Monroe County Bans Smoking in Cars with Children

[ATF Consumer]

This is a tough issue for me. I certainly don't like the government telling me what to do in my own car, house, etc.

But, we're talking about kids here. They don't have a choice. Sadly, there are many horrible parents who don't look out for what's best for their children. Kids are not capable of doing what's best for themselves.

You'd have to be really ignorant to subject your kids to cigarette smoke, but I've seen many parents that do. I've even seen pregnant women smoking. Again, if they want to harm themselves than that's one thing, but kids need protection.

Giving soda to a two year old isn't very nutritional or good for children either...rots their teeth, You'd have to be really ignorant to subject your kids to soda, but I've seen many parents that do.

Before you know it, you'll be ticketed for transporting your child in an SUV that isn't' a hybrid, because you are exposing your child to senseless fuel waste.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

This is just one of the many examples of a creeping tyranny that is coming to America.

I try to avoid such words as I don't want to make myself out as a paranoid nutjob, but the government has become obsessed with regulating RISK.

What I mean by this is simple: While there is no 100% cause and effect harm from smoking, there is an increased risk. Just as there is no 100% cause and effect from driving without a seat belt, eating bad food, being overweight, and so on.

I am content with Big Brother regulating direct harm. If someone harms another person or their property I am fine with that being criminalized where the offender is punished.

I am fine with a parent potentially being punished for beating their child. I am not talking about a paddling (all for that!) but in my opinion any damage done that would directly harm a child would be grounds for considering prosecution. A paddling is one thing, a beating that leaves large bruises or broken bones is something else.

This is why I am against all seat belt laws, even for children. Consider what is allowed by tolerating this thoughtline: IF the Government can tell you what is safe fo your child in your car THEN the government can tell you what is safe for your child in your home. Before you know it granny giving the kids cookies and cake will be arrested for child abuse as obviously this is unhealthy for the children, ergo leading to heart disease, ergo abuse.

On the issue of rights: Smokers do NOT have any rights as smokers. Nonsmokers do NOT have any rights as nonsmokers. In my opinion PROPERTY OWNERS are the ones with the rights!!! Any property owner can allow any amount of risk on his/her own property. As long as someone who enters that property is informed about the risks they cannot cry foul. I believe this is the purview of the government: To compel, without preference or prejudice, the owner of a product (or property) to inform anyone who may purchase or enter said property exactly what it is they are getting themselves into. As food products tell us what is in them, as medicines tell us the active ingredients, and so on I believe this is where the government can play a role by guaranteeing that we the public are well informed so WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS!

The government should see (through some means) that we the public are informed about the danger posed to children through second hand smoke in an enclosed space, but that is THE END of the governments involvement. After that it is up to responsible parents to act on the information they have been given.

By the way, both of my parents smoked until I was a teenager. My father quit in the mid 70's and mother continued smoking until the mid 90's. Neither my sister nor I suffered any observable damage.

For those who have suffered from the effects of second hand smoke from parents I am truly sorry and wish my deepest sympathies. There was a point where we must admit that people were simply ignorant and didn't know any better. However, there comes a point when we must concede that some parents put their addiction before their children. This, while reprehensible, was probably not done out of maliciousness but rather out of denial. Imagine the parents who didn't smoke but let their children play by the swimming pool unattended, or do any number of things that today parents would be shocked at seeing.

We should be informed of risk, not criminalized because we as responsible Americans choose to enjoy something that has a greater risk than something else.

I hope the people of Monroe County voice their disgust at this Nanny State mentality at the next election. Sadly, I doubt they will. After all, it's for the children...


Regards,


Doug

 

[Jack Ryan]

The ordinance will carry a fine of $100 for a person caught smoking in a vehicle carrying a child age 13 or younger. Police officers would not be able to stop a car just to enforce the ordinance.

Yeah yeah, sure the gestapo would never do that. They won't need to. They have a dozen other nuisance laws they can use as an excuse to drag you over, inspect your travel permits and licenses, tear your car apart searching for the source of that "cigarette smell" during the various check point road blocks.

Kind of like the same way the worked the seat belt camel all the way in the tent.

Pretty soon the hospital will be calling the cops to check your car before you can leave the pediatricions office or take you own kid home from the hospital. Some nosy do gooder or, hey! How about a neighbor who "thinks" you might be smoking in the car and just hates you having more toys than he thinks you should be allowed. Add this to the list of reasons he can call the cops on you or have child protective services tied around your neck for a few months. Ad in a few ex-wifes, divorces, political pay backs, oh yeah I can see where this will be a useful tool for "all the kings men".

