It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:34 AM
What a hypocritical society we live in today. Why ban smoking in cars? Are we going to ban fast food , bad medicine, polluted air and water too? It's just another control tactic as far as I'm concerned. Do you really believe the government gives a dam about our children. Hell no! Otherwise they wouldn't pardon the insidious industries that are poisoning us in more ways then we know.

Haven't you ever wondered why so many people are getting lung cancer and other respiratory ailments today as opposed to fifty years ago when smoking was rampant? Sure someone who smokes two packs a day is probably going to get sick, but what about all those nonsmokers who are getting lung cancer? I don't buy the second hand smoke theory. I think possibly the Tabasco industry is taking all the blame to cover up less publicized culprits. Or maybe the cigarettes themselves have purposely been altered to be more toxic to keep the pharmaceutical and health care industry thriving. I was born in the late fifties when everyone and their dog smoked and I've never known anyone except extremely heavy smokers that got sick from smoking.

Yeah, this is just another excuse to take away our freedoms. And someday the same idiots who think their being protected by "Big Brother", won't see it coming when they die from e-coli poisoning because the FDA is allowed to sell their bad meat to trusting Americans!

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by jtma508
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

This is a civil rights issues independent of the fact that so much very very bad science is involved.

Have we all been duped into believing that passive smoking, inhaling other people’s smoke, is bad for us? There’s an international row over a study published in the British Medical Journal.

In a paper that many people in public health wish had never seen the light of day, Californian researchers found no increased risk from what’s called 'environmental tobacco smoke'.

They analysed information from 118,000 people followed for about 40 years, focusing on people who never smoked who were married to someone with known smoking habits.

Read the entire article before bothering to accuse me of bias.

Actually published in a peer reviewed journal.

Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**

Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

• Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0, The Relative Risk of 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

Fact: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the RR of 1.16 is not statistically significant.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually not considered important and, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Statistics 101 for more details.)

Aliens Cause Global Warming, The entire article is great for reference but page 9 has very good information on SHS

And for those who are really interested in discovering the numerous contradictions feel free to read the work of Lauren A. Colby or just this short and interesting 'summary'

I don't think second hand smoke is going to save any one's life but lets not pretend it's a death sentence based on no significant evidence at all.


[edit on 14-1-2007 by StellarX]

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:24 PM
i find it also interesting that they satrt to want to ban smoking now they have things like mobile phones next to so many peoples heads, also those mobile phone towers everywhere in the west.

i just find it interesting that the effect that the energy from mobile phones have on humans and now they are just getting rid of smoking now(which was just a drug probably to control populations).

i always remember how my first mobile phone in the mid 90's would burn the side of my face, in just a few minutes, and the way i felt after using those things.

i just think if they did not have the microwaves of the mobile phones effecting your brains, they would not be banning smoking.

just something to add to the discusion

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:29 PM
Ever been stuck in traffic next to a bigger vehicle with its exaust pouring through your window?
Puts cigarettes to shame.
There's lots of concern about how much exaust gets into school buses too.

I think common sense should be the peoples responsibility, especialy around children who have no decision when somebody smokes in a car.
Like one poster wrote, I smoke they don't.

On another note. IMO smoking while driving can be as dangerous as cell phones. I'd much rather have a cell phone fall down my shirt.

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:23 PM
It seems to me, a former smoker, an issue of common courtesy. Most people, even smokers, dislike having to breathe someone elses exhaust fumes. At one point in my life I was a one and a half, almost two pack a day smoker, and I still disliked having others breathe smoke on me.

Health issues aside, common courtesy would seem to dictate where and when one smokes. Not around kids, and non smokers seems a no brainer.

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:32 PM
I actualy agree that parents shouldent smoke in their cars with kids. I know that most parents that smoke smoke in the cars with the window down but still I don't like it. I don't smoke in a car with my son in it and I smoke a lot. I wait untill we are both out in the open to smoke and I don't smoke when he is in my home.

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:25 PM
Seems we have our share of selfish smokers and courteous smokers here.
I think you should be allowed to smoke in a car, but I think you should be pulled over and ticketed if a child is on board. But not if you are alone. Why? Because I think that a child has a right not to inhale smoke, for the simple reason that if you don't smoke and you're stuck in a car with a smoking's putrid!

You have to be 16 in my state to buy cigarettes. Which means, "the law doesn't want anyone under 16 to smoke". So, if you shove a toddler into a car with a smoking parent you are in essence forcing this child to inhale smoke. This is wrong.

My Mom was a chain smoker growing up. My Dad was an ex-smoker (he quit before I was born). I can remember taking family vacations during the summers of the late 1960's and early 1970's. This was when they first started putting air conditioning units in cars. Well, when we drove from Baltimore to Miami in July it was hot. So Dad cranked on the cars AC and my Mom had to smoke. "Wind down the window. I'm choking on your smoke.", I'd say. Her response, "We're not winding down the windows with the AC on." It should be mentioned the same treatment was given in the cold winter months with the cars heat on (the window only came down during nice weather - fall/spring). So, selfishly, my Mom satisfied her nicotine cravings despite the fact that no one else in the car smoked. I remember it gave me really bad headaches, and made me feel nauseated and sick. It was pure hell being on a long road trip with my smoking Mom. I hated it. I always told her smoking would eventually be her demise and sadly it was.

I'm not saying ban smoking.
I'm saying, it's a nice law for a kid that has to suffer through it because their parent is a nicotine addict, and doesn't have the will power or courtesy to light up when the ride is over.

Don't like it?
Buy a can of Skoal and chew on it.

I hope they pass the law. This is one freedom that truly won't hurt to have taken away.
Your loss, is my gain.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by rocknroll]

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 05:33 PM
My brother inlaw goes outside when he wants to take a hit. He refuses to allow his children outside for 30 minutes after he as been there.

He would never even think about smoking in a car or a inclosed space with them.

He considers them more important than his needs as we all should with our children

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:03 PM
I'm a smoker and I don't smoke in my car or in my home, the reason why is that I don't want them to smell like a ****ing ashtray! If I fancy a puff, I'll step onto the balcony, as does my other half.

During the summer I was sat at a restaurant, outside, enjoying a cigarette between courses. All of a sudden, some outrageous popinjay slobbered an inarticulate protest that he was "offended" by my enjoying a smoke! "Offended" indeed! Insult (to me) was further added by the Troglodyte's simpering simpleton of a wife, who lifeless face positively glowed (in a pallid fashion) at her mate's exercise of bravado! Fortunately I had some Gitan cigarettes available (you know... those charming French throat-burners) which I was able to work my way through as I slowly enjoyed several cups of coffee.

Then there's lots of fuss and nonsense as people come into a pub with children.... then complain about smoke! Why don't they just **** off to a Harvester where they belong!

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 02:59 PM
I do know I think it's stupid to smoke in a car with a child. I've seen it quite often, and even more stupid is when it's happening in the winter with the windows closed!!! Poor kids. I grew up with parents as smokers, and smoked myself for some time. I hope it's a habit my daughter never even thinks about picking up... I don't think she will. Anyway, while I think it's stupid to smoke in a car with a child, I'm not sure whether there should be legislation regarding it. After all, I think far more children are exposed to cigarette smoke, and for longer periods of time, in their homes!

I remember I went to a friends baby shower about 2 years ago... I walked in and the whole house was a cloud of smoke... and there were tons of children in there!

The other day we were shopping and waiting in line to pay. There was a man in front of us with what I presume to be his young daughter... 5 or 6 years old. He said to her... "Oh man, I need a cigarette." Who talks to their child that way? It kinda stunned me, at any rate.

<< 1   >>

log in