Bill to ban smoking in cars with small kids

[Ceicei]

Is this bill an example of governmental over-regulation or an emphasis upon preserving the rights of children? I thought it interesting that a cessation course is suggested in lieu of a fine.

This came from the first part of the article:

Utahns may not be able to light up cigarettes in their cars if small children are along for the ride. Concerned about the health effects of secondhand smoke, Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, pitched a bill Monday that would make it an infraction to smoke in a car if a child 5 years old or younger is strapped in, or is required to be strapped in, a car seat. The fine for violating the law: up to $45, unless a person proves to the court that he or she has enrolled in a smoking cessation course.

See link for more information:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5066266

- Ceicei

 

[CoryKS]

Their hearts are in the right place of course, but after a while you begin to wonder: Are these my kids, or the State's? Am I just raising them for somebody else?

 

[michaeledward]

I think it is a damn foolish proposal. I believe the city of Bangor, Maine also is attempting to implement such a statute.

The hyper-conservative radio-talk-show liar on in afternoons in Boston, said that it is in the State's interest to protect the children. So he feels it is fine for the city to pass the ordinance.

If this issue is so much of a priority, then outlaw the plant. Make tobacco illegal. Make manufacture of cigarrette's illegal. But, if we are going to allow the public distribution of the product, and there is no impairment in operating the vehicle, passing a restrictions seems to be focused on the wrong item.

Isn't there something more meaningful to look at?

 

[Cruentus]

I think it is a damn foolish proposal. I believe the city of Bangor, Maine also is attempting to implement such a statute.

The hyper-conservative radio-talk-show liar on in afternoons in Boston, said that it is in the State's interest to protect the children. So he feels it is fine for the city to pass the ordinance.

If this issue is so much of a priority, then outlaw the plant. Make tobacco illegal. Make manufacture of cigarrette's illegal. But, if we are going to allow the public distribution of the product, and there is no impairment in operating the vehicle, passing a restrictions seems to be focused on the wrong item.

Isn't there something more meaningful to look at?

I totally agree here.

It surprises me that "conservatives" would support this (among many things that conservatives support that I don't understand). I consider myself more of a libertarian, and I thought that conservatives would be in support of less regulation rather then more. I guess that only gets to be the case for companies rather then civil liberties?

I think this is an attempt to prevent kids from second hand smoke exposure. The problem is, there is no scientific evidence to support that smoking in cars is more or less harmful to the health of others in the vehicle. Just because in theory it might make sense, I would think that you would have to have scientific evidence to justify legislation.

Plus, I am not so sure I see a huge epidemic of parents clam-baking tobacco products while driving around with their kids. I mean, is this really such a big problem that Law Enforcement needs a law to really "crack down" on this sort of thing? I mean, come on...

 

[CoryKS]

My mom used to smoke in the car when I was a kid. The worst part was when she flicked the ash out the window and it hit me in the eye. Ow!

 

[Carol]

Most lawmakers understand that a ban/prohibition on tobacco wouldn't work so they are trying to incrementalize it away.

To me it seems like so many of the problem that small kids are facing stem to the parents. Parents who aren't in the picture, parents who neglect or abuse, parents who aren't involved or are ineffective.

But...that isn't a popular stance to take. Its easier to blame tobacco.

 

[Lisa]

Truthfully, I think no one should ever smoke around kids. I don't need scientific proof or otherwise to know that it is bad for them, it makes everything stink (including the kid) and it makes for a bad role model.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not sure about legislating it, but jeesh, sometimes I would like to smack parents upside the head when I see their little ones in the back and mom/dad sucking back a ciggy thinking that having the window cracked a little is making it all the difference in the world.

 

[terryl965]

I believe this is a great way to get people away from killing themself, seriously I'm all for it. I know people have rights to do what they will, but for those of us that can't stand smoking it is a great bill.

 

[Bigshadow]

So I suppose once the child is 6 years old or older, they somehow are immune to second hand cigarette smoke?

Although I detest cigarette smoking, I think the law is silly.

 

[Andrew Green]

Since when did children have rights?

Stupid law, just more "Think of the children!" political manuevering.

Need some libertarians in power to start hacking laws out, not adding more to the giant mess. Stupidity is not something that can be legislated out of existance, but liberty is.

 

[jks9199]

It seems to me like a feel good law... The legislators can say they did something, but it's not likely to actually be enforced.

I'm not a smoker and I don't like second-hand smoke. But I'm also not a fan of the government being big enough to encroach on everything we do... These legislators undoubtedly have some more important issues to focus on; I wish they would!

 

[rutherford]

Similar bills have been proposed in other states. I don't know how many have passed. California and Arkansas? I'm not sure.

