Driving Under the Influence of Tobacco

Those unhappy DCists who are battling a proposed prohibition on cigarettes in restaurants and taverns better not hit the high road for New Jersey unless they plan to pack picket signs. The "Liberty and Prosperity" state is considering a ban on smoking while driving.

As New Jersey resident John Cito put it:

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.

Even police chiefs in New Jersey are questioning the efficacy of such a law in preventing vehicular smoking, as the one-year-old ban against handheld cell phones hasn't deterred many drivers. Not to fear, New Jerseyites already seem at least as prepared as D.C. denizens to blow smoke back at the banners.

Comments

sage | July 25, 2005, 2:47pm | #

Actually I'm surprised we haven't arrived at this already.

isildur | July 25, 2005, 2:49pm | #

What in the fucking fuck is the rationale for this? Even the article acknowledges that only 1% of distraction-related accidents involve smoking.

You know what distracts me even more than smoking? EVERY OTHER GODDAMN THING IN MY CAR. I am distracted by hot chicks in nearby cars. Ban 'driving while hot'! I am distracted by the sun in my eyes as I drive west in the evenings. Ban 'driving while sunny'! I am distracted when I have no smokes left, and have to drive without 'em.

Hell with it, just ban driving.

Or admit this is bullshit anti-smoking nannyism, that lacks even the fig leaf of 'secondhand smoke', and that the real goal is to outlaw smoking altogether.

For fuck's sake, does anyone really want to *live* in the world the command-and-control types imagine? Does anyone really want to live in a world where everything any pressure group disapproves of is a criminal act?

joe | July 25, 2005, 2:50pm | #

Now this is just silly.

New Jersey also bans self service gas stations. WTF?

friendofliberty | July 25, 2005, 2:53pm | #

Fascism is proceeding quickly these days. First more and more searches in NY and NJ transit, then this. As well as tourists being searched and made to kneel at gun poin tin midtown manhattan.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/331264p-283131c.html
Bin ladin and al queda must be celebrating. They have won. The ineptness and panic on the part of western governments and media they have caused must exceed their expectations.

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 2:57pm | #

New Jersey also bans self service gas stations. WTF?

As a resident of the only other state in the union to do likewise, I'll second that 'WTF.'

Hakluyt | July 25, 2005, 3:00pm | #

Brain Courts,

When I lived in Oregon I got used to no self-service after a while. I sure do like pumping my own gas though.

drooling richard | July 25, 2005, 3:03pm | #

In the interest of appealling to their consitiuent's desire for safety and prosperity, I would think the New Jersey legisilators would focus their attention toward a ban on shark attacts at their beach resorts.

greg | July 25, 2005, 3:04pm | #

"His latest measure, co-sponsored by Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, comes on the heels of a proposal to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and the state's casinos.

The smoking while driving ban shifts the smoking debate to private property."

So this "shifts" the debate? I guess I didn't realize how many restaurants and bars the government actually owned that the other bans had been directed at?

Jennifer | July 25, 2005, 3:06pm | #

Joe and brian-
In all seriousness, I think the purpose is to provide jobs for people for whom gas-pumping is their only skill.

As for this no-smoking-in-cars business, along with let-us-check-your-bags-in-the-subway and let's-do-seatbelt-checks-on-the-road and let's-have-drunk-driving-checkpoints, the purpose is simple--fix things so that Americans no longer have any sort of right to be left alone by the authorities.

If this passes, then the next time I drive through New Jersey I will keep an UNLIT cigarette in my mouth the whole time, just to waste the cops' time.

Which reminds me--is this proposed ban for drivers only, or passengers as well?

Daniel | July 25, 2005, 3:07pm | #

I wouldn't reject this regulation out of hand. I think it is reasonable (1) if there is some empirical basis showing that smoking while driving is a safety hazard AND (2) whether such a regulation could be effectively and fairly enforced.

Based on the experience so for the ban on using cell phones while driving I suspect that the anwer to both questions is no. However, ensuring safe roads - to the extent practicable - is one of those areas where state power is necessary. So I'm less skeptical about this, than I am with most other regulations.

zach | July 25, 2005, 3:15pm | #

jennifer, i hear they're going to ban smoking for everyone in the car, due to the fact that secondhand smoke negatively affects the health of all of the occupants of the car, who naturally are incapable of finding forms of transportation that do not involve sitting in a car with smokers.

