Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in Cars

[ohio2007]

let me see if I did this right.

I use to be a two pack a day smoker but went cold turkey. This seems a little harsh;

Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in CarsBANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.
When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.


<snip>



http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/09/D8MHRQEO1.html

stay off the cell phones and menthols while driving in Maine. Are they Mainers or Maniacs?

[FastHorizon]

1. Yeah but

Why would anyone smoke with children in their car?

[LiberalFighter]

27. Cause they are not thinking of the welfare of their children?

Doesn't make any sense that women stop smoking (supposedly) when they are pregnant but will smoke around their babies and young children.

[Maine-ah]

83. I quit cold turkey when I found out I was preggo

and haven't picked one up since. You smoke around my kid, and I'd hurt you...badly.

[LiberalFighter]

85. Good... Cig smoke actually smells like some kind of smoke to me

when I have a cold. Really harsh

[LiberalFighter]

122. I meant to say poison instead of smoke (when I have a cold)

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Welcome to DU, ohio2007!

Let the firefight begin!

:popcorn:

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Breitbart's headline is deliberately misleading

That part about children being in the car is crucial and is no doubt the whole point of the law.

[Squatch]

4. Smoking in a car with children is tantamount to child abuse.

I applaud this measure!

[ohio2007]

5. it starts with children.Today no smoking with children,tomorrow

No smoking on public streets .
Does this give the police the right to search you ashtray and make "judgement calls"?

[Squatch]

17. The good ol' slippery slope fallacy.

[NotGivingUp]

68. slippery slope FALLACY??? okey dokey.

:eyes:

[rinsd]

127. LOL. You should learn the definiton of fallacy.

[jpak]

19. Sounds good to me!!

Smoking sucks...any way you look at it...

[sendero]

84. Yeah...

... lets outlaw everything that sucks. We could start with the way you think, or don't think.

[LiberalFighter]

29. They won't be able to prove they smoked in car with children

unless they witness the act.

And just because the ashtray is void of cigarette residue does not mean they weren't smoking in car with children. They could just as easily smoke and throw cigarettes out the window.

Indiana it is illegal to throw lit cigarettes out the window. It is not enforced.

[ileus]

98. Have you nevre been around people that smoke???

Kids stink almost as bad as the parents.

[progressivebydesign]

103. My stepdaughter always reeked when she came back from Mom's house.

It was gross. Her clothes, her backpack, her teddy bear, everything. We got a package of xmas gifts from her Mom this year, and the entire box reeked, too. It was kinda gross to have packages that smelled like ciggies. I just don't think smokers realize how bad they smell, until they quit.

[LiberalFighter]

121. If cigarettes are in ashtray that will stink up the car for ages

Residue from that will attach itself to people's clothes and hair.

They can always claim that they had a cigarette before they got into the car.
Cigarette smell can as one stated stay with a person who is in a place where people are smoking and it only takes one or two people smoking to infest the non-smoker clothing & hair.

When I use to go to bars or places where smoking was permitted which was just about everywhere in the past the smell would be evident when I got out of my clothes. That was 20 to 30 minutes after leaving the place.

[question everything]

39. Next, no fatty acids, no eating hamburgers in one car

imagine smuggling one from New Jersey to New York

We are turning into a police state in the name of the "its good for you."

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? This was what turned the tide in favor of Clinton in 1992, when he started talking about these terms.

[endarkenment]

7. I didn't realize I was abused by my mom.

I thought she was a wonderful mom. Turns out she was a child abuser. I think I need lots of drugs and therapy now to fix me up.

[hughee99]

14. My mother was a smoker as well...

apparently second hand smoke wasn't as harmful when I was growing up. The abuse didn't leave me with any physical or emotional scars.

[endarkenment]

16. It seems that you and me are suffering from abuse denial. nt.

[MindPilot]

30. Interesting how smoke has gotten so much more dangerous

over the past few years. Both my parents--and everybody they associated with--smoked long before the conception and after I left home. I smoked until well into my thirties.

My Dr tells me I'm in very good health for a man in his mid-fifties. How can that be? My grandmother, who is into her nineties, puts away two packs a day. She must be smoking a different brand or something.

[Umbram]

35. Good Study

You might want to write that research up and have it published in a medical journal.

Certainly if none of those people died of lung cancer, the whole thing must be a fraud!

[MindPilot]

38. They wouldn't accept it...something about flawed methodology

Point is the anti-smokers make it sound like one whiff of side-stream smoke and your lungs shrivel into little bits of charcoal. The reality is that smoking is just one more risk factor, albeit a statistically big one.

My dad died at 69 from liver cancer. Would he have lived longer had he never smoked? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps that extra time would've done nothing more than prolong the suffering of his last couple of years.

[Umbram]

41. Could be.

There seems to be a fundamental difference between taking a nihilistic view as to one's own health and taking the same view as to the health of others - especially those that don't have a say in the matter, as kids in cars with smokers likely don't.

If a company knowingly exposes its workers without their consent to a chemical the company knows to be toxic, we wouldn't likely nod our heads in agreement if the company were to explain that the workers may have been done a favor as their deaths were more rapid, or future suffering shortened.

As to anti-smokers:

I agree with you, in that people tend to get hypocritical about other people's vices, calling for regulation thereof, for example, while defending their own. That's human nature.

I don't see anything hypocritical in attempting to prevent those same vices from harming the health of other people though.

