For years now, I’ve been an on-again-off-again smoker. Since I don’t permit smoking in the house, whether I’m “on” or “off” smoking is dramatically affected by the weather. In the summer when we’re spending evenings grilling on the deck and swilling cocktails, I definitely smoke more. Come winter days like today, when it’s freaking cold outside, not so much. Yesterday, for instance, I had a total of three cigarettes while today I haven’t had a single one.

When asked why I continue to smoke despite the known health issues and expense, my answer is always the same: it’s saves me a fortune in legal fees by keeping my hands too occupied to wrap around other peoples’ necks.

That argument doesn’t fly in California, though, where the little town of Belmont has gone so far as to ban people from smoking in their own homes.

Not surprisingly, habitually health-conscious California has been ahead of the curve on the issue, with several other cities passing bans on smoking in most units in privately owned apartment buildings, but none has gone as far as Belmont, which prohibits smoking in any apartment that shares a floor or ceiling with another, including condominiums.

Oh, sure. I know some of you rabid non-smokers out there are no doubt applauding, particularly those of you living in apartments and condos who’ve had to deal with the smell of your neighbor’s cigarette smoke.

But just remember: first they came for the smokers. Piss enough of us off and you’re going to see smokers starting to call for legislation that makes it illegal for you to cook smelly food, wear cheap perfume, clump around in high heels on hardwood floors and sing along with your radio.

It’s no coincidence that ugly girls don’t work at Hooter’s. After all, the company’s employee handbook requires waitresses to maintain a “glamorous appearance” with hair that’s styled as if they’re going out on a big date or to a photo shoot.

So when 27-year-old Sara Dye’s “domestic partner” beat the crap out of her, leaving her with a black eye and bruises over her body along with a hunk of missing hair, managers where she worked at the Davenport Hooter’s said the waitress couldn’t work because of the bruising.

While Dye said the restaurant was supportive after the assault, and that she understood why her appearance rendered her ineligible to work since her “body wasn’t up to par”, she nevertheless sued.

And won.

A bus accident that killed seven people — five of them college baseball players — and injured another 28 was caused by confusing highway signs, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Investigators say the bus driver, who was killed in the crash along with his wife, thought he was remaining in an HOV lane when, in fact, he’d entered a highway exit ramp. Officials blame the state’s Department of Transportation for not following federal guidelines for exit signs which require pairing them together to make them more clear.

Although Georgia officials claim they’d never received complains about the highway’s self luminous exit signs before the wreck, police records reveal that three drivers had previously had wrecks at the same location.

As a result of this accident, the NTSB is now recommending that the Federal Highway Administration take action on a proposal to require more clear, consistent signs — such as photoluminescent exit signs elsewhere around the country.

Investigators, not surprisingly, maintain the bus driver himself was at least partially at fault despite having a good record and no signs of a medical condition or fatigue. “He simply missed what route guidance was available,” they’ve said, and as a result he didn’t know to slow down as he came up the exit ramp.

Perhaps Georgia out to take a page from the Kansas DOT and go with blue signs to help drivers distinguish exits from all the other crap mentioned on highway signs?

Earlier this month, California’s hands-free law went into effect. Drivers in the Golden State must now use Bluetooth headsets or similar devices to ensure their hands are available for driving. This measure, they’re being told, will save 300 lives per year. Most notably, the law’s backers say, it will protect teen drivers since they’ll be prohibited from talking on the phone at all while driving, even if they use a hands-free headset.

Except, of course, like all Nanny State legislation, this one also falls short of the mark. The law, for instance, does not prevent those teens from talking to their passengers and, really, how many teens drive around alone? It does not stop them from wearing Emo hair blocking at least half of their vision. Or from performing that ridiculous head bop that signifies they’re listening to music and which, really, is no different from the Night at the Roxbury head bop their parents perform except that it moves front-to-back and is, inevitably, accompanied by hip-hop music.

Nor does the law make it illegal to send, read or type text messages while driving. It does not even stop iPhone users from tapping away as they surf the net. Toyota Corolla owners can still use the touch-guided DVD navigation system to flip through their favorite songs. GPS addicts can stare at their screens as they navigate turn-by-turn, arguing with the dang thing whenever the system’s directions are blatantly wrong.

Got one of those in-dash car DVD players, too? No problem: it’s still legal for you to watch the Best of Hooters (2008) while motoring down I-9 (presumably with at least one hand still available).

But, hey, you’ll be safe from all those folks who gab incessantly over their cell phones now that they’ll be using Bluetooth accessories to ensure their hands are free to drive. Right?

Right???

When Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography that “I’ll know it when I see it,” he no doubt believed his fellow justices would share his discerning eye. Apparently, the chief judge in the 9th circuit does: the judge posted explicit adult images on his own website… while presiding over the obscenity trial of a Los Angeles adult filmmaker.

