It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Now Illegal to Smoke in Cars With Children

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
At least in Bangor, ME. I'm amazed that it has taken this long for someone to get on this. Seeing someone butt-sucking in a car with young kids inside makes me crazy. I mean what are they thinking? Hopefully this will catch-on. Here's the article:

In-Car Smoking Banned




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Priorities, priorities, priorities.

I can't help feeling that those poor, poor children are far more likely to suffer health problems from other forms of abuse such as poor diet, lack of exercise and lack of parental guidance generally than they are from exposure to smoke in their parents cars.

And I'm sure that I'm more likely to be run down by a non smoking driver going cold turkey than I am a chilled out motorist having a quiet calming puff.

Why cars anyway? an environment where air conditioning refreshes the air far more rapidly than in most homes. Sounds more like local politicians trying to earn brownie points than anything else to me.

So why is there this rabid hatred of smoking from the self righteous? (Posted as a genuine enquiry from a non-smoker who is frequently embarrased by the lack of tolerance of others of my persuasion.)



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
So, given all the other ways these kids' health can be adversly affected we should just ignore an identified problem? A/C doesn't refresh air in cars. In fact, it re-circulates a large percentage of the air (to prevent having to quickly cool new, hot air from outside). Here's some recent studies regarding the problem with smoking in cars vis a vis children:

Harvard Study

Self-righteous? There are tomes of studies proving that smoking is a significant public health hazard. I watched my dad die from emphysema: it was a wonderful experience all around. I highly recommend it. /sarcasm

The problem from a public health perspective is that a voluntary, individual choice to smoke translates into a huge expense to society (increased health care costs). In the subject under discussion, the smoker is subjecting children in cars to toxic substances without their informed consent. What is so self-righteous about that? Seems more like selfish indifference on the part of the smoker to me.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Smoking in a car with a kid IS pretty damned stupid in the first place.

The Harvard study merely says that the levels of contaminants is higher than what is recommended by the EPA. This is the same EPA that said 'there's no hazard from the pulverized and burned twin tower dust".

Anyway, here is an interesting study:
[exquitsmoking.about.com...

Hecht's study looked at the level of NNAL in the urine of 144 infants exposed to ETS (envionmental tobacco smoke) by cigarette smoking family members. NNAL is carcinogenic and produced within the body when another cancer-causing chemical, NNK, unique to tobacco is processed.

According to Hecht: "NNAL is an accepted biomarker for uptake of the tobacco-specific carcinogen NNK. You don’t find NNAL in urine except in people who are exposed to tobacco smoke, whether they are adults, children, or infants."

Forty-seven percent of the infants reviewed had detectable levels of NNAL in their urine. They came from homes where an average of 76 cigarettes were smoked on a weekly basis by family members in the child's presence, both in the home and car. Those children with who didn't have detectable levels of NNAL came from homes where an average of 27 cigarettes were smoked.

As noted, there are lots of other health issue with kids. If we are limiting cigarette smoking in cars, then surely it also has to be restricted in homes.

Just like we don't allow lead based paint in homes or asbestos in homes, etc.


Edn

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
So why is there this rabid hatred of smoking from the self righteous? (Posted as a genuine enquiry from a non-smoker who is frequently embarrased by the lack of tolerance of others of my persuasion.)
Because it kills.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
OK jtma, the report reads quite well and I won't deny for a moment that preventing the exposure of children to smoke is probably a good thing but I still have two problems with the motivavtion for this.

1. Why cars? The logical assumption here is that the smokers will be the children's parents so why concentrate on the car rather than the home where the children will spend most of their time in contact with their parents? Presumably because there is no realistic chance, (or certainly wouldn't be in the UK), of passing legislation preventing adults smoking in their own homes, (although there is an interesting story developing over here at the moment which may change that), whilst it is possible to penalise almost anything anyone does in a car.

And presumably also because there is kudos for a politician who legislates to ban smoking in a car but not for one who infringes a citizen's civil liberties in their own home no matter what the health benefits. (The cowardly politician strikes again).

2. What is this fixation with smoking? Yes, yes, I know about the non-concensual exposure to health risks for children and innocent bystanders and it's absolutely shocking etc. etc. BUT, we all expose children and others to increased risks of death and injury by speeding every day, by feeding them truck loads of fat, by exposing them to the most appalling garbage on television, (and thus damaging their mental health), by pumping tons of poisonous fumes into the environment from their (now) clean air cars, by failing to exercise proper control over their education, by allowing them to be indoctrinated by any number of madcap religious groups, by living in veritable deathtraps of poorly mainatained homes, by allowing them to take part in dangerous sports and a million and one other things.

I know smoking is a BAD thing, and I don't do it, even when I did I never exposed my kids to it, (unlike my father who spent half of his adult life invisible to the rest of humanity behind a thick fog of St Bruno fumes) and he also died this year to a condition certainly exacerbated by his habit.

BUT...

