Texting while driving, smoking target of '10 laws

[ccharles000]

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/9001/9903425/Texting_while_driving_smoking_target_of_10_laws/1

MADISON, Wis.— Texting while driving, smoking in public and cooking with artery-clogging trans fats will be that much harder under a bevy of state laws set to take effect around the country on Friday.

Faced with huge budget shortfalls and little extra money to throw around, state lawmakers exercised their (inexpensive) power to clamp down on impolite, unhealthy and sometimes dangerous behaviors in 2009.

Even toy guns were targeted.

Among the most surprising new laws set to take effect in 2010 is a smoking ban for bars and restaurants in North Carolina, the country's largest tobacco producer that has a history steeped in tradition around the golden leaf.

Starting Saturday _ stragglers get a one-day reprieve to puff away after their New Year's Day meals _ smokers will no longer be allowed to light up in North Carolina bars and restaurants. There are exceptions for country clubs, Elks lodges and the like, but the change is a dramatic one for North Carolina, whose tax coffers long depended on Big Tobacco.

Virginia approved a similar law that took effect Dec. 1, but it's more accommodating to smokers because it allows establishments to offer areas in which to light up as long as they have separate ventilating systems.

-A new Arkansas law prohibits retailers from selling toy guns that look like they real thing. But it may not have that big of an effect.

-California will be the first state to partially ban the use of artificial trans fats in restaurants in 2010, following several major cities and fast-food chains that have erased the notorious artery-clogger from menus.

-Fans of dog races will have to find another form of entertainment in Massachusetts, as the 75-year-old tradition has been outlawed starting Friday.

_ Teenagers going to a tanning bed in Texas will have to be accompanied by an adult.

_ Oregon employers are prohibited from restricting employees from wearing religious clothing on the job, taking time off for holy days or participating in a religious observance or practice.

_ The sale of "novelty" lighters _ devices designed to look like cartoon characters, toys or guns or that play musical notes or have flashing lights _ are banned in Nevada and Louisiana.

[virgogal]

1. Ya gotta love it. Thank god we have these politicians to take care of us.

We are all being infantilised.

[midnight armadillo]

3. you're in favor of texting while driving?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. It's a 3000 lb weapon. Hell yeah I want gov. to step in and ban it. I want 'em to go further and require that cell companies disable texting on moving phones. Too bad for the passengers.

[Skelly]

5. Personal responsbility

Ever hear of it? Great thing to teach the kiddos. Keep the effin government out of my personal life...including what I put into my body and what I wear.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. or lack of it............

[midnight armadillo]

7. I'm talking about texting while driving

and it should be banned due to the danger it poses to others and it has nothing to do your personal life. You need to send a text? PULL THE FUCK OVER.

[Skelly]

9. Other dangers to my life while driving...

Eating
Smoking
Listening to radio
Holding a conversation
Having children in the car

And I am sure there are many more. Each can pose a distraction that can lead to your car hitting mine.
I agree, no one should text while driving. This is why I drive defensively and am on the lookout for people who do these things. I still do not want the government having one more fingerhold into my behavior, or yours.

[Skelly]

4. echo

yep...one by one, we lose the freedom to do "harm" to ourselves. Damn, what is next? Are they going to take my sex swing away?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. But it isn't doing harm to yourself. It's doing harm to other people.

Texting while driving is incredibly dangerous to the other drivers on the road. If you are responsible enough not to do that, then great. I applaud you. But I see many many people that text and drive at the same time weaving in and out of traffic.

[Old Codger]

2. Oregon

Also went to hands free only cell phone while driving as of Friday , primary offense so you can be stopped just for that...

[MindPilot]

12. I've yet to be able to find someone who can explain how hands free is safer

than holding the thing up to your ear. You still have to look down to dial which is the dangerous part, when you're not looking out the window.

[Old Codger]

14. Not sure

I really am not sure, I have some thoughts on this whole thing. I do agree there is an element of being less dangerous to be hands free, in an emergency you at least do not have to decide what to do with the phone, but it seems to end there, anyone who would place more importance on their phone conversation than on doing the more important job of driving will be a danger regardless of hands free or not. Some are capable and some are not, Cd players, radios, kids in the car, eating, smoking, talking to passengers, especially in the back seat where they seem to thing they have to look at the passenger in order to converse, and I have even seen some reading while driving, are all as dangerous or in some cases more so. I talk quite often while driving, I use either a head set or a bluetooth, I also set my phone on auto answer , no hands required whatsoever, if I find it necessary to place a call I pulover to place the call,
I have no problem at all determining where my attention should be and can and have stopped a conversation in mid word to attend to that responsibility. The problem arises in that many people think they are ok and are not...

[lib2DaBone]

8. We put people in jail for 30 years for simple possession of Marijuana..

When someone is smoking a joint.. sitting in their living room.. minding their own business....how are they a "danger"?

Yet, someone who is operating a car or a bus or a commercial truck at 60 MPH and texting...is not a problem?

[MindPilot]

13. Not if they don't hit anything, they're not.

I'm opposed to all these risk-adverse prior restraint laws. If I crash and it can be shown that whatever I was doing whether it was texting or reading Atlas Shrugged caused or aggravated the crash then throw the book at me. But if I'm rolling down the freeway staying between the lines, leave me the fuck alone.

[MindPilot]

11. How does disapproval of laws regulating the minutiae of our lives

translate into approval of the activity?

I don't like having a law to tell me to wear my seat belt; that doesn't mean I think driving around without one is a good idea.