smoking with children in cars

[Shrykull]

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/24 ... californi/

I think this has been discussed before, but maybe you want to chime in on the comments there.

The most common smoking argument seems to be that if we get rid of smoking, we must get rid of anything else that can cause harm. We must regulate people eating too much and what they eat, monitor their sleeping habits to see they are sleeping right and enough, and make sure they don't work jobs that are too stressful.

Though some of is just screwed up. I met a guy who seriously thought that if you want to run a restaurant you should have the right to let your dog shit in it, and the board of health shouldn't come and shut you down. Of course, I don't think many people would go there though. And, that people should be allowed to commit suicide because it's their own life. They say if you don't like my establishment that allows smoking, don't eat or work there.

I've also heard that we can't ban it because farmers who grow tobacco and stores that sell it will suffer. If you got the sale of cigarettes banned in your town, that it will really kill the local economy.

I really hate being around smoker's, not just when they smoke, but think about the saliva on their fingers near their mouths when they do it, and they touch things. There is this sun shop I used to go to where they smoked while they were making sandwiches. I never saw it myself, but heard they did. I've also heard some places won't hire you if you smoke, because it can decrease productivity when you have to go out and do it, but why is this? They could just give smokers and non-smokers the same amount of breaks, you can use one as a smoke break, but you won't get special breaks that only smoker's get.

Do you ever think tobacco will be banned within our lifetimes? (say anyone here who is 20 or older) It certainly wouldn't stop it, but you wouldn't see someone smoking in public, where they can get caught doing it, anymore. Though I'd recommend just a heavy fine rather than an arrest. In New Hampshire minors can be arrested, not fined, arrested for doing it. That's kind of strange though, as some states allow minor's to smoke, just not buy Cigarettes.

[Venator]

Someone once said that smoking was an amazing amplification of Darwinian processes, since it marks (with a strong odour and visible characteristics) people who are too stupid to reproduce...

Of course, as much as I applaud this legislation in Cali, I have trouble seeing an outright ban anytime soon. As far as I know, the number of smokers is decreasing, but it's still a massive economical force - that alone is enough to counteract health concerns when it comes to most lawmaking groups.

[Mayabird]

I've also heard that we can't ban it because farmers who grow tobacco and stores that sell it will suffer. If you got the sale of cigarettes banned in your town, that it will really kill the local economy.

North Carolina actually wisely invested their tobacco windfalls into education, both primary and college level. With their new educated workforce the state's been doing some great diversification into high tech industries (Research Triangle, anyone?). If tobacco was suddenly banned the state would be just fine and the farmers could switch to some other crop. It's not like prices for agricultural goods are extremely low right now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd favour the simpler solution of continuing to close the noose--let's make it a $1000.00 ticket if an officer sees you smoking in a car with children.

[sketerpot]

The most common smoking argument seems to be that if we get rid of smoking, we must get rid of anything else that can cause harm. We must regulate people eating too much and what they eat, monitor their sleeping habits to see they are sleeping right and enough, and make sure they don't work jobs that are too stressful.

That obviously doesn't apply to this particular law. It's not trying to protect smokers from themselves. It's trying to protect kids from them. Anybody who can't see this is probably asleep or dead.

Though some of is just screwed up. I met a guy who seriously thought that if you want to run a restaurant you should have the right to let your dog shit in it, and the board of health shouldn't come and shut you down. Of course, I don't think many people would go there though. And, that people should be allowed to commit suicide because it's their own life. They say if you don't like my establishment that allows smoking, don't eat or work there.

Some kind of health regulation is necessary. Hell, ask a libertarian and they'll tell you the same thing. After all, people will notice dog poo but they might not notice improperly refrigerated meat. That's what the health inspectors are for. Again, pretty obvious.

I've also heard that we can't ban it because farmers who grow tobacco and stores that sell it will suffer. If you got the sale of cigarettes banned in your town, that it will really kill the local economy.

We can't ban it because banning drugs doesn't work. We can make it uncool and stop bending over for smokers by letting them smoke in public places where the rest of us will be exposed to their fumes. And that's exactly what we're doing. The smoking rate in the US fell nearly in half in the past thirty years, and it's continuing to go down. We're seeing the same trend in most other developed nations as well.

Forget about banning tobacco. Stigmatize it instead.

[Shrykull]

Someone once said that smoking was an amazing amplification of Darwinian processes, since it marks (with a strong odour and visible characteristics) people who are too stupid to reproduce...

Of course, as much as I applaud this legislation in Cali, I have trouble seeing an outright ban anytime soon. As far as I know, the number of smokers is decreasing, but it's still a massive economical force - that alone is enough to counteract health concerns when it comes to most lawmaking groups.

I think a good strategy would be more taxes. It will start declining when most young people stop starting. I think most people start smoking either in high school, or the military.

If they couldn't afford it, they'd have to get it on the black market. Unlike pot which is mostly illegal (you can have a small amount in New Hampshire) and not sold in stores, they would have a choice to get it legally.

[JBG]

I smoke heavily but didn't start 'till Uni. A child in my car ( MX-5s only have 2 seats ) is an easy question, I do not smoke. I strive to keep my smoke to myself and that is not just due to the taxes already, Your Grace. The stuff is toxic and most unpleasant to non-smokers. And yeah, I realise that the foregoing admission of being a smoker makes me seem like a founding member of the idiot club, except for the car of course.

The solution is relatively simple. Ban tobacco. Compared to weed it has little hope of surviving as an illegal substance. The only 2 things it is good at are mindless addiction and giving idiots ( puts hand up ) something to do re hands and mouth and frankly a good way to take a break at work and network with other idiots.

That's my 2 cents worth.

[Solauren]

I like the idea of tightning the noose more.

However, $1,000 is not enough. Try $5,000 dollars + lose custody of the kid(s).

[CaptainZoidberg]

However, $1,000 is not enough. Try $5,000 dollars + lose custody of the kid(s).

That's pretty excessive. I've known a few kids whose parents smoked. Yes it was a negative impact on their life. Yes it was a negative impact on their health. But would it be right to take those kids out of a loving home and put them in foster care just because of the parent's smoking habits?

[Oskuro]

For me, the core of the issue is not about health, but about respect for others. If someone wants to inject bleach into their gonads, it's their problem. What infuriates me, is how smokers do not realize that forcing others to breathe the smoke is fucking rude and disrespectful.

Whenever a friend of mine tries to light one up near me, I promptly stick a finger up my nose and start digging in the most grotesque manner possible, while asking "does this bother you?". Unfortunately, being addicts, they'll try to blindly justify their habit no matter what you throw at them (a girl friend of mine even had the gall of claiming that "with all the shit in the air, cigarrette smoke ain't so bad anyway").

[Kanastrous]

^ best exemplified by the old t-shirt line - I don't mind if you smoke, if you don't mind if I fart.

[gizmojumpjet]

I really hate being around smoker's, not just when they smoke, but think about the saliva on their fingers near their mouths when they do it, and they touch things.

You think smokers have more saliva on their hands than regular people? You must not understand how smoking works. There are plenty of things to dislike about smoking, but smokers aren't getting disproportionately more of their icky icky saliva on things than are non-smokers.

[Solauren]

However, $1,000 is not enough. Try $5,000 dollars + lose custody of the kid(s).

That's pretty excessive. I've known a few kids whose parents smoked. Yes it was a negative impact on their life. Yes it was a negative impact on their health. But would it be right to take those kids out of a loving home and put them in foster care just because of the parent's smoking habits?

So, exposing your child routinely, in a air tight, concentrated environment, to known toxins and cancergines makes you a fit parent?

[PeZook]

So, exposing your child routinely, in a air tight, concentrated environment, to known toxins and cancergines makes you a fit parent?

How about exposing these same kids to abuse, stunting their emotional development and ruining all chance of having a normal life by placing them in a foster home, idiot?

There's more to parenting than "smokes: y/n". By your standard, my mother would've had to grow up in a goddamned foster home because - get this - her father was a smoker!

Gee, It's a good thing I wouldn't have any thoughts of doing nasty things to people who thought up such a retarded policy in that case, huh?

[Junghalli]

So, exposing your child routinely, in a air tight, concentrated environment, to known toxins and cancergines makes you a fit parent?

Will they be better off being raised in foster care? I doubt it. Some perspective is useful here: there's an excellent possibility that the traumas associated with being taken away from their parents and put into the foster care system will be worse than the harm done to them by some second hand smoke exposure. I say give the parent a fine, but taking away their kids is going overboard.

Anyway, the actual law doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. I have nothing against smokers but you have to consider that if you're smoking in the car with your kids your exposing them to poisons.

[FSTargetDrone]

The idea that a parent would smoke around their child in any situation, be it in a car or at home, or wherever, it's just revolting. I see people doing that in front of kids and I wonder, "Are you even thinking about what you are doing?" Especially in this day.

Banning it seems like a mistake, but taxing it heavily and making it socially unacceptable seems a better solution.

[Darth Wong]

People who smoke with their kids in the car don't really care that much about their children. That sounds pretty blunt, but it's the reality. I've known plenty of smokers, and the conscientious ones avoided smoking around their kids at all, never mind doing it in the car. The rest ... well, they were trash and they acted like it. The smoking in the car was just part of a fairly consistent package.

