Worried about the poor kids lungs? Take care of the outside air problem that is
much more pervasive first.
I grew up with parents who smoked in the car, all the time. At the time, people
didn't know about the dangers of second hand smoke, and the tobacco
companies were hiding the fact that cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, etc.
I never knew why I always got nauseated in the car. I got "carsick",
and sometimes vomited as a result. Now we know better.Unfortunately, some parents still do this in the car. It is child abuse, pure
and simple. It is as destructive to the child as handing the child a bottle of
beer to drink in the car. We would prosecute parents who do that, no problem.
My parents shouldn't have been prosecuted because we didn't know what
second hand smoke did at that time. Parents who do this now should be
prosecuted as well.Yes, we should try to fix the outside air as
well, but believe me - even on the worst days it isn't as bad as being
locked in a car with a smoking parent on a cold day with the windows closed, for
a 3 hour car ride.
If government shouldn't tell (dumb) parents not to engulf their children in
cigarette smoke, then I'm curious,What if anything should
I wonder if there is any constitutional right to be a moron? It's a
rhetorical question, but let's get to the facts... The idea
that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke turns the laws of science on its
head. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. All
substances are toxic at high enough levels just as they are harmless, even
beneficial, at lower levels. Most of us understand that coffee
contains benzene, water contains arsenic and that televisions pump out radiation
but we don't let it worry us since the levels of these highly carcinogenic
toxins are too low to pose a threat to our health. Apparently only one substance
disobeys this law of toxicology: secondhand smoke."As long as
the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the
people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any
deprivation."Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
I hate cigarette smoke and think smokers are idiots.However, we have
a dismal record of trying to legislate common sense, and worse, this infringes
on personal choice and parental rights. Yes, freedom of choice
includes the right to make bad choices. Look, no one gets upset while we allow
people to vote for liberals who do far more to harm out children's future
than mere exposure to second hand smoke. Or people to chose abortion, which
kills a child. Why just ban smoking in cars when there are worse dangers?If people want to ban smoking entirely, then just come out and propose a
bill and vote on it. Don't try to implement it by stealth tactics, or
incrementally. But, if they stopped smoking entirely, that would eliminate the
revenue from the cigarette taxes that pay for a lot of health care programs.
Talk about hypocritical!This bill needs to be defeated in the name
of freedom, not because anyone thinks kids should be stuck in smoke filled cars.
Sure, find away to take away cigarettes but not guns! "guns
don't kill people... people kill people""cigarettes
don't kill people .... people... oh wait, they do kill people"
Free agency should be protected by the people that is elected and swore to do
@Parmenion - You are going to quote Hitler and Kampf on this topic. Really?@Older Greg - Ignorance doesn't make a comment correct. The air
polution is bad outside, I agree. But second hand smoke in a car is going to
trump the air quaility.@ DN Subsciber2 - What about my rights and
the childs rights?Personal opinion. If you want to smoke, knock
yourself out, no problem. However, if you do want to smoke, do it someplace
where nobody else has to be affected by it. If you ask me, smoking should not
be allowed in cars period. I can sit at a stop light and a car two cars away
someone will be smoking and I have to endure the smell of it. How does this not
infringe on my rights as a non-smoker? Smoke all you want people, just keep
your nasty habit in your bubble. If not, I may develop my nasty habit of
spitting and spit on your shoe or shirt. I am sorry, did I offend you with
that? Well so did your smoke. But don't be offended it is just what I do
and it happen to land on you.
Nilsson, Robert Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University,
Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology. Senior Toxicologist,
Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate. Professor Robert Nilsson has written
several highly critical articles about the anti-smoking industry claims that
passive smoking (ETS) causes heart disease and lung cancer. He calls the risk of
heart disease unsupported and highly hypothetical - and the risk of lung cancer
negligible. - The one-sided preoccupation with ETS as a causative factor
of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the
multifactorial etiology of these tumors. In the book What Risk? Professor
Nilsson puts children's risk of passive smoking in this perspective: - Looked at another way, a child’s intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10
hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested
from eating one grilled sausage.