmm.
@ Patrick
“It’s no accident that you to pay to get out of New Jersey but they let you in for free.”
It’s an old principle proven endlessly in each and every single “Roach Motel”.
Hehe
Saw this guy on Carlson last night. He said that it was the distraction factor, but no one would be pulled over for smoking. If you were already pulled over, it would be an ancilliary fee. His facts were wrong, his numbers were wrong and he denied acting in a pejorative manner. Shitty little fake smile too. Spouted some guff about higher health care costs. That may be so, but how much of it is due to having to stand outside in the rain and cold to smoke? What a French shower.