Smoking ban in cars

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Huh? The smoker is getting primary smoke and second hand smoke. How is second hand smoke more harmful to the non-smoker? Harmful, yes. More harmful, I don't see how.

By the way, I agree with not smoking around children. But, a new law? There are too many laws as it is, half of which are ignored.

The problem is the second-hand smoke, which is more harmful to the non-smokers than to the smoker. The studies done on the harmful consequences of those exposed to second-hand smoke is staggering. How do you protect the rights of young children whose parents smoke?

From what I've read and understood about it - the smoker is inhaling through the filter of the cigarette while bystanders are inhaling infiltered smoke.

[ChristinaM 0]

Let me see....

You buy and pay for a car or house with money YOU have earned and have already been taxed on. By the government. Then the government starts telling you (outside of a felony or misdemeanor) what you can do inside that car or house.

Too far-reaching if you ask me.

agreed

Damn straight.

As a smoker who lives in Maine (although not in Bangor), I think it's horrendous. Partly for the reasons listed above, and partly because (and I know this is going to make me incredibly unpopular) there is evidence that suggests that human lungs are remarkably resilient things, and can actually recover from not only second-hand smoke but also the effects of smoking in a far shorter time than the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe.

Do I think it's right to chainsmoke in a car with the window cracked 1/3 of an inch with a baby in it? No, I do not. Do I think someone should be able to be stopped and ticketed for smoking with the window halfway down and a 16 year old in the car? No, I do not. Is there some middle ground in there? Perhaps. Should we have a little more faith in the common sense of the good people of Bangor, Maine? Certainly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let me see....

You buy and pay for a car or house with money YOU have earned and have already been taxed on. By the government. Then the government starts telling you (outside of a felony or misdemeanor) what you can do inside that car or house.

Too far-reaching if you ask me.

I can totally relate to that view, but when I think about the rights of children, then which takes precedent? I think in the case of second-hand smoke, there is no doubt about the damaging effects it has on bystanders which is why smoking has been banned in just about every public place.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

NJ has had a 'law' for a while prohibiting us from talking on our cell phoens without the use of hands free units. I'll tell you right now, rarely a day goes by that I don't see at least a few drivers breaking that particular law. The cops dont care. I follow the law only because I like using my hands free.

ETA: wait, i forgot to make my point. My point is, fukc the government.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Gupt

[Ban Hammer 12,897]

ETA: wait, i forgot to make my point. My point is, fukc the government.

you radical liberal

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ETA: wait, i forgot to make my point. My point is, fukc the government.

you radical liberal

peace out to all my b1tchez!

[Henia 11]

NJ has had a 'law' for a while prohibiting us from talking on our cell phoens without the use of hands free units. I'll tell you right now, rarely a day goes by that I don't see at least a few drivers breaking that particular law. The cops dont care. I follow the law only because I like using my hands free.

ETA: wait, i forgot to make my point. My point is, fukc the government.

I was wondering when you come by Gupt need to see you leave your mark too...

[Robor007 0]

Damn straight.

As a smoker who lives in Maine (although not in Bangor), I think it's horrendous. Partly for the reasons listed above, and partly because (and I know this is going to make me incredibly unpopular) there is evidence that suggests that human lungs are remarkably resilient things, and can actually recover from not only second-hand smoke but also the effects of smoking in a far shorter time than the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe.

Do I think it's right to chainsmoke in a car with the window cracked 1/3 of an inch with a baby in it? No, I do not. Do I think someone should be able to be stopped and ticketed for smoking with the window halfway down and a 16 year old in the car? No, I do not. Is there some middle ground in there? Perhaps. Should we have a little more faith in the common sense of the good people of Bangor, Maine? Certainly.

Sorry but I've got to call BS. As I said in a previous reply, I've seen the evidence of second hand smoke in my ex wife and her asthma going from severe living with her smoking mom to non-existent after moving out. Also, my grand mother died of lung cancer (smoker). My aunt died of lung cancer (smoker). My uncle died of lung cancer (smoker). They all quit smoking once they found out they had cancer but they all died. My mom is going right down that path with chronic bronchitis and emphysema (smoker) and I'm sure she'll soon join them. I guess their lungs were the unresilient kind?

If you're going to say something like that (bolded above) at least provide a link to said 'evidence' to back it up (and not from a tobacco lobby or study group).

Edited January 20, 2007 by Robor007

[bostonparis 0]

I think smoking should be illegal. It is so deadly. A friend of mine lost her 39 year old best friend, mother of two young children, to lung cancer. I lost my father to esophogeal cancer. Both due to smoking. Both awful deaths not to be wished upon anyone. Both died far too young, robbing children of a needed parent. I might have been 35 when my dad died, but I still need him. And he's not here. And he had quit smoking 10 years before he died. There was regeneration of cells alright, but the wrong cells.

My fiance smokes. He lives in Paris, and he's a bartender. He gets secondhand smoke all day at work. He can't wait to move here so that A) he won't have secondhand smoke at work, and B ) smoking isn't allowed anyplace in Boston, so he'll smoke less.

What does this have to do with Maine?.... Uhhhh... nothing. Sorry.

Edited January 20, 2007 by bostonparis

[de_sjiem 0]

Damn straight.

