Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in Cars

[tybee204]

A bigger threat to children then their parents smoking in the car is exposure to the sun. Perhaps the Government should also legislate how many hours a parent can expose their child to the sun each week and mandate sunscreen usuage to any parent irresponsible enough to allow their children to play in the sun, swim or God forbid go to the beach.

My generation was raised by the generation of camel non-filter chain smokers and we have more health isues from sun exposure then second hand smoke exposure.

 

[2sisters]

A bigger threat to children then their parents smoking in the car is exposure to the sun. Perhaps the Government should also legislate how many hours a parent can expose their child to the sun each week and mandate sunscreen usuage to any parent irresponsible enough to allow their children to play in the sun, swim or God forbid go to the beach.

My generation was raised by the generation of camel non-filter chain smokers and we have more health isues from sun exposure then second hand smoke exposure.

You are right that is also a big cancer risk, maybe more so that second hand smoke.

 

[Daisy]

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

Hey, Jubie! Just had to say HI to ya! Haven't had the pleasure of being on the same thread as you since the Laci forum was archived! Howdy!

 

[tybee204]

You are right that is also a big cancer risk, maybe more so that second hand smoke.

I have had 3 friends diagnosed with skin cancer in the last year. I have yet had anyone I know diagnosed with second hand smoke cancer.

 

[2sisters]

I have had 3 friends diagnosed with skin cancer in the last year. I have yet had anyone I know diagnosed with second hand smoke cancer.

I suspected as such, I hope they have a full recovery. I have heard more people with skin cancer than 2nd hand lung cancer.

 

[jubie]

Hey, Jubie! Just had to say HI to ya! Haven't had the pleasure of being on the same thread as you since the Laci forum was archived! Howdy!

Hi Daisy!! Nice to see you too. You're such a sweetie pie


Cigarettes aren't going to go away any time soon so we all really need to do our best to manage the problem. Educate our children as best we can to never start such a horrible habit.


Jubie

 

[Penelope631]

This is nonsense......we need the government involved, through the legal system, to patrol people who won't patrol themselves. You people act like there are two parties here....the smoker and the government. The government isn't telling you that you cannot smoke. The government is stepping in to protect those of you who won't exercise the personal discretion to protect your own offspring refuse to acknowledge...the CHILDREN. Again, you being the smokers who do this crap...not necessarily you personally.

The marketplace cannot make irresponsible breeders put their kids first. That is where the legislative process needs to take over. This from someone who hates the government in our lives.

The difference between the food regulation and taxation argument is that in a resonable diet there are healthy levels of candy, ice cream, etc. that you can eat and still be healthy. There are NO healthy levels of tobacco use of any kind. Plus, your argument is flawed. For us to be comparing apple to apples, the parents would have to be sitting on top of their kids, holding their mouths open, and shoving these bad foods down their throats many times a day.

Sometimes people are so dumb and selfish that they must be controlled by laws.

Cal

and is this a good thing? I think NOT!!!

First U.S.City To Ban Smoking - Belmont, CA

While other cities ponder various types of smoking bans, a small suburb on the San Francisco peninsula has gone 'all the way', banning the activity in all places except single-family detached residences.


"The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night (Nov. 14) to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin (East Bay) and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

The council’s decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction."

“I’m astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support,” said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California.

"Chen has worked in this area since 1991 and helped many cities and counties pass no smoking policies, but not one has been willing to draft a complete ban

http://www.planetizen.com/node/21948

Snippit from another article:


Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

The council was concerned about people smoking in multi-unit residences. “I would just like to say ‘no smoking’ and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket,” said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach.

"Councilman Warren Lieberman said he was concerned the city will pass a law it cannot enforce because residents will still smoke unless police are specifically called to a situation. Police cannot go out and enforce smoking rules, he said. "

“You can’t walk down the street with a beer, but you can have a cigarette,” Warden said. “You shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I just think it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere except in someone’s house. If you want to do that, that’s fine.”

