Calif. Bill Would Ban Smoking in Car with Kids

[DC09]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California could be on its way to becoming the first U.S. state to outlaw smoking in cars or trucks that have children inside.

A bill is being considered in the state Assembly to allow police to stop vehicles if a minor appears to be exposed to smoke from a pipe, cigar, cigarette, or "any other plant."

The bill has the support of the American Lung Association, which points to research showing secondhand smoke can cause cancer, respiratory infections and asthma.

Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, a Democrat and author of the bill, has referred to a survey by state health officials that found 29 percent of youth in the state had been exposed to secondhand smoke in the prior week.

Full Article

[Seraphina]

Good; parents shouldn't be allowed to smoke around their kids anyway, in the car or otherwise.

[wunarmdscissor]

I second that sera

[Seraphina]

That's because you follow rule 5

[wunarmdscissor]

LOL

Actually its because i believe smoking in all public places should be banned.

IM not allowed to fire a gun off randomly in the street. It could injure/kill someone.

Right? Of course it is.

IM allowed to smoke and cause smoke to fill many peoples lungs full of toxic smoke in a close area to me, which could cause a multitude of diseases and conditions not to mention cancer in its many forms. (i mean come on we're talking about people's civil liberties here ) .....ahem...what about the non-smokers liberties?

Right? LOL ill let you answer that for yourselves.

[Seraphina]

Well, I maintain...smoking (on a disgusting scale) is sort of like picking your nose and eating it.

Smoking in public is sort of like picking your nose and making everyone nearby eat it with you.

[DC09]

Well, I maintain...smoking (on a disgusting scale) is sort of like picking your nose and eating it.

There was a recent article out saying thats actually good for you.

I'll see if I can find it; it was weird.

Here it is - Top doc backs picking your nose and eating it

Edited April 29, 2004 by Kellalor

[Seraphina]

There was a recent article out saying thats actually good for you.

You're welcome to do so then...I...think I'll pass

In any event, smoking certainly is not.

[DC09]

There was a recent article out saying thats actually good for you.

You're welcome to do so then...I...think I'll pass

Uh, no thanks!

[Stamford]

Er, just to get back on topic.

I totally agree that forcing other people to inhale your smoke is wrong, especially children.

I do not smoke in front of my child and don't even smoke in my car, even when I am on my own, because my son may ride in it later.

However, I draw the line at a full and outright ban on smoking in bars and I cannot understand how smoking in the street can effect others, especially when you consider the other crap we suck up every day thanks to our wonderful transport policy in the UK.

How parents can expose their kids to ciggarette smoke is beyond me; I went for a beer last night and a couple sitting at the next table had brought their eight week old baby with them - can you imagine allowing those tiny lungs to be exposed to smoke?

By the way, if eating the contents of your nose is good for you, what if you smoke it?

[stillcrazy]

Time to play the devil's advocate and lose all my friends here at UM.

1. I am not a smoker. So this does not affect me directly.

2. I avoid California as much as possible.

3. I believe that second hand smoke is bad for everyone within a hundred miles.

That said.......

Wasn't it the Democratic party that said the Patriot act was taking away peoples freedoms from government intrusion? Isn't it the democratic mantra, each person can do what ever he/she pleases as long as they pay thier taxes? I mean they support gay marriage, abortion, seperation of church and state, removing 'one nation under god' from our pledge, and a bunch of other liberal ideas. But when it comes to raising income, they will do just about anything to meet thier needs.

I can see the legal hassle it's going to cause.

Cop to judge: I thought I saw smoke so I pulled the car over.

Defendant: Your Honor it was just dust one of the kids blew out from an old straw.

Judge: Sorry Mr. Public, but cops never lie, that will be a thousand dollars please.

I know I'm being sarcastic, but this is getting a little over the top. Next will be cell phone usage, then drinking a cup of coffee/tea. Then god forbid, looking at a cute girl or guy when you have kids in the car will be a felony.

It really makes you wonder how the heck we all survived before they made all these rules and laws to protect us from ourselves.

Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, a Democrat and author of the bill, has referred to a survey by state health officials that found 29 percent of youth in the state had been exposed to secondhand smoke in the prior week.

Did they mention that 100% of these youth were exposed to increased levels of smog during the same week?

[babyforrest]

Although I don't want to get into a repeat of the smoking thread, I must ask what this argument is about smog. Yes, there is smog. No, there is nothing we can do about it. Yes there is second hand cigarrette smoke when a person smokes around others. Yes it can cause the same amount of damage to the second hand smoker than it can the smoker, and moreso if the second hand smoker is a child. Yes, second hand smoke can be prevented by not smoking by nonsmokers and children.

Any questions?

[Seraphina]

I know I'm being sarcastic, but this is getting a little over the top. Next will be cell phone usage, then drinking a cup of coffee/tea. Then god forbid, looking at a cute girl or guy when you have kids in the car will be a felony.

This isn't about stupid or trivial laws, it's about protecting the health of people who do not have a disgusting and poisonous habit. There is a proven link between smoking and lung cancer. There is a proven link between second hand smoking and lung cancer...therefore, in the interest of public health, you shouldn't be allowed to smoke around other people. It's pretty simple.

