Writer believes cell phone use in cars may be unconstitutional

I am writing this letter in response to Ron Reich’s assertion in a letter to the editor that Marlboro’s ordinance to restrict cell phone usage from operators of moving vehicles is unconstitutional.

This matter comes up repeatedly in my circle of friends. I am an 18-year-old graduate of Marlboro High School. While I live in Colts Neck, the majority of my driving is conducted on Marlboro’s roads. I see every day how talking on cell phones reduces road awareness and safety.

Cell phone usage is not a necessary evil. The constitution was written to allow the individual to coexist justly with society. While the individual has certain inalienable rights, they do not take precedence over somebody else’s inalienable rights.

In other words, the rights of the individual do not supersede the rights of the whole. This doctrine of utilitarianism allows for certain restrictions on First Amendment rights. For instance, the First Amendment does not protect your right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

In the Declaration of Indepen-dence, Thomas Jefferson stipulated that we are all granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson borrowed the words of John Locke for much of the Declaration of Independence. So, these ideas have been around for 400 years or so.

If using your cell phone allows you to pursue happiness, by all means do so. But do not curtail others from their God-given right to the pursuit of happiness by endangering their lives. If just one life is saved (to date, more than one has been lost) by restricting cell phone usage, the upside of this ordinance will counteract 10, possibly 11, missed nail appointments in Marlboro.

Speaking on a cell phone while driving is a bad idea since it has been proven in studies to be dangerous. In fact, by endangering and diminishing the quality of life of other drivers, cell phone usage in cars is quite possibly unconstitutional.

Jonathan Kobrinski

Colts Neck