Reply
Fri 24 Aug, 2007 03:28 am
The California Senate has approved a measure that would impose $100 fines for smoking while driving with children young enough to have to ride in child-safety seats, the Associated Press reported Aug. 28.
"We all know that secondhand smoke is hazardous," said state Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento). "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."
The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood), was returned to the Assembly for a revote; it was approved in a different form last year.
Currently, California law requires car seats for children under age 6 or weighing under 60 pounds. But new legislation could require children as old as 8 to be in car seats, broadening the impact of the new tobacco bill.
How do you feel about this?
I feel that statements like ""We all know that secondhand smoke is hazardous," said state Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento). "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."" make our legislators look ridiculously stupid and owned by lobbyists of some sort.
For once, I agree with McG.
yeah, i don't know about the senators, but the legislation itself seems like a good idea to me. children should not be exposed to smoke if it can be helped.
I don't know. It feels too absolute to me. Does smoking with the windows down count? Cigars? Is there even any correlation between children's health and whether their parents smoke in the car? Is there an epidemic of children with emphysema or lung cancer or similar that can be traced to children riding in cars with smoking drivers? What if the passengers are smoking -- do they get fined?
i'd imagine it would go for any passenger. i know nothing about health stats... but what' key to me is that the child does not have a choice (especially not an informed choice) and cannot effectively defend herself. So from the point of rights, it strikes me as reasonable.
That makes sense, this just seems unnecessary to me. Children don't have choices in a lot of things. If their parents aren't good parents that can have long term effects on them and there's nothing they can do about that. But we can't legislate good parenting. That's what it comes down to me.
Well, we DO legislate a great deal of parenting. Domestic violence is punishable, so is not sending kids to school. It strikes me as more of the same.
It doesn't strike me as more of the same. In both of those cases there is demonstrable harm to the child. This legislation really doesn't have that but is relying on a more theoretical harm. I predict that if it passes it will be virtually unenforceable.
It amazes me that any kids at all survived the 50's. No seat belt or car seat laws, both parents smoking...
you mean theoretical harm of second hand smoking? i don't know how much actual harm it does to any given child, i suppose it would also depend on the amount of smoking child is exposed to. i guess i'd need to see more data to form any conclusive opinion.
but in theory, if it's choosing between the right of a smoker to smoke and the right of a child to be protected, i'd of course go with the child. even if the harm is small. but i see what you're saying.
Yeah, theoretical harm of second hand smoking -- specifically while riding in a car. It's not that I think that smoking around kids is a good idea, just that if we're going to pass legislation it should be for measurable reasons and it should have some chance of being enforced.
I do agree that the child's health outweighs the rights of an adult to smoke cigarettes. And if it turned out that a significant number of children had demonstrably negative health effects that were directly related to adults smoking in cars while driving them around, then I could agree that the legislation is reasonable.
I'm one of those pain in the ass reformed smokers who hate smoking but..... this is ridiculous. what's next 100.00 fine for farting in the car? Oh God, the methane....
FreeDuck wrote:It doesn't strike me as more of the same. In both of those cases there is demonstrable harm to the child. This legislation really doesn't have that but is relying on a more theoretical harm. I predict that if it passes it will be virtually unenforceable.
Agree. Unenforcable.
What is next? Will they say you can't smoke in your own home? Backyard? If a child is within 500 feet of you?
I too am an ex smoker , and I think this is just stupid.
It is too much of someone trying to tell me what to do in my own property.
yes, we know smoking is dangerous, and yes children being around second hand smoke is not good for thier bodies.. I mean, how COULD it be?
But you show me children under the age of 18 who had to sit in thier parents smoke that have lung cancer DIRECTLY caused by smoking .
It will cause problems with thier bodies just like it does for adults in the long run sadly, but why should the government be that far into our lives, our space, or our property? Sitting in traffic with the windows down is actually MORE dangerous to your health then an entire cigarette.. Yet smokers are going to be fined, and not the people who dont maintain thier cars?
And then tell me why, as an adult in a supposed free country, I cant smoke in my own car?
Im actually all for the public smoking ban. The one that doesnt allow people to smoke in restaurants and bars.
But, to tell people they can not smoke in thier own cars is just a sign of someone who wants to control others for thier own sanity.
Its a scary thought.
If smoking is so dangerous, they should ban it entirely instead of this piece-meal picking away at smokers.
banning it entirely would be removing a freedom
yet dishing out heavy fines to people who use this freedom isnt.
(urg)
Quote:
Harvard School of Public Health
Secondhand smoke in cars may lead to dangerous levels of contaminants for children
Study found concentrations rated 'hazardous' by EPA
Boston, MA -- Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) can have harmful effects on children. Some of the adverse health outcomes include a greater likelihood of ear infections, lower respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome and severity of asthma symptoms. It is estimated that 35% to 45% of children are regularly exposed to SHS from adults using tobacco in homes and cars. To date, there has been little research on SHS in cars.
In the first study to measure SHS in cars in real driving conditions, Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers have shown that smoking in cars can produce unsafe levels of SHS. Even with the driver's window slightly open, mean respirable suspended particles (RSP) concentrations hit levels rated "hazardous" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the study, concentrations of 272 µg/m3 were measured, with a peak level of 505 µg/m3. In comparison, the EPA's air quality index rates concentrations of more than 40 µg/m3 as "unhealthy for sensitive groups," such as children and the elderly, and more than 250 µg/m3 as "hazardous" for the general population. The results showed that smoking a single cigarette for just five minutes could produce potentially harmful RSP levels. Given the levels the researchers observed, SHS in cars poses a potentially serious threat to children's health.
The authors hope that their findings will encourage renewed efforts to promote smoke-free environments for children both in cars and homes. The study will be published in the November 2006 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine and is available online now at
http://www.ajpm-online.net/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/1751.pdf.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/hsop-ssi100506.php
Seems like the harm has been demonstrated. That's just one article but seems reputable (Harvard School of Public Health).
I agree that the enforceability looks difficult, but I'd imagine it'd be about the same as enforcing seatbelt laws. I don't really buy the stuff about "next they'll be outlawing adults smoking alone in cars...!" I'm a lot more laissez-faire when it comes to people endangering their own health than endangering children's health, and this seems focused on the latter.
A subject which expose the new culture.
Criminals are preaching sermons to the innocent smokers.
HYPOCRISY is there ..
Let me die with my DOWNHILL
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace