Smokers have already been banned from New York bars and restaurants, and soon they could be prohibited from lighting up in cars carrying minors, an idea giving added fuel to critics who say the city has become a nanny state.
Hawley helped defeat ‘inane’ bill to ban smoking in vehicles
June 17, 2011
by Billie Owens
Here’s a press release from Steve Hawley.
Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R,I,C – Batavia) was one of several Assembly Minority members to speak up against a bill that sought to ban smoking in cars carrying passengers ages 14 and under.
The measure was ultimately defeated and removed from consideration. While Hawley noted that the intent of the legislation was admirable, he described the bill as an affront to personal freedoms and liberties. He also questioned whether a convertible would be exempted and told “no,” further exemplifying the absurdity of the inane legislation.
“Most everyone can agree that people shouldn’t smoke in the car with young children present, but government does not exist to legislate what a citizen should and should not do,” Hawley said. “This bill is a blatant example of government meddling with the rights of individualism to an obscene extent.
“Just as we cann’t legislate who is qualified or unqualified to be a parent, the legislature cannot tell a citizen of legal, tobacco-purchasing age that they cannot smoke in their own vehicle.”
Car Smoking Ban Supporters Call Smoking in Cars Worse Than Child Abuse, State that Secondhand Smoke is as Bad as Active Smoking
September 25, 2007? By Michael Siegel
One thing is for certain: the arguments being advanced by these car smoking ban proponents do cause harm. Harm to real victims of child abuse. And harm to public health efforts to educate the public about the hazards of smoking.
Letters to the Editor
August 23, 2007
‘Council Seeks New Ban on Smoking by Parents in Cars’
Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present [New York, “Council Seeks New Ban on Smoking by Parents in Cars,”August15,2007].
His efforts are not new, dating back to his days as adviser to Council speaker, Peter Vallone.
What is new is the depth and intrusiveness of his efforts to “denormalize smoking.”
Clearly this man speaks to bigotry, grasping at every straw to justify sumptuary legislation. He wants to control everyone’s behavior. And he can’t; he can only try.
These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial, as well as probably flawed.
The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General’s report on the effects of secondhand smoke.
And yet the data is presented with hubris as protecting the common good. Now come the children. Who will protect them? Will it be parents and guardians or councilpersons enacting laws?
Every such initiative, and there will be more, bite more deeply into freedom and liberty. That’s a concern that should be balanced against shaky science.
Robert Madden, M.D.
Former President
New York Cancer Society
Bronxville, N.Y.
August 23, 2007
‘Council Seeks New Ban on Smoking by Parents in Cars’
Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present [New York, “Council Seeks New Ban on Smoking by Parents in Cars,”August15,2007].
His efforts are not new, dating back to his days as adviser to Council speaker, Peter Vallone.
What is new is the depth and intrusiveness of his efforts to “denormalize smoking.”
Clearly this man speaks to bigotry, grasping at every straw to justify sumptuary legislation. He wants to control everyone’s behavior. And he can’t; he can only try.
These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial, as well as probably flawed.
The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General’s report on the effects of secondhand smoke.
And yet the data is presented with hubris as protecting the common good. Now come the children. Who will protect them? Will it be parents and guardians or councilpersons enacting laws?
Every such initiative, and there will be more, bite more deeply into freedom and liberty. That’s a concern that should be balanced against shaky science.
Robert Madden, M.D.
Former President
New York Cancer Society
Bronxville, N.Y.
Cars With Kids: NYC’s Next Smoking Ban?
Big Apple Could Be Newest Locale to Institute Secondhand Smoking Policy
By DAVID SCHOETZ
Aug. 16, 2007
Don’t light up while driving with minors inside Big Apple city limits.
That’s the proposal a New York City councilman will unveil today, a relatively straightforward idea that incites sharp division among supporters eager to snuff out smoking and opponents who lament an unnecessary privacy infringement.
City Councilman James Gennaro, a Queens Democrat, told ABC News that he modeled the proposal after a similar ban passed in Rockland County, N.Y., just two months ago.
Under the New York City proposal, police could stop any drivers caught smoking with a passenger who appears younger than 18 years old. The offense, if approved by the city council and ultimately Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would earn the driver a $100 fine.
“Anyone who smokes is pretty much making everyone else smoke too,” Gennaro said. “If someone has a cheeseburger, I’m not having that cholesterol, but I’m having the smoking.”
