Queens to Ban Smoking in Cars

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

The New York Sun reports that Queens City Council member and the head of their environmental protection committee (who knew?) is about to introduce legislation to ban smoking in cars carrying minors. If James "James" Genaro gets his way, Queen's finest will soon be fining child-schlepping smokestacks between $200 to $400 for their first such offense, $500 to $1k for the second violation and between $1k and $2k for a third violation (provided all tickets are issued within a year of each other, and I have no idea why there's a range of fines). The move comes on the heels of a citywide ban on smoking in restaurants and clubs and similar vehicular anti-puffing legislation enacted in Rockland County. As for the right to privacy objection, Genaro was taciturn: "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."

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
4 of 15 comments
  • Kansei Kansei on Aug 15, 2007

    I want to stab any person who smokes in a car that I'm stuck behind on the highway or in traffic. I ride with all the windows open all the time (unless it's raining) and it makes me feel quite ill to drive behind someone who is smoking (almost as bad as driving behind all the idiot new yorkers (I'm @ school in NY, don't live here permanently) who think it's _ok_ to drive without cats.

  • Rpn453 Rpn453 on Aug 15, 2007

    Let parents make their own decisions about their childrens' welfare. kansei, are you saying you can actually see the smog forming in front of you, or are you actually talking about engines that aren't running well?

  • Steven Lang Steven Lang on Aug 15, 2007

    I would have no problem with this law. In fact, I would have no problem with approaching a fellow who is blasting loud music in his car with a kid in tow. Then again, I'm not the world's nicest man.

  • Ldbricker Ldbricker on Aug 16, 2007

    Since they are obviously too selfish to do what's right for the children they must be mandated to do so. It's too bad they can't put birth control into cigarettes so smokers couldn't reproduce. There is a definite difference between rights and privileges. Not being allowed to be STUPID in the presence of minors has nothing to do with one's rights although some will argue that stupidity is a right. " “Their right to privacy doesn’t extend so far as to poisoning kids.” This is exactly the sort of thing we should not pay the government to decide. I don’t smoke and I don’t think other people should smoke, but I think they can make that decision for themselves." " The problem with that thinking is they aren't deciding for themselves, they are deciding for the child(ren) who can't decide and must suffer with it. Idiots who smoke around others and think it's ok if the room is divided with a smoking section should have to sit in a bathtub of water in the no pissing zone while several others piss in the pissing zone at the other side of the tub. There's no difference with the flow of air and the flow of liquid in the tub. Only idiots think there is and that it's ok to have a "smoking section" when there's nothing but a few feet of space between the two. Children should NEVER have to be subjected to smokers but that will never happen. This is one step in the right direction. Period.