[ronnie624]

110. LOL!

:rofl:

[progressivebydesign]

107. Wow. Lucky you. My dad died at 54, his dad at 55,

my Mom's dad at 56, her sister died at 58, her other sister had her first heart attack at 44, my brother had his first heart attack at 46 (different father than mine), my Mom has battled asthma and COPD from second hand smoke (from my Dad and her father) for the past decade. Of all the relatives listed above, ALL smoked. And of the relatives not listed, not ONE of my relatives that did not smoke has had a heart attack or cancer. NOT ONE.

But obviously your science is much more accurate than mine.

[POAS]

61. Are you sure?

[hughee99]

64. Unless you want to count the fact that I don't smoke...

But I'm not sure that it's necessarily related. I don't see any and I would have though that any issues would have surfaced by now. When I smell cigarette smoke, it doesn't bother me at all, though. Cats on the other hand just kill my allergies.

[Squatch]

18. Yeah...second hand smoke is FULL of vitamins and minerals!!

[Umbram]

28. Mommy and Daddy can't be wrong? How sweet! nt.

[endarkenment]

47. I didn't say it was right. My point is that It wasn't child abuse.

My mom smoking a cigarette in the car was not child abuse. What it was is none of your business.

[Umbram]

50. I guess that's the question at issue.

When IS it societies business? That's the question. Saying "it's none of your business" isn't particularly helpful.

Certainly there is a line to be drawn.

Incest/Beating
Spanking
.
.
.
Smoking in the car
.
.
.
What the kid is allowed to eat


Where is the line to be drawn? *shrugs*

Certainly there are elements of parenting below the line where it is
nobody's business. You can't just say "it's none of your business" and
expect everyone to agree that the line is properly drawn there though.

[callous taoboy]

56. With what we know about second-hand smoke

I'd label smoking around your child seriously stupid and reckless.

[progressivebydesign]

109. But it IS society's business, because WE pay for it.

The truth is that the burden of smoking, in lost wages, public health care, etc., falls on the average tax payer. We pay for the billions of dollars in smoke-related illnesses. So I'd say it is our business.

[TommyO]

76. Join the club, endarkenment!

I too was raised with a smoking mother (and father), yet turned out OK. Of course, I almost didn't survive the day my brothers and I crushed up their cigarettes and flushed them down the toilet.

[LostinVA]

25. Me too -- The subject header is misleading

[WorseBeforeBetter]

6. Your headline tells only half the story...

nice try. Children should not be exposed to cigarette (or any) smoke. Period. And as far as cell phone drivers, you can always spot 'em - weaving and dawdling. Maine's looking pretty good right about now.

[endarkenment]

8. Only bans with children present. OK: still not your business.

I agree the OP's headline is misleading and probably deliberately so. However it really is not the state's business. What's next for the nanny state? How far do we let this bullshit go before we have the courage to tell them to fuck off?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

13. I disagree. Children should not be exposed to smoke. Period.

Health care costs get passed onto the rest of us, so if the "nanny state" wants to step in on this one (protecting kids from clueless parents/adults), I'm all for it. I'll tell them to phuck off on other issues.

[Doctor Venmkan]

62. I strongly agree that children should not be exposed to smoke....

...but I'm not sure about actually making a law about it. Kind of like trying to legislate morality...or common sense.

What's next? You can't play loud music with kids in the car because of noise pollution? Or better yet, "immoral" music?

Someone already mentioned trans fats, I think. How long until someone outlaws Happy Meals?

For the record, NO child will ever be exposed to smoke in my car. Because I don't allow ANYONE to smoke in it.

But I still think it's none of the government's friggin' business.

[DuaneBidoux]

100. This goes to the heart of an extremely difficult issue.

The costs of many individual choices is born by society.

When someone becomes seriously and permanently disabled because they chose not to wear a seatbelt that cost is born by society. If someone is morbidly obese it is the same thing. If someone decides to eat trans fat it is the same thing.

Many drugs, including cocaine, used to be legal but at some point a decision was made on a societal level that the costs were simply too great to society as a whole. It is just a question of where to draw this line that must be drawn somewhere. I do not see a qualitative difference here.

[MindPilot]

26. The OP's headline is the headline from the article

posted without edit just as LBN rules require.

The OP is not deliberately misleading anyone.

[LiberalFighter]

32. Cities have banned smoking in restaurants, public buildings, schools

Part of the legitimacy in banning smoking in those facilities are the children.

[endarkenment]

44. The legitimacy is that they are public spaces.

Tossing in children is an attempt to immunize the idiocy of nanny-statism by using the emotional argument noise 'but think of the poor children' to avoid the uncomfortable reality of the intolerance we are imposing on ourselves.

[LiberalFighter]

51. Seat belt requirements for children?

[callous taoboy]

58. So where do you stand on leaded paint?

Does it gall you that children can't eat leaded paint chips in the privacy of your home thanks to sound research leading to the ban on leaded paint? Where do you stand on the banning of certain toys so your child can't choke on them in the privacy of your car or home?

[TommyO]

77. Actually it's the employees, not the children.

[customerserviceguy]

33. This was the same argument used

when the states enforced the use of infant car seats, and buckling up minor children before we all had to do it.

[MindPilot]

37. I feel sorry for your kids: "not be exposed to cigarette (or any) smoke"

They can't go camping, have a bonfire on the beach, curl up in front of the fireplace on a cold night, or have a barbecue. They'll never enjoy motorsports or fireworks, and they will have to eat raw food and avoid anything with an engine.

The Fourth of July must be hell for you.