There are lots and lots of BAD things in this world which very few politicians can be bothered to try to work against and I get very irritated by those politicians who are dishonest and self serving enough to try to win public approval by taking aim at easy targets such as smokers who clearly come top of the list, motorists who come second, and smoking motorists who appear to be about as welcome in our sanitised society as a cross between Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and The Creature from the Black Lagoon

I tell you what, I'll respect a law such as this when someone also passes one that prevent teenage morons playing an unintelligible racket through their car stereo systems at 4.5 on the Richter scale with all the windows open.

Rant over.
Feeling better now.
Could probably do with a fag...


[edit on 9-1-2007 by timeless test]

[edit on 9-1-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Let's not forget mother's perfume. Perfume inhaled by a child in a car can not be healthy. Let's ban women's perfume.

www.ourlittleplace.com...


Did you know that perfume is made of toxic chemicals that can injure your health? Many of the chemicals in perfume are the same chemicals in cigarette smoke, and yet there is no regulation of the fragrance industry. Many people are "bothered" by perfumes - developing headaches, sinus problems, and even asthma from exposures. Many have gotten sick or even disabled from wearing (or being exposed to) fragrances and using other scented products (me included). And fragrances are now used in almost every cleaning, laundry, and personal-care product on the market! These chemicals go directly into the bloodstream when applied to our skin and are also absorbed into the skin from our clothing. We also inhale the chemical fumes, which then go straight to our brains where they can do major harm. Many even have a "narcotic" effect, which is why some people seem "addicted" to their perfumes.


What do you say? Interesting that many of the chemicals in perfume are the same as in cigarette smoke. Where's the legislation against perfume?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Perfume may well be an additional risk and perhaps people should be eductaed about that as well. People have been eductaed about the risks of SHS --- especially to children and MOST especially in enclosed spaces. Hence cars. Same amount ok smoke in a much, much smaller space (volume of air) than homes.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Question. How is it the same amount of smoke in a car when usually people who smoke in their car have the windows down? Most people don't open the windows in their home to smoke so I would think that the home would have the more concentration of cig smoke.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Ok, time for a gasp; evil smoker to chime in. I'm also a parent raised a wonderful daughter who's doing well. Now, here are my rules; no smoking in the car when she was in it; now no smoking in the car she drives; no smoking in the house period. My daughter is away at school and guess what still no smoking in the house. I only smoke outside and away from other people and away from the entrance or windows to the house. Common sense I smoke my kid doesn't.

sorry spelling worse then usual today; must be because I'm tired

[edit on 9-1-2007 by gallopinghordes]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Man, I'm tired of all the militant anti-smokers. There's a factory down the street that pumps out more toxic fumes in one hour than I've puffed out in my entire life. No one has suggested shutting it down "for the children's sake". (insert pouty face here).

I've done bedside care for 26 years and in ALL that time I've taken care of a lot of 90 year old "wheezers" who, yes, may be dying of lung cancer or emphysema but at 90, something's gonna get ya-might as well be something you enjoy. Know how many FAT 90 year olds I've taken care of? Exactly ZERO. They don't make it that long. Soooooo, which is worse for one's health? Smoking or being fat? Apparently our government knows which one costs more in terms of health care costs, days off work, etc. They are offering a tax incentive to fatties to lose weight. Join Jenny Craig or a spa and you can deduct the cost from your owed taxes. Not so with quitting smoking.

I smoke in the car with the window down just enough to create a vaccuum to suck out the smoke. I don't know any smokers that keep the windows closed up tight when they smoke in their car.

Sunbathing causes skin cancer. We should probably outlaw that too. Cell phones fry brain cells. Let's throw them out. All electric items in your home create an EM field. 60 cycle that they currently output (in this country) is known to adversely affect biorhythms, immune system, mood, etc. Unplug. Cartoons advocate violence. Down with cartoons! Fast food (or any food) microwaved in take-out containers produce more carcinogens than you'll find in an autopsied body of a cancer victim. Close all fast food restaurants or at least make them nuke your food on pyrex. Drinking causes cirrhosis and is the cause of all drunk driving accidents. Prohibition! Erectile dysfunction remedies cause blindness. Switch to a block and tackle! Point is: lots of things in our modern society are not particularly good for you or anyone else. Why single out smoking? I'll snub out my ciggie when you toss out your krispy cream donuts, wear long sleeves outdoors, quit having "one for the road", start riding a horse instead of some gas-guzzling, air-polluting conveniencemobile, etc.
I think the real war against smoking has to do with the gun lobby. ATF=alcohol, tobacco and firearms. America is not disarming easily. If you can't hit the gun lobby directly, hit their pocket book. Tobaccco companies contribute a sizeable amount of money to the lobbyists who fight for our gun rights. Kill the tobacco companies and the funds will dry up. Then we can use our improved lung capacity to scream for our guns to be given back.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Yea, whitewave you're right. I give up. My dad was 82 when he died of emphysema. That's a pretty long life by most standards. Of course he spent Tuesdays watching out the window for the truck that delivered his oxygen, worried that they'd forget or come late and he'd run out. But he was alive. Quality of that life doesn't matter.

And you're also right about all the other social ills you listed. Video games are probably worse for kids than breathing whatever second hand smoke is swirling around the car. So who cares? Screw the kids. Let's just all do whatever we want and whatever happens happens. And if 'they' come up with a solution to fix all the social/medical issues at exactly the same time (so no one group is unfairly targeted) then MAYBE we'll consider it.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
jtma,

Do laws exist in the USA yet which prohibit smoking in enclosed public places (i.e. workplaces, shops, bars, restaurants etc.)?

Although there will certainly be someplaces where it is not allowed I am interested inthe law as it applies to smoking - I ceratinly don't recall this being the case.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Timeless Test, here in Washington state you by law can't smoke in public places such as bars, resturants or casinos. Also where I work you must go to a smoke shack. There is no smoking allowed within I believe 25 feet of an entrance to a public place of any sort.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Ok, time for a gasp; evil smoker to chime in. I'm also a parent raised a wonderful daughter who's doing well. Now, here are my rules; no smoking in the car when she was in it; now no smoking in the car she drives; no smoking in the house period. My daughter is away at school and guess what still no smoking in the house. I only smoke outside and away from other people and away from the entrance or windows to the house. Common sense I smoke my kid doesn't.

sorry spelling worse then usual today; must be because I'm tired

[edit on 9-1-2007 by gallopinghordes]


Exactly the same here GH. Smoke outside the house, not in the car when kids are in it. It's OK when the wife's in it, she lights up before I do.


For you smokers trying to justify this by saying, this causes cancer, there's a vaccuum, whatever. C'mon, you're killing yourself slowly, just as I am, don't try to justify this.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
Because it kills.


How many kids have instantly died because someone smoked in a car with them? ZERO!

How many kids have instantly died because someone was not paying attention, talking on a cell phone, and had a wreck? ALOT!

Why is smoking not allowed but talking on a cell-phone is?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Amen Intrepid. I could sit here and make excuses all day long still doesn't change the fact my habit is bad for me. Yeah there are other habits/conditions that also cause health problems still doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is bad for kids so why subject them to it? It's too easy not too.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Amen Intrepid. I could sit here and make excuses all day long still doesn't change the fact my habit is bad for me. Yeah there are other habits/conditions that also cause health problems still doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is bad for kids so why subject them to it? It's too easy not too.


Exactly. My father smoked everywhere. My grandparents did as well, now I smoke as well. My wife and I don't smoke around the kids. Guess what, my kids don't smoke. They are 16, 12 and 11. Looks like not smoking around kids works. That is, unless someone would want the same chains for their kids. :shk:



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Intrepid you and I are on the same page. I don't smoke around kids especially not my daughter. She is 19 and doesn't smoke; in fact she convinced her boyfriend to quit. Now I'm trying to quit not because the state says I have to at work and in public but because frankly I want to be around to spoil my grandkids in 10 years. To smoke or not to smoke is an adult choice don't subject your kids to it; same reason I didn't drink for many years; didn't want my daughter around it; now I drink maybe a 4 pack of wine coolers a year and one or two mixed drinks a year. Also for the record she will be really really happy to hear Mom quit smoking and yes she nags me about the amount I drink



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Forty-seven percent of the infants reviewed had detectable levels of NNAL in their urine. They came from homes where an average of 76 cigarettes were smoked on a weekly basis by family members in the child's presence, both in the home and car. Those children with who didn't have detectable levels of NNAL came from homes where an average of 27 cigarettes were smoked.


As noted, there are lots of other health issue with kids. If we are limiting cigarette smoking in cars, then surely it also has to be restricted in homes.

Just like we don't allow lead based paint in homes or asbestos in homes, etc.


76 cigarettes a week is quite a lot, in my opinion, that's over 10 per day. I noticed the kids where there were 27 cigarettes smoked had no detectable levels. So do we want laws that limit the number of cigarettes smoked in the presence of children or outright outlaw it??

I think it's a little heavy handed when if governments start dictating what you can and can't do inside your own property. I understand they're coming from the viewpoint of "protecting" the childrens interests. But I think you would have to prove a little more damning evidence than second hand smoke.

Lead based paint is an outright killer ... children have died from eating a handful of chips. When my father in law bought a 60 year old home recently my wife dictated we couldn't visit (with our young son) until he had repainted everywall because no one knew when they had been painted last.

My point is that it is the parents responsiblity to monitor childrens exposures and activities to ensure their safety is not compromised. When they're are obvious safety issues ... children being abused or neglected ... then the government obviously has the right to step in and remove the children from a dangerous environment.

So, if it was decided to outlaw smoking in your own home in the presence of children there is a whole barrage if issues to cover. At what age does it become acceptable to smoke around someone? If parents outright refuse to comply with this law can their children be taken away from their custody as a consequence of "neglect"? If not then why is the activity being made illegal to being with ... either it's an endangerment or it's not.

Me personally, if your at home or in your veh, it's your decision to smoke or not smoke and not the governments. If your at work or in a public setting then they can enforce whatever rules the community feels are neccessary.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join