Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in Cars

[Jeana (DP)]

There are actually a number, Jeana. I'll see if I can uncover any on the internet tonight and post some links. I'm going to get my kids now.

Thank you!!!

 

[eve]

There are valid scientific studies that say second-hand smoke is bad for your health and there are valid scientific studies that say second-hand smoke has no effect on your health either way. I have read a great many of them because for many years I was involved in the tobacco states legislation.

Yes, there are no studies that say it gives your health a boost, so in that regard it is different from the male circumcision argument.

But I still think it's a slippery slope!

I agree with you South and the point is, where does this "patroling" us for "our own good" end? I doubt the mainstream media would even disseminate any studies about smoking that didn't support the pc position of the day.

Eve

 

[calus_3]

I agree with you South and the point is, where does this "patroling" us for "our own good" end? I doubt the mainstream media would even disseminate any studies about smoking that didn't support the pc position of the day.

Eve

Well, you clearly have a seriouos lack of understanding of the issue. The issue isn't that smoking in cars concentrates harmful second hand smoke for the SMOKER. The issue is that captive and optionless children are being harmed by their parents.

No on on the other side wants to address the fact that children are being HARMED AS A RESULT OF THESE PARENT'S ACTIONS.

Cal

 

[calus_3]

Cheeky monkey!

I prefer distinguished primate, thank you very much!

Cal

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I prefer distinguished primate, thank you very much!

Cal

As you wish darlin!!!!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I agree with you South and the point is, where does this "patroling" us for "our own good" end? I doubt the mainstream media would even disseminate any studies about smoking that didn't support the pc position of the day.

Eve

Well the seat belt law is along the same line, only this law is in place solely for the passengers who have no choice. Personally, if someone wants to smoke, that's their own preference. I could care less. However, I do agree that we need to protect children from second hand smoke whenever possible, especially in a really confined area, such as a car.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is snuffing out one of Congress' enduring prerogatives, still cherished by some lawmakers -- the right to smoke near the floor of the House.

Pelosi, D-California, announced Wednesday that effective immediately, House members would no longer be able to light up in the ornate Speaker's Lobby off the House floor where lawmakers mingle during votes.

* * *

"The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over," Pelosi said. "Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example."

Smoke-filled rooms won't be gone entirely -- lawmakers will still be allowed to smoke in their own offices.

* * *

more at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/house.smoking.ap/index.html

 

[southcitymom]

Thank you!!!

Hey Jeana,

Was doing some searching before I go get my kids - I really have to go now - I haven't found the studies I am familiar with yet, but I did find an interesting link that sums up the tobacco industry's victory against the government's biggest ETS study very well.

You can view it here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html

Please note, I am not saying the tobacco industry is right, but they did prove that this study was questionable in a big way.

So many of those cases hinged on undermining the other side's science.

I will work more on finding what I was referring to earlier when I get back.

SCM

 

[Nore]

Everyone knows smoking is bad but I am really against the government regulating our safety to the extent it is an invasion of privacy. Same with the helmet law and motorcycles. Any idiot knows he's safer with a helmet on but it should be your CHOICE. I'm not saying it's a good thing to smoke in an enclosed car with your baby there but the government does not need to be our mother.

------------------------

Yes. The government doesn't need to be our mother or Dictator.I dont smoke.have no young kids but~this is wrong! They are taking away all our rights slow but sure!

ETA/ I read the article,so he is allergic to cigarette smoke~I'm allergic to perfumes and colognes I have asthma and the smell takes my breath away~no one worries about that.I saw a 10 year old boy removed from our Church because a woman two pews away had "take a bath" in perfume.The child has asthma and actually lost his breath.I guess what I'm trying to say is dont go after one group of people,not fair!

 

[eve]

Well, you clearly have a seriouos lack of understanding of the issue. The issue isn't that smoking in cars concentrates harmful second hand smoke for the SMOKER. The issue is that captive and optionless children are being harmed by their parents.

No on on the other side wants to address the fact that children are being HARMED AS A RESULT OF THESE PARENT'S ACTIONS.

Cal

No Cal, I do understand the issue and I was not addressing the car law specifically in my last post. I guess I had gotten onto the related topic of smoking bans in bars, etc. I also recently heard about a city in CA where people cannot even smoke in their own yards and they are encouraging residents to call 911 (!) on their neighbors if they see them smoking in their yards.

If there was an anti-smoking law I could support, this car regulation would probably be it. However, on principle, in general, I object to these laws because they are getting widespread and insidious and I wonder where it will end?

My libertarian leaning belief system as well as my training in law school tells me to be wary of infringements on personal freedoms. I believe our rights are eroded by laws about personal behavior (behavior that is legal, in fact) and that a free marketplace and natural consequences often solve the problem.