Shawn | July 25, 2005, 3:18pm | #

The problem isn't that smoking is distracting drivers.

The problem is that ANYONE can drive a car. A lot of people lack the focus/concentration to drive a car safely. If it's not cigarettes, the stero, a cellphone, a 52 ounce ice coffee or eating a 5-piece dinner from KFC, those same idiots are going be distracted by the lines in the road or the clouds above.

Captain Awesome | July 25, 2005, 3:18pm | #

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call bullshit Daniel. Bars that are in states that don't ban smoking and choose not to allow smoking on their own don't need cops patroling them to enforce their own rules. If a toll road owner saw smoking in cars as a big enough liability to offset the cost of private security they would. But I don't think it really is a problem, and this is just poking and proding at your private life for the sake of fucking with you.

Jennifer | July 25, 2005, 3:23pm | #

this is just poking and proding at your private life for the sake of fucking with you.

Speaking of which, New York isn't just searching the bags of subway riders anymore, but also bus passengers, ferry passengers, and the riders of the New Jersey commuter trains. Because, you know, if we're allowed to go through our daily routines without being hassled by the cops then THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!

joe | July 25, 2005, 3:23pm | #

Hold it, hold it, hold it!!!

This is important.

Shawn, WHERE can you get a 52 ounce iced coffee?

joe | July 25, 2005, 3:24pm | #

If the cops tell me I need to drop my 52 ounce iced coffee, I don't care what they're pointing at my head, I'm jumping the turnstiles.

Jennifer | July 25, 2005, 3:26pm | #

If they do shoot you, Joe, you have my solemn word that I'll go on Hit and Run and post that this incident, while regrettable, is nonetheless necessary to keep us safe.

Fabius Maximus | July 25, 2005, 3:27pm | #

As a smoker and native of South Jersey ...

I prefer not to pump gas myself in February but the law was put in as a way to keep up prices. New Jersey, because of our many refineries and small size, has very inexpensive gas, no self-serve helps to bump the price a little higher. (And your surprised that service station owners can influence state law?)

The only time I'm distracted while smoking is when I drop the damn thing in the car. That's annoying and sometimes painful.

Anti-smoking, fat epidemics and Kelo are all of the same piece. Many people just can't stand it when their neighbors make the "wrong" decisions and are not shy about compelling them to make the "right" decisions. With us right now it's a tiresome, therapeutic compulsion. In other places and times the compulsion has been fatal to many.

And people mock slippery slope arguments. If it works in the car, why not in a house?

KipEsquire | July 25, 2005, 3:28pm | #

Note that the sponsoring politician, despite being a vocal anti-smoking crusader, insists that the measure is based on "traffic safety" rather than "health concerns."

Which makes you wonder he doesn't propose banning motorcycles, which have a far higher accident rate than "smokers in cars."

zach | July 25, 2005, 3:33pm | #

everyone please stop proclaiming that "the terrorists have won". last time i checked, the world wasn't under the control of a massive islamic theocracy, israel still existed and there was still a U.S. military presence in the mideast.

they don't give a shit about what freedoms we do or don't have, we do. err, should.

joe | July 25, 2005, 3:34pm | #

How about if we just give the police, as well as private citizens, the authority to beat the living crap out of people who empty their ashtrays out the window?

Jennifer | July 25, 2005, 3:37pm | #

Zach--
I am merely quoting our wise President, who said that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, and that the loss of our freedom is the terrorists' victory. And since we're losing freedom at a dizzying pace, then either the terrorists are winning or the President was full of shit. Which is clearly an impossibility.

jane | July 25, 2005, 3:44pm | #

And since we're losing freedom at a dizzying pace, then either the terrorists are winning or the President was full of shit.

The president is being successful at stopping terrorism. We have gone to war with Iraq in order to ensure our freedoms from terrorists. We are freer now than ever. Let freedom ring.

Mr. F. Le Mur | July 25, 2005, 3:48pm | #

"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the
good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It may be better to live under robber barons than
under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us
without end, for they do so with the approval of
their consciences."