Oh except for the one who promises even though he took and oath of loyalty to his brothers in blue he would never do something like that. Right.

 

[Richard]

Authoritarianism: 1

Individual liberty: 0

 

[StarKing]

I'm a bit short on time, so I'm going to just pop in a clip from a post I made on an earlier thread, just for those of you who have been hooked by the SHS propaganda. These folks are every bit as dishonest as the gun control crowd:
****************************
Looking for data on SHS/ETS to do some risk calculations I had difficulty finding any, which made me a bit suspicious given that a number of blatant scare tactics were being presented (much like the antigunners) including several I already knew were false or grossly misleading.
To make a long story short what I ended up finding were the EPA study, the WHO study, Dr. Koop's surgeon generals report, the California study, the British Doctors' study, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory study, various references to Tobacco Institute documents, and a few others I can't remember at the moment.
Most of these are actually named by the anti's so they are fairly easy to find if you know to look.
The trick is to go to the source and look at the actual data - not what they say about it, especially the Tobacco Institute documents, which sound very damning out of context, but come across much differently if you read the entire piece.
To put it briefly: the overwhelming scientific evidence, as referenced by the antis themselves, illustrates clearly that SECOND HAND SMOKE IS UTTERLY HARMLESS!!!
Please do not take my word for it: Go to the source documents (the raw data and preliminary statistical analyses - check the probable error data) and see for yourselves. Watch for the kind of statistical manipulations the anti-gunners use.
Preview of next revelation: After a year of looking I finally came up with some equally surprising stuff about primary smoke (which I still believe is harmful, but perhaps not so well established as we have been led to believe)
Do you know that prior to 1603 the medical establishment saw tobacco as sort of a "wonder drug", and a group of British doctors pushed to have it restricted to prescription only use? The first anti-tobacco commentaries appeared less than a year after that push failed!
More to come...
************************************************************
Actually, no more ever did come after that post.
To abbreviate, I continued digging for data on primary smoke and found nothing like the conclusive evidence we have been led to believe is out there. Among other things I did find that NONE of the thousands of animal studies on primary smoke supported the anti-tobacco position. None of the correlational studies I could find adequately accounted for confounding factors, and some of those ignored obvious confounding factors having far better correlations*. I was unable to find ANY well controlled experimental results supporting the anti's position. Most of this "research" was done long ago, and I'm sure I haven't found most of it, but I'm getting very suspicious from what I have found.

*An excellent example is the well publicised comparison of the curve of cigarette sales vs lung cancer diagnoses 20 years later. Both curves are logistics curves - an extremely common growth curve shape, so the matching shape is irrelevant. Worse yet, if you plot the curve of atmospheric strontium 90 (a known extreme carcinogen, especially when inhaled) from above ground nuclear tests you will find virtually an exact match with lung cancer diagnoses without the 20 year delay!
It gets worse, but as I say, my time is limited just now.
These people are gun-grabber clones.
Despite this, I'm still convinced that primary smoke is bad for you, but second hand smoke clearly is not.

 

[StarKing]

Maybe we should all get on the bandwagon and push for a law prohibiting prohibitionists...

 

[StarKing]

Almost forgot:
Go to the corporate websites of the big tobacco companies and look up the names of the top execs and controlling stockholders.
Now go look up the biographies of those folks.
You will find that most of them are high up in the anti-tobacco movement.
Isn't that odd?
Chicken or egg?
You might notice also that the tobacco companies' stocks don't seem to be taking any hits from all the anti-tobacco victories...I wonder why???

 

[SavageEagle]

Ok I admit I didn't read all the posts but this is B MFING S right here! It's like the commercial of the mom with the baby in the back of the minivan and rolls up her windows, locks the doors, then lights up. Who in God's Green Earth rolls up their windows to smoke? Besides pot heads...

I don't smoke in my house because our oldest daughter is allergic to smoke. But we smoke in our vehicles and she's NEVER had a problem. Ever. We smoke outside or in the garage. She's not allowed in the garage if the door is closed.

So you tell me, besides those people who have SEVERE cases of illness around smoke, how is smoking in your car anymore dangerous than the polluted air we breathe everyday? Anyone who tries to tell me second hand smoke is more dangerous than lighting up themselves is a complete moron. I'm sorry but this stupid ban is completely overstepping lines that should never be crossed and if I lived in Bloomington I'd be ripping some heads off. 3 people. Only THREE people had the opportunity to vote on this. That's crap in and of itself.

