<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iowa ban worse than I thought</title>
	<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1213.html</link>
	<description>Coffee, Cocktails &#38; More</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Grier</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1213.html#comment-350310</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Grier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1213.html#comment-350310</guid>
		<description>Or they could, you know, not force one preference on to the entire state. Nobody's proposing banning smoke-free patios.

I'm not opposed to cell phone driving bans in principle, but I'm not convinced it makes sense to single out cell phones. Changing radio stations, talking to another passenger, talking on a headset, eating, and lots of other activities also impair driving. Plus the ban needlessly forbids legitimate activity, like calling for directions when lost. I'd rather just see stricter enforcement of reckless driving instead of such a specific ban.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or they could, you know, not force one preference on to the entire state. Nobody&#8217;s proposing banning smoke-free patios.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not opposed to cell phone driving bans in principle, but I&#8217;m not convinced it makes sense to single out cell phones. Changing radio stations, talking to another passenger, talking on a headset, eating, and lots of other activities also impair driving. Plus the ban needlessly forbids legitimate activity, like calling for directions when lost. I&#8217;d rather just see stricter enforcement of reckless driving instead of such a specific ban.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AS</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1213.html#comment-350012</link>
		<dc:creator>AS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1213.html#comment-350012</guid>
		<description>True, why is that smokers are being "forced" to eat lousy food but non-smokers have a "choice" to stay home rather than go to smoking bars? It seems like in Iowa, smokers can "choose" not to smoke through dinner or "choose" to just stay home and smoke through their dinner all they'd like.

So how do you feel about cell phone bans while driving? CA just enacted one starting last week.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True, why is that smokers are being &#8220;forced&#8221; to eat lousy food but non-smokers have a &#8220;choice&#8221; to stay home rather than go to smoking bars? It seems like in Iowa, smokers can &#8220;choose&#8221; not to smoke through dinner or &#8220;choose&#8221; to just stay home and smoke through their dinner all they&#8217;d like.</p>
<p>So how do you feel about cell phone bans while driving? CA just enacted one starting last week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1213.html#comment-348757</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:34:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1213.html#comment-348757</guid>
		<description>Or they could, you know, not smoke at dinner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or they could, you know, not smoke at dinner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
