Hawley helped defeat 'inane' bill to ban smoking in vehicles

I find it hilarious that Hawley stated that "we cannot legislate who is qualified or unqualified to be a parent," even though he voted against allowing unmarried couples to adopt children. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=31426&can_id=59…)

If only there were a handy scale that told us how far the state may legislate itself into your life before it goes 'too far' and violates your personal liberty.

We have laws that require us to wear seat belts, but protecting kids from their selfish, irresponsible parents is a violation of personal freedoms? What about the kids freedoms and rights? Do parents have the right to damage their kids' lungs, costing us all millions of dollars in health care? There are so many laws that protect people from themselves...why not protect the kids?

Brandon, I was going to make a similar post only with the recent marriage equality bill for an example.

Thanks for disqualifying thousands of potential parents to thousands of children who need them Assemblyman.

I'm happy that where I moved my state legislators support marriage equality!

That's a good point Brandon. C M Barons used to have nickname for Steve, now let me see........., what was that?

It starts with an H.

If you believe that the government should not be involved in who can marry who, how can you be in favor of government deciding if you can smoke in your own car?

People who smoke in the car roll down the window so no smoke goes in the car, the whole point is to not have your car feeling like a haunted house, minor in the car or not. Assemblyman Hawley was right, this is an inane piece of legislation and I'm glad that he was part of the effort to vote it down.

Next can we get rid of other inane laws, like banning smoking indoors and bring back smoking/non-smoking sections and allowing people to smoke in bars again?

I wouldn't call this bill "inane" for two reasons.

First, if the 14 year old kid sitting in a car filled with smoke decided they wanted to take up smoking, we do not allow them to purchase. Why is second hand smoke OK, but we need a law to prevent them from purchasing to inhale first hand smoke?

Secondly, if the 14 year old kid is sitting in a smoke filled car, and does not want to inhale second hand smoke, what recourse do they really have? They don't have any. I would think the law in the first case is to protect these kids (from themselves), but we are unwilling to have a law to protect them from inhaling second hand smoke in a confined space?

Herb - I'm a smoker (cigars mostly) and of every smoker I know none of them ever smoke without the window down a crack to let all of the smoke out. Smoking in your car with the windows up would be uncomfortable for everyone, minor or not, including the smoker. This bill is just another way to eliminate the deficit without making the hard choices that need to be made. It's a money-grabber and has nothing to do with public health.

....and although smoking cigarettes is unhealthy, we have a precedent in this country of generally allowing people to do whatever they want to do in regards to substances so long as the substance is legal.

We do not need to legislate common sense, if you've got someone, kid or not, in the car with you and you want to smoke roll the window down a crack so the smoke flies out.

It's nice that you roll the window down. Not everyone does. I have seen kids, even babies, in cars with smokers, countless times, where the windows are rolled up. That is just plain wrong. If common sense is not used, then you might have to legislate it.

I don't like the idea of legislating common sense. If you want to kill yourself with smoking, be my guest. But when your lack of common sense starts to affect others, then you might need some motivation to do the right thing.

I can't even grasp the idea that people would defend parents being allowed to subject kids to a smoke filled vehicle. I don't get it. But Hawley believing it is inane to protect those kids' rights, rather than the rights of irresponsible parents, sadly does not surprise me.

Herb, then you would want a law that forbids smoking in a home that has kids also, right?

People dont realize that once you give up your right to make choices to the local, state or federal govt. You wont get it back. This one is stepping over then line of personal freedoms. If you have ever been in a moving car with a smoker you will realize that even with the windows down very little smoke leaves until it has reached a certain point of saturation, the smaller the opening the bigger the concentration.

I realize common sense is a rare thing nowadays but legislating it isn't just unwise, it's just plain stupid.

I was commenting on the content of this bill, and that i don't think it is inane to prevent someone from smoking in a car with child passengers. A house is not the same sort of confined area. I believe kids have a better opportunity to avoid it, and a lot of people go outside, even at their homes. But second hand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma and other ailments in young children, so common sense would tell parents not to smoke in their homes either. In a car, the kids might as well be smoking themselves.