Thus spake C.S. Lewis.

Native NYer | July 25, 2005, 3:48pm | #

I've read about the cops on the subways too, but there weren't any at my station this morning or on Friday. There was one cop there Thursday afternoon but not checking bags, just standing around. I understand that it's a small station, but you could bring in a bazooka and no one would look twice at you. And after you're on the subway no one (besides other passengers) looks at you. btw, there's a precinct house right downstairs.

I think they're only at the big stations, such as Penn Station and Times Square and Bowling Green for the tourists. It's all about the photo ops and overtime.

Jennifer | July 25, 2005, 3:49pm | #

Jane, seriously, give it up. And say hi to Juanita before you do.

Adam | July 25, 2005, 3:57pm | #

Daniel: you underestimate how easy it is to "empirically" "find" a link between a behavior and an outcome (as opposed to empirically manufacturing the link).

It's a matter of defining dependent and independent variables to suit your purpose, and then watching those important details disappear when the story hits the 6 o'clock news, never to return in the course of the ensuing political debate.

Lowdog | July 25, 2005, 4:00pm | #

I like that CS Lewis quote...

Crushinator | July 25, 2005, 4:00pm | #

Jane,

I have enjoyed many laughs reading your posts. Witty, biting sarcasm.

But wait, the thought haunts me that you might actually be sincere in your comments. Which is it? Could you set me straight?

Randolph Carter | July 25, 2005, 4:03pm | #

Crushinator,

I believe Jane is a doppelganger

Randolph Carter | July 25, 2005, 4:04pm | #

in the service of Queen Doppelpoppoulus

Timothy | July 25, 2005, 4:04pm | #

I lived in Oregon for years, grew up there, didn't have to pump my own gas until I moved to Texas. I love, absolutely love, pumping my own gas.

Jennifer mentioned upthread that the intent of the law is employing the useless...erm...unskilled; but as far as I know the intent of the Oregon law was protecting Ma&Pa full-service stations from the larger chains back in the day as well as purported "environmental" concerns. Right, because the drop-out filling my tank is SO much less likely to spill any gas.

In any case, I doubt it really has much of an effect on employment: most gas stations still hire the same 2-3 minimum wagers that gas stations elsewhere do, but gas is 20-30 cents more expensive per gallon, and you wait 15 minutes to get your tank filled.

Nine times out of ten the little jerks don't even have the decency to wash your windshield for you, so you've got to climb out of the car to do that. That's a damn pain in the ass.

Oregon: The only state where you may be prescribed heavy doses of barbituates to kill yourself, but you can't pump your own gas because that would be way too dangerous.

Adam | July 25, 2005, 4:05pm | #

I think they're only at the big stations, such as Penn Station and Times Square and Bowling Green for the tourists. It's all about the photo ops and overtime.

Wait, are you saying that this is a waste of time and money, and that any terrorist with the mental capacity of Terri Schiavo circa February can figure out a way around it? Oh my!

Seems to me that most of the terror-bombings this year (which tend to take place in Iraq) have involved vehicle-borne explosives. Same with Egypt (and that is a repressive police state) last week.

Any bets on how long it will be before random searches of automobiles are OK'd?

"Is that smoke I smell in here? Were you smoking while you were driving, son?"

Professional Pot Smoking Driver (PPSD) | July 25, 2005, 4:06pm | #

I guess the smoking ban will help to identify the pot smokers that drive while inhaling. Its not like we are fully law abiding citizens to begin with. No amount of government terrorists will keep us from our personal freedoms.

Native NYer | July 25, 2005, 4:18pm | #

No random searches. I go to the museum of natural history a couple of times a year, and it must must be on the top of every terrorist's list of targets because every car is searched, every trunk is opened, or else no admittance. Then to get in you have to empty your bags and go through a metal detector. This with three kids under 8, all Irish with freckles and one with red hair.

I can't imagine what they make middle eastern visitors go through!!!

Jozef | July 25, 2005, 4:24pm | #

His latest measure, co-sponsored by Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, comes on the heels of a proposal to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and the state's casinos.

The smoking while driving ban shifts the smoking debate to private property.

