SFGate: Senate votes to ban smoking in cars carrying young kids

[twa]

this bill isn't about smoking under age, it's about the damage that second hand smoke does to a childs respiratory system. Now, how do I know that it does? because my son has bronchitis, scars on his lungs and a smokers cough that won't go away some 6 years after he moved away from his chain smoking mother and step father.

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.

First I an sorry to hear about your son.

However obviously the childs legal guardian had the right to harm him,assuming of course they were not jailed for it.

The fact is abuse is subject to a threshhold when it comes to parents rights.

That may be hard to take,and I certainly would question the Judge's reasoning in awarding her custody...But the fact remains parents(or legal guardians) have a right to endanger thier child.

It is a integral part of parenting or guardianship .

[redskins4life234]

Actually, they do. Maryland has no law against it. So, are all the parents that used corporal punishment wrong?

Yes! A good old spanking is fine, it hurts, the kid cries, an hour later its all over. But people who make their kid smoke a whole pack after catching them trying a cig, as all people will most likely try one. I say they are discusting and I don't want to smoke, but most likely somewhere in my life, I will try one. At age 3 4 or 5, your kid has no say. They are being harmed by this which could affect your whole life. If I went liek this every day for 5 yrs an hour of day, chances are I'd be very sick, not be able to play basketball or football with my friends, hell walk across my school in the 5 minutes I have to do to get to my next class sometimes!

First I an sorry to hear about your son.

However obviously the childs legal guardian had the right to harm him,assuming of course they were not jailed for it.

The fact is abuse is subject to a threshhold when it comes to parents rights.

That may be hard to take,and I certainly would question the Judge's reasoning in awarding her custody...But the fact remains parents(or legal guardians) have a right to endanger thier child.

It is a integral part of parenting or guardianship .

And to your conversation, I find what you said horrible. So its not ok to beat someone else, but its ok to beat your kids your saying? Your Kids are jsut as equal as you. The Smoker chjosoes ot smoke, the kid didn;t, they kid diodnt make you, why have the kid suffer because of the parents choices. Like I said,ut can affec ttheir health n the long turn. And people say things about fat kids. Many facotrs go into a obese kid. Slow matablaism. What if the kid has never walked a step in his life, he may not get the exercise he needs. Having no friends. Now you ar eprobably saying what the hell does that have to do with anything. If a kid has no friends, he may not get a chance to go play ball with friends which is a huge way kids get exercise. He is stuck inside, watching tv, and jsut doesnt have the motive to go running or biking. And you say, well maybe joina sport and make friends there and get exersise doing that, Maybe hes not good at one? Maybe because he doesn't have friends he was never introduced to it untila later age where its hard to devolaope the skills. Peoples analagies are no where close to what smoking really does!

[DeanCollins]

First I an sorry to hear about your son.

However obviously the childs legal guardian had the right to harm him,assuming of course they were not jailed for it.

The fact is abuse is subject to a threshhold when it comes to parents rights.

That may be hard to take,and I certainly would question the Judge's reasoning in awarding her custody...But the fact remains parents(or legal guardians) have a right to endanger thier child.

It is a integral part of parenting or guardianship .

that's an incorrect assumption based on what parents get away with due to

law's ostacles over privacy. a road block so to speak. theres a diffence between endangerment and abuse/neglect.

My son is going to be ok, it was just so unnecesary. I take some of the responsibility for not filing for a change of custody over the smoking, but back then, I probably wouldn't have won. Now I think that there's a chance for others. Most laws are not retro-active however that doesn't mean that the lack of a law can be used as a precident either. beating your wife and children to excess was legal for centuries but we don't tolerate it now. Child labor law were hotly debated but noone talks of them now.

[twa]

Quote;

And to your conversation, I find what you said horrible. So its not ok to beat someone else, but its ok to beat your kids your saying? Your Kids are jsut as equal as you. The Smoker chjosoes ot smoke, the kid didn;t, they kid diodnt make you, why have the kid suffer because of the parents choices. Like I said,ut can affec ttheir health n the long turn. And people say things about fat kids. Many facotrs go into a obese kid. Slow matablaism. What if the kid has never walked a step in his life, he may not get the exercise he needs. Having no friends. Now you ar eprobably saying what the hell does that have to do with anything. If a kid has no friends, he may not get a chance to go play ball with friends which is a huge way kids get exercise. He is stuck inside, watching tv, and jsut doesnt have the motive to go running or biking. And you say, well maybe joina sport and make friends there and get exersise doing that, Maybe hes not good at one? Maybe because he doesn't have friends he was never introduced to it untila later age where its hard to devolaope the skills. Peoples analagies are no where close to what smoking really does!

