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

[waterwagen]

Hey govt, get out of our lives already!

[rictus58]

Kurp, the paper you cited still does not conclude that asthma is a result of second hand smoke. It even offers a counter-intuitive statistic which says the opposite of the argument position.

Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general. In other words, there is no statistical correlation between second hand smoke and asthma in children. This is why I said I wanted to look at the study, and why i said I was skeptical to say the least. The initial test proves nothing, and the back up test proves that there is no statistical difference if children are exposed to ETS or not, as to if they get asthma.

Again, i am not arguing that it is right, but there is nothing that I have seen which tells me difinitively that second hand smoke is any MORE dangerous to a child then normal environmental factors. And with that being said, I would err on the side of the government staying OUT of my personal life. It would need to be a very strong argument, with a pretty tight case for me to change my mind about this as well.

For once I agree with Chom. Wow.

When I was a fetus my mother smoked. When I was a child my mother AND father smoked. I didn't end up with with any sort of lung ailment as a child. Nor did my siblings. I'm not advocating FOR secondhand smoke here, BUT,

People against second-hand smoke seem to think its a forgone conclusion that esposure to second hand smoke WILL hurt you until the day you die.

[TheKurp]

Kurp, the paper you cited still does not conclude that asthma is a result of second hand smoke. It even offers a counter-intuitive statistic which says the opposite of the argument position.

Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general. In other words, there is no statistical correlation between second hand smoke and asthma in children. This is why I said I wanted to look at the study, and why i said I was skeptical to say the least. The initial test proves nothing, and the back up test proves that there is no statistical difference if children are exposed to ETS or not, as to if they get asthma.

Again, i am not arguing that it is right, but there is nothing that I have seen which tells me difinitively that second hand smoke is any MORE dangerous to a child then normal environmental factors. And with that being said, I would err on the side of the government staying OUT of my personal life. It would need to be a very strong argument, with a pretty tight case for me to change my mind about this as well.

Huh? Nice of you to read the entire article, which is why I posted the link, but did you miss this entire section? You know, the one I actually posted in this thread?

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.

[TheKurp]

For once I agree with Chom. Wow.

When I was a fetus my mother smoked. When I was a child my mother AND father smoked. I didn't end up with with any sort of lung ailment as a child. Nor did my siblings. I'm not advocating FOR secondhand smoke here, BUT,

People against second-hand smoke seem to think its a forgone conclusion that esposure to second hand smoke WILL hurt you until the day you die.

How about going back to the UC Davis findings. You know, the one that demonstrated that the alveolar cells died twice as fast after exposure to second-hand smoke.

Ever had your lung function tested? I, like you, had a mother that smoked during pregnancy and around me when I was growing up. My lung function has been tested and I fall into the lower average range. No, I've never had asthma, although I once had bronchitis. You think maybe my lung function might be a whole lot better, especially considering the fact that I am in great aerobic shape, if my mother hadn't smoked? I do.

People survive on one lung just fine. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't be a whole lot healthier with two.

How about you? Get winded quickly after running a mile? Go have your lung function tested and then come back here and report to us how you were immune to your childhood ETS exposure.

[TheKurp]

Nice guilt trip Kurp. I am against this because I do not want the gov making my decisions fro me. Like, say end of life decisions? I had to make the decision to remove life support to my son. What happens to the people in the future who are placed in this unfortunate situation if the gov tells them they can not remove life support because it would be damaging to their child? (see Terry Schaivo case) So maybe there is more than callousness behind some of the opposition.:2cents:

It's a freakin cigarette. You're defending the personal choice of being able to smoke a freakin cigarette in a car with children whose lungs are still developing.

[No_Pressure]

The whole thing is a good theory, you take the smoke out of cars with kids, eliminate the kids getting second hand smoke, etc. before they are at an age to make a mature choice whether they want to smoke or not...making a law out of it however is absolutly absurd. How will they enforce it? Who is to say you cant smoke in your own property child or not? Sure it isnt a good thing to be neglegent of your child's health and choices and it is wrong to expose kids to that kind of stuff, but it is equally wrong to take away people's freedoms like this. Two wrongs dont make a right, shouldnt the Senate be solving more important problems than an almost unenforcable freedom restricting law on smoking?