[callous taoboy]

57. Gosh so clever, Mind.....

:eyes:

Myself, I do avoid breathing in smoke at all costs. I don't eat meat that has been char-broiled or smoked. Dr. Andrew Weil says that the smoke from char-broiled burgers etc. is a serious health risk
and should be avoided. Same with smoked meat: a cancer risk. I have heard that people who use wood heat are doing irreparable damage to the respiratory system.

Only raw food? Ever heard of steaming your veggies or baking your food?

Nothing with an engine? I use an electric lawn mower.

Am I the perfect example of one leading a totally smoke-free existence? No, but I can certainly see why the original poster has decided to not expose his child to smoke whenever possible.

[TommyO]

78. Damn, and I love smoked salmon!

I'm even going to be buying a smoker to smoke some of my own meats. I guess I should buy a coffin at Costco so I'm prepared.

[callous taoboy]

87. Just make sure

your coffin is not made from smoke-treated wood so you don't harm the worms that will eat through it HAR HAR HAR HAR HEEEEEE HEEEEEE acckkk acckkk cough

You're such a CARD Tommy! Such a card.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

113. I figured most reasonable DUers would understand...

I was referring to cigarettes/cigars/pipes -- not sparklers and weiners on the 4th of July. That'll learn me.

[Umbram]

118. No kidding.

I can sympathize with you, TWriterD. It's fairly immature to take someone's argument and read it in the worst possible light.

Here's some reading some people could benefit from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Of course, that assumes you want an intelligent discourse, and not just the opportunity to appear correct at the expense of moving the conversation forward.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

135. Thanks, Umbram.

There are definite topics that bring it out in people - smoking and guns being the two biggies. (There's a "smoking gun" joke in there somewhere, but I'm too pooped today to be clever...)

[crim son]

9. I used to get very ill as a kid whenever I was in a car with a smoker.

My mother smoked at the time, but never in the house or the car. However some of her friends were also smokers and the joint-family trips were hell. I'm not sure a law is necessary but when I was a child I would have been grateful for one.

[endarkenment]

10. Our "joint-family trips " were fabulous.

But that was the 70's and life was grand and people were free.

[crim son]

12. Excellent. I'm happy for you. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

20. Dad smoked his cigars, Mom smoked her cigarettes ...

and if us kids didn't like it, we could roll down our windows and hang our heads out. :smoke:

I sure feel sorry for some kids whose parents are anal retentive. :P

[Trillo]

24. Opening the windows seems reasonable and adequate.

Be glad that the command wasn't "keep the windows closed" with the ventilation system set on 'recirculate'.

[saigon68]

46. Life sucked the War was on

[endarkenment]

48. Compared to now?

Life was easy. The war was over or winding down. (Think mid to late 70's.) The country was mellowing out in general. It was that odd interlude between Nixon and Reagan.

70-73 were pretty intense though.

[saigon68]

55. 70-73 sucked

Damn right

Then everyone I knew was drunk all the time and couldn't find jobs because they were all fucked up

[LeftyMom]

139. Me too.

The worst was probably the time my mother and I were taking my Grandmother to chemo, and Mom and Grandma were both smoking, with the windows up because Grandma'd get cold otherwise, and I sat in the back of Grandma's land yacht breathing through my shirt, trying not to die while Mom lectured me about guilt tripping her about her smoking (trust me, I was in no condition to talk, let alone guilt trip anybody.)

That was just before I was diagnosed with asthma.

PS The chemo didn't buy Grandma much time. She was 57.

PPS Mom's almost 50 now. She still smokes. But not around her grandson.

[kwassa]

11. Sounds like a good law to me! The health of the children is paramount.

[endarkenment]

15. Really?

I think that your religious practices, for example, are harmful to your children's mental health and that therefore you should be forbidden to continue them, and if you refuse your children should be taken from you. After all the health of the children is paramount.

[ShortnFiery]

22. Yeah, I'm going to start policing-up all the kids without helmets riding their

skateboards and bicycles in my hood. ARREST THEIR PARENTS POST HASTE! - for the Children!

Get the point?

We don't need yer *nanny state* plan unless you are willing to go ALL THE WAY, i.e., arrest parents for ALL infractions not the pissy ones that often reformed smokers force on the populace. :shrug: :smoke:

[callous taoboy]

59. In the meantime-

Lost one of my former students to a skateboard head injury last year. He was in a coma for a while before passing last summer.

Seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws have saved how many lives per year?

[LanternWaste]

42. Did JAMA or or another health periodical recently write something to that effect

Did JAMA or or another health periodical recently write something to that effect, or is the negative consequences of religion on children simply a subjective and unmeasured opinion?

:shrug:

[NotGivingUp]

130. Some people have the ability to think and reason. Some people

do not have to look to some 'authority' to tell them what's right, what's wrong, what's up, what's down. It would be nice if more people had this ability. People have been so thoroughly brainwashed with religion that it's practically impossible for them to even admit they question anything about it. hell, they might be sent to eternal damnation. it's a real shame. People have been taught to put their 'faith' outside of themselves in something there is no proof of. what a perfect setup to getting them to believe in 'authority figures' instead of themselves. It's all a game of disempowerment. Subjective, unmeasured...think again.

[kwassa]

66. Smoke is a proven hazard; your subjective opinion of my religious practices

or lack thereof, are not a proven hazard.