Funny; I didn't know that the bar in Morristown I've been frequenting for seven years was state-owned...

rst | July 25, 2005, 4:27pm | #

Hahahah fucking jersey morons.

Mo | July 25, 2005, 4:27pm | #

How about if we just give the police, as well as private citizens, the authority to beat the living crap out of people who empty their ashtrays out the window?

Sure, but if someone says I can't smoke while driving, they're going down!

On a separate note, I think it's hilarious when my passengers complain about how my smoking while driving affect their health, but don't say anything when I pop the top down and they're bombarded with the healthy emissions of the surrounding vehicles.

WLC | July 25, 2005, 4:28pm | #

For what it's worth, I remember seeing a letter in the Galesburg (IL) newspaper from a local sheriff. He accused Illinois State Police District 14 of harassing the people of Warren County (based on his observations and complaints to his office).

District 14's response was predictable: "Click it or ticket is a valuable tool in blah blah thank the Warren County Sheriff's Office for discussing this matter publiclly blah blah safe highways."

I'm waiting to see how much hell Warren County's sheriff, his deputies, and the county's people will catch.

R. McMillan | July 25, 2005, 4:35pm | #

Although Fabius Maximus goes all around robin's red barn trying to avoid it, the fact is gas is cheaper in Jersey.

Who the hell needs self service gas stations?

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 4:39pm | #

Oregon: The only state where you may be prescribed heavy doses of barbituates to kill yourself, but you can't pump your own gas because that would be way too dangerous.

Let's not forget - and now the only state where you need a prescription to get a box of Sudafed.

Native NYer | July 25, 2005, 4:53pm | #

One thing about jersey, you can still smoke in the bars!

Chuck | July 25, 2005, 4:54pm | #

The only problem I've ever had with smoking in the car was this one time when a seed exploded and showered my lap with burning embers. I now clean my stuff much more carefully.

joe | July 25, 2005, 4:58pm | #

Man, that gag never gets old.

Rhywun | July 25, 2005, 5:04pm | #

At least it's not Utah - the only state where you need an invitation to go out for a beer.

Rhywun | July 25, 2005, 5:07pm | #

One thing about jersey, you can still smoke in the bars!

I can't believe they haven't "taken care of that" yet.

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 5:09pm | #

Who the hell needs self service gas stations?

Um, I do. Besides, who are you to decide whether other people can pump their own gas? But seriously, I've waited in many a line here in Oregon and one bad one in New Jersey (made the mistake of running low on the turnpike heading back to DC after a holiday weekend in NY... the line at the pumps was at least 5 cars by about 8 lines with what looked like only two employees fueling). When I lived in the DC area I never had a problem with waiting for more than a single car. Self serve is faster, more convenient and should be nobody's but the station owner's and car owner's business.

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 5:24pm | #

But yes, growing up here I've heard the debate over legalizing self-serve gas many times. The ironic thing, I suppose, is that the people of Oregon keep voting down every attempt to allow it - so it's not the idiots in Salem (though plenty of those there are - see Sudafed issue) who are solely responsible for this. The arguments raised by the opponents run the gamut from silly to irrelevant.

Safety. Never mind that the vast majority of Americans pump their own gas without self-immolation. Oregonians are too inept it appears to handle this complicated task safely.

Senior-citizens. They claim that it wouldn't be fair to make some little old lady get out to pump her own gas in the middle of winter with rain pouring and wind blowing. Of course when they added a provision that would require an attendant to pump your gas if you requested it, that was denounced because stations would clearly charge more for this service which wouldn't be fair to said little old lady.

Environmental. As Timothy pointed out above, this is silly. I fully expect people to be more careful fueling their own car.

Employment. Yes, Jennifer is right in that this argument is always raised as well. We need to prevent people from fueling their own vehicles as some sort of make-work program for the skill-challenged.

Competition. Timothy is also right in the Mom and Pop versus Big Oil argument being raised against self-serve. Again, whether or not this is true, we don't need a make-business program for Mom's and Pop's funded by higher fuel prices anymore than we need a make-work program for dropouts.

At any rate, if any of these social policy reasons were truly valid, they could always just tax us and hand these deserving individuals the money. Then they could get the hell out of the way and let us pump our own goddamned gas.

