Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Your misleading thread title disappointed me.

That being said, lit cigarette butts do pose a public safety hazard in dry conditions. I think a felony for a lit cigarette butt is pretty harsh though. A felony for an unlit cigarette but is absolutely ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,055 Posts
Yep. I was riding with a buddy years ago when a woman flicked a butt out her window and hit him right in the face. He didn't smoke but yelled at me to light him one at the next light. He leaned right into her open window, flicked it into the seat next to her, and said "I thought you might want this back". She went crazy trying to find that lit cigarette and held up traffic forever.
 

·
Florist
Joined
·
20,207 Posts
Felony butt flicking?
Damn, I thought this was a followup thread about why women wear high heels to walk like giraffes, part duex.
 

·
Drop those nuts
Joined
·
9,539 Posts
It is a very serious issue anywhere forest or grass fires are likely.
Damn right.

Every time we have a major forest fire started by careless smokers it costs us a lot more then 25000 bucks to put it out, and sometimes people die in the process. In rural Arizona, entire towns can be put danger of burning down because of careless butt flicking.

25 grand is probably too cheap if you ask me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,914 Posts
Florida has had a law like that for many years under the "wildland protection"banner. I have personally used it to go 10-15.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,206 Posts
Why even bother, chances are it will not be enforced, and probably wasn't enforced before.

Mandatory $500 fine each offense, no plea to a lesser charge, no nol pross with conditions, no special treatment. Charge $500 each offense and forget the felony BS that wont be enforced anyway.

Rant off...I work in a jurisdiction that throws DUI, PI's, Public Urination, and Public Consumption cases out like confetti at a wedding. Then they fuss that we aren't doing our job and the students have made downtown a urine soaked mad house.

I hate more laws for show when the ones we already have aren't enforced and prosecuted worth a crap.
 

·
IWannaBeSedated
Joined
·
11,448 Posts
Whatever. It'll get used as a convenient pretext for something better.

Honestly, and I don't mean to be a dick, but it seems like whenever I see someone throwing a butt out the car window it's a city police car in the town where I live.
 

·
Cranky Member
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
Damn right.

Every time we have a major forest fire started by careless smokers it costs us a lot more then 25000 bucks to put it out, and sometimes people die in the process. In rural Arizona, entire towns can be put danger of burning down because of careless butt flicking.

25 grand is probably too cheap if you ask me.
Yea. All those damn forest fires in Illinois are such a problem.

Felonies for everyone!

Farting (methane) contributes to Global Warning. Anyone caught farting a third time - give them a felony!

What's next? How about a 5 cent tax on plastic water bottles. You know those bottles are a danger to the environment. Plastic soda bottles exempt. Those soda bottles are safe.

Yeah I know, that last one is too stupid to even consider.
Wait! It is true. Chicago does indeed tax bottled water but not other bottled beverages. Crazy.
 

·
Drop those nuts
Joined
·
9,539 Posts
Yea. All those damn forest fires in Illinois are such a problem.

Felonies for everyone!

Farting (methane) contributes to Global Warning. Anyone caught farting a third time - give them a felony!

What's next? How about a 5 cent tax on plastic water bottles. You know those bottles are a danger to the environment. Plastic soda bottles exempt. Those soda bottles are safe.

Yeah I know, that last one is too stupid to even consider.
Wait! It is true. Chicago does indeed tax bottled water but not other bottled beverages. Crazy.


I think you forgot to accuse me (in keeping with GT tradition) of being a nanny-state, lib-tarded, welfare-sponging, food-stamp-eating, anti-2A, big-business-profit-hating, free-Obama-phone-using, anti-sport-hunting, pro-sympathy-for-criminals, across-the-board-democratic-voting, anti-self-reliance, wantin'-the'gubment-to-hold-hands-with-me, supporter-of-atheistic-policies, who should have been thrown in jail right after the Scopes trial because I still believe in evolution.


But good luck in your efforts to equate concern over loss of human life and property with an anti freedom political agenda.:wavey:
 

·
Drop those nuts
Joined
·
9,539 Posts
Why even bother, chances are it will not be enforced, and probably wasn't enforced before.

Mandatory $500 fine each offense, no plea to a lesser charge, no nol pross with conditions, no special treatment. Charge $500 each offense and forget the felony BS that wont be enforced anyway.

Rant off...I work in a jurisdiction that throws DUI, PI's, Public Urination, and Public Consumption cases out like confetti at a wedding. Then they fuss that we aren't doing our job and the students have made downtown a urine soaked mad house.

I hate more laws for show when the ones we already have aren't enforced and prosecuted worth a crap.
I agree enforcement and the lack of it is a problem, and it should be more consistent. In AZ, the way it works, is that we wait until after an expensive fire happens and then we enforce on the guilty butt flicker with extreme force, but seldom at any other time. On one occasion they charged a butt flicker with murder because a pilot crashed his plane while dropping water on a fire, but that charge was later dropped.

Just like drunk driving. When their crash victims by some miracle escape unhurt, we slap the most habitual repeat offender drunks on the wrist, fine them 50 cents, and that's all. But if by coincidence a guy kills someone, even if his BAL is only .080000001, and it's the first offense of his lifetime and he honestly didn't know he was legally drunk, then we send him up the river like he's the guy behind a terrorist attack. It makes no sense.

Punishment should be based on the intentions of the offender, and not on the coincidental outcome of the events.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,595 Posts
This is actually a lot like a new city ordinance that we just had proposed (I don't think it's passed yet) regarding pedestrians walking in the street rather than on the sidewalk. It'll be a good tool for police to use, but it won't be 100% enforced. Basically I can only see the tickets being written if it happens directly in front of the cop, and even then there's a fair chance it will be a warning.


That said, the butts are disgusting. They're all over the place. Take little kids to a parade, you have to watch what they're picking up when they're going after candy. They wash down the gutters when it rains. I hope it gets some enforcement, anyway.


Also, as a quick note: It's not a new law. This has been the littering law for a long while. This was a clarification of that law to make it clear that cigarette butts - lit or not - are considered litter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,961 Posts
About time.
 

·
Wayward Member
Joined
·
5,249 Posts
I agree enforcement and the lack of it is a problem, and it should be more consistent. In AZ, the way it works, is that we wait until after an expensive fire happens and then we enforce on the guilty butt flicker with extreme force, but seldom at any other time. On one occasion they charged a butt flicker with murder because a pilot crashed his plane while dropping water on a fire, but that charge was later dropped.

Just like drunk driving. When their crash victims by some miracle escape unhurt, we slap the most habitual repeat offender drunks on the wrist, fine them 50 cents, and that's all. But if by coincidence a guy kills someone, even if his BAL is only .080000001, and it's the first offense of his lifetime and he honestly didn't know he was legally drunk, then we send him up the river like he's the guy behind a terrorist attack. It makes no sense.

Punishment should be based on the intentions of the offender, and not on the coincidental outcome of the events.
That is a mighty slippery slope leading to wonderful inventions like "hate crimes" where the perp's sentence is based on what the judge/jury thought his motivations were, instead of the fact that he killed someone. Why is a murder based on racism any more terrible than a murder by pushing your husband off a cliff? The vic is just as dead.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top