[NotGivingUp]

70. Yes! I like that one. Great analogy!

[VegasWolf]

21. I think they should just raise cigarettes to 10 bucks a pack. Those poor nicotine addicts

need all the help they can get to quit. Nicotine addiction is hell.

[jpak]

31. The State of Maine is tacking another $1 per pack tax on butts sold in the state

Maine will soon have the highest tobacco tax in the US...

[LiberalFighter]

36. Better to raise cigarette taxes annually and regularly

The increase should be more than the cost of living.

Every state should have the same cigarette tax so that smokers couldn't buy them across state lines.

At best Indian Reservations could not sell to non-indians. Still it would be better for them to tax their cigarettes so that members are weaned off.

[gorbal]

23. Can we make this law retroactive?

I have some major anger issues with my parent's that a little consilitory cash might help sooth.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Yeah, I get bronchitis every year,

can I now sue their asses? :sarcasm: :rofl:

[progressivebydesign]

112. If you truly get bronchitis every year...

umm.. you can confidentally attribute that to being raised around smokers. I know you were trying to be funny, but did you know that is one of the main issues with kids being around smokers? They get bronchitis almost every time they get even a simple cold, and it lasts the rest of their life. The damage is done at an early age. But you were being sarcastic, of course....

[ShortnFiery]

133. They were, IMO, perfect parents for me ...

Maybe those extra cigars and cigarettes helped them to cope with the anxiety of raising us three kids. I know that all three of us were a pain in the ass, but mom and dad never gave up on any of us. Dad just died at 86 and Mom, now an non-smoker is doing just fine at 79.

I think many people mature out of smoking with time. It's never too late to quit but if smoking helps you cope and not kick your dog or beat your kids, I say, "Leave these good people alone." Just my opinion ... also a former smoker but not one with attitude.

After working 15+ off and on in "Addiction Treatment" I'm here to tell you that no one who has a vice should judge another harshly. Nothing, no situation is as SIMPLE as it appears on the surface.

Nope, if you live long enough, some body organ system will eventually shut down on you. I'd rather have parents that smoked, cared, advised and loved me, rather than non-smoking parents who were abusive.

[noonwitch]

40. I think this goes beyond the government's right to intervene

I'm an outdoor smoker-I don't smoke in my house or car, but I will smoke indoors at a restaurant or bar if I'm in the smoking section. As a foster care worker, I do think that the state should require that we don't smoke in our cars when we are transporting foster kids, and that if they want to extend that to foster parents, I don't really have a problem with that. State's kids-state's rules.

As far as legal parents go, well, that should be parental decision. It's no worse to smoke in a car with kids than to smoke in a house with kids, and we cannot allow the government to start taking kids away from parents who smoke. It would be wrong, and the system couldn't handle that kind of influx of children.

[Umbram]

45. That's taking it a bit too far.

Nobody is discussing taking kids away from their parents for smoking in the car.

Do you support the State's right to require children wear seatbelts or a fine is given to the parent? How is this different?

[LostinVA]

49. It is no different, imo

They're both safety issues.

[TommyO]

79. Thank you for a reasonable response, noonwitch!

[progressivebydesign]

111. It IS worse to smoke in a car with kids, than in a house.

It's been documented numerous times. It's simple to figure out. Large space, less concentrated smoke. Small space, more concetrated smoke (or shall I say thousands of cancer causing chemicals). The health professionals say that the in-the-car smoking is worse not only because it's a small space, but because the kids cannot got in the other room, go outside, etc. Children exposed to cigarette and cigar smoke are sicker more often, and usually end up with bronchitis after each minor cold. Even dogs of smokers get cancer more.

[brook]

43. Not gonna read the thread but-

such a law is just another 'nanny' law. Your government assumes it knows better how you should parent than you do. Of course, they also think you shouldn't have access to informed contraceptive methods, abortion, medical care for all children, a decent educational system for said children, a future free of war-debt, etc. And the government is right. We couldn't be where we are were it not for the preponderance of sheeple out there. blech.

[Hav]

52. .

Well, I don't smoke, I actually hate smoke but would never complain about it in public places and I think that some measures might have gone too far. But I don't see anything wrong with this law.

"Your government assumes it knows better how you should parent than you do."
Obviously, when the governemnt has to make it clear that it's not ok to smoke in a car when your kids are there, too, then it's sad but I have to say they indeed know better.

I assume that the majority of smokers do it in a responsible way (not when children are present). But apparently, there are some who unfortunately don't care about it.

[depakid]

53. Nanny state memes

Are almost always counter productive....

Bottom line is that this is a public health issue, much like requiring children to wear helmets (which without laws in place, many parents won't comply with) or ride in car seats.

Too bad Americans don't have more common sense, but the fact is in many cases, they don't.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

54. My 52 year old brother suffers from chronic bronchitis

as a result of being constantly around 2+ pack-a-day smokers. Riding on long trips in the car with them was sheer torture in the summer, when they wouldn't let us crack the windows to ventilate.

The three of us all smoked when we got to our teens. It was hell trying to quit. I don't blame my parents...they didn't know what the hell they were doing.

I don't have a problem with people's drug and alcohol use until its effects are inflicted on others. I think this is a good call, myself.

[Zhade]

60. "when children are present" - how can that possibly be HARSH?

Would you allow parents to force secondhand marijuana smoke, which DOESN'T cause cancer while tobacco smoke does, into their children's lungs?

I'm a medical marijuana patient, and I wouldn't do that to my kid.