[JBG]

People who smoke with their kids in the car don't really care that much about their children. That sounds pretty blunt, but it's the reality. I've known plenty of smokers, and the conscientious ones avoided smoking around their kids at all, never mind doing it in the car. The rest ... well, they were trash and they acted like it. The smoking in the car was just part of a fairly consistent package.

When I was growing up Mr Wong it seemed most people smoked and more to the point of this thread smoked in cars with grossly inadequate ventilation. For Aussie members, imagine arranging flow through ventilation in winter in an FC Holden. For non-Aussies, an FC was a smaller version of some late '50s early '60s GM sedan - you puled a lever and a scoop was raised in the bonnet just before the wind screen that, well, scooped in air. No forward motion or wind, no input of fresh air.

Passive smoking issues have been known for a long time - 20 years or so - so there is absolutely no excuse for smoking in the presence of non-smokers in any sort of restricted ventilation environment. And apart from the big wild out doors or one's private home there are NO such environments in the opinion of this smoker.

With all due respect we must retain a sense of proportion here. People who for instance drive whilst pissed off their gourds whilst having children in the car should also be excoriated. If smoke is also unpleasant then those who seemingly bathe in perfume of aftershave should be in for a stern talking to in that regard.

[Darth Wong]

When I was growing up Mr Wong it seemed most people smoked and more to the point of this thread smoked in cars with grossly inadequate ventilation. For Aussie members, imagine arranging flow through ventilation in winter in an FC Holden. For non-Aussies, an FC was a smaller version of some late '50s early '60s GM sedan - you puled a lever and a scoop was raised in the bonnet just before the wind screen that, well, scooped in air. No forward motion or wind, no input of fresh air.

When I was growing up, it was still common to have older cars with no seatbelts in the back. Even when they did introduce seatbelts in all cars, it was typical for a long time to have only lap belts in the back; no shoulder belts. People were relatively ignorant of numerous safety issues, of which smoking in cars was just one. That's one of the reasons conservatives oppose these kinds of measures so vigorously; they are looking back on their childhood with rose-coloured glasses as if it was some kind of paradise, and they don't understand why these new laws are required.

I often see people saying things like "We did that all the time when I was a kid, and we all survived". The thing is, they didn't. Only the people who survived can stand here now and say they survived; it's an obviously selective sample, since kids who died of accidents before adulthood obviously can't walk up, join the conversation, and recount their experiences.

Passive smoking issues have been known for a long time - 20 years or so - so there is absolutely no excuse for smoking in the presence of non-smokers in any sort of restricted ventilation environment. And apart from the big wild out doors or one's private home there are NO such environments in the opinion of this smoker.

My parents were both university-educated, so they came from the class which is most likely to be aware of such issues from early on. So I can't say how far this knowledge spread into the general population when I was a kid, but I was certainly told from a very young age how stupid a habit it is. Nevertheless, it is certainly very widely disseminated information today.

With all due respect we must retain a sense of proportion here. People who for instance drive whilst pissed off their gourds whilst having children in the car should also be excoriated.

Of course. You won't hear any sympathy for drunk drivers from me. I have always advocated extremely harsh penalties for such people.

If smoke is also unpleasant then those who seemingly bathe in perfume of aftershave should be in for a stern talking to in that regard.

I find strong perfume/cologne to be highly annoying too, but it's not addictive and I doubt it is carcinogenic. One of the worst things about heavy exposure to second-hand smoke is the vastly increased likelihood that the child will pick up this life-shortening addiction himself.

[Invictus ChiKen]

I find strong perfume/cologne to be highly annoying too, but it's not addictive and I doubt it is carcinogenic. One of the worst things about heavy exposure to second-hand smoke is the vastly increased likelihood that the child will pick up this life-shortening addiction himself.

As they use to say "You ain't just whistling Dixie!" In my VERY LARGE family only the very young children my brother-in-law, three uncles, three aunts and myself don't smoke. I spend lots of time around intense concentrations and I have gotten intense cravings.

[KlavoHunter]

Dropping ridiculously heavy fees on families because they smoke with their kids in the car?

I realize that the idea here is to dissuade smoking totally, but, frankly, the majority population of smokers can't afford a $1000 ticket to come out of nowhere and land on them. Granted, they shouldn't be wasting their money on smokes, either. But this would be horrifically counterproductive towards those children's well-being, by imposing this sudden financial hardship on their families.

Sure, it's an absolutely filthy habit. But I think that "thousand-dollar fines for smoking in car with children" goes too far too fast, and is entirely the wrong way to go about trying to curb smoking, and would provoke a backlash that could set the anti-tobacco movement back years.