[rictus58]

How about you? Get winded quickly after running a mile?

No. never tested. winded after a mile? YOU BETCHA! But, i was a smoker for 10 years.

[chomerics]

Huh? Nice of you to read the entire article, which is why I posted the link, but did you miss this entire section? You know, the one I actually posted in this thread?

Yes Kurp, I did read the article, and nowhere does it attribute asthma to second hand smoke, nowhere. Here is what they cite. . .

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.

With absolutely no scientific correlation to their findings at all. They state arbitrarily that these are the effects of second hand smoke, yet they ALSO state that there is no correlation between generating asthma and not having asthma.

Here are the "effects" of second hand smoke.

Edit: my mistake, I read (1.) wrong.

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

Really? how much, what is the "prevelance" of fluid, does it increase i miniscule amount, which can be attributed to noise in the data, or is it a significant amount? My bet would be that it is very low and within the noise, because of course they never mention a % to you or give you any real numbers. An increase of 1% is still an increase, but it can be attributed to noise in the data Kurp, they can say this and STILL be correct, while making you think something oposite.

3.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.

Really? By how much? What is the requirement for their condition to be "worsened"? how do they arrive at this number, or do they just go under the assumption that it "increases risk" so thus "worsens" their condition without any statistical facts surrounding their case. Then, to make it seem even worse, they take the average number of households with smokers, and correlate that with the average number of children and come up with an outrageous large error bar of 500% (from 200K to 1000K). In essence, the study STILL has told us absolutely nothing at all. Only that kids with asthma shouldn't be around smokers. . . well duh. How much dammage does it do, what is the frequency of hospital visite etc. etc. My best bet would be that there is NO statistical evidence that proves their point, that is why they leave out the %'s and don;t delve into more in depth statistics. Things like 25% of households who have children with asthma AND smoke have children that go to the hospital because of asthma complications 45% more frequently. because this statistic is missing, I can only assume it was never there!

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

Really? How so? How much of a risk is it? Within 3 sigma limits? If so then why not publish the INCREASE of risk? why leave it as it just increases risk? Again look at my above argument. . .

FINALLY, we get to the point of the study, which of course is one of the absolute LAST things mentioned in the study. . .

Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general.

Which of course, as I already explained earlier, says that basically the test is moot and there IS NO correlation between second hand smoke and asthma.

This is a GREAT example of WHY you need not only to READ the studies, but also understand the methodology behind them and what they are trying to prove from the onset. It is very similar as to polling questions, and how to get a polling person to say what you want them to say by rephrasing the question. Read about Frank Luntz and his linguistic studies and polling. He is a mastermind at things like this, and if you understand it, you can see the truth behind the utter BS in a majority of studies, such as the one you used as a reference.

:2cents:

[chomerics]

It's a freakin cigarette. You're defending the personal choice of being able to smoke a freakin cigarette in a car with children whose lungs are still developing.

And you have yet to show me that there is any consequences from being exposed to the smoke. Again, prove to me there is a significant factor which stunts a childs development, and thus is monetarily costly for joe taxpayer in the long run, and I may change my mind, but as of this point, the only studies I have read have reinforced my opinion that I am right. There is no threat to the development of a childs lungs, and it IS an invasion of privacy IMHO.

[Predicto]

For once I agree with Chom. Wow.

When I was a fetus my mother smoked. When I was a child my mother AND father smoked. I didn't end up with with any sort of lung ailment as a child. Nor did my siblings. I'm not advocating FOR secondhand smoke here, BUT,

People against second-hand smoke seem to think its a forgone conclusion that esposure to second hand smoke WILL hurt you until the day you die.

It's a percentage thing, not a guarantee. Anedoctal stories mean nothing.

[Predicto]

Yes Kurp, I did read the article, and nowhere does it attribute asthma to second hand smoke, nowhere. Here is what they cite. . .

LOTS OF STUFF

Chom, are you debunking the study itself, or are you dissecting the article written about it that was linked above? I think you may be finding inconsistencies that are due to the reporting rather than to the scientific methodology. If so, your assumption that this is bad science may be premature.

