California Bans Smoking in Cars with Kids

See, I disagree.

I think the smoking ban is a great thing. It's not preventing you from smoking in your car when you're alone and only endangering your own health.

It's preventing you from hot-boxing kids with toxic cigarette smoke. If you don't care enough to protect your own kid (or the kid in the carpool etc.), then good thing the government is making you protect them.

If you can't smoke in a building, in a car, outside a building, or in public then you can't smoke at all. just ban it then, that's what's happening. It's fucking ridiculous Food MP3's Tv's GPS barking at you cus you can't get around your home town and they want you to stop smoking in your car, that'll really give people road rage in Cali. The health of the passengers is irrelavent they can get out and if not (kids) they'll be exposed to that smoke somewhere else. people don't "hotbox" cars they have windows. yet that same person can stop at the local pub drink beers probably not able to smoke get into a car with kids eat food and fuck with music and that's apparently fine. It takes years to die from smoke and seconds to die in a crash. Aronldnator it's not a movie stop acting ohh wait that's all you can do.

I think we are beginnig to get to much government. What happened to the smoker's( CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT)
TO THE RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS, Does only the non-smokerrs have rights? I was so dumb and naive that I thought that the constitution was for everyone,
I also thought we had a "government of the people and by the peoplle for the people. I think that congress and the lawmakers of this land atre becoming tyrannts. I am like a bumper sticker I saw the other day. It read "I LOVE MY COUNTRY BUT MY GOVERNMENT SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME"
Paul Horn
Newport TN

I agree in principle that we do have too many laws, but in this case this is just another law put in place for people who need laws to regulate every aspect of their lives, because, very simply, they are unable to make intelligent decisions for themselves.

It's got nothing to do with smoking; the problem is with the rolling back of our personal liberties.

The government increasingly treats us like children. And uses protecting children as the excuse.

The left falls back on the Big-Tobacco corporate straw man to justify irrational and unwarranted interventions into our lives.

<What happened to the smoker's( CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT)TO THE RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS, Does only the non-smokerrs have rights?>

And what about the non-smoker's right to not get disgusting toxic smoke into our lungs because of someone else's choice? I am a HUGE civil rights supporter, but smoking isn't just your choice when you do it around other people. It affects everyone around you, and not only is it annoying but it is, as we all know, cancerous and dangerous. When you do it in a building, we all have to breathe that air. Car? Same thing. When you smoke in a hotel room, the rest of us then have to deal with the nasty smell left behind, the one that permeates everything.

I don't care if people smoke–if you want to do it, go right ahead–but don't think it gives you the right to make me suffer your habit.

" And what about the non-smoker's right to not get disgusting toxic smoke into our lungs because of someone else's choice?"

And you have no right to expect that a smoker should give you a lift in their car and not smoke. You choose whether to get in the car or not.

This article is not about whether we smoke or not, or we like it or not, or the smell that permeates hotel rooms that people dislike...
Can I dare to bring this back to the real issue, i.e. governments telling us what we can and can't do in our own, owned spaces? Not public, our own, like our house, or our car.

Hey gregoyen. You must be one of those unintelligent people you talk about, you drone. People that need laws to govern every aspect of their life are stupid, the only problem is they're not intelligent enough/don't care to follow those rules, so it's irrelevant. people like you and the rest of the sheep are being hurded by the political dogs only to get slaughtered by the wolves in the end. good luck. Baahhhhhh

PS. Dscalenghe way to keep us on track.

"Every day we're stripped of our rights until there's just a bare assed me embarassed by what we see freedom aint free but the price to pay shouldn't be the rights of you and me" babyroo

It's not about <governments telling us what we can and can't do in our own, owned spaces>
It's about children's rights.

If this law is so important then why can't you be pulled over for it? A preceeding traffic violation must occur before one can be ticketed. Political grandstanding by a half/assed politician that's all. So "Hot-Box" away with ten babies in your hummer just drive between the lines if that's possible.

CWILSON "If they were educated from the moment they were born, I'm sure they would say, "Please, don't expose me to harmful toxins that could potentially make me sick."

If you brainwash children, they do tend to parrot what you tell them.

There is no real evidence for any negative health effects from 'passive smoking'. The lung concentrations are just too low. Studies that prove this have been suppressed, others that attempt to show otherwise have been based on extrapolations that fail statistical significance and accepted scientific method in any other context. But its really just common sense.

Hey BabyRooFiend.
I do agree with some of what you said:
<People that need laws to govern every aspect of their life are stupid, the only problem is they're not intelligent enough/don't care to follow those rules>
However, your conclusion that <it's irrelevant> happens to be flawed.
Familiarize yourself with the concept of LAW ENFORCEMENT and try to rethink that conclusion.
You can do it.
BTW - People like me will have no problems with this law, as we never even considered smoking in a car with children in the first place.

