Next unnecessary law will ban driving while eating candy

In a few weeks, California's new laws will take effect. Among them are laws that did not need to be passed.

The rhetorical question presents itself, "Why do lawmakers pass unneeded laws instead of putting their efforts into passing a constitutionally mandated budget by July 1?" The answer is because there are no consequences to lawmakers for flaunting their disregard for the state's constitution.

But I digress.

On July 1, the much ballyhooed hands-free cell phone law will give law enforcement officers something with which to keep themselves busy. This law did not need to be passed.

Don't get me wrong. People talking on cell phones while trying to drive are a hazard to society, but we did not need a cell phone law. We have traffic laws on the books about reckless driving. There are requirements for keeping a car under control and not being a danger to others who are using our roadways. Those laws are enforceable no matter what causes the distraction.

I don't like to see people paying more attention to their cell phones than the safe operation of their vehicles and to what other people are doing.

Of course, I am looking at these things with a jaundiced eye. I am not important enough to be tethered to a cell phone. If people want to get in touch with me, they can leave a message on my answering machine at home and I will return the call.

I own a cell phone and it is turned off, sitting in my pickup. I have a message on my phone, "Hi, this is Tony. I very seldom turn my phone on. If you want to leave a message, the next time I get stuck in traffic, get blocked by a train or have a flat tire, I will notice your message and return your call. I once did not turn on my phone for six weeks."

Let's get back to the subject of reckless driving. Drivers who talk on phones are not entertaining. Or maybe they are.

There is a road-trip game that has become very popular. The object of "Bluetooth, crazy or singing" is to decide whether a person is talking on a phone, talking to himself or singing along with a radio station.

A phone call, no matter the equipment being used, is a distraction that can be covered under existing laws.

While driving south on Highway 99, I saw a person ahead of me varying his speed and weaving back and forth in his lane. I immediately drew a wrong conclusion and was about to display my sign, "Hang up and drive," as I came alongside him. When I pulled up next to him, I noticed he wasn't talking on the phone but was trying to unwrap a candy bar.

Oh, no, I shouldn't have written that. Our lawmakers will get busy writing, arguing and passing the unneeded "Snickers law."

Belarmino, a Turlock resident, works at the Health Services Agency and is a chaplain with the Assemblies of God Disaster Response Task Force. E-mail him at RevTonyAG@aol.com.