Personal freedom should allow you to screw yourself up, if that's what you want to do, but when your personal freedom has a negative affect on someone else, I think the right thing to do is for you to put that behavior on hold.

This type of legislation does lead to slippery slope, that is for certain; that does not mean it is 'inane.' The issue at hand is rather serious and, as much as it represents a state incursion into personal liberties, it is legislation with good intentions.

A perfect example of a piece of 'inane' legislation would be the proposed bill to separate New York City and 'Upstate' New York to form two different states. THAT is inane. Who sponsored that bill?

Herb, you can not have it both ways. Odds are a kid will be around smoke in a home a much greater percentage of time than in a car. This was just another stupid idea that thankfully was stopped.

It's bad enough with the food police.

What a waste of time. We pay our elected legislators to work on crap like this? Get real you idiots in government -- stop screwing around on crap laws like this and solve some real problems. I am ashamed to live in this state. Thank you, Steve, for trying to stop this needless BS!

I've never given the idea any serious thought, but every year when I file my NYS tax return, I wonder why there are sections of the tax form just for City of New York residents.

JoAnne - NYC residents pay a City Income Tax in addition to State and Federal.

Billie, the revenue in this state is sucked from Westchester County and parts-south. Metro area gets about 79 cents return on each dollar spent in taxes. The waylaid 21 cents offsets upstate's vanishing tax-base. Upstate politicians love to blame NYC, but it's a diversion. They unload that tired chestnut to divert attention from THEIR inability to balance a budget. It's always easier to blame than assume responsibility. ...Especially when the blame falls on liberal, gay-loving, Jewish, commie, Democrat-voting profane city-slickers.

The most recent study I could find of the allocation of NY State Revenue was a 2004 report done by the Center for Government Research based in Rochester:

http://www.cgr.org/reports/04_R-1400_NYBalanceOfPayments.pdf

The report studied the years 1997 to 2002 and found that Upstate cities received four billion-dollars more than they contributed whereas Upstate rural areas received two billion-dollars more than they contributed.

That giant sucking sound doesn't seem to be coming from the southeast...it's coming from here.

Although, it must be said, that when the Steel Mills and factories left upstate downstate politicians half-way funded and half-way oversaw economic development programs. Despite spending by dollars, downstate politicians like Boss....excuse me, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and others refuse to support initiatives like UB2020 (which will expand the university and create not only new jobs for the university but also many construction jobs and expand UB's downtown campus) and have been a major drag on other development money.

It's true that we take-in more than we spend, but it's also true that spending on pressing economic action is much more geared towards downstate.

Sadly, in the State Assembly, where Boss....excuse me, there I go again, Speaker Sheldon Silver's power base is unstoppable, members like Democratic Assemblyman Mark Schroeder (South Buffalo), who votes against the speaker's re-election and regularly calls him out, have had it with the inertia because others do not have the fortitude to join him in taking him on. Schroeder's taking his independent and effective record and running for Buffalo City Comptroller, which is great that he's going to be having a hands-on approach on Buffalo redevelopment, but sad that a Mr. Smith type figure is leaving Albany.

http://www.observer.com/5203/rage-mark-schroeder
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/69646/mr-schroeder-is-acros…

That's not to say that we should split the state, but we do need to make sure that funding for high priority projects and economic development money is distributed fairly, equitably and with oversight.

Brandon wrote: "The report studied the years 1997 to 2002 and found that Upstate cities received four billion-dollars more than they contributed whereas Upstate rural areas received two billion-dollars more than they contributed."

My point exactly. The revenue (beyond what they contributed) comes from Westchester, Nassau Counties and NYC.

New York State's GDP for 2008 was $1.264 trillion. New York City: $1.129 trillion. Do the math.

In my very humble opinion, the problem is the imbalance of power in the legislature between upstate and downstate. A good idea is one that Howard Owens put out here a while ago: Re-making the Senate over to have 1 Senator for each county, that would balance the power out better. Then let's cut the assembly in half, by doubling the population represented by Assemblymen & make them full-time positions at the same pay they get now. Take away the parties' power to control who is on the ballot and the majority's power to control what gets brought up for votes by making both houses non-partisan and then the actual people(Dave Olsen)will begin to get representation. And save some money, and chase off, somewhat the opportunists who collect a state paycheck and practice law in this state at the same time.