When I was a kid, my parents smoked around me, and I always asked them not to. They would smoke in the car, at the dinner table, wherever they felt like it. Maybe if someone said what you're doing is illegal, they might have not done it.

It seems to me that people against this law are looking or used to smoke in their cars while kids are in it. That pretty much tells me what kind of judgements they can make.
I understand that it is an imposition and control, but is control over something that shouldn't even need controling. To me, this law is irrelevant, since I wouldn't tnink of smoking in a car with kids. It's like making a law preventing us from feeding lead to our kids. No one in their right mind does this. But, aparently there's lot of people not in their right mind.
Now, should we protect other people's children, or allow them to be threaten and neglected. Maybe we should. I have no kids, so this is irrelevant to me too. But, I do believe bringing people to the world is also a collective responsability, since your kids could become a threat or burden to society. Health, eduction and shelter should be promoted to preven this.

Nathan- "If you brainwash children, they do tend to parrot what you tell them."

Yes. That is true. I tell my two year that some people smoke cigarettes, but cigarettes can make you sick. So being the toddler that he is, he tells random people that are smoking that they're going to get sick.

I believe in civil liberties-when those civil liberties don't harm others civil liberties.

And I understand that statement can have a conflicting message if you want to dissect it. Freedom has its limitations. That's a given.

I'm just saying that kids should have rights too. And with the way the laws of society are changing, it looks like many of our personal freedoms are going to be confined to our homes, if that. Look at the city of Belmont, Ca for example.

<There is no real evidence for any negative health effects from 'passive smoking'>

Right. So all the studies that have been done that prove that secondhand smoke is the same or worse as smoking from the past 40 years are all bullsh*t? Nice denial.

If a smoker wants to smoke in their car, I say go for it. And of COURSE I don't "expect" a smoker to give me a ride in their car–why would I expect that? The thing is, kids can't say yes or no. They don't have that choice. So yes, laws need to be made.

As for doing whatever you want in your own home...you are kidding yourselves. Your right to do as you please stops as soon as you start harming another person...so you cannot beat your children in your own home. You can't make kiddie porn in your own home. You can't do anything that harms someone else because–guess what?– you don't have the right to hurt someone else! And smoking around other people hurts them. Plain and simple.

And to Babyroo...do you really have to resort to namecalling and insulting other people in order to try to make your point? Please try to have some respect for the other people on this site.

It saddens me that before this site has even gone public, people have already started this kind of behavior.

HOLLYG "So all the studies that have been done that prove that secondhand smoke is the same or worse as smoking"

1) There are no studies which prove any significant health risks from second hand smoke. There are studies which claim to prove significant effects, but in reality fall apart when examined against normal scientific standards in areas that are not so thoroughly politicised.

2) It would defy the laws of physics for second-hand smoke to be 'the same or worse' as direct smoking.

3) The negative effects of smoking were not even convincingly proved into the mid eighties, so I don't know where this 40 years figure comes from.

If the law declared people weren't allowed to smoke in their own cars while they were on their own, I'd see it as a huge violation of people's civil rights.

However, I think it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say that people shouldn't be smoking in confined places in front of kids. I'd hope that smokers in those circumstances would have the sense to not light up when they've got children in the car but if it takes a law to make some change their behaviour, when it's in the best interests of kids' health, it seems acceptable to me. Isn't it a bit of a shame that it's got to the stage where the authorities need to get involved in the matter?

<Isn't it a bit of a shame that it's got to the stage where the authorities need to get involved in the matter?>

Yes...yes it is. Unfortunately people do horrible awful things to kids, even their own, every day. You'd think people have enough sense to not do some of the stuff they do, but...no.

My point is that studies have been going on for forty years. One of these articles mentions one started in 1960. Just because results weren't found until the '80's doesn't mean people weren't looking into it.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_2_1x_More...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/0709200720...

In fact, the government studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed.

New 'evidence' relates to statistical correlations across large populations. This evidence is solid.

However, the methodology of second-hand smoke studies is generally terrible.

Take "The Hong Kong team...Those who were exposed to secondhand smoke in the home were 24% more likely to die from any cause, including lung cancer, other lung diseases, other cancers, heart disease, and stroke if there was one smoker at home."

There is a very important concept in statistical studies called statistical significance, if this property is not met then the findings are irrelevant. It is my understanding that very often these studies fail to establish significance.

Meta-studies (studies which pool all studies) are not possible because the studies which do not find any correlations are often denied publication.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/24...

Nathan - You are so deep in denial about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Clearly you are tobacco addicted, and feel the need to justify your own behavior by telling yourself that it's not so bad. To those of us who don't smoke, your statements are nothing but an absurd attempt to rationalize a behavior which deep down inside you know is wrong.
Do some better research and exercise some common sense.
Much as you don't want to hear it: Your tobacco addiction is your OWN problem, and should remain that way. When you make someone else inhale your pollution, then you are making THEM suffer for YOUR mistakes.
THAT is a violation of the civil liberties of everyone who happens to care about their own health more than you do.