Ok, end of rant / thread jack... (for now) :)

s.a.m. | July 25, 2005, 5:31pm | #

Brian-

You have a good point. There are few roadside gas stations in Oregon along I-5 I absolutely refuse to stop at. The lines and wait times are downright ridiculous. Some of these poor gas pump jockeys even go as far as pulling power trips on you. If you look in anyway inconvienenced or aggitated, they'll slow down, allow other people to pay first and pump yours last.

Happy Jack | July 25, 2005, 6:23pm | #

now the only state where you need a prescription to get a box of Sudafed

Wow. And I thought Michigan was bad.

Shawn Smith | July 25, 2005, 7:09pm | #

Native NYer,

I guess you've forgotten about the Irish Republican Army. As someone who has more Irish ancestry than any other, with blonde hair and green eyes, I get a little nervous when I hear talk about, "locking up the terrorists."

Thankfully we haven't heard about them recently, at least about any violent acts.

Native NYer | July 25, 2005, 7:23pm | #

Shawn,

At least we have that going for us!

mudfoot | July 25, 2005, 7:50pm | #

Something Calling itself "Timothy" emitted:

is employing the useless...erm...unskilled;

I used to pump gas for $5/hr or thereabouts in Portland, Oregon. Fuck you--you've obviously never worked a day in your life. Maybe Howard Dean wasn't so far off the mark, eh?

crimethink | July 25, 2005, 7:57pm | #

While I'm totally against outlawing self-serve, I must admit that people in general are careless as hell when pumping gas.

Part of the complex I manage is a very busy gas station, and I can attest that we have to clean up gas spills (though usually small ones) many times each day. Even more infuriating is that the same people turn around and try to blame us for having pumps that "don't stop". At which point I'd love to inform them that, 99% of the time, they don't stop because:

-- You pulled the handle out while still squeezing the handle
-- You (illegally) put a gas cap in the handle so you could sit in your car for 90 seconds
-- When the auto shutoff kicked in to stop the pump, you pulled it out just a little before squeezing the handle so you could pump that crucial extra 0.1 gallon into your tank.
-- The side of your vehicle with the gas tank was not facing the pump, so you stretched the hose across your vehicle and held the handle upside down, thus defeating the auto shut-off mechanism.

Unfortunately, our "customer is boss" philosophy prevents me from doing this unless they make unreasonable demands. I've also seen people attempt to:

-- Fill glass jugs with gasoline
-- Fill kerosene cans with gasoline (?!)
-- and yes, smoke while pumping gasoline (!!!)

So, there is something to the customer incompetence (and more importantly, customer unaccountability) argument.

crimethink | July 25, 2005, 8:02pm | #

Though it is quite fun filing our mandatory reports to DHS on transactions of over 100 gallons of gasoline (usually landscapers with trailers full of lawn equipment). To avoid the hassle, I usually advise them to pump at several different pumps to avoid going over that limit. Which is, I'm sure, very illegal.

Serafina | July 25, 2005, 8:13pm | #

I will confess to occasional incompentence in pumping. I once drove off with the hose still inserted in my gas tank. And I once doused my sneaker with gasoline when overfilling a can. I'm highly distractible. I'd make a horrible gas station attendent.

crimethink | July 25, 2005, 8:46pm | #

Serafina,

That's actually not so bad, however embarrassing it may be, since gas hoses are typically held together by "breakaways" which shut off the flow of gas when they break, so no gas is spilt.

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 8:50pm | #

So, there is something to the customer incompetence (and more importantly, customer unaccountability) argument.

Ok, come to think of it that doesn't surprise me at all. I mean I've seen people backing up on a freeway because they missed an exit, so stupidity pumping gas is to be expected (and no, I don't mean your incident of forgetfulness, Serafina - we all have those :) ).