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

Snippit fron another article:

The ban, passed in November, not only bans smoking in the traditional public places, but that was seemingly not good enough for the powers that be in Belmont. The ban pretty much encompasses the entire city limits. I know what you are thinking, so what, isn't that like every smoking ban? You would think, but this ordinance includes condominiums and cars. You read that right. If you go to Belmont, California, although I can't imagine much reason why after something like this breaks, you are not allowed to smoke a cigarette in your own car.

While I am kind of surprised the big jolt from hundreds of ACLU lawyers sitting bolt upright didn't bring about the big quake, jarring loose the state from the rest of the country, what I'm even more surprised about is that the ban spared detached, single-family homes. Is that a compromise on the behalf of the city, or do they just not care about the fate of people living in single family homes?

Or what then, of your car? If it has the ashtray full of butts, would you get charged with paraphernalia? I have no idea where Belmont is, nor do I sincerely care after reading of this, but I hope they aren't on the border. I would hate to think that somebody coming in from Oregon or Nevada would get pinched for interstate transport of previously smoked Pall Malls, should they happen to pass through the city limits of Belmont.

What other ramifications will result from this, I wonder... Will the reality business in town suffer a decline in condo sales or rentals? What of the people living in normal apartment complexes? Believe me, if I lived in a less-than-glamorous one-bedroom efficiency, I would be looking for any alternative I could find. On the other side of the city limits. What about local merchants, who may suffer loss of business as sales slow down. I mean, why buy a product in a town when you can't even use the product in that town?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/104553/belmont_california_smoking_ban_offers.html

Snippit from yet another article:

Also Tuesday, the Marin County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to expand the county's existing ban on smoking in indoor workplaces to prohibit smoking at outdoor spaces including dining areas, ATM lines, construction sites, the county fair and farmers markets.

The Marin law is scheduled to take effect in three months. The Belmont council expects to have a proposed law to consider by January.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16020709.htm

 

[IrishMist]

Call 911 on smokers in Omaha:

City officials and police in Omaha, Neb., are taking a new anti-smoking ordinance so seriously, they want cheaters reported through the 911 emergency system.

and

While there have been hardly any complaints of smokers defying the ban, police consider it just as serious as reporting a road accident, homicide or assault,

(Bold emphasis mine)

Link

 

[Buzz Mills]

and is this a good thing? I think NOT!!!

First U.S.City To Ban Smoking - Belmont, CA

While other cities ponder various types of smoking bans, a small suburb on the San Francisco peninsula has gone 'all the way', banning the activity in all places except single-family detached residences.


"The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night (Nov. 14) to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin (East Bay) and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

The council’s decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction."

“I’m astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support,” said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California.

"Chen has worked in this area since 1991 and helped many cities and counties pass no smoking policies, but not one has been willing to draft a complete ban

http://www.planetizen.com/node/21948

Snippit from another article:


Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

The council was concerned about people smoking in multi-unit residences. “I would just like to say ‘no smoking’ and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket,” said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach.

"Councilman Warren Lieberman said he was concerned the city will pass a law it cannot enforce because residents will still smoke unless police are specifically called to a situation. Police cannot go out and enforce smoking rules, he said. "

“You can’t walk down the street with a beer, but you can have a cigarette,” Warden said. “You shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I just think it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere except in someone’s house. If you want to do that, that’s fine.”

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

Snippit fron another article:

The ban, passed in November, not only bans smoking in the traditional public places, but that was seemingly not good enough for the powers that be in Belmont. The ban pretty much encompasses the entire city limits. I know what you are thinking, so what, isn't that like every smoking ban? You would think, but this ordinance includes condominiums and cars. You read that right. If you go to Belmont, California, although I can't imagine much reason why after something like this breaks, you are not allowed to smoke a cigarette in your own car.

While I am kind of surprised the big jolt from hundreds of ACLU lawyers sitting bolt upright didn't bring about the big quake, jarring loose the state from the rest of the country, what I'm even more surprised about is that the ban spared detached, single-family homes. Is that a compromise on the behalf of the city, or do they just not care about the fate of people living in single family homes?