Children's rights are often an exception, I will agree.

I often hear people whining about health care costs due to smokers and I think that would be fine as long as they whined about all the other stupid things people do to their own health (and their children's) that drive up the costs - but they don't.

Eve

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Hey Jeana,

Was doing some searching before I go get my kids - I really have to go now - I haven't found the studies I am familiar with yet, but I did find an interesting link that sums up the tobacco industry's victory against the government's biggest ETS study very well.

You can view it here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html

Please note, I am not saying the tobacco industry is right, but they did prove that this study was questionable in a big way.

So many of those cases hinged on undermining the other side's science.

I will work more on finding what I was referring to earlier when I get back.

SCM

Thanks! I'll read it after dinner.

 

[eve]

Well the seat belt law is along the same line, only this law is in place solely for the passengers who have no choice. Personally, if someone wants to smoke, that's their own preference. I could care less. However, I do agree that we need to protect children from second hand smoke whenever possible, especially in a really confined area, such as a car.

I understand Jeana and I cannot disagree, it is like seat belts, car seats, etc. I couldn't care less if an informed adult doesn't wear a seat belt, but a child can't make that choice, yet.

My feelings on this have to do with overregulation of legal adult behavior, I got a little OT. In general, I do not like these types of laws. The one that really gets me is the one prohibiting smoking in one's own yard.

If I was having a ciggie in my own yard and my neighbors called 911, I think I would have to move to NC, where Cal said everyone smokes, or somewhere more tolerant. After I tp'd their houses and put sugar in their gas tanks. LOL.

Eve

 

[calus_3]

No Cal, I do understand the issue and I was not addressing the car law specifically in my last post. I guess I had gotten onto the related topic of smoking bans in bars, etc. I also recently heard about a city in CA where people cannot even smoke in their own yards and they are encouraging residents to call 911 (!) on their neighbors if they see them smoking in their yards.

If there was an anti-smoking law I could support, this car regulation would probably be it. However, on principle, in general, I object to these laws because they are getting widespread and insidious and I wonder where it will end?

My libertarian leaning belief system as well as my training in law school tells me to be wary of infringements on personal freedoms. I believe our rights are eroded by laws about personal behavior (behavior that is legal, in fact) and that a free marketplace and natural consequences often solve the problem.

Children's rights are often an exception, I will agree.

I often hear people whining about health care costs due to smokers and I think that would be fine as long as they whined about all the other stupid things people do to their own health (and their children's) that drive up the costs - but they don't.

Eve

Well, then I agree with you.

Cal

 

[eve]

Well, then I agree with you.

Cal

I knew you were a smart guy, Cal! :blowkiss: LOL. Seriously, I understand this law. It is pathetic we have to have the government telling people what they should already know in this day and age. I would never smoke with a child in the car. I have 3 kids and I used to get so mad when my parents smoked around them, as babies - thankfully they have now quit. Still, like I said, if people had been prohibited from smoking in cars when I was little, I wouldn't have seen most of the United States from the back of a smoky station wagon! Or gone anywhere else in a car with them for that matter!

Eve

 

[calus_3]

I knew you were a smart guy, Cal! :blowkiss: LOL. Seriously, I understand this law. It is pathetic we have to have the government telling people what they should already know in this day and age. I would never smoke with a child in the car. I have 3 kids and I used to get so mad when my parents smoked around them, as babies - thankfully they have now quit. Still, like I said, if people had been prohibited from smoking in cars when I was little, I wouldn't have seen most of the United States from the back of a smoky station wagon! Or gone anywhere else in a car with them for that matter!

Eve

Right back at you....I am surly today!

I once had a neighbor who was such a complete ahole that I just about came to blows with him. He was a 40+ year old adolescent. He would sit on his 2 foot wide front porch and put these tower speakers beside him and listen to music so loud that you couldn't hear your own tv inside your house with the windows and doors closed....this while sitting between the speakers reading a newspaper. I mean a class act loser. He would throw parties and have toddlers no older than 4 shuffling beer back and forth to the other neighbor's house (for which he suppied the booze). Wouldn't listen to reason so the cops and the law were the only reason.

Some people can't even seem to get out of their own way most days.

Cal

 

[2sisters]

You want to compare deadly, toxic, second-hand smoke to breast milk versus formula?

No, I already siad in my above post but will say it again. It is not safe to smoke around children. I was simply using that as an example of things that are also unsafe that the government could ban. I also said I do not smoke (back when I did) around my kids. We don't need the government to step in and make unsafe things illegal. I was simply stating that alot of things detrimental to kids could be banned. Yes they are trying to protect people my point was that there are many things they could take from us under the guise of priotecting us.Does that clear it up?