......................

Yes it is OK(according to the law) to beat your kids,and neglect them or even starve them up to a point.

As to the obese kids; you are correct there are many variables ,just as in secondhand smoke or any other risk factor.

I'm sorry you find what I said horrible and your probably not alone.

It is simply the Responsibility of parents to decide risk unless it is grave enough for society to remove the child from them.

Does 2nd hand smoke rise to that level? Not in most cases.

[chomerics]

Wrong, AGAIN. I am for the government listening in on the TERRORIST'S conversations. You really think that much of yourself to believe Bush and company have any interest in listening in on your phone conversations. :doh: It amazes me that libs have such a sense of self importance. The world does not revolve around you, chommie.

Even if Bush wanted to listen to your phone conversations and look at your pathetic little bank statement, do you really think the government has the manpower and resources to monitor the calls of several hundred million Americans, each making a dozen calls a day. Please, chommie, think logically for a change. Are you even capable of that?

No Nelms, you argued for NO oversight, so the president can listen to who ever he wants when ever he wants and he doesn't need to have a warrant. At least have the sack to admit what you stand for, then at least be a man and admit you WANT nanny government in that instance, but not in this one.

[twa]

Quit going OT Chom...I liked having you on my side for once.

[chomerics]

Chom, there is already plenty of smoking laws, and bans in many public places, restuarants, and places of employment. why is this new bill, which is more of the same troubling you? eating healthy is hard to measure, so is sun block (not a bad idea though) but smoking in a car is enforceable, like TEG said. It's common sense, simple, cut and dried and it's gona happen, and will spread because it's the right thing to do. I've expressed my opinion previously about absolute political stances in order to keep the "line" as far to the left or right as possible, such as no gun laws, or no abortion laws. If this is why your arguing about this issue then look elsewhere for oposition, because I'm actually concerned about this issue.

No, not at all, personally, I don;t think the government should intervene in these matters. I don't think they should be involved in abortion, or in telling people what they can and can not do in their homes. Unfortunately if people want to smoke in front of their kids they will, but I don;t think the government should punish people for their own stupid behavior. I disagree with the nanny form of government almost across the board, and I don;t think this is any different.

I personally think the government is ALREADY TOO involved in personal matters, and they should be less involved with peoples personal lives. Things like the seat belt law, while they make sense, shouldn't be on the books. I will admit though, where the argument can be made is on an economical one and that is where the key is to getting any legislation to pass. In this case, I think a correlation study would be needed to show exactly the % of kids exposed to second hand smoke, and what the health costs are. Then you can make a valid argument and I could change my mind, but until it makes sense monetarily, I think it should not be in the governments hands.

I think this is a very good fundamental question for people to ask themselves. How much government do they want in their lives. For myself, it is less government, but that is a personal choice. I want to be able to make choices myself, but there are people who want the government to make choices for them. I prefer to be of the free thinking variety, and even though something may hurt society in the long run (ie smoking, drugs, foods etc) they should not be banned or made illegal. It is a personal freedom issue for me, but it may be different for others.

[redskins4life234]

Yes it is OK(according to the law) to beat your kids,and neglect them or even starve them up to a point.

If it is, then please inform me what child abuse is please. If I;m correct, I believe its the beating of a child. I think forcing your kid to breath in second hand smoke is a beating to their lungs which is almost just as bad. Too abd broken bones heals and cuts go ahead, while damaged lungs, you will always have!

[nelms]

No Nelms, you argued for NO oversight, so the president can listen to who ever he wants when ever he wants and he doesn't need to have a warrant. At least have the sack to admit what you stand for, then at least be a man and admit you WANT nanny government in that instance, but not in this one.

Yes, I want "NANNY" government when it comes to national security and protecting me and my family. That is a role government MUST play. Protecting us is not intruding into our private lives. It is actually protecting us to have a free and private life. Too bad your deep hatred of Bush (along with too many bong hits) clouds your mind.

[chomerics]

Yes, I want "NANNY" government when it comes to national security and protecting me and my family. That is a role government MUST play. Protecting us is not intruding into our private lives.

The old Franklin quote works well here. . .