[HockeyMom]

63. Your Car is Private Property

If they can ban and prosecute for smoking on private property (your car), what is to prevent they from banning and prosecuting for smoking on private property (YOUR HOME)?

It opens the "door" so to speak.

[NotGivingUp]

75. sounds like some of these people here wouldn't give a shit.

[Umbram]

116. Find your right to Smoke in the Constitution

Please, give me your Constitutional argument. I'll be fascinated to hear it.

There is NOTHING to stop them from banning you from smoking on private property,
in your home, or elsewhere.

At least the NRA members have a constitutional argument when using your very
same slippery slope argument.

[HockeyMom]

129. Privacy rights

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You want them to take away Privacy Rights? Do you favor overturning Griswald, Roe, Lawrence also? Sex Police? Smoking Police? Don't you think our government has more pressing concerns?

Tobacco is a LEGAL product in the USA. As someone else said, if they don't like smoking, let them ban the PRODUCT, tobacco. They will NEVER do that because too much MONEY is made from it.

[Umbram]

132. No dice.

Ok. Maybe "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (which aren't constitutional protections, by the way) also back your ability to drink alcohol while driving, or even just have empty containers in your car, since alcohol is a "LEGAL product in the USA." If you ever get stopped for DUI, let me know how far your appeal makes it.

Do you favor overturning laws against rape? Murder? (I too can throw out barely relevant questions!)

The states have "police power" which includes the power to regulate health and welfare of citizens. Somehow I think that it overrides whatever "pursuit of happiness" argument that people who want to fill their kids with smoke, huff paint, drive drunk, etc, care to make.

[HockeyMom]

136. Declare Tobacco ILLEGAL

That is the ONLY way to ban smoking on PRIVATE PROPERTY. They tried to ban drinking, remember? It was called Prohibition. Even got a Constitutional Amendment against it. What happened to that? It was repealed because it was unenforceable. Ditto for the "laws" against Fornication, Adultery, Cohabitation, etc. They were taken off the books because they were unenforceable.

Incidentally, a few years ago the county where I live, Suffolk, NY, tried to ban smoking in cars with minors. It never passed. Why? UNENFORCEABLE. Just like all those other unenforceable laws.

Give it UP. It will never happen on PRIVATE PROPERTY, until and unless the PRODUCT itself is banned, because it is UNENFORCEABLE on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

[Umbram]

138. Hrmm...

Alcohol = legal product
Car = private property
Open container of alcohol in car = illegal. (valid law)

Cell phone = legal product
Car = private property
Talking with cellphone in hand while driving = illegal (in several states)

Cigarette = legal product
Car = private property
Smoking with kids in the car = illegal. (why not a valid law?)

You can keep typing "private property" and shouting that cigarettes would
need to be made illegal, but that's simply not relevant. Vehicles and driving
in them are highly regulated.

People seem to have a hard time keeping issues straight.

ISSUE 1: IS this within the authority of the people of Bangor to pass?
Your argument is not compelling that it isn't.
ISSUE 2: IS this law good public policy?
There are good arguments on both sides.
ISSUE 3: Will this law be enforced?
Whether or not it will be enforced has NOTHING to do with the above two.
If anything it'll be something that's tagged on to a stop for another reason.

[liberal renegade]

65. common courtesy should

be enough reason not to smoke in the car with anyone present, children or adults..

[Robb]

67. Glad I read to the end of this thread

...to find the post I would've made. :thumbsup:

[w4rma]

69. Very dumb. (nt)

[NotGivingUp]

71. I suppose that all the people that agree with this law would then agree with

making it illegal for parents to smoke in their own homes with the children present?

[Umbram]

117. I agree the State has the power to do this. nt.

[NotGivingUp]

72. I think it should be illegal to take your kids to McDonalds and feed them crap!

If you're really concerned with the kids' health, this should be the first law to pass.

[NotGivingUp]

73. Do some research and see what MSG does to kids...it should be illegal to serve your kids

kids any processed foods. They all have MSG...either labeled msg or hidden other different names.

[NotGivingUp]

74. Get the FRICKING SODA out of your kids mouths now you child abusers!

[splat]

80. Life is fatal

No lives are "saved"; all people die, if not of this, of that. When lung cancer goes down, heart disease goes up. No fewer people die every year. You can't bat back the appointment at Samarra. Life isn't safe.

We all ate lead paint chips when gnawing windowsills, breathed carbon tetrachloride, and loved the terpin hydrate with codeine we got when we had a cough. Somehow, we survived.

Our parents smoked and died of something else. (Legionnaire's Disease, and sepsis at 90).

This religion of health shouldn't become law.

[Hav]

82. .

Huh? That's it? Let's smoke while one is pregnant, let's give our kids cancer. After all they could die of a heard disease or anything else, too?

[NotGivingUp]

86. i suppose you'd like to see smoking while pregnant against the law too.

[Hav]

89. .

Nah, it's a legal addiction. So I guess one can't outlaw it totally over such a long time although the risks are clear.

But it's not too much to ask for not to smoke for the more or less short period one spends in a car with a kid. Jeez, what's so bad about it?
Some people here act as if that brings us one step closer to fascism when it's only about protecting the weakest members of our society. Those who don't smoke around their kids won't have a problem. Only those who are irresponsible and don't care at all about the consequences for their children are targeted.

[progressivebydesign]

114. My stepkids mom smoked while she was pregnant

I'd LOVE for you to explain to the kids all about the various medical and developmental issues they've struggled with all their lives because of it. Sadly, some parents are too stupid and selfish to do anything that might benefit their kids.

