Smoking ban in cars

[Henia 11]

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.

Your fiance is right... smoking is congieous...and going to enviroment where less ppl smoke or no ppl smoke will help him quit.

[bostonparis 0]

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.

Your fiance is right... smoking is congieous...and going to enviroment where less ppl smoke or no ppl smoke will help him quit.

Absolutely. I know when I'm in Paris, I'll steal a drag or two from his ciggie...

[KarenCee 3]

For those who question how harmful second hand smoke can be, this is some information and certainly not the only article on this subject. My doctor told me that it is possible that my asthma developed as a result of living with smokers all my life. I, on the other hand, have never smoked. *sigh*

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

August 2006

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

*

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

*

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3

*

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4

*

A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.5

*

Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.6

*

Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.7 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.8

*

Currently, 14 states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have already passed strong smoke-free air laws.9

*

As of 2005, nine smoke-free states prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, including restaurants and bars (CA, CT, DE, ME, MA, NY, RI, VT and WA).10

*

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.11

*

Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year.12 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.13

*

In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.14 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.15

*

New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.16

*

The current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.17

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

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

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

From what and to what degree? You can't divide such an issue along simple terms of black and white. When does your rights end and mine begin? In general if I were engaged in doing something that put your health at great risk with conclusive evidence that supports that claim, certainly then you should have legal rights to protect yourself from my harm, including prohibiting me from engaging in whatever causes that harm.

There is a wealth of information from studies on the harmful effects of second hand smoke and that's why is not not simply saying everything we do can cause harm to others or the air we breathe.

[rebeccajo 14]

Hey about some more new rules?

Like - you can't buy a six pack and transport it in your car if you have kids in the car? Or better yet you have to go out on your back porch and drink a cold one if the little ones are home?

What about driving kids around in the car after you've picked up condoms and lube? Or your birth control prescription? Shocking!

How about you can't have a PC in your house if you have kids because they might have access to porn?

Sorry - I'm just too much a child of the 60's to be happy about the legislating of personal, private behavior.

It's one thing to be a good parent and health conscious. Just don't shove it down my throat by telling me that since it's in someone's best interest those people have the right to make it a law.

Edited January 20, 2007 by rebeccajo

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

Hey about some more new rules?

Like - you can't buy a six pack and transport it in your car if you have kids in the car? Or better yet you have to go out on your back porch and drink a cold one if the little ones are home?

What about driving kids around in the car after you've picked up condoms and lube? Or your birth control prescription? Shocking!

How about you can't have a PC in your house if you have kids because they might have access to porn?

Sorry - I'm just too much a child of the 60's to be happy about the legislating of personal, private behavior.

It's one thing to be a good parent and health conscious. Just don't shove it down my throat by telling me that since it's in someone's best interest those people have the right to make it a law.

I support civil liberties - very much so. I don't think it's a slippery slope to ban smoking where the second hand smoke is a clear danger to the health of children. We have fairly recent child restraining laws for driving which make sense. Will police actually go out and cite those parents who smoke with their children in their car? Probably not that often. But I think it's important to make it a legal statement - that doing so is putting your children in great harm and hopefully smokers will be concientious when driving their kids around.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[rebeccajo 14]

.......But I think it's important to make it a legal statement - that doing so is putting your children in great harm and hopefully smokers will be concientious when driving their kids around.

That's where you and I disagree and I guess it's just gonna be that way!

To me there are moral statements, ethical statements, healthy statements, and legal statements. The first three shouldn't infringe on the last one.

But hey.....I remember Woodstock.

[Caladan 19]

Where's that pet peeve thread, 'cause I got one:

Using "oh, think of the children" to justify intrusive laws.

Smoking is not good for you. Neither is secondhand smoke. Ban it in public, fine. Ban it in bars, okay, because it's not fair to the employees who work there, since they can't choose not to smoke, and it is the sort of decision that needs to be made unilaterally.

But a private car is one's own personal property. Smoking is legal. If smoking is so dangerous that we can't allow people to smoke around their kids in the car, then screw the car ban. Make it entirely illegal. If it's generally not so dangerous that we don't ban it entirely, then whether they smoke in private is their own business.

The law does not currently seem to think that smoking cigarettes is so dangerous as to be bannable.

I do not smoke. My dad smoked like a chimney, thought it was fun to blow smoke in my face, and then blamed my allergies on the media telling me smoking was bad. He's an ####### for that, but on his property, it really is his right.

(Gonna be fun if he ever visits, 'cause he's going to smoke outside.)

[SoL. 0]

I personally dislike the smoke/smoker's smell (sorry) so when I am on a public space and somebody starts smoking I just move somewhere else.

But it really bothers me people smoking *anything* in front of kids. I was waiting for the metro on an open stop and there was a couple smoking illegal stuff and the woman had her toddler sitting on her lap while doing that. That's one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen.

OK so smoking is a personal choice but, please, kids shouldn't be forced to the secondhand smoke.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Sol-de-Verano

[garya505 2]

Some of you are missing the point. One person's right to swing his (or her) fist ends at another person's nose.

[William33 110]

While we are singling out harmful activities like smoking, why not ban:

obesity, unhealthy fast food, Car and bus exhaust, hereditary predisposition for illness, people that have contagious diseases, char broiled meat, etc.....

The second hand smoke thing is blown way out of proportion. Like most studies, the facts are speculative and generally not accepted or proven.

Granted, if you are subjected to smoke for long periods of time, in an enclosed area, you might develop problems. Casual exposure is no different than car and bus exhaust. Those that live in cities suck that ####### in daily and don't complain. Why is that?

Easy targets.

Edited January 20, 2007 by William33

[garya505 2]

While we are singling out harmful activities like smoking, why not ban:

obesity, unhealthy fast food, Car and bus exhaust, hereditary predisposition for illness, people that have contagious diseases, char broiled meat, etc.....

The second hand smoke thing is blown way out of proportion. Like most studies, the facts are speculative and generally not accepted or proven.

Granted, if you are subjected to smoke for long periods of time, in an enclosed area, you might develop problems. Casual exposure is no different than car and bus exhaust. Those that live in cities suck that ####### in daily and don't complain. Why is that?

Easy targets.

It's not about banning unhealthy activities that you do to yourself. Go ahead and kill yourself if you like, that's your choice. On the other hand, smoking in a closed vehicle with children present is child abuse, no different from intentionally feeding them poisoned food or water.

[Jenn! 918]

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....

Right. Smokers breathe in the smoke directly and also secondhand. I don't understand how smoking is healthier than not smoking.

[William33 110]

Garya505,

I already stated earlier, my agreement that smoking should not occur around children.

With that said, is car/bus exhaust, environmental pollution, contagious disease, "doing it to yourself"?

It's not about banning unhealthy activities that you do to yourself. Go ahead and kill yourself if you like, that's your choice. On the other hand, smoking in a closed vehicle with children present is child abuse, no different from intentionally feeding them poisoned food or water.

[Sinergy 3]

Ill stop smoking and stop polluting myself and ppl around me, when ppl stop driving cars and stop polluting the air and killing earth.

and again i am proud to say i never smoke around the kiddies