He who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security (Although I believe Franklin was not the one who said it, but that's neither here nor there)

And thus I am point out the hypocrisy of your position. You AGREE with the NANNY form of government when it comes to some things, but not others. It is a political platform with you, not an ideological one. Thanks for playing

[twa]

If it is, then please inform me what child abuse is please. If I;m correct, I believe its the beating of a child. I think forcing your kid to breath in second hand smoke is a beating to their lungs which is almost just as bad. Too abd broken bones heals and cuts go ahead, while damaged lungs, you will always have!

As I said " up to a point".

Does second hand smoke rise to that level? Not from what I have seen.

Would you support removing a child from a home where it is exposed to smoke?

If not it is not enough of a danger to fine.imo

There are too many other risks that should be addressed first.

Just for the record I am against smoking around infants or pregnant women.

[twa]

The old Franklin quote works well here. . .

He who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security (Although I believe Franklin was not the one who said it, but that's neither here nor there)

And thus I am point out the hypocrisy of your position. You AGREE with the NANNY form of government when it comes to some things, but not others. It is a political platform with you, not an ideological one. Thanks for playing

Dang it I can't help myself

Your argument is faulty in that National security is the Executive branch's RESPONSIBILITY in the constitution. It is the most important charge to it.

Now if you can show evidence of them using surveilance for other uses other than national security, then I will agree.

BTW: The quote you used was a condemnation of those that were hesitant to give up the security of the British empire for the chance of Freedom, and it is annoying to see your usage in that way. .

The founding fathers would be appalled :moon: :nana:

[nelms]

Dang it I can't help myself

Your argument is faulty in that National security is the Executive branch's RESPONSIBILITY in the constitution. It is the most important charge to it.

Now if you can show evidence of them using surveilance for other uses other than national security, then I will agree.

BTW: The quote you used was a condemnation of those that were hesitant to give up the security of the British empire for the chance of Freedom, and it is annoying to see your usage in that way. .

The founding fathers would be appalled :moon: :nana:

:owned: Ownage on several levels, especially the misuse of the quote. :laugh:

Btw, chommie and co. (see Larry) don't like conservatives talking about the constitution. It usually doesn't fit with their INTERPRETATION of it.

[nelms]

And thus I am point out the hypocrisy of your position. You AGREE with the NANNY form of government when it comes to some things, but not others. It is a political platform with you, not an ideological one. Thanks for playing

Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that. So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are the ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.

[Popeman38]

Yes! A good old spanking is fine, it hurts, the kid cries, an hour later its all over. But people who make their kid smoke a whole pack after catching them trying a cig, as all people will most likely try one. I say they are discusting and I don't want to smoke, but most likely somewhere in my life, I will try one. At age 3 4 or 5, your kid has no say. They are being harmed by this which could affect your whole life. If I went liek this every day for 5 yrs an hour of day, chances are I'd be very sick, not be able to play basketball or football with my friends, hell walk across my school in the 5 minutes I have to do to get to my next class sometimes!!

Now for an education, which you are still getting. I smoked all the way through high school. No problems playing any sport (basketball, baseball and SOCCER). I joined the army for 8 years, running 4 miles each on Mon Wed and Fri, with a 6.25 mile ruck on Thurs. Yes, smoking is not good for you, but the results you cite above are just a tad over the top. Not being able to get to your next class. Please... I will not argue over a parent smoking witha child. I have a problem with the gov stepping in and making a law...

And to your conversation, I find what you said horrible. So its not ok to beat someone else, but its ok to beat your kids your saying? Your Kids are jsut as equal as you. The Smoker chooses to smoke, the kid didn't, the kid didn't make you, why have the kid suffer because of the parents choices. Like I said,it can affect their health in the long turn. And people say things about fat kids. Many facotrs go into an obese kid. Slow matabalism. What if the kid has never walked a step in his life, he may not get the exercise he needs. Having no friends. Now you are probably saying what the hell does that have to do with anything. If a kid has no friends, he may not get a chance to go play ball with friends which is a huge way kids get exercise. He is stuck inside, watching tv, and jsut doesnt have the motive to go running or biking. And you say, well maybe joina sport and make friends there and get exersise doing that, Maybe hes not good at one? Maybe because he doesn't have friends he was never introduced to it untila later age where its hard to devolaope the skills. Peoples analagies are no where close to what smoking really does!