Yes, it's worse that kids are around smoke, but it's more dangerous for them to be doing other things. Like playing in the street, skateboarding, riding a bike, fishing, hunting, being in a moving car period, playing in the local creek, eating half the food/drink on the market, (non)prescription drugs, you get my point.

This kind of crap just makes me so !!!! In the midst of all these people protesting the overstepping of government, what makes them think this wouldn't be met with resistance?!?!?!

I hope they don't like their jobs.

 

[Nathan]

being a non-smoker, i find it hard to speak my mind without offending people on this subject. my father smoked while i was living there, and i hated it, hurt my lungs. i'm usually around 4 to 5 people a week that will smoke in front of me. it doesn't bother me as much now. i've tried to limit my inhaling while the putrid smoke is being exhaled in my direction. since i don't know the chemicals involved, i will make a very uneducated statement. the crap they put in those cigarettes will turn your lungs black! yes, it's your decision to smoke, but it's similar to shooting yourself in the leg. you might survive is you didn't hit any major arteries and you might survive is you get it treated immediately and have the bullet extracted, but if you don't do anything, you're pretty much gonna bleed to death.

if you have smoked for more than 25 years, habitually, then i pray you get help to stop. the medical conditions relating to smoking is scary, and will end your life in a painfull way.

not only that, but they're getting expensive. i don't know about you, but i stay away from rolling up a dollar bill and lighting one end of it, and suck on the other end. just seems like a dumb thing to do.

hope i didn't overstep my bounds here.

 

[zlittell]

when i smoke cigs i usually have the window almost all the way rolled down and or at least enough to blow smoke out (how much depends on weather and speed) honestly i think there are more dangerous things in the air than a little smoke.

-zack-

 

[SavageEagle]

hope i didn't overstep my bounds here.

Absolutely not! It's always good to hear the other side of things. But you're right. If you've been doing it for decades it's time to stop. I wish I'd never started. I gave up other things a long time ago and now I'm thinking, albeit thinking isn't doing, about giving up smoking. It's hard to do though when you've been smoking since 13-14. That's 13-14 years I've been smoking. Although I didn't always inhale the whole hit, that doesn't make a difference. Smoking is smoking is smoking.

I guess my whole point is if someone wants to kill themself by smoking so be it. It's their choice. To make laws saying where how and when is and people shouldn't stand for it. Same with seat belt laws, gun laws, drug laws, etc.

 

[SavageEagle]

when i smoke cigs i usually have the window almost all the way rolled down and or at least enough to blow smoke out (how much depends on weather and speed) honestly i think there are more dangerous things in the air than a little smoke.

-zack-

If you leave your window cracked and keep the cig near the crack, the air pressure will suck the smoke out. The farther down the less it sucks out. Also the farther down forward you hold the cig, the better the chance the ashes won't come back it.

It's all about air pressure and air flow.

 

[krs2fer]

I don't smoke but I feel that every time they take something away from us, we lose more then just that item.
Chip, chip, chip, they are chipping away at our rights.

 

[antsi]

I generally lean away from government intrusion into private lives and into parenting - and I think if you held a gun to my head and made me come down on one side of this or the other, I'd come down on the side of privacy and leave the smoking parents alone.

However, I don't think we make that case by exaggerating or misleading, and the "pro-liberty" side in this thread has been a little fast and loose.

First of all, you can't reasonably say that second hand smoke is harmless to children. I do agree that the evidence has been over-stated by the anti-smoking crowd. However, parental smoking is one of the leading risk factors for childhood asthma and asthma is one of the top life threatening chronic diseases for children. It's fine to say "the anti smoking crowd has exaggerated the strength of the evidence of harm to children due to second hand smoke." But saying that second hand smoke has been proven to be harmless to children is an even worse misrepresentation of the evidence in the other direction.

Second, I don't think it's really helpful to compare second hand smoke to soft drinks or high calorie foods. Definitely, there is a spectrum of potential harm from "very high risk of very great harm" to "relatively low risk of relatively minor harm." Unless you are willing to go all the way to one extreme or the other - for instance, allowing parents to use branding irons for child discipline on one extreme, or allowing the state to totally micro-manage parenting on the other extreme, then you are going to have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere where you say, on one side of the line the parental behavior is harmful enough to warrant legal action, and on the other side of the line you acknowledge the parents' behavior might be harmful but you're not going to force them to behave differently.

Wherever you draw that line, it's going to be arbitrary.
If someone on the "parental liberty" side says, "Where do you draw the line? Next, you'll be policing parents for letting their kids eat french fries!"
then someone on the "police state to protect the kids" side can just as legitimately say, "Where do you draw the line? Next, you'll be allowing parents to bathe their children in nuclear waste and cut off their arms when they misbehave!"