In an interview Tuesday with The Times, Kozinski acknowledged posting sexual content on his website. Among the images on the site were a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. He defended some of the adult content as “funny” but conceded that other postings were inappropriate.

Kozinski, 57, said that he thought the site was for his private storage and that he was not aware the images could be seen by the public, although he also said he had shared some material on the site with friends.

Judge Kozinski, known as a champion of 1st Amendment and free speech rights, described the material on his site as “odd and interesting” but said he does not consider it obscene. Among the images, a tranny’s striptease and contortionist sex, including a man performing oral sex on himself. Only users of his site (http://alex.kozinski.com/) who knew which subdirectory to type in were able to access the racy stuff. Everyone else would simply find his legal writings and articles. The site has since been taken down.

Kind of puts a whole new twist on the phrase “Here comes the judge,” doesn’t it?

Did you know that in some towns you need an “occupancy permit” to move into a home you’ve purchased? I didn’t, and apparently one unmarried couple in Black Jack, Missouri didn’t, either.

Worse yet, because the couple doesn’t meet the town’s definition of a “family” (the girlfriend has three children), they can’t move into the home they purchased.

A man, his girlfriend and her three children recently bought a house in Black Jack in north St. Louis County. But because Toi Pruitt and Joe Pulliam and the children don’t meet the town’s definition of a family, they couldn’t get an occupancy permit.

In 2006, Black Jack revised its definition of a family after initially refusing a permit for Fondray Loving, Olivia Shelltrack and their children. That family had filed a federal lawsuit.

The new ordinance allows unmarried couples as long as the children are related to both. None of the children are related to Pulliam.

The city attorney says he’s willing to fight for the ordinance in court.

(Read more about the Loving/Shelltrack lawsuit here.)

According to the city’s website, the occupancy permit exists to “enforces the city’s property maintenance code standards by requiring that an inspection be done to ensure that the house or apartment is safe for occupancy.”

The real irony? If the girlfriend had only one child they’d qualify under the city ordinance (Article V, Sec. 6-76(a))

Family…(3) A group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be related by blood, marriage, adoption or foster care relationship, living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit…

Can you say “arbitrary and capricious”?

I knew you could.

Lori Drew, the meddling mom who posed as a 13-year-old boy and cyber-bullied Megan Meier on MySpace until the girl committed suicide, has been indicted on federal charges.

Previously, prosecutors in Missouri — where Drew and Meiers both lived — had declined to press charges calling Drew’s actions because the state’s harassment law did not extend to the internet.

The indictment was filed in Los Angeles, where MySpace is located. The charges against Lori Drew are based on laws against computer hacking and is the first of its kind.

“We are in uncharted waters here,” University of Southern California law professor and former federal prosecutor Rebecca Lonergan told Reuters. “This case is unprecedented and it’s also a very aggressive charging decision.”

Lonergan said Drew was charged with accessing a protected computer to obtain information, a statute typically used against defendants who hack into government computers.

But the crime alleged doesn’t involve taunting Megan Meiers until she killed herself. Rather, it was Drew’s actions afterwards which may lead to her conviction.

Following Megan’s death, Drew had told law enforcement officers that she hadn’t created the account which had been used to torment Megan. Investigation revealed that the page had been created by a girl employed by Drew, but once the investigation commenced Drew accessed and deleted it herself. She then instructed the girl to “keep her mouth shut.”

If convicted, Drew could face 20 years in federal prison.

Reuse, repurpose, recycle: it’s a mantra we’re all hearing these days, whether we want to or not. And, while there are some who claim that all the hype over going green is just that — “hype” — most of us realize that it makes financial sense to reuse what you can, rather than shelling out for more stuff.

But when it comes to those Priority Mail boxes from the U.S. Post Office, that’s a big no-no. Not even if you strip off the labels. Not even if you turn the thing inside out and re-tape it before mailing, so that only the brown cardboard side shows. Such recycling might get you slapped with charges of “misusing postal service property” (even though you pay postage to mail it), as one Colorado man has recently learned.

“Our Priority Mail and Express Mail boxes are, bottom line, supposed to be used for that service,” said Nicole Reiter with the Postal Service. “That is what they are intended to be used for.”

The Postal Service said it promotes recycling, as long as customers pay accordingly, even if the box is turned inside out.

“It is important that the customer uses it for the proper service,” said Reiter. Reiter said customers sometimes order their priority and express mail boxes online and then try to use them standard mail. She said that makes it difficult for the USPS to determine which boxes are new or reused.

According to a Post Office spokesperson, the ban against recycling helps keep postal rates “low” for everyone.