So I retract what I said about customers being careful and instead I will say it is an issue between the station and the customer. If a station decides it's not a good idea to allow self-serve that's one thing, but it is no business of the state.

biggus dickus | July 25, 2005, 9:00pm | #

there is no more telling example of our civilization's rush towards gesellshaft attitudes than the dominance of pay at the pump, self serve gas stations. a medieval traveler typically exchanged greetings with those he passed on the road, and shared stories and company with those in the common room of the inn at which he slept. nowadays, we cannot even be bothered to interact with a service station attendant who pumps our gas, or even accepts our payment.

indeed, it is possible to drive from coast to coast without exchanging a single word with another human being. as you here would argue, the market has spoken, and what it is saying is that we prefer to be a nation of isolated individuals. what this ignores, however, is the deep desire of all people to be needed. no doubt such highly intelligent and skilled folks as those who frequent these fora feel needed, but what about the gas station attendant whose help you so blithely refuse? what about his feelings? must everything revolve around your own convenience?

mudfoot | July 25, 2005, 9:05pm | #

snicker snicker said:

...but what about the gas station attendant whose help you so blithely refuse? what about his feelings?

He hates his job. And he thinks his customers are morons. But he likes washing windshields of cars with busty drivers. Can't go wrong there.

Lowdog | July 25, 2005, 9:11pm | #

biggus - yeah, well, back in medieval times, you had to interact with people because you were frickin' walking, so you could.

When I buy something at the gas station, I'm usually quite amicable and will even make a few quips to the attendant. Share stories? No.

Anyway, I know this is a humourous shot at gaius, but I'd thought I'd share my thoughts, just so I don't come across as an isolated individual who's only concerned for his own convenience.

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 9:18pm | #

Mr. dickus,

LMAO. One of the funniest damn things I've read on here in a while. The best part is that the parody is so close to reality that if you had signed a certain frequent commenter's name I'm not sure I would have known it was a joke. Do I detect a thoreauian sense of humor here? I hate to not give credit where credit is due so will the real biggus dickus please stand up, so to speak. ;)

tsiroth | July 25, 2005, 9:21pm | #

To jack the thread back to the original subject =)

I drove a taxi in a midwestern college town for two years. You can still smoke in a taxi here. Cab drivers around here typically are managing a soda or coffee, a cigarette, the music radio, and the business radio (CB type radio) while driving. The business radio is way more distracting than a cigarette. The dispatchers can get mighty testy if they don't get an IMMEDIATE response from a driver. And way more distracting than that: The screaming drunks we hauled home every night after the bars closed.

So by all means, ban smoking while driving for safety reasons, right after you ban radio dispatching, cell phone dispatching, transportation of children, and transportation of drunks.

biggus dickus | July 25, 2005, 9:22pm | #

this is a humourous shot at gaius

or perhaps, mr lowdog, another fellow who has become fed up with our me first culture. the lack of capitalization is no meaningless quirk, but rather a means to avoid having "i" stand out, as we english speakers, alone in the west, are fond of doing. for after all, "i" am no more important than "you", so why should the name "i" be taller than that of "you" and even "we"?

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 9:25pm | #

I hate to not give credit where credit is due so will the real biggus dickus please stand up, so to speak. ;)

But, I apparently do hate to not split infinitives :)~

tsiroth | July 25, 2005, 9:26pm | #

I live in a state that recently banned OTC sales of Sudafed. You don't need a prescription (yet) but you can only buy it from a pharmacy. So if you need a decongestant in the middle of the night, you're screwed if there's no 24 hour pharmacy close by.

Not only that, but you have to show ID (you have to be 18 to buy it now) and sign for it, and there's a limit of 7500 mg a month. So if your whole family takes pseudoephedrine to help with allergy problems, you have to go to 3 different pharmacies to get enough for everybody (which, btw, is illegal, but I've heard of more than one pharmacist telling people to go to another pharmacy).

The recommended dosage is 30mg every 4 to 6 hours, no more than 120mg in 24 hours. If you have 3 people in the house taking 3 doses (90mg) a day for a month, you will easily exceed 7500mg, however it is illegal for one person to purchase that quantity.

hey, but at least i get to interact with my local pharmacist.

crimethink | July 25, 2005, 9:31pm | #

Actually, I think biggus brings up an interesting topic here. How much of a part did the English capitalization of the first person singular pronoun play in the much more rapid acceptance of individualism amongst English-speaking peoples?

overwrought | July 25, 2005, 9:36pm | #

modernity has mixed a potion consisting of subjective measures, physical comfort, materialistic philosophy, humanistic morality, and relativistic religion. the cauldron wherein the concoction bubbles and boils is the modern nation-state on the way to joining a global pan-sovereignty. fueling the fire that keeps the broth simmering is an all-pervasive, ever faster, inescapable encroachment of technology.

what hath man wrought?

lurker jack | July 25, 2005, 10:05pm | #

Just a query for the group:

Has anybody here ever ridden with someone that really wanted a smoke and there wasn't one to be had? That would seem to me to be a bit more dangerous..