Either way, "where do you draw the line?" arguments don't prove anything.
Unless you are willing to go to a full extreme of allowing parents to abuse their kids however they see fit, or impose a Child Protection Police State, then you are going to have to draw the line somewhere. The line will be arbitrary, and wherever you draw it, people will continue to argue about it.

 

[SavageEagle]

First of all, you can't reasonably say that second hand smoke is harmless to children. I do agree that the evidence has been over-stated by the anti-smoking crowd. However, parental smoking is one of the leading risk factors for childhood asthma and asthma is one of the top life threatening chronic diseases for children. It's fine to say "the anti smoking crowd has exaggerated the strength of the evidence of harm to children due to second hand smoke." But saying that second hand smoke has been proven to be harmless to children is an even worse misrepresentation of the evidence in the other direction.

I'm not sure if this was directed or caused by my statement, but just to be clear....

I wasn't saying that second hand smoke isn't dangerous. It is, but its not MORE dangerous than smoking the cig itself.

Just wanted to be clear on that.

 

[antsi]

its not MORE dangerous than smoking the cig itself.

Yes, this is one of the most bizarre statements of the anti-smoking Nazis. You're right that there is little reason to believe this could be true.

 

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

What about people just driving through, can they be ticketed for it?. How are they going to know whether or not the kid is 13 or 14. Are the kids going to have to produce ID now? How will they know the parent is smoking? Do the county cops have super duper eyesight? Maybe they need to be paying attention to the road instead of whether or not someone is smoking in their car and how old does the kid look. Can they pull you over for just that? What if the 13 year old is smoking with their parents. Some parents are stupid to. What about in city limits. Can city cops enforce a county law?

 

[StarKing]

...i will make a very uneducated statement. the crap they put in those cigarettes will turn your lungs black!
...hope i didn't overstep my bounds here.

1) Yes, it is a very uneducated statement. Those pictures you see in the anti-tobacco propaganda are of a healthy lung and a diseased lung - not necessarily a smoker's lung. Healthy nonsmokers' lungs and healthy smokers' lungs cannot be differentiated on sight, they look just the same.

2) I wouldn't say you overstepped your bounds, but the anti-tobacco crowd certainly has, even if they were being totally honest.
Unfortunately, these people are fundamentally prohibitionists, and like every other stripe of prohibitionists I've ever encountered they are massively dishonest, and utterly convinced that it doesn't matter since they are clearly so morally superior to us mere mortals that honesty isn't an issue. Nothing matters but achieving their goal.

We are being lied to, plain and simple, and those lies are being used to deprive us of any freedom these people don't like, one by one, then on to the next, until none are left at all.
There is no "slippery slope" to this - it is a conscious and deliberate drive directly toward a totalitarian goal.

 

[StarKing]

First of all, you can't reasonably say that second hand smoke is harmless to children. I do agree that the evidence has been over-stated by the anti-smoking crowd. However, parental smoking is one of the leading risk factors for childhood asthma and asthma is one of the top life threatening chronic diseases for children. It's fine to say "the anti smoking crowd has exaggerated the strength of the evidence of harm to children due to second hand smoke." But saying that second hand smoke has been proven to be harmless to children is an even worse misrepresentation of the evidence in the other direction.

Actually, you can. I wouldn't have thought so myself had I not started looking at the actual research.
The evidence is massive and overwhelming. SHS is harmless period...not just to children, in fact the WHO study actually showed some indications of a protective effect on children under 12!!!!
Don't forget that most medications are poisons in larger doses. The fact is that actual dosages received in SHS are almost immeasurably miniscule.
The statements that there is no safe dosage of this or that is nonsense, regardless of what "this or that" happens to be. There may be no known safe dosage, but that's a whole different critter.
There is no scientifically valid research showing any harm from SHS, and massive amounts of scientifically valid research have been done - enough that there is a huge statistical probability that evidence of harm would have been found by now, if in fact there were any.
Statistically, that fact corresponds to a proof of the contrary proposition, by the "null hypotheses".
As I said in an earlier post: Look at the actual research data, not what they say about it.

 

[antsi]

Starking, I do read a great deal of clinical literature and I have read some of the original research on this topic. It is quite well established that the children of smokers are at higher risk of asthma.
The only way this could be definitively proven one way or another would be a large scale randomized controlled trial, which obviously is not going to happen. What evidence there is will therefore be circumstantial.
You are correct to the extent that the exact risks of second hand smoke to children are not well established, but it is simply not correct to say that it's been proven to be harmless (let alone protective).