Gennaro cited broad statistics that show the danger of secondhand smoke and specific data that he said show how cigarette smoke inside cars exposes passengers — particularly children — to concentrated levels of cigarette toxins.
But Gary Nolan, the American regional director of the Smokers’ Club, a right-to-smoke advocacy group, disputed the statistical impact caused by secondhand smoke.
“My premise here is that secondhand smoking science is junk science,” Nolan flatly told ABC News, claiming that information has been “cherrypicked” so that the federal government can make sweeping conclusions about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
At least 40 carcinogens can be found in more than 4,000 cigarette substances and approximately 3,000 nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke, according to government findings cited in an Environmental Protection Agency report.
Young children, particularly under 18 months of age, face an even more serious risk, according to the EPA, with hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma negatively affected by secondhand smoke each year.
Beyond the “junk science” driving Gennaro’s proposal, Nolan said, are privacy infringement issues — it’s a person’s personal vehicle and the government shouldn’t be telling someone how to raise their child — and misappropriated use of law enforcement resources.
“As if law enforcement doesn’t already have enough power to pull someone over,” Nolan said. “And don’t you think that looking for rapists and murderers ought to be a better allocation of resources than looking for smokers.” But proposals like Gennaro’s have picked up steam across the country, and the councilman believes that New York City could be next.
Kathleen Dachille, director of the Legal Resource Center for Tobacco Regulation, Litigation and Advocacy at the University of Maryland, said that at least two states — Arkansas and Louisiana — have already passed laws that ban smoking in cars with passengers 6 years old or younger and 60 pounds or lighter — the standard weight set by most states requires children to be placed in car seats.
Many other states are considering similar policies, Dachille said, including Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Dachille, who has helped guide the creation of these policies, said she is well aware of the arguments against them — from privacy infringement to difficulty of enforcement. She’s heard from many people staunchly opposed to such bans.
“I received what is slightly short of death threats, and my comments were reasonable,” she said, describing her past experience on the hot-button issue. “I couldn’t even answer my phone for a couple of days.”
But that doesn’t mean there’s no compromise. For example, Dachille said that Gennaro’s policy may become a difficult legislative sell if it includes minors all the way up to 17 years old.
Gennaro said he’s willing to bend on the specifics to push through what he called the big picture.
“The beauty of having this already done in local jurisdictions, in entire states, seems to me that those battles have been fought and won,” Gennaro said. “New York City is a prominent jurisdiction and I hope this case will be a bellwether.”
?
Big Apple Could Be Newest Locale to Institute Secondhand Smoking Policy
By DAVID SCHOETZ
Aug. 16, 2007
Don’t light up while driving with minors inside Big Apple city limits.
That’s the proposal a New York City councilman will unveil today, a relatively straightforward idea that incites sharp division among supporters eager to snuff out smoking and opponents who lament an unnecessary privacy infringement.
City Councilman James Gennaro, a Queens Democrat, told ABC News that he modeled the proposal after a similar ban passed in Rockland County, N.Y., just two months ago.
Under the New York City proposal, police could stop any drivers caught smoking with a passenger who appears younger than 18 years old. The offense, if approved by the city council and ultimately Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would earn the driver a $100 fine.
“Anyone who smokes is pretty much making everyone else smoke too,” Gennaro said. “If someone has a cheeseburger, I’m not having that cholesterol, but I’m having the smoking.”
Gennaro cited broad statistics that show the danger of secondhand smoke and specific data that he said show how cigarette smoke inside cars exposes passengers — particularly children — to concentrated levels of cigarette toxins.
But Gary Nolan, the American regional director of the Smokers’ Club, a right-to-smoke advocacy group, disputed the statistical impact caused by secondhand smoke.
“My premise here is that secondhand smoking science is junk science,” Nolan flatly told ABC News, claiming that information has been “cherrypicked” so that the federal government can make sweeping conclusions about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
At least 40 carcinogens can be found in more than 4,000 cigarette substances and approximately 3,000 nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke, according to government findings cited in an Environmental Protection Agency report.
Young children, particularly under 18 months of age, face an even more serious risk, according to the EPA, with hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma negatively affected by secondhand smoke each year.
Beyond the “junk science” driving Gennaro’s proposal, Nolan said, are privacy infringement issues — it’s a person’s personal vehicle and the government shouldn’t be telling someone how to raise their child — and misappropriated use of law enforcement resources.
