Making it illegal to smoke in cars with children

[Easy180]

Even the most staunch defender of 'rights' has to know that some parents aren't cut out to be parents.

I would put that number at roughly 40%

[oldglory]

my point is what does welfare and a college education have to do with this thread..i know you didn't say that but you did imply.........

[MadMonk]

While I agree that more government intrustion into our personal lives is generally a bad thing, when we are talking about something that is so obviously detrimental to a child, the rules change a bit. If you grant the point that second hand smoke is unhealthy for anyone, it logically follows that concentrating the smoke in a confined area makes it even more unhealthy.

Once concern I have with this law is at what point do you say smoking in the car is dangerous? A smoker that has thier windows rolled up while smoking and allowing the smoke to accumulate is obviously crossing the line, but what about during the warmer months when all the windows are down and the smoke is quickly dispersed? How is that any different than walking beside someone who it smoking? I'm guessing that the law doesn't make any judgement on the conditions that constitue endangering the childs' health so maybe some sort of compromise could be reached for a more common-sense version of the law.

[BailJumper]

I was simply trying to figure out how blurry everyones line is. If you ban sm9oking in cars for the reasons stated, then where do you go from there? Once a president is set it can be a hard thing to control.

Don't get me wrong - I hate smoking in public but I just don't think it is a gov't issue.

If we are 'just talking' then I'd be for requiring couples to get a license before having kids and even sterilizing some people who continue to have kids they cannot support.

But, when we are talking reality, I cannot support gov't encroachment in such areas.

[Karried]

If we are 'just talking' then I'd be for requiring couples to get a license before having kids and even sterilizing some people who continue to have kids they cannot support.

My goodness, you have my vote for sure now! lol

I honestly do believe in education and 'license' for parenting. And I'm all for sterilization for people who abuse their children (yes, I'm talking serious abuse here) I don't think they should give people like that repeated opportunities to do it again and again to other children .. I hate hearing these stories, women who have kids, do crack, have an addicted baby, give it up, get pregnant again, have a baby, give it up, on and on.. obviously, something's not working here!

I know it sounds simplistic but why should an innocent baby suffer because of the sins of their parents?

[PUGalicious]

Once a president is set it can be a hard thing to control.

So very true, whether you're talking about the commander-in-chief or precedent.

I hate smoking in public but I just don't think it is a gov't issue.

If government is not there to protect the rights and welfare of its citizens from the encroachment by other people's "liberties", what's a government for?

[BailJumper]

If government is not there to protect the rights and welfare of its citizens from the encroachment by other people's "liberties", what's a government for?

I agree in theory, but at some point you must draw a line. While you do not think such a law would be crossing that line, I do.

If you took your definition literally, then the gov't would control all aspects of our lives.

Why allow smoking at all then? Or, if you do, then deny those who get ill from lung cancer medical treatment unless they have insurance or can pay cash. If not, let them die in the streets because they made the choice to smoke and how dare they cost the rest of us and make health care go up.

Why is a car more dangerous than a house (have you measured a single wide lately or a small two bedroom apartment).

Why allow welfare moms to have more kids? They can't support the ones they have without my dime.

In short, I just think there isn't enough evidence that smoking in a car is soooo harmful that the gov't must step in.

And fortunately I doubt it will happen on any large scale.

[PUGalicious]

I agree in theory, but at some point you must draw a line. While you do not think such a law would be crossing that line, I do. If you took your definition literally, then the gov't would control all aspects of our lives.

Only those aspects where one person's liberty adversely impacts or harms another person's rights.

Why allow smoking at all then?

Good question.

Why is a car more dangerous than a house (have you measured a single wide lately or a small two bedroom apartment).

There are very, very few homes as small as any road-worthy vehicle (except for RVs and tour buses). If a person cannot figure out that a pollutant concentrated in a smaller confined space is more dangerous than that same volume pollutant dispersed in a larger area, there will be no amount of evidence to convince that bullheaded person of the foolishness of their position.

Having said that, I never said that smoking in a small home is not harmful to children. Just as a pregnant woman cannot recklessly endanger a child by abusing drugs or alcohol during her pregnancy, neither should parents be allowed to recklessly endanger their children by exposing them to harmful and dangerous pollutants and substances. Using your logic, parents should be allowed to give their kids any drugs or alcohol whenever they want because to restrict such parental discretion would be an unnecessary intrusion of the government.

Why allow welfare moms to have more kids? They can't support the ones they have without my dime.

Chasing another rabbit in an inane attempt at making some larger point about smoking in cars....

In short, I just think there isn't enough evidence that smoking in a car is soooo harmful that the gov't must step in.

And that would put you in a radical minority of "head-in-the-sand" naysayers who ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[BailJumper]

And that would put you in a radical minority of "head-in-the-sand" naysayers who ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, when this doesn't pass - you'll say what? Even though there was 'overwhelming evidence' and you were in the 'majority' it failed anyway.