If someone gave these people a million dollars to quit smoking, they'd quit on the spot.

[NotGivingUp]

123. i'd love for you to explain to the kids why they do not live in a free country anymore.

[VegasWolf]

92. One point. Smokers are 3 times more likely to die from heart disease than lung cancer. Smoking

is a killer for the heart muscle. Nicotine irritates the lining of the coronary arteries leading to plaque build up. Odds are you won't have to ever experience lung cancer, you will probably be lying on the floor with a red face and dead in minutes.

[pop goes the weasel]

81. I can see the point

When I was a kid, my dad smoked in the car and everywhere else. I'll never forget being in the backseat and him flicking his cigarette out the window, and it blowing back in and landing on my lap. I hated him smoking in the car as it was, since I had asthma and couldn't get away from the fumes, but having a hole burned through my clothes was even worse.

I don't think a fine is necessary, though. Maybe give a few warnings, and after a certain point, require that the parent complete a workshop on the affects of second hand smoke on children. The point should be to improve the health of kids, not to use smokers as cash cows.

[callous taoboy]

88. If you don't support this law and you smoke

and have children how about encouraging your child to light up. Go ahead. Get them a pack of camel unfiltered and tell them that all of this talk about the ill-effects of smoking is a lot of B.S. and put the lighter to it for them. I dare you. Report back here on how it went. Apparently second-hand smoke has been found to be more harmful than what you take in through the filter.

[splat]

90. Why do you believe unquestioningly?

Humans have lived around smoke forever -- campfires, coal fires, burning trash etc. London in Dickens' time was one big cloud of smoke.

I don't begrudge scientists little rat studies that bring in their next year's funding, but my generation smoked when we were pregnant, and our kids are fine. They didn't mean to scare you silly. Notice how many doctors and nurses smoke. They know how much of a crapshoot life and death are.

You all question all the political hype, could you consider questioning the rest of the hype, too?

[asthmaticeog]

91. Um, London in Dickens' time was hardly a model for public health.

Your point about humans always living in less-than-perfectly hygenic conditions until very very recently is a valid one (floors, for most of our history, were made of dirt, so nevermind sweeping and mopping up...) but using a notoriously squalid culture that predated germ theory is far from a useful example.

[splat]

93. Why seize on the detail and ignore the thrust, faith-based living?

Unquestioning fear doesn't fit with DU's usual style.

If you give up everything that you enjoy, you'll still die. You'll just have lived a meaner, less pleasurable life.

[dmallind]

95. I see the point

The incessant "health" worship here is a bit grating at times, especially on food issues. And health IS a crapshoot.

But that said, if longevity and prolongation of mental/physical wellbeing is your overriding goal, then the statistics showing that we are living on the whole longer and healthier lives because of fewer smokers, advances in nutrition and better understanding of environmental risks are more than enough to demonstrate it's not just hype. Life expectancy in Victorian England was certainly lower than it is for us now, and environmental factors certainly help that.

Personally I assume I have to die of something, and it could be some unidentified cancer I already have or the number 46 bus hitting me next week, so I worry not one whit about my weight or lack of "healthy" diet that may, or may not, prolong my life past what it otherwise would be. Not only does obesity take a surprisingly small number of years off your lifespan (all those "shock horry 300% greater chance of heart attack" statements ignore the facts that 300% of an extremely low probability is still a very very low probability - buying 3 powerball tickets gives you a 300% greater chance of winning too) but even at the highest likely impact I'll take my chances. Frankly I'd rather have 60 years of beer and meat and chocolate than 70 years of lentils and tofu and filtered water.

I can understand smokers making the same argument for themselves (although I have never smoked and don't see the appeal at all). The difference is in the externalities. My supposedly extremely high risk obesity is harming, purportedly at least, only me. Smoking harms others too.

As far as this law goes it strikes me as a feel good law that will get extremely little and erratic enforcement, and do very little indeed to protect kids from smoke in cars (after all we can assume the same parents smoke at home where their kids spend far more time. True the area is greater, but the longer term exposure balances that out).

[callous taoboy]

96. What was the life expectancy during Dickens' time?

Plenty of smoking fools in any profession. Plenty of them dying prematurely, too, leaving behind loved ones. My mom stroked out due to heavy smoking when I was nine. Her death helped drive home the point that smoking kills, so "hype" from the medical profession is not necessary in my case to keep me away from smoking. You ever loose a parent as a child due to a selfish, deadly habit? If not I can perhaps understand your glib position on smoking.

Where do you get your facts on smoking and pregnancy, anyway? Call up any hospital and ask a nurse or doc what medical research has proven about the risks of smoking while pregnant.

Sure life's a crapshoot, but why do something to yourself and to your kids that has been proven to kill? It's why reasonable people keep guns locked up and away from their kids. Would you leave a loaded gun lying on the table with a child in the house? C'mon, man, what's to worry? The kid is going to die anyway some day, right?

[dmallind]

99. But the effects are not discrete

If risky behavior A ALWAYS caused disease B, and avoiding behavior A granted immunity from disease B, more people would avoid behavior A, and the argument that they should would be more convincing.

So an argument against, say, Russian roulette, is very convincing healthwise - somebody always gets shot in the head eventually. Don't do that, and your chances of shooting yourself in the head are astronomically low, unless of course you choose to do so.