“As if law enforcement doesn’t already have enough power to pull someone over,” Nolan said. “And don’t you think that looking for rapists and murderers ought to be a better allocation of resources than looking for smokers.” But proposals like Gennaro’s have picked up steam across the country, and the councilman believes that New York City could be next.
Kathleen Dachille, director of the Legal Resource Center for Tobacco Regulation, Litigation and Advocacy at the University of Maryland, said that at least two states — Arkansas and Louisiana — have already passed laws that ban smoking in cars with passengers 6 years old or younger and 60 pounds or lighter — the standard weight set by most states requires children to be placed in car seats.
Many other states are considering similar policies, Dachille said, including Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Dachille, who has helped guide the creation of these policies, said she is well aware of the arguments against them — from privacy infringement to difficulty of enforcement. She’s heard from many people staunchly opposed to such bans.
“I received what is slightly short of death threats, and my comments were reasonable,” she said, describing her past experience on the hot-button issue. “I couldn’t even answer my phone for a couple of days.”
But that doesn’t mean there’s no compromise. For example, Dachille said that Gennaro’s policy may become a difficult legislative sell if it includes minors all the way up to 17 years old.
Gennaro said he’s willing to bend on the specifics to push through what he called the big picture.
“The beauty of having this already done in local jurisdictions, in entire states, seems to me that those battles have been fought and won,” Gennaro said. “New York City is a prominent jurisdiction and I hope this case will be a bellwether.”
?
New York City Council to Consider Bill to Ban Smoking in Cars Carrying Minors
8/16/07 By Michael Siegel
Although I am an anti-smoking advocate and a supporter of workplace smoking bans, I do not support this particular proposal. While recognizing the potential dangers of childhood exposure to secondhand smoke, I simply do not believe that the government should be in the business of dictating parental choices about the health risks to which their children are exposed.
Here’s the best way to look at this: If the car smoking ban is justified, then it is also justified to ban smoking in homes in order to protect children from secondhand smoke exposure. In fact, it is even more important to prevent tobacco smoke exposure in the home, since that is where the overwhelming majority of such exposure takes place. However, most people recognize that intruding into the home to regulate health risks to which parents expose their children does represent an undue intrusion, a violation of privacy, and an unacceptable interference with parental autonomy to make decisions regarding the health risks to which their children are exposed.
Read More
Read more from Michael Siegel
8/16/07 By Michael Siegel
Although I am an anti-smoking advocate and a supporter of workplace smoking bans, I do not support this particular proposal. While recognizing the potential dangers of childhood exposure to secondhand smoke, I simply do not believe that the government should be in the business of dictating parental choices about the health risks to which their children are exposed.
Here’s the best way to look at this: If the car smoking ban is justified, then it is also justified to ban smoking in homes in order to protect children from secondhand smoke exposure. In fact, it is even more important to prevent tobacco smoke exposure in the home, since that is where the overwhelming majority of such exposure takes place. However, most people recognize that intruding into the home to regulate health risks to which parents expose their children does represent an undue intrusion, a violation of privacy, and an unacceptable interference with parental autonomy to make decisions regarding the health risks to which their children are exposed.
Read More
Read more from Michael Siegel
Council Seeks New Ban on Smoking by Parents in Cars
August 15, 2007
By GRACE RAUH, Staff Reporter of the Sun
By GRACE RAUH, Staff Reporter of the Sun
Smokers have already been banned from New York bars and restaurants, and soon they could be prohibited from lighting up in cars carrying minors, an idea giving added fuel to critics who say the city has become a nanny state.
A City Council member of Queens who is chairman of the council’s Environmental Protection Committee, James Gennaro, said he is planning to introduce the smoking bill next week.
“I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids,” Mr. Gennaro said. “I’ve lost family members to lung cancer and I’ve seen what happens.”
If enacted, smoking in cars with riders under the age of 18 would join a growing list of activities barred by the city, including making too much noise at night, serving trans fats in restaurants, and allowing students to carry cell phones in school.
Mayor Bloomberg, who has spearheaded worldwide anti-tobacco initiatives, used the health risks associated with second-hand smoke to argue for a ban on smoking in bars.
A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Stuart Loeser, declined to comment, saying the mayor had not yet seen the bill.
When asked in January about a similar proposal in Rockland County, Mr. Bloomberg said people should have the right to smoke in their own cars, but “if it’s a child in the car, who doesn’t have the ability to speak up and protect themselves, then society does start to have an interest.”