Brandon, while I didn't read the whole study, it looks like to me even a bigger deficit regarding money expended versus taken in was in the Capitol District, Joe Bruno's area in those years. CM is right, we receive more than we pay upstate and have for a long time. The problem is we have not much say in how it is spent, NYC style programs don't work so well in Buffalo. Not to mention corruption, which has been a big part of NY politics since long before any of us have been around. A lot of that money spent was for pay-backs and favors, sold to us as "Economic Development" or such.

First of all - NYC should be it's own state!
Second - This would bill would definitely be stepping over boundaries. I do agree with the intent they probably had but like someone said above once you let them take our freedoms away, we won't get them back. All we need is for parent's to think about their children and not their addictions! I do smoke and I do have a child but there is no way in hell I would ever even think about smoking in my home or in my vehicle with my son. People who do this really have no consideration, love, or feelings for their children. I do also agree with someone else who said that children are more likely to be around smoke in a home than a car. I know people who have children and they chain smoke their entire house all day long with ashtrays everywhere and their entire house is yellow. DISGUSTING!

Just remember when they first started to ban smoking. First you could not smoke in an office unless the door was closed, you were by yourself and a window was open.
Then you could not smoke inside.
Then not within a certain number of feet of the building.
You were supposed to be able to smoke in restaurants and bars in designated areas. Then it was forbidden.
Then they started to ban it in parks and other public areas.
Slowly but surely as you gave up each little bit, they took more. They do not stop on their own.

I don't believe that this is an inane law when I personally suffer from the results of inhaling second hand smoke during my childhood. The asthma that I suffered with as a child has continued to plague me as an adult with chronic bronchitis added to the mix. When I catch a simple cold it is a long and expensive process. My purse always has a rescue inhaler and a steroid inhaler at the ready.

A car with the window rolled down a crack is not sufficient ventilation to protect young bronchial passages.

I have had bouts when I have spent hours in emergency rooms with nebulizer treatments and have needed expensive portable nebulizer's with time consuming treatments three or four times a day to keep the asthma under control.

I am so sensitive to smoke that I can't be in an enclosed space with a person with smoke on their clothing without it affecting me.

My dear mother often talks about how she wishes that she didn't smoke around us, but they just didn't know the effects back then. We know the effects now.

I say to the smokers -- smoke till your blue in the face -- but your habit should not infringe on any non smoker or any child.

Thanks Brandon. I knew someone would know the answer.

Why not make smoking illegal, instead of all these stupid laws about where you can smoke.

Frank, the answer is taxes. They make a ton of money taxing cigarettes. One of the paradoxes is that as they price cigarettes too high to afford anymore, they have to raise other taxes to pay for the spending they based on cigarette taxes.

Lorie - I do not dispute the good intent of the bill, but it I think that it's an overstep of governmental boundaries and is really nothing more than a money grab for the state. If they really wanted to do something about public health, instead of punishing people for smoking, they could institute a wholesale tobacco tax instead of a retail tobacco tax to raise revenue and require insurance companies to cover treatments to quit smoking. They could also stop imposing high taxes on cigars, which are not as unhealthy as cigarettes as you do not inhale the smoke deep into your lungs and are not smoked nearly with the frequency that cigarettes are.

I really do not see instituting fines/taxes as a means to improve public health. People will just pay the fines or taxes and continue what they were going to do anyway, even if that means punishing someone who is low income.

Like John said as well, they will not stop until you cannot smoke anywhere, or if you do, pay a fine. That is the whole point, you will not be able to smoke anywhere that is convenient and then you will be fined over and over. Bring back smoking/non-smoking sections in restaurants, allow people to smoke in bars (it's a bar, people smoke in bars, if you don't like to don't go to a bar) and set up designated smoking areas in parks rather than ban it outright.