Instead, keep ramping up the taxes on it. Make it illegal to smoke indoors. Make it an expensive and inconvenient habit, slowly forcing would-be smokers out of the market.


Anecdotally, my father smoked when I grew up (and still does). My mother had the good sense to quit when she became pregnant, and stayed off of it. I've had the good fortune that my father has not been an asshole about his smoking - Opened windows when he did it in a car, did it in his room or in the kitchen with the stove fan going.

[KlavoHunter]

Ghetto P.S. - I don't smoke.

[Darth Wong]

Dropping ridiculously heavy fees on families because they smoke with their kids in the car?

I realize that the idea here is to dissuade smoking totally, but, frankly, the majority population of smokers can't afford a $1000 ticket to come out of nowhere and land on them. Granted, they shouldn't be wasting their money on smokes, either. But this would be horrifically counterproductive towards those children's well-being, by imposing this sudden financial hardship on their families.

Not if the hardship causes the stupid asshole parents to stop doing that in future, or if the size of the fine deters them from getting caught in the first place. Your argument presumes that these people will refuse to change their behaviour one iota to accomodate this new law, so that every smoker parent will rapidly be driven into bankruptcy.

Sure, it's an absolutely filthy habit. But I think that "thousand-dollar fines for smoking in car with children" goes too far too fast, and is entirely the wrong way to go about trying to curb smoking, and would provoke a backlash that could set the anti-tobacco movement back years.

And what do you base this prediction on?

Instead, keep ramping up the taxes on it. Make it illegal to smoke indoors. Make it an expensive and inconvenient habit, slowly forcing would-be smokers out of the market.

Ummm, that's exactly what this kind of legislation is intended to do. Make it very expensive to continue this irresponsible behaviour.

Anecdotally, my father smoked when I grew up (and still does). My mother had the good sense to quit when she became pregnant, and stayed off of it. I've had the good fortune that my father has not been an asshole about his smoking - Opened windows when he did it in a car, did it in his room or in the kitchen with the stove fan going.

And if he was fined $1000 each time he smoked in the car with kids, he'd probably stop smoking in the car with kids.

[JBG]

When I was growing up Mr Wong it seemed most people smoked and more to the point of this thread smoked in cars with grossly inadequate ventilation. For Aussie members, imagine arranging flow through ventilation in winter in an FC Holden. For non-Aussies, an FC was a smaller version of some late '50s early '60s GM sedan - you puled a lever and a scoop was raised in the bonnet just before the wind screen that, well, scooped in air. No forward motion or wind, no input of fresh air.

When I was growing up, it was still common to have older cars with no seatbelts in the back. Even when they did introduce seatbelts in all cars, it was typical for a long time to have only lap belts in the back; no shoulder belts. People were relatively ignorant of numerous safety issues, of which smoking in cars was just one. That's one of the reasons conservatives oppose these kinds of measures so vigorously; they are looking back on their childhood with rose-coloured glasses as if it was some kind of paradise, and they don't understand why these new laws are required.

I often see people saying things like "We did that all the time when I was a kid, and we all survived". The thing is, they didn't. Only the people who survived can stand here now and say they survived; it's an obviously selective sample, since kids who died of accidents before adulthood obviously can't walk up, join the conversation, and recount their experiences.

Passive smoking issues have been known for a long time - 20 years or so - so there is absolutely no excuse for smoking in the presence of non-smokers in any sort of restricted ventilation environment. And apart from the big wild out doors or one's private home there are NO such environments in the opinion of this smoker.

My parents were both university-educated, so they came from the class which is most likely to be aware of such issues from early on. So I can't say how far this knowledge spread into the general population when I was a kid, but I was certainly told from a very young age how stupid a habit it is. Nevertheless, it is certainly very widely disseminated information today.

With all due respect we must retain a sense of proportion here. People who for instance drive whilst pissed off their gourds whilst having children in the car should also be excoriated.

Of course. You won't hear any sympathy for drunk drivers from me. I have always advocated extremely harsh penalties for such people.

If smoke is also unpleasant then those who seemingly bathe in perfume of aftershave should be in for a stern talking to in that regard.

I find strong perfume/cologne to be highly annoying too, but it's not addictive and I doubt it is carcinogenic. One of the worst things about heavy exposure to second-hand smoke is the vastly increased likelihood that the child will pick up this life-shortening addiction himself.

I agree entirely with you here Mr Wong. Perhaps it's time I cut down or gave up!

[Darth Wong]

I agree entirely with you here Mr Wong. Perhaps it's time I cut down or gave up!

The likelihood of kids picking up the habit roughly doubles in a smoker's household. Even smokers who try not to smoke in the immediate vicinity of their kids need to take a long hard look at that statistic.