While he admitted he didn’t know how such a proposal would be enforced, the mayor said, “We do have a responsibility to provide a health environment for our children and I would just urge anybody, if you have children at home, don’t smoke at home, don’t smoke in your car with your child; you really are damaging your child’s health.”
Mr. Gennaro’s proposal calls for fines of $200 to $400 for a first smoking violation, $500 to $1,000 for a second violation in a single year, and between $1,000 and $2,000 for a third violation in a year. The New York Police Department would get the task of enforcing the law.
In Rockland County, which in June approved a measure to ban smoking in cars with minors, critics called the law an invasion of privacy and a violation of personal liberties. Mr. Gennaro dismissed those arguments.
“Boo-hoo,” he said. “You can’t subject kids to 43 carcinogens and 250 poisonous chemicals and claim privacy. Get over it. Their right to privacy doesn’t extend so far as to poisoning kids.”
A child who spends one hour in a very smoky room is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he or she smoked 10 or more cigarettes, according to the Mayo Clinic.
A U.S. Surgeon General’s report from 2006 found there is sufficient evidence to infer “a causal relationship” between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and lower respiratory illnesses in infants and children.
The founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, Audrey Silk, said the proposal is an example of government overreach and should be considered part of an alarming trend that affects smokers and nonsmokers alike.
“Smoking bans are a symptom of a greater problem with our government, that they can come in and regulate all kinds of lifestyle choices because they’ve deemed it improper,” she said. “It could be anything.”
A lawyer and former executive director of the New York Civil Liberties U nion, Norman Siegel, said the proposal is “very intrusive,” and noted that to withstand judicial challenges, at a minimum the city would have to show that second-hand smoke in cars has a negative health effect of minors.
The Rockland County legislator who sponsored the county’s bill on smoking in cars, Connie Coker, said there’s no reason why the government shouldn’t be able regulate smoking in cars, as it already regulates cell phone use while driving and requires car seats for young children.
“It’s not your castle,” she said. “Your car is out in the world.”
Ms. Silk said that if the bill were approved, there would be no reason the government wouldn’t try to regulate the number of cookies parents could give their children.
“If they can come into our car, then they can come into our home,” she said. “And everybody should be afraid of this, not just because of smoking.”
Don’t Let the Smoking Police In (And Don’t Lick Barbie)
August 15, 2007
Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: The New York City council is preparing a new ban on smoking by parents in cars.? “A City Council member of Queens and chairman of the council’s environmental protection committee, James Gennaro, said he is planning to introduce a bill later this month that would ban smoking from cars carrying minors.? ‘I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids,’ Mr. Gennaro said. ‘I’ve lost family members to lung cancer and I’ve seen what happens.'”? Somebody better tell this guy that the entire national and state, by the way, health care insurance program for kids depends on people buying cigarettes.? And if they’re going to buy ’em, they have to be able to smoke ’em.? If they can’t smoke ’em anywhere, people aren’t going to buy ’em.? Now, you people that run governments, I don’t care if it’s city councils or the federal government or whatever, you’re going to have to figure something out here real quick, because if you’re going to fund everything with tobacco, you’re going to have to make sure the product can be used after it’s purchased.? You can’t at the same time try to get everybody to quit it and then demand that the taxes from it support a health care program.?
I know what’s going to happen with this.? People will not pay the taxes on cigars that they’re talking about, the buck a pack on cigarettes, is already impacting sales.? Everybody is out there saying to themselves about the children’s health care program, “Sure, go ahead and tax those smokers, dirty, filthy rotten pigs, secondhand smoke, and they want to kill themselves, great, make ’em pay.”? That’s how this incremental taxation works: get all of you who don’t smoke supporting a tax increase on smokers.? Well, you know what’s going to happen, they’re not going to generate enough revenue to pay for this stupid program, not when kids in this program are anybody 25 and under, and when families of $82,000 a year annual income qualify.? So when the taxes from cigarettes and cigars don’t meet the costs, guess who’s going to get taxed next folks?? You.? They’ll find a way to tax some other activity that you do, like drinking bottled water that you get from Chicago, or — a little inside joke there — or whatever else.? But you gotta be careful.? Somebody better tell him this.? I understand the need and the desire to get people to stop smoking, but it’s their own life.? If people want to smoke and if they want to do it in their cars with their kids in there, it’s their life, and the more you allow nanny state government to step in and tell you how you can and can’t live your private life, the more freedom you’re going to end up losing.