Or what then, of your car? If it has the ashtray full of butts, would you get charged with paraphernalia? I have no idea where Belmont is, nor do I sincerely care after reading of this, but I hope they aren't on the border. I would hate to think that somebody coming in from Oregon or Nevada would get pinched for interstate transport of previously smoked Pall Malls, should they happen to pass through the city limits of Belmont.

What other ramifications will result from this, I wonder... Will the reality business in town suffer a decline in condo sales or rentals? What of the people living in normal apartment complexes? Believe me, if I lived in a less-than-glamorous one-bedroom efficiency, I would be looking for any alternative I could find. On the other side of the city limits. What about local merchants, who may suffer loss of business as sales slow down. I mean, why buy a product in a town when you can't even use the product in that town?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/104553/belmont_california_smoking_ban_offers.html

Snippit from yet another article:

Also Tuesday, the Marin County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to expand the county's existing ban on smoking in indoor workplaces to prohibit smoking at outdoor spaces including dining areas, ATM lines, construction sites, the county fair and farmers markets.

The Marin law is scheduled to take effect in three months. The Belmont council expects to have a proposed law to consider by January.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16020709.htm

I like the fact that CA communities, just up 280 from me, are taking the lead in banning smoking.

 

[Amraann]

I am just going to weigh in quickly here before I go to bed...

A couple pages back Calus said that the government should police those who don't police them selves.... (not a direct quote but I think I captured the intent of what he was saying)

If that is the case then the time and money to protect children that are truly in danger, Like imminent danger is where they need to start... Not with smoking in cars.
By this I mean if they are going to police bad parents then spend all the money they do fighting about smoking and where and creating legislation and use it to remove children from parents who are TRULY neglectful and DO not give them back and DO NOT let them have more children.
That is by far a greater threat to a child and their future then second hand smoke.

 

[eve]

I am just going to weigh in quickly here before I go to bed...

A couple pages back Calus said that the government should police those who don't police them selves.... (not a direct quote but I think I captured the intent of what he was saying)

If that is the case then the time and money to protect children that are truly in danger, Like imminent danger is where they need to start... Not with smoking in cars.
By this I mean if they are going to police bad parents then spend all the money they do fighting about smoking and where and creating legislation and use it to remove children from parents who are TRULY neglectful and DO not give them back and DO NOT let them have more children.
That is by far a greater threat to a child and their future then second hand smoke.

No kidding Amraan! The kids I see every day in my classroom have much more pressing issues with parental abuse and neglect than smoking in cars. If smoking in cars were that lethal, most of the people I know, myself included, would be dead. I do not think smoking in a car with a child is a good thing but it is being elevated to a threat level that is simply not warranted, in terms of government intervention.

Meanwhile people are feeding their kids junk, letting them stay up all night, teaching them no manners, ethics or respect, giving them no opportunity for exercise...I could go on and on about children's well-being and their potential to be good citizens and how it seems to have changed with many of today's parents.

That being said, I could be persuaded to support this law about children in cars and smoking but these other laws are just ridiculous. Is this America?

To think these towns are encouraging people to use the 911 system to report smokers! This is the height of absurdity. Where is common sense here? It is a slap in the face to all who face real peril and emergency.

Why is smoking still legal? It is legal for adults! I have no problem with public buildings and non-smoking establishments but that's as far as it should go, imo. Private property rights come into play here. Imminent domain laws are bad enough - now we have this! You cannot smoke in your own dwelling, on your own property or in your own car (sans children)? BAH! Bite me! :razz:

Eve

 

[TGIRecovered]

I can't tell you how many times my children and I have been forced to inhale smoker's disgusting toxic fumes in outdoor areas and yes, even in our own vehicle with the windows rolled up!

The smoke from other people's vehicles in drive-thrus and at traffic lights comes right thru the vents of our vehicle and there is no avoiding it.

Butts litter the ground from smokers who just have to have another hit on the way in from the car. I live on a very short cul-de-sac in a nice neighborhood and still I have to clean up butts from my front yard from people driving or walking by.

Public buildings with smoking and non-smoking areas still wreak of nicotine.

Public areas where the rest of us (large majority of the people) would like to enjoy fresh air are permeated with foul fumes from rude obliviots who pretend their smoke is their "right" regardless of who else has to inhale it .

