Bangor Maine Makes it Illegal to Smoke in Cars

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Shame we have to have these kinds of laws because of the amount of stupid people in this country.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Bangor makes it illegal to smoke in cars (http://tinyurl.com/y45xph)

BANGOR, Maine - The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.

When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.

People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.

"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.

The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.

An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.

Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.

"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.

But the ordinance also had its critics.

Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There's already too much government intervention in people's lives, she said.

Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel-good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.

___

Information from: Bangor Daily News, http://www.bangornews.com

[W*GS]

Shame we have to have these kinds of laws because of the amount of stupid people in this country.

We don't "have" to have this sort of nanny-state legislation; and the "stupid people" are the ones who think we do. BB, ergo, you're stupid.

[Bronx33]

This should raise the resale value of cars since they won't smell like shyt....;D

[bendog]

It's probably so snowy and cold up there that the idiot smokers can't crack their windows, and the smoke inside makes it hard for them to see outside, which creates a real danger.

[defenseman]

Stupid law...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

We don't "have" to have this sort of nanny-state legislation; and the "stupid people" are the ones who think we do. BB, ergo, you're stupid.
No, we do. Child abuse is against the law (in any form) or should be.

Stupid law...dman
Why, you think feeding children cigarette smoke should be lawful?

[W*GS]

Child abuse is against the law (in any form) or should be.

My neighbor lets his kids watch 8+ hours of TV a day - ABUSE!

My sister-in-law lets her daughter have access to the 'Net from her bedroom - ABUSE!

The guy at the store buying Lucky Charms and Doritos to feed his kids - ABUSE!

The mom who doesn't have a lot of books around the house for her kids to read - ABUSE!

Where do you draw the line?

Do you have kids?

Or should all kids simply be turned over to the State, so they'll be raised the proper and safe way?

[W*GS]

Why, you think feeding children cigarette smoke should be lawful?

Increasing the power of the State is more harmful.

[Dudeskey]

Oh hell, I can see it now. Watch the road rage incidents increase.

[Hogan11]

You can enact any law of any kind if you put the "protect the children" tag onto it....what politician in their right mind is going to come out against "protecting children" or the "public health"? The extremists know it too, so they take the ball and run as far as they can with it...like they did in Bangor.

W*gs is 100% right on this one, whether you want to believe it or not. Land of the free my ass.

[RMT]

next thing you know they'll require parents to put their kids in childseats to protect them while they drive ... as stupid as this law is, it wouldn't be necesssary if people didn't smoke around their children.

[Hogan11]

This is just another unenforcable law....a "feel good" law for militant do-gooders that's in reality a total waste of time and taxpayer money. Way to go.

[cbs1177]

In Tennessee you are not allowed to view porn in the car where it is in sight of others drivers. Said it cause too many compliants wink wink wrecks.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Maybe smokers should just be reported to the local media to be slandered out of their livelihoods.

[Meck77]

They should just make stupidity illegal instead. Anyone charged with being an idiot would be sent to Kansas.

I'm with Hogan. Rediculous law.

[Kaylore]

They should just make stupidity illegal instead. Anyone charged with being an idiot would be sent to Kansas.

I'm with Hogan. Rediculous law.

I agree. I give it two "Redicules'"

REDICULES
http://specials.rediff.com/entertai/2004/jun/02list10.jpg

REDICULES!
http://specials.rediff.com/entertai/2004/jun/02list10.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

My neighbor lets his kids watch 8+ hours of TV a day - ABUSE!

My sister-in-law lets her daughter have access to the 'Net from her bedroom - ABUSE!

The guy at the store buying Lucky Charms and Doritos to feed his kids - ABUSE!

The mom who doesn't have a lot of books around the house for her kids to read - ABUSE!

Where do you draw the line?

Do you have kids?

Or should all kids simply be turned over to the State, so they'll be raised the proper and safe way?
Sorry, it's the way of the country now, stupid people having kids so society has to protect them from them. It'll (more laws for dumb people) only escalate as time goes on. And all your samples sound good to the right wingers and others who preach less government but in reality don't compare to the dangers of forcing children to eat cigarette smoke.

[RunByDesign]

^5
, Bangor, Maine.

[RunByDesign]

Any dickhead forcing his children to ingest the same cigarette smoke that he is destroying lung health with, should be penalized.

There's already enough environmental contaminants that young lungs have to deal with. They don't need some clueless idiot hotboxing them as they tear through a box of Malboro Reds.

Bravo, Bangor.

[alkemical]

It's probably so snowy and cold up there that the idiot smokers can't crack their windows, and the smoke inside makes it hard for them to see outside, which creates a real danger.

Not at all, you just deal with it for like 5min.

[alkemical]

This is just another unenforcable law....a "feel good" law for militant do-gooders that's in reality a total waste of time and taxpayer money. Way to go.

Celine's Third Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine%27s_laws)


An honest politician is a national calamity.

Celine recognizes that the third law seems preposterous from the beginning. While a dishonest politician is interested only in bettering his own lot through abusing the public trust, an honest politician is far more dangerous since he is honestly interested in bettering society through political action, and that means writing and implementing more and more laws.

Celine argues that creating more laws simply creates more criminals. Laws inherently restrict individual freedom, and the explosive rate at which laws are being created means that every citizen in the course of his daily life does not have the research capacity to not violate at least one of the plethora of laws. It is only through honest politicians trying to change the world through laws that true tyranny can come into being through excessive legislation.