 

[Carol]

So I suppose once the child is 6 years old or older, they somehow are immune to second hand cigarette smoke?

Nope! But by 6 they will be going to school and be at risk for crap that will kill them a lot quicker than 2nd hand smoke.

 

[MJS]

I grew up around smokers. Grandparents and Father smoked. I don't smoke and don't plan on starting. 2nd hand smoke drives me nuts. My clothes smell, it irritates my eyes and theres nothing worse than being trapped in a car with a smoker. The sad part is, although its true, is regardless if we're near a smoker or not, there is enough pollution in the air to make up for that difference.

Personally, I don't see how this could even be passed. First off, it states a child 5 or younger. Ok...so is it going to be any healthier if the kid is 10? Smoke is smoke. They'd be better off banning tobacco products. Second, how enforceable is this going to be and how long are the cops going to enforce it? Here in CT. they passed a cell phone bill. I believe its a $100 fine if you're caught using a cell without a hands-free device. Now, for the first few months it seemed like they were pulling people over left and right. Now, I can drive from my house to work and see at least 3 people on a cell, holding it. These are just the ones I see, I'm sure there are many others.

I just don't see it lasting long if it even passes.

Mike

 

[Infinite]

Ok so you have to keep in mind these facts,

Counting lobbyists is hard, but all counts show increases. The number of active lobbyists registered with the U.S. Senate has jumped from 3,000 in 1976 to around 8,000 last year; between 1961 and 1982, the number of corporations with Washington offices increased tenfold. The number of lawyers in Washington quadrupled between 1972 and 1987, from 11,000 to 45,000. And the investment in politics, as measured by real campaign spending, has tripled since the early 1960s.

As of right now the lobbyist outnumber our legistlators and their staff by a 3 to 1 margin.

Laws are no longer about the people they are about the money. This is probably an attempt by tobacco smokers to get a precident that says you can't make these laws.

 

[BrandiJo]

Both my parents smoke...i grew up with it and i am just fine. My mother smoked in the car in the house and at work. My dad is a chain smoker goes threw about 5 packs a day, to me they are the ones more at risk then i am, second hand smoke or not.
​

 

[Dave Leverich]

Heh, how about not a law, but just the right to pull them over and call them an idiot for forcing the kid to smoke too ;p.

I'm thinking, you need a license to drive, to own a gun, register to vote, heck even to go fishing. How about to have a kid. (Kidding of course, but it is silly).

 

[michaeledward]

I'm thinking, you need a license to drive, to own a gun, register to vote, heck even to go fishing. How about to have a kid. (Kidding of course, but it is silly).

You do not need a license to own a gun.
Nor do you need a license to register to vote.

The number of active lobbyists registered with the U.S. Senate has jumped from 3,000 in 1976 to around 8,000 last year;

The legislation proposed is at the local and state level. While there may still be lobbying at the state level, I doubt you find it at the city council level in Bangor.

References to the United States Senate are irrelevant to this legislation.

 

[Ping898]

I think this is just the government over-regulation, like the whole trans fat ban.

My mom smokes and did around me all growing up and in the car and I hate it and it probably contributed to some of my health issues, but you know what, such is life and I still think this law doesn't belong.
I am just greatful my mom stopped smoking when she was pregnant....
I think that there are much better things for the cops and courts to spend their time on. But with this law, the reps can all hold press conferences and pretend they've done something to earn their pay check...

I think Bangor, ME has already passed the law, last I read.

 

[Kacey]

My mother smoked cigarettes, when I was a kid, and quit only when her mother was diagnosed when terminal emphysema; my older sister smoked for over 20 years, and I never started. That being said, my sister spent most of her childhood trying to get Mom to quit, and only gave up on it when her friends started smoking and therefore she did too - it had nothing to do with Mom smoking.

Should parents be smoking around children? No.

Do I think such a law should be passed? No.

If passed, do I think the benefits of enforcing such a law outweigh the costs - both in terms of the upfront costs of enforcement and taking time and attention away from other issues? No.

Parents who want to smoke around their children are going to do so, even when they know better; I have students in middle school who are severely asthmatic, and their parents still smoke around them - in cars, at home, and everywhere else. The kids love school because there is no smoke there. Their doctors have told the parents repeatedly not to smoke in enclosed spaces where the kids will be (whether they're present the time or not) - and it has has little, and generally no, effect. This law is so legislators can say "see, we're doing something - we're preventing current and future health problems, and stopping kids from smoking in the future" - and as much as I'd like to see smoking die out, and as much as I'd like to see kids not exposed to second-hand smoke, and to avoid starting smoking in the first place - this isn't going to have the desired effect, and I see it as a waste of time, money, and energy that could be better used in other ways.