If people give a darn about anyone else's "rights" they don't smoke, because unless they live far away from any other people and never go to a public place, they are poisoning the rest of us.

As for parents who think they aren't smoking around their children, just ask a friend who doesn't smoke to take a whiff of your baby's blankey, or child's jacket. Then imagine what the child's lungs must look like.

Non-smokers are often too afraid of being considered socially incorrect or impolite to speak up as loudly as the smokers (the minority) do any time they're asked to be considerate of the rest of us! Just my very outspoken opinion!

Susan

 

[eve]

Non-smokers are often too afraid of being considered politically incorrect or impolite to speak up as loudly as the smokers (the minority) do any time they're asked to be considerate of the rest of us! Just my very outspoken opinion!

Susan

snip

You've got to be kidding.


Eve

 

[TGIRecovered]

snip

You've got to be kidding.


Eve

Oops!
You are right Eve, I should have written "socially" incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll edit "politically"!

Susan

 

[southcitymom]

I'd like to see that scientific study that says second hand smoke doesn't affect one's health because this is the first time I've ever heard that.

Hey Jeana,

I was unable to find the reports online that we had in the cases I worked on. I did find several studies that concluded that second hand smoke does not lead to increased incidence of various diseases - cancer, heart disease, ephysema, etc... - but I have no idea if they are valid or impartial, etc...they were not the same studies that I was exposed to.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to know that not being around cigarette smoke is better for human health than being around cigarette smoke; but it's not really a hotplate issue for me personally. I just think we are exposed to much more dangerous things on a routine basis.

Still, I believe we will see more and more of these Bangor-type laws. I'm not a fan - from the erosion of personal rights angle. I was intrigued by Tybee's thought concerning sun exposure - perhaps they will be legislating that next...for the children, of course !

 

[eve]

Hey Jeana,

I was unable to find the reports online that we had in the cases I worked on. I did find several studies that concluded that second hand smoke does not lead to increased incidence of various diseases - cancer, heart disease, ephysema, etc... - but I have no idea if they are valid or impartial, etc...they were not the same studies that I was exposed to.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to know that not being around cigarette smoke is better for human health than being around cigarette smoke; but it's not really a hotplate issue for me personally. I just think we are exposed to much more dangerous things on a routine basis.

Still, I believe we will see more and more of these Bangor-type laws. I'm not a fan - from the erosion of personal rights angle. I was intrigued by Tybee's thought concerning sun exposure - perhaps they will be legislating that next...for the children, of course !

I have been involved with reporting the following (to Social Workers and the Courts) and watched as nothing ended up being done:

a family who routinely locks their teen age boy in a box made of 2 by 4s (they do give him a blanket)

a mom who cooks meth

a mom and stepdad who cook meth

a dad who cooks meth

a dad who sends his daughter to school in summer clothes (in Jan in MN - it hasn't been THAT warm) and wears HER sweatshirts himself

a dad who only lets his kids shower once a week

a mom who comes to conferences drunk

a dad who comes to conferences drunk

a dad who tried to toss his daughter out of a moving car

a mom who "makes" her daughter skip school and work illegally laying carpet 12 hours a day

I could outline more (many sexual abuse cases and others I would rather not even get into) but why?

In my world, legislation about exposing kids to smoking in cars or sun exposure is laughable.

Eve

 

[Nova]

Hey Jeana,

I was unable to find the reports online that we had in the cases I worked on. I did find several studies that concluded that second hand smoke does not lead to increased incidence of various diseases - cancer, heart disease, ephysema, etc... - but I have no idea if they are valid or impartial, etc...they were not the same studies that I was exposed to.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to know that not being around cigarette smoke is better for human health than being around cigarette smoke; but it's not really a hotplate issue for me personally. I just think we are exposed to much more dangerous things on a routine basis.

Still, I believe we will see more and more of these Bangor-type laws. I'm not a fan - from the erosion of personal rights angle. I was intrigued by Tybee's thought concerning sun exposure - perhaps they will be legislating that next...for the children, of course !

I was told by a chemist friend that the second-hand smoke alarm is junk science. (And he hates cigarette smoking so much he makes his wife smoke outside in the far corner of their property.)