I don't see any attempt to argue against the harmful effects of tobacco smoke in my posts. I wrote "New 'evidence' relates to statistical correlations across large populations. This evidence is solid." This is in regard to first-hand smoking.

There are two issues at stake:
1) The politicisation of the science of second-hand smoke.
2) The way this politicised science is used as an excuse to roll back civil liberties.

I find the anti-smoking, pro government regulation, side of this debate borders on hysterical. It is impossible to have a rational debate without someone accusing you of being a 'denier' (an emotive term with its routes in holocaust denial).

Any discussion about civil liberties or science ends up in the cod-psychoanalysis of anyone who dares to stand up to the prevailing illiberal consensus.

So...only liberals don't like secondhand smoke? Nathan, come on. Talk about politicizing the issue! I agree that this issue is politicized but I really don't think this is Big Government trying to squash the citizens here. They find many other ways to do that...this isn't one of them.

Here it is: you do not get to force me to breathe your smoke. It is not your right to do so, even regardless of the studies and science. It is not my right to tell you that you cannot smoke in the privacy of your own home, car, or outside where others are not affected by it. No one here is saying that you can't smoke. You can. You just can't make anyone else have to cope with it. Why should we have to cope with your habit? Civil liberties are not unlimited. We are in a society and have to live with each other. It'd be nice if we could all show a little common courtesy.

Right Holly! If we could ALL show a little common courtesy, then we wouldn't need MOST of the laws that we have. To quote an earlier post:
"... this is just another law put in place for people who need laws to regulate every aspect of their lives, because, very simply, they are unable to make intelligent decisions for themselves."
The words "respectful of the rights others" should definitely be added.

And...if you think about it...smoking is just another distraction while driving. So, I think a law that isn't implemented unless you've done something else wrong..like speeding, driving wrecklessly, or failing to stop at a light what have you...is a good law.
So, if someone happens to be smoking when they get pulled over, maybe they'll realize that

A. Smoking "while" driving is not a good idea.

and

B. If I'm going to be fined for smoking while driving with a kid in my car, maybe I shouldn't do that either.

That way, we don't have another distracted driver on the road AND it's just a few more minutes of fresh air for that kid to breathe.

To gregoyen first off via holly(hi) sorry for calling you a drone i'm just a neanderthal, and often resort to such tactics. About your comment, about mine MINE: ( People that need laws to govern every aspect of their life are stupid, the only problem is they're not intelligent enough/don't care to follow those rules, so it's irrelevant.
Yours ( Familiarize yourself with the concept of LAW ENFORCEMENT and try to rethink that conclusion.
You can do it.)

Try to read the law. You can do it

or just read my post right before yours.. I'll do it for you.

(If this law is so important then why can't you be pulled over for it? A preceeding traffic violation must occur before one can be ticketed.
Law enforcement.. Really..

This law is irrelevant to all. I agree smoking is bad for everybody. I don't do it! Don't care if you do.

BabyRooFiend said: "If you can't smoke in a building, in a car, outside a building, or in public then you can't smoke at all. Just ban it then, that's what's happening. ...[A]nd they want you to stop smoking in your car, that'll really give people road rage in Cali."

I know you said "in a building" already, but I just wanted to remind everyone that I'm also not allowed to smoke in my own apartment, of course. Building rules. Do note that my car was stolen soon after I moved to California in 2006--I tried not to smoke cigarettes in there, of course, as I dislike the smell, but it was a warmish, indoor space I could smoke, so sometimes I did. Now, without my car, I don't even have the luxury of smoking all up in my passengers' and potential-children's grills.

Law Irrelevant

Nathan you're right, I've heard people say second had as bad or worse... ridiculous obviously a first hand smoker is also a second hand smoker...

This is about our rights not are likes/dislikes and views
about smoke.

"Every day we're stripped of our rights until there's just a bare assed me embarrassed by what we see freedom aint free but the price to pay shouldn't be the rights of you and me" babyroo

Jennatar--do you own the apartment in the building? Because otherwise it's not your "own" apartment...just sayin'...

Babyroo -
"People that need laws to govern every aspect of their life are stupid, the only problem is they're not intelligent enough/don't care to follow those rules"
We are speaking of laws/rules (plural), not only this ONE law. The enforcement of this law may at first be spotty at best, but it is nevertheless law and will no doubt have a positive impact on SOME people. It is hardly irrelevant.

"If this law is so important then why can't you be pulled over for it? A preceeding traffic violation must occur before one can be ticketed."

I remember when seatbelt use first became manditory. The same rules of enforcement were in effect, but eventually it caught on, and now I believe MANY more people use seatbelts. I don't know exactly how many people have benefitted from that law, but I imagine quite a few lives were saved.

People are normally resistant to accept any new regulation that they once lived without, but as for this law, I cannot see it as a loss of anyone's previous rights. I see it as a correction of previous wrongs.