Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in Cars
Posted on January 9, 2007
Nanny State Alert for all you libertarians! Feel good legislation ‘for the children’.
The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.
When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.
What??? I think I know several people that Patricia would consider murderers now.
An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.
Next stop, telling people what they can and can’t do in their own homes. At least some people have common sense:
Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There’s already too much government intervention in people’s lives, she said.
Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a “feel- good option” that was not intended to protect children but rather to “moralize” against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.
Being that the ACLU has argued that women smoking crack while pregnant shouldn’t be held responsible, surely they will find this unconstitutional and intervene. If so, I’ll be behind them for once.
» Filed Under News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in Cars”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I did believe America was a country of the free. Government continues in it’s attempts to tell us how to live, what to eat, what or when to drink, when or when not to pray, yet they also prevent our police from putting illegal aliens in jail, won’t close our borders and allow illegal aliens to enter America at will. It appears on a daily basis that if you’re an American citizen you have no rights at all and if you aren’t, you can do anything you want at any time. If I want to smoke in my own car the government has no right to say anything about it. My children are MY children, not the governments!
Personally, I’d vote against this ordinance, but you’re being pretty melodramatic. That sort of law is not a big deal at the local level. If you don’t like it, use your political power to change it. If you can’t manage to do that and you feel you can’t live with the law, pick up your toys and go somewhere else.
The problem is no one wants the government to interfere unless they like the intended results. I know plenty of people who were conservatives until the idea of a public smoking ban was up for a vote. They like the idea but instead of letting the market take effect they vote to let the government have more power simply because they like the result, but they eventually won’t like a result but it will be too late.
I’ve always believed the government should for the most part let people do what they want to UNLESS it effects the health, safety, or liberty of another person. Pregnant crack whores affect the health of the unborn. Smoking in an confined area around others is also a health hazard, granted not as severe, especially for children who are not free to get up and leave. Smokers always whine about their rights to smoke, but what about the right of others to breathe clean air? To me, that seems like a far more important right to protect. If someone wants to smoke in their own house and their own car with other consenting adults, I really don’t care, but there is a difference with a captive audience such as office setting, children, restaurants, etc. Their inability or refusal to stop their addiction does not give them special rights and should not affect anyone else.
4 things:
1) I’m a former smoker - started when I was 9 - quit 32 years later.
2) Smoke all you want - as long as you don’t do it around me.
3) I don’t need the government to protect me from smokers since I will slap any smoker in the face if they do not comply with my polite request not to smoke in any restaurant I happen to be in. Just as they have the right to smoke I have the right not to have it in my face. Since we have equal rights the argument devolves to who can take a bitchslapping.
4) “Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.” That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Walk on any American street to see mothers hugging their children while smoking. If hospitals allowed it, smokers would be smoking during the delivery of their child. I know their are some smokers who try to be polite but the reality of my experience is that the majority are rude and inconsiderate.
5) “My children are MY children, not the government’s!” Don’t be silly. That argument can be used to justify abortion so I will not bother critiquing it.
6) There is nothing more natural in the world than urinating and the government has no right to tell me not to urinate, however there is a public interest in not allowing people to urinate on their dinner table next to me while I am eating becasue it is disgusting.
Sorry Bernie, but the difference between restaurants, dinner tables, and MY car is that it is MY car. If I want to urinate on MY dinner table I don’t want the government to have any say so about that matter.
What if you want to urinate on your kids?
Well, if your child is sitting at the table when you urinate on it, a lot of people would consider that abuse.
Darn, and here I was gonna drive through bangor on fire=- I guess that’s out the question now dangit.
I think this is pretty heinous. I am not a smoker. Most people who will weigh in on this issue
will be smokers. I do enjoy the freedom of not having to breathe other people’s smoke in
a restaurant. However, where will the government stop invading other people’s rights to live as
they see fit? Yes, smoking is bad for people’s health, but the greater issue, if your will follow
the logic for a moment, is not about where smokers are allowed to smoke, but really about government
involvement. If the government takes away a person’s right to smoke in their cars, how long will it
be before they take away the right to smoke in a house? (If the government is willing to dictate what I am
allowed to do in my car, then they can have the right to make my car payment.) Before anyone gets mad about
smoking in a house around children, think about where they might start taking other choices away, too. I enjoy
red meat, some people will say that red meat is bad for me (I do not eat it every night). Does the government have
the right to come into my home and say that it is illegal for me to serve and eat red meat in my home? Does the
government have the right to say what I do with or on my personal property? What about all the drinkers? If the
government decided to take away the right to go to a bar and drink because too many accidents occur after a drunk person
leaves a bar and kills other people on the way home would you still think that the government is okay? When you are
forced to drink only in your own home, you will not be happy about that, would you? (No, I do not drink, merely
this for an analogy.) When the government decides that it is no longer legal to drink in your own home, how will
feel about this? Our country’s government was founded because many people did not want their lives dictated by
someone else. If we will not stand up for our rights, no one will stand up for us.