As a smoker who lives in Maine (although not in Bangor), I think it's horrendous. Partly for the reasons listed above, and partly because (and I know this is going to make me incredibly unpopular) there is evidence that suggests that human lungs are remarkably resilient things, and can actually recover from not only second-hand smoke but also the effects of smoking in a far shorter time than the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe.

Do I think it's right to chainsmoke in a car with the window cracked 1/3 of an inch with a baby in it? No, I do not. Do I think someone should be able to be stopped and ticketed for smoking with the window halfway down and a 16 year old in the car? No, I do not. Is there some middle ground in there? Perhaps. Should we have a little more faith in the common sense of the good people of Bangor, Maine? Certainly.

Sorry but I've got to call BS. As I said in a previous reply, I've seen the evidence of second hand smoke in my ex wife and her asthma going from severe living with her smoking mom to non-existent after moving out. Also, my grand mother died of lung cancer (smoker). My aunt died of lung cancer (smoker). My uncle died of lung cancer (smoker). They all quit smoking once they found out they had cancer but they all died. My mom is going right down that path with chronic bronchitis and emphysema (smoker) and I'm sure she'll soon join them. I guess their lungs were the unresilient kind?

If you're going to say something like that (bolded above) at least provide a link to said 'evidence' to back it up (and not from a tobacco lobby or study group).

There's some evidence for you.. after she moved out she was no longer subject to second hand smoke, and her lungs were better... pretty resilliant if you ask me... And yes of course its unfortunate that they all got lung cancer, but quitting smoking once you have lung cancer is much to late for lungs to recover on their own.

However, I dont agree with smoking when there are children present in the car just because cars are so closed off and younger children dont usually know enough to ask someone to stop smoking if it bothers them. I know I didn't enjoy being in a smoky car growing up...

[Aymerlu 3]

I'm an ex-smoker myself, but I never smoked around my kids, or any other kids. Working in an asthma clinic there are days when parents bring their kids in and I'm just like They sit are upset because their kids can't breathe and they are little chimneys beside them. Personally, in such small quarters, I would like to see people not allowed to smoke around kids in their cars.

[Alanlvsjudy 0]

Huh? The smoker is getting primary smoke and second hand smoke. How is second hand smoke more harmful to the non-smoker? Harmful, yes. More harmful, I don't see how.

By the way, I agree with not smoking around children. But, a new law? There are too many laws as it is, half of which are ignored.

The problem is the second-hand smoke, which is more harmful to the non-smokers than to the smoker. The studies done on the harmful consequences of those exposed to second-hand smoke is staggering. How do you protect the rights of young children whose parents smoke?

From what I've read and understood about it - the smoker is inhaling through the filter of the cigarette while bystanders are inhaling infiltered smoke.

OK, I'm not a smoker but I don't really care if people want to smoke.. the smoker is also breathing the same "unfiltered" air as the other occupants is he not?

What everyone doesn't seem to realize is, we all place a burden on our environment in ways we never thought of. We just cannot condemn others for what we are ourselves guilty of.

No matter how "green" we may be, we each are far from innocent in this regard.

So maybe, we are just throwing rocks in a house of glass....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Huh? The smoker is getting primary smoke and second hand smoke. How is second hand smoke more harmful to the non-smoker? Harmful, yes. More harmful, I don't see how.

By the way, I agree with not smoking around children. But, a new law? There are too many laws as it is, half of which are ignored.

The problem is the second-hand smoke, which is more harmful to the non-smokers than to the smoker. The studies done on the harmful consequences of those exposed to second-hand smoke is staggering. How do you protect the rights of young children whose parents smoke?

From what I've read and understood about it - the smoker is inhaling through the filter of the cigarette while bystanders are inhaling infiltered smoke.

OK, I'm not a smoker but I don't really care if people want to smoke.. the smoker is also breathing the same "unfiltered" air as the other occupants is he not?

What everyone doesn't seem to realize is, we all place a burden on our environment in ways we never thought of. We just cannot condemn others for what we are ourselves guilty of.

No matter how "green" we may be, we each are far from innocent in this regard.

So maybe, we are just throwing rocks in a house of glass....

Secondhand Smoke Facts

Secondhand smoke, also known as passive or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a combination of:

* Mainstream smoke: exhaled by smokers

* Sidestream smoke: given off by the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe

Between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes.

Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons.

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans.

Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so (Mayo Clinic release, Aug 97).

Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer.

Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease.

Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries (accelerates atherosclerosis) and damages the lining of these arteries.

When a pregnant woman is exposed to secondhand smoke, the nicotine she ingests is passed on to her unborn baby.

Women who smoke or are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy:

* have a higher rate of miscarriges and stillbirths

* have an increased risk of low birthweight infants

* have children born with decreased lung function

* have children with greater risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to experience increased frequency of:

* asthma, colds, bronchitis, pneumonia, and other lung diseases

* middle ear infections

* sinus infections

* caries in deciduous teeth

Ventilation systems and designated smoking sections do not protect patrons from ETS.

Current estimates of how smoking increases the risk of various diseases are dramatically underestimated because the ill effects of secondhand smoke inhalation are not taken into account.

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html

Edited January 20, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ecalos 0]

I'm not sure about the issue with Boulder. I would think not though because Rob and I went there to visit his brother and we were smoking outside... I would think if it were and issue (even if it wasn't actively enforced) he would have mentioned it to us.

BUT I don't know for sure.

[Alanlvsjudy 0]

C'mon Steven do you think you don't have an impact on your/my environment that may/may not be harmful to me?