The bolded part of your post above is crap. "Let's now have the gov step in and make laws to regulate the amount of exercise each child gets, the amount of caloric intake per day, and mandate that if a friend is not available the gov designate someone to be a friend so the child never has to be alone or make anydecision by themselves." See, I can throw crap down too. This is not even a worthy argument. The issue is supposedly a childs health, but in actuality it is a privacy issue.

[Popeman38]

Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that. So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.

Both way off topic...

[nelms]

Both way off topic...

No, it's very much on topic. I'm talking about the government's role in our lives.

[TheKurp]

As of right now, I have not seen any correlating evidence that this is indeed the case. I had a mother who smoked throughout her pregnancy with me, and I have had absolutely no respiratory problems at all. Many of my friends parents smoked, and they have had no problems either. That doesn;t say much in and of itself, but I would like to see a study done which actually tracks the statistics and demographics of respiratory problems of children of smokers. I just don't see it in everyday life, and especially not at the rates surmised by the research. Because if this was indeed the case, then when the vast majority of people smoked, like in the workplace, in movie theaters, on airplanes etc etc, there should have been a much larger % of the population with asthma.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke - ETS) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992)

Key findings:

In adults:

ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.

In children:

ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.

ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.

ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.

ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

[twa]

Kurp, can I ask a question of your opinion as it relates to the first study cited?

Do you feel a fine would be in order for pregnant women that smoke or drink?

Please keep in mind no one is forcing them to bear the child.

If not why?

Anyone else is free to answer, of course.

[TheKurp]

TWA,

It's a question that hits close to home. My mother smoked and drank when she was pregnant with me and both my sisters smoked, and one drank when carrying their children. Of my three nieces and nephews, two have asthma.

On an ideological level, I don't think some people should ever be allowed to have children. The irony in that is that I'd include my mother - which of course means I wouldn't be typing this at the moment. However in my mother's defense I don't know that she would have smoked and drank during her pregnancy had she known what is known today about the effects of both on the fetus. My sisters have no such excuse other than perhaps their addictions were passed on from my mother. And if you recognize addiction as a disease than can you really hold someone accountable?

Statistics indicate that women of low-income and low-education backgrounds are more likely to drink and smoke during pregnancy. I don't know that you can fix the low-education dilemma but perhaps instead of levying a fine some sort of incentive program might better deter them from smoking and drinking. One would think that shouldn't be necessary because women should instinctively want the best for their unborn child. Those that don't, or those that don't care about the fetus, well, they fall into my category of women who shouldn't be allowed to have children. But that's Orwellian type thinking and not very practical.

To answer your question. A fine? No, because I don't think it would deter the type of woman who would drink and smoke during pregnancy. But I don't think that should preclude government involvement because there is a cost to society as a whole for the actions of women who don't put the health of their fetuses above their drinking and smoking.

[Larry]

Kurp, can I ask a question of your opinion as it relates to the first study cited?

Do you feel a fine would be in order for pregnant women that smoke or drink?

Please keep in mind no one is forcing them to bear the child.

If not why?

Anyone else is free to answer, of course.

I think I'd oppose it, but I could see the reasoning behind it. (Which about summs up my opinion of this law.)

(Although, frankly, I could also see the reasoning for an outright ban on tobacco. Out of all of the nasty habits listed by the "what if?" crowd, tobacco is about the only one that's seriously harmfull, spreads itself to bystanders, and is addictive. Again, I'd vote against it, but I could see the reasoning.)

My question would be: Do these activities do enough harm to justify government use of force? And I don't think they do. To me, the right balance with tobacco is about where it is now.

[twa]

Thanks Kurp, a well reasoned response which I agree with.

I would extend the same thinking to the law in question and doubt fines are appropriate or really effective.

Education and incentives would be much more reasonable and effective.

Larry I also like yours, as if it matters.

Good night

[luckydevil]

Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that. So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are the ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.

He has never claimed to be a libertarian.

[Thiebear]

The study is nice but is a study about Second hand smoke in the home? Why would you then ban smoking in the car? (shouldn't it be in the home)? Can they do a study of smoking in the car and then make a decision based on that?

Maybe come up with the: If you smoking in a compact with the windows up 100$, A Hummer with the child in the non-smoking section and the window open a crack 10$.

[nelms]

He has never claimed to be a libertarian.

Who asked you to stick your beak in this. This is between me and Comrade chommie (Captain America vs. Captain Commie).