I don't have enough science background to understand the details of what he said, but the gist was that studies descrying the dangers of second-hand smoke get funded, others generally do not. He describes the smoking bans as a political issue, not a health one.

Now I'm not saying his opinion is definitive and I certainly support bans on smoking in the workplace and in public buildings. But that's largely a matter of aesthetics.

 

[tybee204]

I just cant figure out when people started thinking they had the right to live in a pristine world. Complaining about 2nd hand smoke coming through ones car vents rather then the exhaust from the thousands of cars in the parking lot just cracked me up. When did everyone gain the right to only enjoy pleasant odors? There are so many more deadly and harmful things we face everyday above and beyond brief interludes of smoke. How many ciggerettes does one have to be exposed to and have it equal living near and oil refinery, paper mill or chemical plant? Or next to a busy road?

I dont like ciggerette smoke. I wouldnt have it in my house or my car but I frequent places where people smoke. I even have fun when I do. I just cant get all worked up about someones bad habit infringing on my right to breath already polluted air.

BTW woodsmoke is much worse. Any asthema sufferer within a mile has bronchial meltdown when people stoke their fireplace.

 

[southcitymom]

I was told by a chemist friend that the second-hand smoke alarm is junk science. (And he hates cigarette smoking so much he makes his wife smoke outside in the far corner of their property.)

I don't have enough science background to understand the details of what he said, but the gist was that studies descrying the dangers of second-hand smoke get funded, others generally do not. He describes the smoking bans as a political issue, not a health one.

Now I'm not saying his opinion is definitive and I certainly support bans on smoking in the workplace and in public buildings. But that's largely a matter of aesthetics.

This is my opinion as well, Nova. I posted a link earlier that explains how the government's biggest study concluding the various evils of second hand smoke was roundly debunked by Big Tobacco.

The smoking bans are totally a political issue. I saw it up close and personal when I worked on it. The ETS issue is all smoke anmd mirrors, pun intended.

The States had a fine line to walk - they make SO much money on tobacco taxes and don't want that to go away, BUT they saw that they could also make SO much money suing Big Tobacco. Anyway - I give the States credit - they got to have their cake and eat it do. But to do that, they had to convince the public how we are all in such dire jeaopardy from ETS. Whatever...

That said - sure, I think people should be able to get away from smoke because it's stinky and annoying and some folks are allergic.

 

[eve]

I just cant figure out when people started thinking they had the right to live in a pristine world. Complaining about 2nd hand smoke coming through ones car vents rather then the exhaust from the thousands of cars in the parking lot just cracked me up. When did everyone gain the right to only enjoy pleasant odors? There are so many more deadly and harmful things we face everyday above and beyond brief interludes of smoke. How many ciggerettes does one have to be exposed to and have it equal living near and oil refinery, paper mill or chemical plant? Or next to a busy road?

I dont like ciggerette smoke. I wouldnt have it in my house or my car but I frequent places where people smoke. I even have fun when I do. I just cant get all worked up about someones bad habit infringing on my right to breath already polluted air.

BTW woodsmoke is much worse. Any asthema sufferer within a mile has bronchial meltdown when people stoke their fireplace.

Tybee, you hit the nail on the head, while reading this thread I find myself thinking back on the old days with nostalgia. I know I will raise the ire of some but give me a smoky night club ( preferably with the Rat Pack performing - LOL) any day over our world today. We take these things to such extremes, good grief! It's just a miracle that anyone in my family is alive and mentally stable. Our parents smoked and even kicked us out of the family room during their cocktail hour (OMG!)! My grandmother had one of those long cigarette holders! She was a beautiful woman and a gym teacher before she got married! At 87 the doc said he "could tell she didn't smoke." She laughed and since "Well, yes, young man, I quit!" He asked when and she said "When I was 81! I got sick of trying to find an ashtray, it's no fun anymore!"

I think it's great not to smoke but OMG - smoke bothering you from a smoker in ANOTHER car? Get real! Live in a bubble!

We are just getting to be a big bunch of boring, intolerant wimps.

Eve