Smoking ban in cars

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

Does anyone in here like to smoke sausages??!!!!

Did you hear the news? Smoked products and charred meat are now illegal!!

eric only smokes after sex

[Sinergy 3]

Does anyone in here like to smoke sausages??!!!!

Did you hear the news? Smoked products and charred meat are now illegal!!

eric only smokes after sex

Do you usually lite it up for him?

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

Does anyone in here like to smoke sausages??!!!!

Did you hear the news? Smoked products and charred meat are now illegal!!

eric only smokes after sex

Do you usually lite it up for him?

no, you looking for meaningful employment?

[Alanlvsjudy 0]

Does anyone in here like to smoke sausages??!!!!

Did you hear the news? Smoked products and charred meat are now illegal!!

eric only smokes after sex

If you smoke after sex you're definitely doing it too fast.....

[KarenCee 3]

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.)

So....you think it's ok to make a child breathe second hand smoke against their will? I agree...a car is one's own personal property. But to own a car indicates one is a responsible person. With that responsibility comes responsible thinking. Is it therefore, in your opinion, responsible thinking to smoke in a car with children? Since the child obviously has no voice, no advocate in this situation, this seems to be why the ban is being discussed since it seems that some parents can't see beyond their "rights" and the "rights" of their children. It seems the parent's rights are higher on the priority list than that of their children.

Children ARE my business. I teach kids everyday who come from smoker's homes. I also know which kids are absent more than others. Those kids (I know for an absolute fact) come from homes where the parents smoke. Coincidence? Maybe, but somehow I doubt it.

[DelcoCouple 1]

When all else fails including reason use the think of the children argument. Pathetic. Oh and for all the people that trot out meaningless statements about evidence lets look at some shall we?

Interviewed on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs , Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: 'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.'

Professor Doll's comments may surprise some people but not those who have analysed the argument about passive smoking in detail. In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.

Likewise, in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.

[Caladan 19]

To own a car doesn't indicate a damned thing beyond the fact that you own a car. You might be responsible. You might have had daddy co-sign and make the insurance payments for you. You might have bought it at a junkyard. Neither here nor there.

I don't think it's responsible to smoke with children in the car, or in the home. I also don't think it is responsible to feed children Happy Meals, and I think obesity is a greater danger than secondhand cigarette smoke. But I don't think the state has the right to stop a mother at McDonald's and give her a ticket, or to do a no-knock raid her refrigerator. I don't think it's responsible to let children watch violent movies or play video games instead of exercising. But I don't think the job of the state is to make me responsible.

If the behavior isn't dangerous enough to ban outright (and if you want to make cigarette smoking illegal, your position is consistent), then arguing that it's okay to smoke in the home with children around but not in the car seems crazy. It's irresponsible, but there are plenty of irresponsible behaviors that fall short of child abuse or an actionable reason by the state.

For those of you arguing that it's child abuse; are you just employing over-the-top rhetoric, or do you really think that a child who has a parent who smokes should be removed from the home? Should a divorced parent lose custody if her new partner smokes?

[KarenCee 3]

When all else fails including reason use the think of the children argument. Pathetic. Oh and for all the people that trot out meaningless statements about evidence lets look at some shall we?

Interviewed on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs , Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: 'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.'

Professor Doll's comments may surprise some people but not those who have analysed the argument about passive smoking in detail. In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.

Likewise, in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.

Then why don't you come to my classroom and smell the smoke on some of my students and see if you enjoy the stench. Ask them if they like it if mom or dad smokes. Let them tell you how often they have to watch mom or dad (or both) light up in the car, or share their fears with you of mom or dad getting sick from it. So, can I assume that if you smoke, you plan on making your child subject to your smoke as well? How many parents do YOU know ask their child "do you mind if I smoke in the car with the windows up?"

Yes...mom and dad have every right in this world to smoke. Smoke all they want, I don't really give a flipping **. BUT, why subject their children to it? That's my issue. As to this being pathetic, I'm not really concerned about it since I am not using children as my argument to ban smoking. I only care about my kids, their health and well being. Bash me for being a child advocate if you will, but someone has to be. If the issue were drug use affecting my kids I would be just as protective too. So don't think that excuse floats with me...like I said...my ONLY concern are my kids. Period.

[DelcoCouple 1]

...my ONLY concern are my kids. Period.

So you do not take your kids in a car then?

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20se...s/stats-usa.htm

I am certain with such heartfelt concern that you never let them ride a school bus?

http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?c...p;folder_id=183

And as for playing games or sports, well that is a definite no no if you really want to keep them safe.

http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/SCHOOL_INJURY.pdf

Compare the above to the number of kids "allegedly" killed or injured by passive smoking? You can't, for the simple reason no reliable evidence exists as alluded to in my previous post.

Oh wait a minute you are just making an emotional argument not actually backed by any empirical evidence. By all means take an opposing view to me but please do not trot out the old tired think of the kids argument. It simply does not stand up to any serious examination and is intellectually weak and disingenuous.

Critical thinking skills are a wonderful thing if people would apply them rather than regurgitate propoganda and opinion as "fact".

[sophyie 0]

...my ONLY concern are my kids. Period.

So you do not take your kids in a car then?