 

[Daisy]

Why not tax the uninsured smokers who do not pay for insurance like the rest of us do? Ha! THAT will never happen!

Just make sure candy, ice cream and french fries are taxed too! Or maybe we should have people weigh in and present a medical exam summary and a medical insurance card before they can order a Whopper - or have kids, to whom they will pass their predispositions.

Eve

Good post, Eve!

Speaking of the food issue, some posters call smoking around a child "child abuse" and warrants arrest. What about allowing your child to become obese? Sure, some have predispositions (or genuine medical problems that spurs on obesity) but most of the overweight kids nowadays are a result of what their parents are feeding them and allowing them to eat. I think allowing your kid to get that flippin' fat is child abuse in itself. Think of all the health issues that are going to crop up, not to mention social isolation, as a result of being an obese kid? There's this one lady and her hubby (both are obese and on welfare) who have 2 kids. The boy is a little pudgy but his saving grace is he rides his bike around town at all times of the year. Their little girl, on the other hand, is only 8 years old and is morbidly obese. She looks like she's ready to give birth to triplets. No kidding!

If the government is going to make health issues their business, they'd better make ALL health issues their business. As a smoker, I think smokers should be considerate of others. Most of us considerate smokers won't be affected by this law. But if the government's going to sick the dogs on some, they'd better take a look at the whole picture and not just single out one group.

As for morons on the road, how many of you have been hit, almost hit, or have seen careless driving as a result of the driver being on..........the cell phone? I wish that were one thing that would get outlawed as far as driving regulations go. This in itself is off topic but it gets my goat when I see someone driving like a dimwit with a cell phone glued to their ear. :furious:

 

[calus_3]

Good post, Eve!

Speaking of the food issue, some posters call smoking around a child "child abuse" and warrants arrest. What about allowing your child to become obese? Sure, some have predispositions (or genuine medical problems that spurs on obesity) but most of the overweight kids nowadays are a result of what their parents are feeding them and allowing them to eat. I think allowing your kid to get that flippin' fat is child abuse in itself. Think of all the health issues that are going to crop up, not to mention social isolation, as a result of being an obese kid? There's this one lady and her hubby (both are obese and on welfare) who have 2 kids. The boy is a little pudgy but his saving grace is he rides his bike around town at all times of the year. Their little girl, on the other hand, is only 8 years old and is morbidly obese. She looks like she's ready to give birth to triplets. No kidding!

If the government is going to make health issues their business, they'd better make ALL health issues their business. As a smoker, I think smokers should be considerate of others. Most of us considerate smokers won't be affected by this law. But if the government's going to sick the dogs on some, they'd better take a look at the whole picture and not just single out one group.

As for morons on the road, how many of you have been hit, almost hit, or have seen careless driving as a result of the driver being on..........the cell phone? I wish that were one thing that would get outlawed as far as driving regulations go. This in itself is off topic but it gets my goat when I see someone driving like a dimwit with a cell phone glued to their ear. :furious:

All valid points and I tend to agree with you.

However, you don't refuse to make a law because there are other unsolved social problems.

You can't rail on this law because there are parents who overfeed their kids.

Cal

 

[jubie]

I know someone that smoked for about 15 years around her husband and he never smoked a day in his life, that is until they seperated. No more than a week went by and he bought his first pack.


I quit years ago and even then it was something I hid from everyone. I sure hope this generation will benefit from some of the anti smoking campaignes.


Jubie

 

[Daisy]

All valid points and I tend to agree with you.

However, you don't refuse to make a law because there are other unsolved social problems.

You can't rail on this law because there are parents who overfeed their kids.

Cal

Thanks, Cal! I'm not against this law because there are some dingbats out there that don't take consideration for their childrens' health but I do worry about Big Brother becoming Big Dictator. Something out of a George Orwell book. In my little town, children are allowed in the bar (imagine my surprise upon seeing that when I moved back to the great Midwest after living in WA for many years). There is a non-smoking dining room but I'm amazed at the amount of parents (non-smokers themselves) that will sit in the bar section (to eat dinner) and have their children with them. That's something that makes me go :waitasec: .

Edited to add: My parents smoked in the car, too, when I was a kid. My Mom smoked when she was pregnant with us kids and all of us are "fairly" (heehee) normal. So I don't want to infer that anyone who smokes around a kid is a "dingbat". If that were the case, my parents would be dingbats. But there wasn't as much information out there then about smoking as there is now. So they were unknowing dingbats. Sheesh, I think I just inadvertently gave away my age!!!