I have not read the study myself, so I cannot weigh your assertions on their merits.

[twa]

Krup the studies cited are simply for exposure, so how far do we go?

If the risks are truly substantial why not a complete ban on smoking around infants or pregnant women ?? (which would include the mother)

You know it's because it is not important enough to affect that many people.

It is callous , but fact.

[Predicto]

Krup the studies cited are simply for exposure, so how far do we go?

If the risks are truly substantial why not a complete ban on smoking around infants or pregnant women ?? (which would include the mother)

You know it's because it is not important enough to affect that many people.

It is callous , but fact.

Or because as a society, we draw a different line between what you do in your house and what you do out on the road in a car. Automobile driving is already heavily regulated, and it feels less intrustive to further regulate in that area than to tell me what to do inside my home.

[twa]

Or because as a society, we draw a different line between what you do in your house and what you do out on the road in a car. Automobile driving is already heavily regulated, and it feels less intrustive to further regulate in that area than to tell me what to do inside my home.

In short, because they feel they can get away with it.

[TheKurp]

And you have yet to show me that there is any consequences from being exposed to the smoke. Again, prove to me there is a significant factor which stunts a childs development, and thus is monetarily costly for joe taxpayer in the long run, and I may change my mind, but as of this point, the only studies I have read have reinforced my opinion that I am right. There is no threat to the development of a childs lungs, and it IS an invasion of privacy IMHO.

Chom,

This isn't even hard. Google "secondhand smoke" + "children" and you'll get all the studies you can read in a week.

I'll even help you out. Start here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

How about this?

http://kidshealth.org/research/asthma_associated.html

Early Childhood Asthma Associated With Mothers' and Grandmothers' Smoking Patterns

Children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk for developing asthma, a respiratory disease that causes wheezing, chest tightness, and airway inflammation. In addition, the risk of asthma also appears to be elevated in children whose grandmothers smoked during their pregnancies, say researchers from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

The mothers of 338 children under 5 years of age with asthma reported how many cigarettes they'd smoked during pregnancy, whether they'd quit smoking after giving birth, and whether there were other smokers in the household. In addition to answering questions about their own smoking habits, moms answered the question "Did your mother smoke when she was pregnant with you?"

Several factors were associated with an increased risk of asthma. Being born prematurely and having family members with asthma increased a child's risk of developing the disease before 5 years of age.

Exposure to smoke also affected a child's risk of developing asthma. Most moms who smoked at the beginning of pregnancy continued to smoke throughout pregnancy. Twenty-three percent of moms smoked before pregnancy, 19% of moms smoked during the first trimester, 13% of moms smoked during the second trimester, and 12% of moms smoked during the third trimester. And after birth, about 30% of the children were exposed to secondhand smoke at home.

Children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy had an increased risk of asthma. In addition, mothers of children with asthma were more likely to have been exposed to smoke during their own mothers' pregnancies - compared to the moms of kids who didn't have asthma. Even kids whose moms didn't smoke - but whose grandmothers did - had an increased risk of developing asthma. Although it's not exactly clear why this happens, the researchers in this study think that somehow exposure to tobacco products may alter DNA patterns in a developing fetus. This alteration could affect immune system function and increase a future generation's susceptibility to asthma.

There's good news for women who quit smoking prior to pregnancy, though: Researchers found that the children of mothers who quit smoking before pregnancy had an asthma risk similar to children whose mothers never smoked.

What This Means to You: According to the results of this study, children whose mothers or grandmothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of developing asthma. Fortunately, reducing your child's exposure to smoke is something you can control. The best way to protect your baby's health - and your own - is to avoid smoking before, during, and after pregnancy. If you do smoke, talk to your doctor or obstetrician about how to quit.

You have yet to address the UC Davis study I posted earlier in this thread.

This is not about personal choice. One does not have the right to exercise a personal choice when by doing so, they force that choice on someone else at their peril.

This is about science. DDT was banned. Lead in paint was banned. Asbestos was banned. These are all substances that at one time were used widely until science proved them to be hazardous to one's health.