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20se...s/stats-usa.htm

I am certain with such heartfelt concern that you never let them ride a school bus?

http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?c...p;folder_id=183

And as for playing games or sports, well that is a definite no no if you really want to keep them safe.

http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/SCHOOL_INJURY.pdf

Compare the above to the number of kids "allegedly" killed or injured by passive smoking? You can't, for the simple reason no reliable evidence exists as alluded to in my previous post.

Oh wait a minute you are just making an emotional argument not actually backed by any empirical evidence. By all means take an opposing view to me but please do not trot out the old tired think of the kids argument. It simply does not stand up to any serious examination and is intellectually weak and disingenuous.

Critical thinking skills are a wonderful thing if people would apply them rather than regurgitate propoganda and opinion as "fact".

So you're saying it does NOT harm kids to secondhand smoke?

What's with pregnant women? Does smoking harm the unborn babies?

[bostonparis 0]

To argue that secondhand smoke doesn't affect the lungs of people is incorrect. It's simply wrong. Everyone knows it, but smokers don't want to admit it because they "like smoking", they'll smoke if they want to, and no one can stop them. They don't want to admit that it could kill them, because they enjoy it. Hell, I enjoyed it for a while. Then I got cancer.

Go to the BodyWorlds exhibit and take a look at the lungs of smokers, non-smokers, passive smokers, and people with black lung from working in coal minds. It'll change your mind about what effect smoke has, passive, active or otherwise.

[KarenCee 3]

...my ONLY concern are my kids. Period.

So you do not take your kids in a car then? Yes...but I do not smoke. Even if I did, I wouldn't subject my daughter to it.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20se...s/stats-usa.htm

I am certain with such heartfelt concern that you never let them ride a school bus? Yes I do. She rides the shuttle from my school to hers, but the driver does not smoke.

http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?c...p;folder_id=183

And as for playing games or sports, well that is a definite no no if you really want to keep them safe. She participates in whatever activities she is able to. What does that have to do with smoking in a car?

http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/SCHOOL_INJURY.pdf

Compare the above to the number of kids "allegedly" killed or injured by passive smoking? You can't, for the simple reason no reliable evidence exists as alluded to in my previous post.

Oh wait a minute you are just making an emotional argument not actually backed by any empirical evidence. By all means take an opposing view to me but please do not trot out the old tired think of the kids argument. It simply does not stand up to any serious examination and is intellectually weak and disingenuous.

Critical thinking skills are a wonderful thing if people would apply them rather than regurgitate propoganda and opinion as "fact".

No, it's not an emotional argument. I am not trotting out old arguments either. Just as many children are harmed by second hand smoke as they are by drug use. I have taught children whose mother was addicted to drugs during her pregnancy and it affected her child. Do you propose to argue with me on that? Are you an educator by chance? I know what I see and hear, which is not quoting statistics or tired arguments in my opinion.

So, do you maintain that a child has no rights whatsoever when it comes to a parent who smokes in a car? Do you also maintain that this same child, if he or she asks the parent not to smoke in the car is wrong? I also realize that you will have a rebuttal to anything I or anyone else who feels this way says. I say until you have experienced some of the things I have in my 12 years of teaching, don't insinuate that "using the children argument" is for furthering my own agenda.

[KiKi 0]

I can't believe people are arguing that it should be a RIGHT to smoke in a closed in space like a car with children.

That is disgusting PERIOD.

Tryig to dilute the argument by throwing in the kitchen sink of everyday hazards doesnt work.

Bottom line is, you are driving down the strreet and you see a parent puffing away with a few kids in there and it's OKAY??????

The kids have a right not to have to breath filth. When i see a parent doing that the first thing that comes to mind is "Trash"

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

To own a car doesn't indicate a damned thing beyond the fact that you own a car. You might be responsible. You might have had daddy co-sign and make the insurance payments for you. You might have bought it at a junkyard. Neither here nor there.

I don't think it's responsible to smoke with children in the car, or in the home. I also don't think it is responsible to feed children Happy Meals, and I think obesity is a greater danger than secondhand cigarette smoke. But I don't think the state has the right to stop a mother at McDonald's and give her a ticket, or to do a no-knock raid her refrigerator. I don't think it's responsible to let children watch violent movies or play video games instead of exercising. But I don't think the job of the state is to make me responsible.

If the behavior isn't dangerous enough to ban outright (and if you want to make cigarette smoking illegal, your position is consistent), then arguing that it's okay to smoke in the home with children around but not in the car seems crazy. It's irresponsible, but there are plenty of irresponsible behaviors that fall short of child abuse or an actionable reason by the state.

For those of you arguing that it's child abuse; are you just employing over-the-top rhetoric, or do you really think that a child who has a parent who smokes should be removed from the home? Should a divorced parent lose custody if her new partner smokes?

Well said. I guess I would be more in favor of outright banning smoking, period...unless there is a way an individual can smoke in a self contained room where no one else will be breathing in the second-hand smoke except for other smokers. The more I think about it, it's nearly impossible to smoke without effecting other people around you, whereas, no one else besides me is going to have high cholesterol from eating fast food.

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

Well said. I guess I would be more in favor of outright banning smoking, period...unless there is a way an individual can smoke in a self contained room where no one else will be breathing in the second-hand smoke except for other smokers. The more I think about it, it's nearly impossible to smoke without effecting other people around you, whereas, no one else besides me is going to have high cholesterol from eating fast food.

i'm sure a lot of your cali herb smokers would disagree with that......