A few years ago, we reported that Georgia was trying to make it illegal for people to smoke in their car when children are present. Now it's New Jersey's turn, but it would include everybody.

Those cigars, pipes and cigarettes would become no-nos for drivers. Offenders would be stung with a fine of up to $250, under the measure, whose sponsor said it's designed more to improve highway safety than protect health.

Some states, including New Jersey, have considered putting the brakes on smoking while children are in the car. But none have gone for an outright ban on smoking while driving, according to Washington, D.C.-based Action on Smoking and Health, the country's oldest anti-tobacco organization.

Smokers, feeling like easy targets, say enough already. They argue they've been forced outside office buildings, run off the grounds of public facilities, and asked to pony up more in per-pack excise taxes when states feel a budget squeeze. . .

Assemblyman John McKeon, a tobacco opponent whose father died of emphysema, sponsored the legislation. He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, 1 percent were related to smoking.

Already smoking has been banned in Georgia, Florida, California, New York, Ireland, Norway, and New Zealand. Currently the bans only impact "public places", but they include private property like bars and restaurants. Successive steps will include private homes and cars, especially where children or employees might be present. Do you have a maid? You might soon need to decide between firing her and continuing your habit. Driving your kid to school? Better not be smoking while you do it.

Anti-smokers and pleasure police have been on the march for decades. They have taken the baby steps approach to pass increasingly restrictive bans on tobacco, with the ultimate goal of complete prohibition.

The Neo-temperance movement is bound to get their wish. A complete prohibition of tobacco products seems inevitable. The smokers just don't have the numbers to withstand the tyranny of majority rule. But a ban on tobacco won't mean cessation. Just like the underground establishments of the 1920s, some defiant bar and restaurant owners will refuse to enforce the ban. Indeed in places where there is already a ban in place, some restaurant workers are looking the other way rather than take on the role of the pleasure police.

Cigarettes may not be as popular as alcohol, but they are certainly more popular than illicit drugs. Throw in cigars and smokeless tobacco, and there are plenty of people around to violate what they view as a silly and unjust law. When criminals organize to meet that demand, lets just hope that we don't get caught in the crossfire.

Related articles:
Neo-Temperance takes control of Austin -- 05/10/2005
Lincoln tax revenue up in smoke with ban -- 04/19/2005
Houston, we have a problem -- 03/10/2005
Neo-temperance movement going after alcohol again -- 02/16/2005
Neo-temperance is inevitable, and doomed to fail -- 02/07/2005
1984: Fired for being a smoker -- 01/26/2005
Neo-temperance marches on -- 11/16/2004
Yet another smoking ban -- 11/04/2004
Temperance movement costing lives -- 01/26/2004
All your vices are belong to us -- 01/08/2004
The Unprotected Minority -- 08/19/2003
Pleasure Police, literally -- 10/22/2002