JFred,
NOX devices were add-ons which were supposed to rid the air of nitrous oxide (or something like that) and were mandated in 1974 or 1975. They were to be installed on a rotating basis, month by month, according to the last numeral on the vehicles' license plates. This was in effect for about seven or eight months, at about which time it was discovered that these devices, while ridding the skies of nitrous oxide, created another, perhaps more harmful brand of pollution. Installations were abruptly halted. However, the folk who had already been foreced to install them were forbidden to remove them from their vehicles, and some probably remain unto this day.
Somewhere back on this thread, I went into more detail about the NOX device debacle, offering it as a fine example on the mindless knee-jerk legislation which too frequently emits from Sacramento.
While we're on the subject, do you remember the catalytic converters, circa 1971, which had a tendency to catch on fire? In those days, I believe, only cars manufactured for use in California had to have them.
Just because you quit smoking is no reason to excuse yourself from the fight to stop a government taking of private property--which is what this newest anti-smoking law essentially boils down to. It should be left up to the property owner to decide what can and cannot be done on that owner's property.
The following is especially for the benefit of Christine who seems to think I object to the law only because I smoke. Christine, are you following along? <vbg>
It is a poorly written law, with enforcement provisions varying from county to county. In fact, there are no defined procedures for actual on-the-spot enforcement of this law, only provisions for punishment. It is a Health and Safety Code law. It may be a Labor Code law. In any event, it is NOT a Penal Code law. The individual businessperson is forced into the role of playing policeman, and this opens a whole 'nother can o worms, I think you will agree. Under the law as written, it is the businessperson who is punished/fined--NOT the smoker who may choose to violate this law.
Being a smoker, I have long been aware of the restaurants and bars which did not permit the smoking of anything anywhere within their four walls, with this decision being made by the business owner--and rightly so--not the government. We always did have a choice as to where to go and where not to go, and we smokers and nonsmokers coexisted in peace--each unto one's own preference. In my opinion, this law was unneeded and unwanted.
California stands to lose tourist and convention dollars as these factions choose other, more hospitable states in which to spend their money.
The law is due to be reviewed by the State Legislature and will surely be modified or (hopefully) rescinded, as it is that bad in its present state of legalese.
Please note: Were I a nonsmoker, my opinion as stated above would be no different.
Holly |