Not one of you can argue that cigarettes do not contain carcinogens which are directly responsible for the leading cause of cancer deaths. Not one of you can prove that every one of those carcinogens stays in one's lungs and are not present in secondhand smoke. Not one of you can argue that there is one redeeming value in smoking a cigarette.

The fact is, everyday there is mounting evidence that there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke, and the evidence is even more clear about the effects on the lungs of small children.

Personal choice? If you want to protect your personal choice of polluting your bodies, then the onus is upon YOU to prove you aren't forcing others to share in that suicidal behavior when they inhale the carcinogens spewing from the holes in your face.

[zoony]

I think they should ban smoking in cars period. Just because of all the damn cigarette buts on the side of the road in this country. it's disgusting.

....

[DeanCollins]

Even if you take the other passengers out of the equation, smoking while driving is a distraction and lessens the visablility of the driver. from getting one to your mouth, to lighting it, flicking the ashes, and throwing it out the window (which many times lands on the windshield of the car behind, it's a constant distraction. I'd like to see accident figures that include number of drivers smoking or lighting up at the time. Also while smoking, you're talking about reducing the amount of oxygen to the brain, raising blood presure, and I would bet that it affects vision as well. And how about this one, nicotine is a drug, so we're talking about using drugs while driving and driving under the influence of a drug. Should just outlaw smoking while driving while they're at it.

[twa]

Seems to be a trend...no slippery slope here.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18967

California Considers Smoking Bans for Cars, Apartments

Board May Stretch Authority

Upon declaring a substance a toxic air contaminant, CARB is authorized to enact measures to restrict exposure to the contaminant. California already prohibits smoking in offices and restaurants, and many California communities additionally ban smoking in open-air parks and on beaches.

The lone speaker at CARB's January 26 hearing, Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association, called on CARB to make it unlawful for people to smoke in hotels, motels, and even their own apartments. Additionally, Knepprath argued, CARB should make it a crime for a person to smoke in his or her own car.

[chomerics]

Chom,

This isn't even hard. Google "secondhand smoke" + "children" and you'll get all the studies you can read in a week.

I'll even help you out. Start here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

How about this?

You have yet to address the UC Davis study I posted earlier in this thread.

This is not about personal choice. One does not have the right to exercise a personal choice when by doing so, they force that choice on someone else at their peril.

This is about science. DDT was banned. Lead in paint was banned. Asbestos was banned. These are all substances that at one time were used widely until science proved them to be hazardous to one's health.

Not one of you can argue that cigarettes do not contain carcinogens which are directly responsible for the leading cause of cancer deaths. Not one of you can prove that every one of those carcinogens stays in one's lungs and are not present in secondhand smoke. Not one of you can argue that there is one redeeming value in smoking a cigarette.

The fact is, everyday there is mounting evidence that there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke, and the evidence is even more clear about the effects on the lungs of small children.

Personal choice? If you want to protect your personal choice of polluting your bodies, then the onus is upon YOU to prove you aren't forcing others to share in that suicidal behavior when they inhale the carcinogens spewing from the holes in your face.

Kurp, that was a much beter study then the previous one quoted, and I will say the evidence as I see it is more on the side of your argument. Like I said before, if you pose a good enough argument to me I could be pursuaded and I would be able to understand the method to your madness. In this case, you have pursuaded me to the side of neutral now. I was much more on the side of personal freedom earlier in the day, but after reading the latest study you posted, I can see some merits to what you are advocating. This is more along the lines of what I was lookng for when I stated that I wanted to see more evidence. Good work

[Predicto]

Seems to be a trend...no slippery slope here.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18967

California Considers Smoking Bans for Cars, Apartments

Board May Stretch Authority

Upon declaring a substance a toxic air contaminant, CARB is authorized to enact measures to restrict exposure to the contaminant. California already prohibits smoking in offices and restaurants, and many California communities additionally ban smoking in open-air parks and on beaches.

The lone speaker at CARB's January 26 hearing, Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association, called on CARB to make it unlawful for people to smoke in hotels, motels, and even their own apartments. Additionally, Knepprath argued, CARB should make it a crime for a person to smoke in his or her own car.