But an argument agsinst smoking (or drinking, or eating more than a minimal amount of fat, or having a poor glycemic balance, and so on) is much weaker. It may be stronger for smoking than the others, but even there the argument is "smoking increases your chance of disease B by X%". Very often that X% is misleading too. If a nonsmoker has a .001% chance of developing lung cancer during the study timeframe and a smoker (I'm not one - never have been or will be - hate the damn smell and sensation of ETS too) has 100 times the risk that still means they are 99.9% likely NOT to develop lung cancer in that same time frame. I haven't spent a huge amount of time digging up raw data on smoking studies but I have on obesity studies and that kind of misleading number is very common.

NOBODY can live a life which minimizes risks from all sources. Driving a small car increases your chance of dying in a collision - how many on here drive tiny vehicles for environmental reasons? Unprotected gay sex increases your chances of AIDS astronomically - even over the risk of having unprotected straight sex. Do ALL the sizeable gay contingent on DU practice safe sex every time? Living in cities increases the risk of being the victim of a homicide more than suburban or rural dwellers - but how many here scorn the McMansions and praise high-denisty living?

When the impact on health of any activity is only to increase the chance of some disease(s), and when the REAL probability of that risk is almost never expressed and almost always assumed to be massively higher than it really is, the argument to avoid that activity is weak.

Again I will say smoking is by far the easiest activity of the "health vices" for which to make a strongER arguiment - because it increases the risk of so many different diseases for one reason, and because of the common sense appeal of an argument against ingesting an acrid stinking gas caused by burning a cocktail of poisons and carcinogens, which can turn white paint yellow in weeks and leaves a thick tarry residue when exposure is concentrated for another. I am far from doubting that smoking is bad for your health in general BUT how bad, and whether individual smokers will ever suffer from the effects, is very much ill-defined and questionable at best.

[callous taoboy]

101. With all due respect, there is huge cancer risk associated with

smoking. Call any medical professional right now and ask what is the number one way to prevent cancer he/she will tell you: "Don't smoke." I googled "How to not get cancer" and here is the first item that popped up:

1) Stop smoking
2) Try to eat healthily
3) Watch your sun exposure, particularly if you are fair skinned
You can download copies of the Cancer Research UK awareness leaflets on this link. There are leaflets on reducing cancer risk in general ('Lifestyle and cancer - how to reduce your risk') and reducing risk of mouth cancer, bowel cancer, melanoma, skin cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, testicular cancer and cancer of the neck of the womb (cervix). Or you can ring our leaflet enquiry line on 020 7061 8333.

Smoking
Smoking is the worst culprit. As well as lung cancer, smoking is linked to

Mouth cancer
Pharyngeal cancer (the pharynx is behind the nose)
Cancer of the larynx (voice box)
Cancer of the oesophagus (gullet)
Stomach cancer
Pancreatic cancer
Primary liver cancer (cancer that has started in the liver)
Cancer of the cervix (neck of the womb)
Kidney cancer
Bladder cancer
There is now an annual Mouth Cancer Awareness Week in the UK. The aim of the week is to help people reduce their risk of mouth cancer. And to publicise the symptoms so that any signs of mouth cancer are picked up as early as possible. Your dentist can help by checking your mouth at least once a year. Cancer Research UK are running an awareness campaign called Open Up to Mouth Cancer. This campaign aims to raise awareness of the causes and signs of mouth cancer. And there is more about how to reduce your risk of mouth cancer in the Question and Answer section of CancerHelp UK.

Smoking and drinking together account for as many as 9 out of 10 mouth cancers. If you want to prevent cancer as much as you can, stopping smoking is a good way to start. There is more about smoking and lung cancer in the Risks and Causes of Lung Cancer section of CancerHelp


http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=107

[dmallind]

119. Nothing I did not know or agree with BUT

Remember I like to look at these things the other way around.

I know smoking massively increases the chance of cancer. But massively increases it to what?

Trust me this is an interesting experiment.

Try to find data on what the probability of getting those cancers actually IS. Especially try to find the data showing the probaility of those cancers for smokers and non smokers as raw data.

Take this for example looking at your first listed cancer



4400 people get mouth cancer in the UK every year according to this. Certainly smoking is listed as a main cause but drinking and betel/paan chewing is there too as is an unhealthy diet. If smoking is THE main culprit why the double risk in men I wonder - the website cavalierly says men smoke and drink more but as far as smoking alone goes the data show very close numbers at 29 and 28% in the UK.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/openuptomouthcancer/reduceyourrisk/

Oral sex is a significant risk enhancer according to this article

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/16/051116213750.jnfvcpbv.html

And of course like all cancers it can be simply spontaneous bad luck. I suspect not much smoking boozing or fellatio in this case.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/10/prweb298654.htm

I found it hard to even get data on HOW MUCH smoking increases the risk of mouth cancer but the best I could do was assume that if 90% of mouth cancer patients use tobacco and if 28% of the at-risk population uses tobacco then intuitively tobacco use increases the risk by 90/28 times or in other words makes you 3.2 times more likely to get mouth cancer than a nonsmoker (if there was no risk factor you would expect 28% of mouth cancer patients to be tobacco users)

So if 90% are smokers that means 4400 * .9 or 3960 smoking mouth cancer patients a year.

28% of adult population in UK = 40,000,000 * .28 or 1,120,000 smokers.