[PUGalicious]

I will say that it didn't pass. I would be surprised if it passed. But I was also pleasantly surprised that our legislature passed a law that essentially made most restaurants non-smoking. Just because politicians choose not to pass a given law (for whatever reason, sometimes being the language of such a law), that doesn't deny the "overwhelming evidence".

Legislative bodies, especially Congress, frequently pass laws and policies that the majority are not in favor of. That's not an effective or accurate measure of whether or not the evidence is valid or factual.

Nice try, though.

[BailJumper]

I think there is a huge difference between a place of public accomodation (like a restaurant) and a person's private vehicle.

While I personally enjoy the anti-smoking in restaurants, I think the industry should have been allowed to set its own policy.

Of course, the gov't did step in and tell me I had to wear a seat belt in my own vehicle, so anything is possible.

[Julesc2001]

Karried can I be your campaign manager?? I'm so there!

This all comes down to bad parenting... year after year parents continue to neglect the needs of their children. Smoking in your car is endangering your children, letting your 10 year old weigh 200lbs is pure ignorance. If you cant be a responsible adult... than it is someones responsibility (maybe the govt) to step in and do something about it. The life span of todays children is going to be dramatically shorter than ours (unless huge steps in cancer cures, etc.)

The govt has already invested in providing schools with healthier foods for the children and requiring PE, etc. Frito Lay has been working with the government for years providing elementary children with new healthier foods... If the govt can do this, they sure can stop parents from dangering their children's life.

Here are some stats...
Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site

If yall think that smokers have the right to smoke than I have the right to think it is invading my personal space and to tell them to stop or leave, right? I dont want to walk out of a building have to inhale that crap... I dont want to sit at a bar and have to go home smelling it. It is just a disgusting habit and I am tired of being forced to live with it.

[Martin]

property owners have a reasonable expectation to use their private property as they wish within the confines of the law. these laws vary based upon the nature of the private property in question. for example, it is legal for an individual to be intoxicated within the confines of his private home while it is not legal for him to be intoxicated while operating his private motor vehicle. the law varies here in the interest of public safety. since there is a direct and immediate correlation between drunk driving and safety, the government is compelled to make and enforce laws restricting its practice. the same is true for seatbelt laws. wearing a seatbelt has a direct and immediate effect on occupant safety. while second hand smoke (shs) has harmful effects, these effects are neither direct nor immediate. therefore, within the confines of private property i find that the government does not have a compelling reason to intervene and restrict this behavior.

the effects of shs are not direct. in order for the government to have a compelling interest in limiting personal rights in the use of private property, the use to be limited must be shown to have a direct negative effect on safety. that is, engaging in the behavior will almost always cause the negative effect. while there have been studies that show the negative effects of shs, these studies do not consistently prove that shs alone causes permanent damage. while those exposed to shs have a higher risk factor for smoke related diseases such as lung cancer, there is nowhere near a 1-to-1 relationship between those exposed to shs and smoke related illness.

the effects of shs are not immediate. in the examples of drunk driving and seatbelts, the effects of the behavior are immediate and irreversible... a drunk driver is involved in a crash or an occupant is spared by a seatbelt. the effects of shs take time to accumulate. while occupants are placed at higher risk, they are in no immediate danger. therefore the government has no compelling reason to limit behavior on this basis, either.

i believe the argument was made that children are 'powerless occupants' whose futures are harmed by shs while riding in a car. i won't say that no child has ever been harmed by shs from being a passenger, but i'm certain that just as many or more haven't. while i would agree that such behavior is ethically wrong, i don't see a compelling reason for the goverment to intervene.

-M

[BailJumper]

MMM - something you mentioned reminded me of something else that really bothers me.

it is legal for an individual to be intoxicated within the confines of his private home while it is not legal for him to be intoxicated while operating his private motor vehicle.

Lately there have been several arrests in Cleveland County (possibly OK Co too, I just haven't paid attention) for public drunk. The problem, many of these people were passengers in cars with perfectly sober drivers.

I kid you not. I have 6 reports on my desk where a police officer pulled over a person for a moving violation. While investigating the violation the officer noticed the passenger (not the driver) was drunk and arrested them.

Do we not promote for those who've been drinking to call a friend to get a rid?

[PUGalicious]

property owners have a reasonable expectation to use their private property as they wish within the confines of the law. these laws vary based upon the nature of the private property in question. for example, it is legal for an individual to be intoxicated within the confines of his private home while it is not legal for him to be intoxicated while operating his private motor vehicle. the law varies here in the interest of public safety. since there is a direct and immediate correlation between drunk driving and safety, the government is compelled to make and enforce laws restricting its practice. the same is true for seatbelt laws. wearing a seatbelt has a direct and immediate effect on occupant safety. while second hand smoke (shs) has harmful effects, these effects are neither direct nor immediate. therefore, within the confines of private property i find that the government does not have a compelling reason to intervene and restrict this behavior.