Brian Courts | July 25, 2005, 10:27pm | #

Has anybody here ever ridden with someone that really wanted a smoke and there wasn't one to be had? That would seem to me to be a bit more dangerous..

I have because I don't let anyone smoke in my car. I would agree abut the distraction too; they were quite aggitated and unhappy with my 'smoking ban.' :)

bigbigslacker | July 25, 2005, 11:32pm | #

I've gone camping with people who apparently thought ranger Rick was going to come around and sell them a pack. Annoying - we had to go for a drive in the middle of "roughing it". (these same friends also thought they were going to stay three days in a managed state park, for free. Lol, good thing someone brought more than cigarette money!)

Stephen | July 26, 2005, 1:15am | #

As a typical Jersey moron, I'll confess to a guilty affection for the full-serve fascism of my fair state. Chalk it up to brainwashing, technical incompetence, or sheer abject laziness, but every time I cross the border it's something of a rude awakening: what, they expect me to pump MY OWN gas?

Fabius Maximus | July 26, 2005, 1:16am | #

I was not try to avoid that fact. It is cheaper. I was just saying why we had the law and that I actually prefer not to pump my own gas when it's flippin' cold.

Of course I'll never forgive Florio for the seatbelt law.

dead_elvis | July 26, 2005, 1:53am | #

I go to Oregon for 5 weeks every summer on business, and to make an intellectual argument of it, that no-self-serve thing is unadulterated bullshit, on every level.

Fortunately, since I'm always there with out of state plates, if service is excruciatingly slow, I just feign ignorance and get out of my car and start doing it myself. That gets an attendant over to my car REAL fast.

As Reason says, it's all about Choice. Put a regular station on one corner, and self-serve on another, and let them charge what they will. And see who wins.

dead_elvis | July 26, 2005, 2:10am | #

I should have said, see if they don't both thrive, since some will prefer one and some will prefer the other, in all likelihood.

Ron Hardin | July 26, 2005, 5:51am | #

The AP story has an important detail :

"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.

That is financial-planner rebellion : some change in lease payments.

Phil | July 26, 2005, 6:10am | #

How much of a part did the English capitalization of the first person singular pronoun play in the much more rapid acceptance of individualism amongst English-speaking peoples?

Objection! Assumes facts not yet in evidence.

Serafina | July 26, 2005, 9:52am | #

>Put a regular station on one corner, and self-serve on another, and let them charge what they will. And see who wins.

They both do in my neighborhood, as you suspected. We quaintly have both, and their gas prices are roughly similar.

James | July 26, 2005, 10:23am | #

About a year ago I spent almost a half hour at a Southern Mississippi self-service station shooting the shit with the old coot owner. We talked about Nascar, bootlegging in North Georgia, the gas business, the weather,I thought I'd never get out of there. So, big D is wrong about his civilation is doomed by self-service crap.

James | July 26, 2005, 10:24am | #

civilization, that is.

speedwell | July 26, 2005, 1:07pm | #

"for after all, "i" am no more important than "you", so why should the name "i" be taller than that of "you" and even "we"?"

Do you intend to place your personal opinions above the accepted grammar of the English language? Just who do you think you are, buddy? What kind of humility is that? Accept the status quo, and don't let us hear you making any more of those reformist noises.

;)

Mike | July 27, 2005, 11:21am | #

I think the only purpose for this law is to increase the state's revenue. Unfortunately smoking has become such a taboo in this country that politicians have public support for any anti-smoking law regardless of its rationale. I also heard that you have to be pulled over for something else in order to get the fine, however, when you get pulled can't just put the cigarette out and just deny that you were smoking to begin with? This law is ridiculous.