3960/1120000 = 0.0354% chance IN ANY GIVEN YEAR of a smoker getting mouth cancer. Or 99.9646% probability of smoking witghout getting mouth cancer this year

Now note this of course does NOT mean that in 10 years you have a 0.354% chance of getting mouth cancer and in 50 years you have a 1.77% chance. Probabilities are not linear and cumulative. This would massively overstate the probability of a 50 year smoker getting mouth cancer but even if it did not, that still means a lifetime smoker will more than 98 times out of a hundred avoid moputh cancer.

To top that off less than 1600 of those 4400 - or about 36% die each year. So if longevity and fatalities are our benchmark we end up with a 50 year smoker having a very exaggerated 1.77% chance of getting something that is 36% likely to kill him - so an (again exaggerated - don't have enough data on effects of smoking over time to work it out properly) fatality risk from mouth cancer of 0.643%. So 99.357% likelihood - at least - of being able to smoke 50 years without getting it. Oh and by the way that of course means that if he DIDN't smoke he'd still have a 0.643%/3.2 chance or 0.200% chance of dying from mouth cancer (we got that from the earlier numbers - some nonsmokers do get it)

So in the end smoking for 50 years trades in a 99.800% chance of avoiding dying of mouth cancer for at WORST a 99.357% chance of avoiding dying of mouth cancer.

It doesn't seem so frightening looked at that way.

Now yes that's just ONE risk - I'm sure the numbers look much worse for lung cancer et al, but even then I'd be surprised if you ended up getting more than a few percent greater REAL probability of dying from anything.

The important thing is not how much the probability changes but what the probability IS. Again - buying 10 lottery tickets increases your chance of winning the lottery by 1000%. You expect to win the lottery much if you buy ten tickets instead of one?

[dmallind]

126. Can't edit any more but errors corrected here.

The math still works out but I TWICE mistyped the same number which could mislead someone wanting to double check. The number of smokers in the UK is of course about 11,200,000 NOT 1,120,000.

I used the correct number in calculations so all percentages etc are right.

[Hav]

104. .

Your points are correct and I'd say it's generally not easy to draw definite conclusions from big studies for an individual person as each person/organism can deal differently with poisonous substances or carcinogens.
I think a considerable amount of smokers will feel the consequences (and not only cancer) but enough apparently don't get anything while too many non-smokers die of lung cancer because of passive smoking.

That's why it's absolutely not my business what other people do to themselves. The only reason why I think that this specific law is not bad is that it protects a group that needs protection.
This is not about letting people decide for themselves whether they want to do something unhealthy, it's about reducing the risks for those who are affected by that decision.

[callous taoboy]

108. Well put:

This is about protecting children from something that is entirely preventable. I have health issues due to being trapped in mom's car while she puffed away. I may even some day pay the ultimate price for her bad judgement.

[dmallind]

120. Again I agree here

Nothing I have posted defends smoking - which I find a filthy and disgusting habit and is most definitely bad for your health AND, much more importantly, that of others who have not made the same choice (not that non smokers are more important as people, but the increased importance comes from the externality of harm).

I just wish more people looked at probability in the correct way - ALL these health scares rely on the "52 times more likely" fallacy in my opinion. Tobacco increases very low chances on far too many things for it not to have an overall negative impact however.

The same cannot be said for many other health paranoias though.

[redqueen]

94. Sounds like a good law to me. n/t

[ileus]

97. I wish WV would have passed this in the 70's

[progressivebydesign]

102. When people are too STUPID about things, you have to make laws.

Unfortunately, some people are NOT intelligent enough nor CARING enough to realize or care that they are killing their children by smoking in the car with the kids. Sadly, you have to legislate this, because it is a public health issue. Trapped in a small box with thousands of carcinogens leads to leukemia, asthma, heart conditions, cancer, and other ailments in children. And beyond the humane aspect of the law, this is also going to save millions in public health care costs. Children of smokers get sick more and stay sick longer.

It completely AMAZES me that the people who whine about losing the right to poison their children with smoke in a car, are usually the same that would CRY and call a lawyer if they believed that their workplace had exposed them to dangerous chemicals.

Sadly, when parents are idiots, you have to make laws.

oh, did you know that DOGS of smokers are known to get cancer more than non-smoker's dogs? Especially long-nosed breeds, because the smoke stays in longer.

[callous taoboy]

106. Fantastic post, progressivebydesign! n/t

[progressivebydesign]

115. well thanks!! n/t

[rinsd]

128. Where are you pulling these factoids from?

"oh, did you know that DOGS of smokers are known to get cancer more than non-smoker's dogs? Especially long-nosed breeds, because the smoke stays in longer."

[callous taoboy]

105. How timely: (Thanks Eugene)

Pelosi Bans Smoking Near House Floor

The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; 10:03 AM

WASHINGTON -- 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-Calif., 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 room is often hazy with smoke, as it was Tuesday night as the House voted
on anti-terror legislation; Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, often has
cigarette in hand, for example.

"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."

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[NotGivingUp]

124. Please...all you people here who are willing to throw away all our rights and freedoms

please...go live in another country somewhere. this is suppposed to be the land of the free.

[NotGivingUp]

125. delete

[Umbram]

134. Free to make others sick...you must be so proud! nt.

[VegasWolf]

131. Excellent!!! There aren't that many people left that still are addicted to nicotine. But these

few, man, are they addicted! They know the health costs, they are treated like social lepers, and yet they still can't give it up. Alkaloids are powerfully addicting plants.

[MrSlayer]

137. As if the police have nothing better to do.

What a waste of time and money. I can't believe how ridculous these friggin laws are becoming. Worry about your own business, stay the fuck out of mine.