the effects of shs are not direct. in order for the government to have a compelling interest in limiting personal rights in the use of private property, the use to be limited must be shown to have a direct negative effect on safety. that is, engaging in the behavior will almost always cause the negative effect. while there have been studies that show the negative effects of shs, these studies do not consistently prove that shs alone causes permanent damage. while those exposed to shs have a higher risk factor for smoke related diseases such as lung cancer, there is nowhere near a 1-to-1 relationship between those exposed to shs and smoke related illness.

the effects of shs are not immediate. in the examples of drunk driving and seatbelts, the effects of the behavior are immediate and irreversible... a drunk driver is involved in a crash or an occupant is spared by a seatbelt. the effects of shs take time to accumulate. while occupants are placed at higher risk, they are in no immediate danger. therefore the government has no compelling reason to limit behavior on this basis, either.

i believe the argument was made that children are 'powerless occupants' whose futures are harmed by shs while riding in a car. i won't say that no child has ever been harmed by shs from being a passenger, but i'm certain that just as many or more haven't. while i would agree that such behavior is ethically wrong, i don't see a compelling reason for the goverment to intervene.

-M

Now, there's a reasoned argument that I can accept. Bravo!

[Jjjjunkyarddog]

What is this goverment comming to???? First they try to tell the restraunts what they can and can't serve (fat wise) look what they tried to do to McDonalds to stop the super size, it is the people's choice not the goverments or law makers decision what i eat or anyone else.

And then they are taking all the snacks out of schools and only providing them with nutritional items, not saying it is bad but hello don't this kids have parents or has the goverment and law makers become their parents to tell them what they can and can't eat or drink.

What is the deal with smoking?? You can't smoke in any State or Goverment Buildings which is fine! But what makes it a crime to smoke outside in the open air where there is no second hand smoke? Who does this really offend? What would happen if we took their liquer and beer and in some cases there drug of choice away from them? How many parents drink and drive with their children in the car and then they turn around and turn them loose to go back and do it again. So what are they going to do to everyone that drinks and thinks it is ok to drive?????

[bombermwc]

I'd make it illegal. If it's illegal to blow that crap in my face in a public place, why not protect the kids that can't speak for themselves? If they want to smoke, let them stand outside and smoke where it won't kill anyone. Personal freedoms are only protected when they don't harm others...ie second hand smoke.

[toocooltim]

Please don't smoke around your children.

"...kids suffer excessive and unnecessary colds, flues, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and miss 7 million more school days than classmates who are able to breathe smokefree air at home..."


http://www.ash.org/kids/parents.html
ASH - ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH

[Dark Jedi]

I believe that you should be allowed to kill yourself as slowly or as quickly as you see fit. I also believe that people, as a whole, are mind numbingly stupid. As such, laws do need to be in place to protect innocent bystanders from those people.

I wear a helmet and leather anytime I ride. I do not support laws that require helmets on adults. I do support laws that require eye protection, to help protect innocent others from some bug or wind-blinded biker wannabe.
He can kill himself all he wants, but we need to ensure he only takes himself out in the process.

[Dark Jedi]

While I agree that more government intrustion into our personal lives is generally a bad thing, when we are talking about something that is so obviously detrimental to a child, the rules change a bit. If you grant the point that second hand smoke is unhealthy for anyone, it logically follows that concentrating the smoke in a confined area makes it even more unhealthy.

Once concern I have with this law is at what point do you say smoking in the car is dangerous? A smoker that has thier windows rolled up while smoking and allowing the smoke to accumulate is obviously crossing the line, but what about during the warmer months when all the windows are down and the smoke is quickly dispersed? How is that any different than walking beside someone who it smoking? I'm guessing that the law doesn't make any judgement on the conditions that constitue endangering the childs' health so maybe some sort of compromise could be reached for a more common-sense version of the law.

Or, *GASP!!!* the smoker could just, you know... wait until they aren't in the car with children? maybe? You act like they are powerless, and some big burly armed guy is lighting the cigarette and forcing them to smoke it at that exact instant. They have the perfectly viable option of waiting.

[Dark Jedi]

I was simply trying to figure out how blurry everyones line is. If you ban sm9oking in cars for the reasons stated, then where do you go from there? Once a president is set it can be a hard thing to control.

Ain't that the truth, the current president is a runaway trainwreck.

[Dark Jedi]

So, when this doesn't pass - you'll say what? Even though there was 'overwhelming evidence' and you were in the 'majority' it failed anyway.

False conclusion. The majority cited are those who understand that cigarette smoke is dangerous, not the percentage that would support such a law.

[toocooltim]

...some bug or wind-blinded biker wannabe.

Well put, Jedi.

[Martin]

"...kids suffer excessive and unnecessary colds, flues, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and miss 7 million more school days than classmates who are able to breathe smokefree air at home..."

again with the flues. it's madness! :P -M

[ShiroiHikari]

Uh...what's wrong with rolling down your window while you're smoking in the car? It all gets sucked outside that way.

Anyway, I hate cigarettes, but I think this is going too far.