Ummm, I don't see anything there to say that the Board is considering any such regulation.

I see that a single speaker at a CARB event suggested such a thing. That is very different.

ps - the smoking ban in restaurants and offices has worked out pretty well for us out here.

[twa]

Ummm, I don't see anything there to say that the Board is considering any such regulation.

I see that a single speaker at a CARB event suggested such a thing. That is very different.

ps - the smoking ban in restaurants and offices has worked out pretty well for us out here.

Added: They are examining the issue ,but cannot recomend any action at this time...Of course with reasoning such as this senator, it is abuse and they will find a way.

Give them a little while

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/california-senate-committee-approves.html

Senator Deborah Ortiz, chair of the Senate Health Committee (which approved the bill) defended the legislation by arguing that smoking around young children is a form of child abuse: "There's no excuse in today's society for any mother of any age, or any level of education, to do something which I consider akin to child abuse."

http://santa-monica.org/cityclerk/council/agendas/2006/20060725/s2006072508-A.htm

6. Multi-unit residential common areas.

To date there has been no legislation at the state or local level governing smoking inside residences. However, at least eight cities have prohibited smoking at indoor common areas of multi-unit residential buildings. (Staff’s position is that these areas already are covered by state law.) In addition, two cities (Davis and Calabasas) have banned smoking at outdoor common areas as well. The City of Arcata prohibits smoking within 20 feet of windows of residential units. Moreover, Thousand Oaks recently adopted a resolution that one third of future publicly funded housing units in the city be maintained as non-smoking.

....

8. The Calabasas law

Effective March 17, 2006, the city of Calabasas adopted the strongest outdoor smoking restrictions in the nation. Calabasas prohibits smoking in all public places, indoor and outdoor, with two exceptions: certain designated locations in shopping areas; and in cases where no non-smokers are present and there is no reason to believe that anyone will arrive (e.g., due to time of day). Calabasas provides both criminal and civil remedies for the City Attorney’s Office; and a private civil right of action for the general public.

...

[portisizzle]

It's a freakin cigarette. You're defending the personal choice of being able to smoke a freakin cigarette in a car with children whose lungs are still developing.

Damn, damn, DAMN! I am taking my kids out camping this weekend. Should I light a campfire? Or not?

Man that oak and hickory campfire burning with marshmallows and hot dogs right on top. I can even envision the kids clothing smelling like campfire smoke.

Do I listen to a hypocrite and keep my children safe from campfire?

One word.......tool. Blunt one at that. (Pun intended)

[twa]

Well ,as long as you don't let them near a pool you might be alright.PS

http://swimming.about.com/od/allergyandasthma/a/cl_pool_problem.htm

eanwhile, investigators in Belgium presented research showing that exposure to such chloramines greatly increases permeability of the lung epithelium, a condition associated with smoking cigarettes. In a study presented by Dr. Simone Carbonnelle, of the industrial toxicology and occupational medicine unit at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels, 226 otherwise healthy school children, mean age 10, were followed to determine how much time they spent around swimming pools, and the condition of their lung epithelium. The children in Dr. Carbonnelle's study were exposed to air around the school swimming pool for a mean of 1.8 hours per week.

[portisizzle]

Well ,as long as you don't let them near a pool you might be alright.PS

http://swimming.about.com/od/allergyandasthma/a/cl_pool_problem.htm

eanwhile, investigators in Belgium presented research showing that exposure to such chloramines greatly increases permeability of the lung epithelium, a condition associated with smoking cigarettes. In a study presented by Dr. Simone Carbonnelle, of the industrial toxicology and occupational medicine unit at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels, 226 otherwise healthy school children, mean age 10, were followed to determine how much time they spent around swimming pools, and the condition of their lung epithelium. The children in Dr. Carbonnelle's study were exposed to air around the school swimming pool for a mean of 1.8 hours per week.

DAMN. Better keep my kids in the closet. They will be safer.

[Predicto]

Look, I know you guys are having fun with this and all, but you have to admit that there is some role for for the government in protecting the health of children. We are all just trying to figure out where the line is.

Or do you think the government went overboard when they banned lead paint too?