This law isn't about taking away people's rights, it's about ensuring that they're unable to do something that is dangerous and lethal to those around them. As Mr wunarmdscissor said: "IM not allowed to fire a gun off randomly in the street. It could injure/kill someone"...nor should you be allowed to injure or kill other people by forcing them to inhale your own filth.

[DC09]

I agree...

Parents should have the common sense not to smoke around their childeren, but common sense seems increasingly lacking these days.

Just look at all the law suits against tobacco companies. "No one told me it was bad for me!" You're intentionally inhaling smoke into your own lungs, what the hell did you expect???

[TheLight]

I must ask what this argument is about smog. Yes, there is smog. No, there is nothing we can do about it.

How about passing laws to reduce gas exhausts ? There are many non-polluting sources of energy that could be used but that would break the oil lobby which is currently governing the country.

[babyforrest]

I knew as soon as I read my post over that that one point was going to get analyzed. Allow me to rephrase: Right now you are breathing in air pollutants. There is nothing right now that you can do about it. You can't suddenly stop breathing them in. You can, however not breath in cigarrette smoke. Okay? As for passing laws to prevent further pollution, is it possible to pass both this law and air pollution laws? I'm pretty sure that it is. So don't say that this law is wrong because there is more pollution being created. It's a start, and it is trying to protect the health of children who did not choose to breath that junk in. Cigarrette smoke is an air pollutant anyway.

[stillcrazy]

See I told you I was going to get everyone mad at me.

The point I was trying to make is that it is not a bad law. But I do grow tired of politicians trying to force common sense into people. Just like the example of fireing a gun in the street. we have to make it a crime, otherwise all these gung ho types would be out shooting their mouths off.

My point about the smog is simple. We have more lung ailments today than we did fifty years ago. The smog in the major cities is at an all time high in many locations. There are ways to cut the out puts of carbon monoxide, lead, arsnic, mercury and so on and so forth. I would understand the law a lot better if they banned all smoking period, and then started working in earnest to really clean up the air.

To me it's just more ways to raise money and regulate people. Ask any state or federal agency how much money was spent on health care from their taxes on cigarettes. Answer, less than 10%. Of the wind-fall money from the lawsuit against the major cigarette companies, many states claimed they face higher health care cost, but very few of the states used that money to go to health care for anyone.

I didn't mean to offend anyone.

Edited April 30, 2004 by stillcrazy

[stillcrazy]

Well said people.

Point well taken

Did not mean to offend

will withdraw from further post/comments

[DC09]

I didn't mean to offend anyone.

I don't think you offended anyone. At least not me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Permakid]

Stillcrazy, don't worry, you haven't been offensive at all. Well, not to me anyway. I think opposing viewpoints are fine as long as people are polite and respectful.

I am a former smoker - just quit last August. When I did smoke, I always had very strict rules for myself about when and where I lit up because I did not want to expose people to my filthy and dangerous habit. Not all smokers are so considerate, though. And, since secondhand smoke is so hazardous, I think that laws restricting smoking are perfectly appropriate. I even thought so when I was a smoker.

I just moved to California in January and I really love it here! One of the many things I like is the fact that the state requires warning labels in many places where hazardous chemicals are present (like on certain products in stores and in our new lease). That shows a concern for public health that is well beyond any other place I have visited and I appreciate it. Or maybe it's just about preventing lawsuits. I don't know, but I like it anyway. The smog here in Los Angeles County is a completely different story, though. Looking at the air in this place makes me realize the urgency of finding alternative energy sources and clean fuels! (Sorry about the tangent!)

Edited May 1, 2004 by Permakid

[babyforrest]

StillCrazy, I'm not mad at you or offended by anything you said! You were trying to make a point and so was I. I'm going to do what I did on the other smoking thread and leave the issue alone. Some people think that smoking isn't harmful, and I know there is nothing I can say to change their mind.

[Scorpius]

For the most part, the people who do smoke (cigarettes, marijuana, etc) are going to try and rationalize the positive effects of it, even though they know it's as harmful as studies and tests have shown.

I'd Vote for this Bill it'll only prevent second hand smoking. The thought of older members killing their children slowly, isn't a good picture. We shouldn't have to bury our children.

[Naveed]

Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, a Democrat and author of the bill, has referred to a survey by state health officials that found 29 percent of youth in the state had been exposed to secondhand smoke in the prior week.

What I find funny is that Democrats are the ones pushing to get smoking banned, but want marijuana and stuff legalized at the same time. Medicianal or not...

[wunarmdscissor]

What I find funny is that Democrats are the ones pushing to get smoking banned, but want marijuana and stuff legalized at the same time.  Medicianal or not...

Difference being that cannabis can help people with debilatatinmg diseases like MS get a crack at a normal life. SMoking tobacco doesnt.

[Scorpius]

How about passing laws to reduce gas exhausts ? There are many non-polluting sources of energy that could be used but that would break the oil lobby which is currently governing the country.

There have been inventions of almost non-polluting engines built using compressed air and also a hybrid of eletectricity and gas.

There had been an invention competition that was held for the advanced students of Canada. However, their inventions were not taken into great consideration due to the fact that existing engine companies would lose sales. Business turns corrupt and these inventions are turned down even when it is as environmentally safe as it is.

These companies should change their engines to include these types of engines, it'll only give them more profit. They fear what they do not understand.