Read More
Nanny State Discussion, Part II?
August 16, 2007
Rush Limbaugh
We had a grandmother call, the last call of the day, giving me grief because I was making it sound like it’s okay to go out and eat fast food and French fries and potato chips, and she misunderstood.?
I just don’t want the government regulating what we eat.? I don’t want the government regulating our behavior any more than they already do.? If you don’t want to eat McDonald’s, fine, I don’t want to force you to do anything.? That’s the point.? I want to leave you alone.? All of us will leave you alone, do what you want.? You can’t leave us alone.? This woman calls giving me grief over the fact that I am countering and harming and damaging her efforts to get her grandson to eat the right foods.? I said, “Well how old is your grandson?”? She said 26, and it kind of zoomed by me.? Then I saw on the screen that Dawn transcribes the calls, “Did I just hear you say your grandson is 26, and you are trying to tell him what to eat?”? “Yes, and you’re making it hard for me,” she said.? I said, “When are you going to let him be an adult?”? At any rate, we’ve got countless other stories along those lines.?
Read More
August 15, 2007
Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: The New York City council is preparing a new ban on smoking by parents in cars.? “A City Council member of Queens and chairman of the council’s environmental protection committee, James Gennaro, said he is planning to introduce a bill later this month that would ban smoking from cars carrying minors.? ‘I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids,’ Mr. Gennaro said. ‘I’ve lost family members to lung cancer and I’ve seen what happens.'”? Somebody better tell this guy that the entire national and state, by the way, health care insurance program for kids depends on people buying cigarettes.? And if they’re going to buy ’em, they have to be able to smoke ’em.? If they can’t smoke ’em anywhere, people aren’t going to buy ’em.? Now, you people that run governments, I don’t care if it’s city councils or the federal government or whatever, you’re going to have to figure something out here real quick, because if you’re going to fund everything with tobacco, you’re going to have to make sure the product can be used after it’s purchased.? You can’t at the same time try to get everybody to quit it and then demand that the taxes from it support a health care program.?
I know what’s going to happen with this.? People will not pay the taxes on cigars that they’re talking about, the buck a pack on cigarettes, is already impacting sales.? Everybody is out there saying to themselves about the children’s health care program, “Sure, go ahead and tax those smokers, dirty, filthy rotten pigs, secondhand smoke, and they want to kill themselves, great, make ’em pay.”? That’s how this incremental taxation works: get all of you who don’t smoke supporting a tax increase on smokers.? Well, you know what’s going to happen, they’re not going to generate enough revenue to pay for this stupid program, not when kids in this program are anybody 25 and under, and when families of $82,000 a year annual income qualify.? So when the taxes from cigarettes and cigars don’t meet the costs, guess who’s going to get taxed next folks?? You.? They’ll find a way to tax some other activity that you do, like drinking bottled water that you get from Chicago, or — a little inside joke there — or whatever else.? But you gotta be careful.? Somebody better tell him this.? I understand the need and the desire to get people to stop smoking, but it’s their own life.? If people want to smoke and if they want to do it in their cars with their kids in there, it’s their life, and the more you allow nanny state government to step in and tell you how you can and can’t live your private life, the more freedom you’re going to end up losing.
Read More
Nanny State Discussion, Part II?
August 16, 2007
Rush Limbaugh
We had a grandmother call, the last call of the day, giving me grief because I was making it sound like it’s okay to go out and eat fast food and French fries and potato chips, and she misunderstood.?
I just don’t want the government regulating what we eat.? I don’t want the government regulating our behavior any more than they already do.? If you don’t want to eat McDonald’s, fine, I don’t want to force you to do anything.? That’s the point.? I want to leave you alone.? All of us will leave you alone, do what you want.? You can’t leave us alone.? This woman calls giving me grief over the fact that I am countering and harming and damaging her efforts to get her grandson to eat the right foods.? I said, “Well how old is your grandson?”? She said 26, and it kind of zoomed by me.? Then I saw on the screen that Dawn transcribes the calls, “Did I just hear you say your grandson is 26, and you are trying to tell him what to eat?”? “Yes, and you’re making it hard for me,” she said.? I said, “When are you going to let him be an adult?”? At any rate, we’ve got countless other stories along those lines.?
Read More