Corrupt politicians simply line their own pockets. Honest idealist politicians cripple the people's freedom through enormous amounts of laws. So corrupt politicians are preferable according to Celine.

[Spider]

Been to Bangor maine , nice place maine is , but ban smoking in a car with Kiddies ?
Bullshít law , most smokers I know crack a window , i dont smoke wife does , she cracks a window , I dont get a scent or a wif of smoke .............
Kids in general are more dangerous then smoking , mainly boys .........
a while back talking to wife on the phone , I hear oh shít I will call you back , cody is doing somthing ............5 minutes later she calls , it seems my son got the idea that removing the wheels off of a skateboard , and trying to use the board to go down the basement steps is a fun activity .... alot worse then smoking in a car , then there was that time he tried to snowboard off the roof of the house onto the garage ...............

[alkemical]

Been to Bangor maine , nice place maine is , but ban smoking in a car with Kiddies ?
Bullshít law , most smokers I know crack a window , i dont smoke wife does , she cracks a window , I dont get a scent or a wif of smoke .............
Kids in general are more dangerous then smoking , mainly boys .........
a while back talking to wife on the phone , I hear oh shít I will call you back , cody is doing somthing ............5 minutes later she calls , it seems my son got the idea that removing the wheels off of a skateboard , and trying to use the board to go down the basement steps is a fun activity .... alot worse then smoking in a car , then there was that time he tried to snowboard off the roof of the house onto the garage ...............



Just to let you know, you will be flamed for this.

[Spider]

Just to let you know, you will be flamed for this.

:~ohyah!: bring em on

[Spider]

I bet these law makers would have freaked if we still had the rumble seat

[alkemical]

I bet these law makers would have freaked if we still had the rumble seat

why do you think we don't.

[Spider]

why do you think we don't.

;D Leg room would be my guess ..............
But seriously outside of sitting your kid down and blowing smoke directly in thier face , smoking in Cars realy isnt an issue

[Spider]

After shave , perfume , used in heavy doses does more to take your breath away then a ciggy .............. if maine wants to protect Kids , outlaw these things in a car ...............
then we can talk about farting in a closed up car

[alkemical]

I don't think there should have to be a law spider, i think it should be common sense. I don't smoke in cars with kids. But i don't like to have kids see me smoke either.

[Spider]

I don't think there should have to be a law spider, i think it should be common sense. I don't smoke in cars with kids. But i don't like to have kids see me smoke either.

crack a window ....... My wife tries not to smoke in the car , but on long trips it gets hard , crack a window .........

[W*GS]

Sorry, it's the way of the country now, stupid people having kids so society has to protect them from them.

I think people who advocate laws based on "Save the children!" are being stupid. Where do you want to get shipped to?

It'll (more laws for dumb people) only escalate as time goes on.

With you cheerleading from the sideline...

And all your samples sound good to the right wingers and others who preach less government but in reality don't compare to the dangers of forcing children to eat cigarette smoke.

So left-wingers preach more government? Thanks for 'fessing up.

All those examples I gave are of parents/others permitting children to be faced with unnecessary risks. Period.

Obviously, your consistency and adherence to principle are squishy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Been to Bangor maine , nice place maine is , but ban smoking in a car with Kiddies ?
Bullshít law , most smokers I know crack a window , i dont smoke wife does , she cracks a window , I dont get a scent or a wif of smoke .............
Kids in general are more dangerous then smoking , mainly boys .........
a while back talking to wife on the phone , I hear oh shít I will call you back , cody is doing somthing ............5 minutes later she calls , it seems my son got the idea that removing the wheels off of a skateboard , and trying to use the board to go down the basement steps is a fun activity .... alot worse then smoking in a car , then there was that time he tried to snowboard off the roof of the house onto the garage ...............
Even if you're wife is cracking the windows she is still exposing them to dangerous carcinogens and other chemicals. Not all the smoke escapes the vehicle before the kids are forced to inhale it. You should have her read up on how much damage cigarette smoke does to developing organs in children.

#
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.11
#
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year.12 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.13
#
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.14 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.15


The current Surgeon General's Report (http://tinyurl.com/5rbxk) concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.17


* Second-hand smoke (http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html) releases the same 4,000 chemicals (50 are known to cause cancer) as smoke that is directly inhaled, but in even greater quantity. Second-hand smoke contains:
o 2 times more tar which gums up lungs and breathing passages
o 5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood
* Cigarettes burn for approximately 12 minutes, but smokers usually only inhale for 30 seconds. As a result, cigarettes are spewing second-hand smoke into the air for non-smokers and smokers to breathe.
* Even after a cigarette is out, second-hand smoke remains in your surroundings such as furniture, carpets and toys and is still poisonous.
* Air purifiers, ventilation systems, designated smoking areas or open windows do not provide enough protection from second-hand smoke.

Approximately 26% of adults in the United States currently smoke cigarettes, and 50 to 67% of children under five years of age live in homes with at least one adult smoker.

Who Is At Risk For Secondhand Smoke?

Although ETS is dangerous to everyone, fetuses, infants and children are at most risk. This is because ETS can damage developing organs, such as the lungs and brain.

Secondhand Smoke And Its Effect On...

The fetus and newborn: Maternal, fetal, and placental blood flow change when pregnant women smoke, although the long-term health effects of these changes are not known. Some studies suggest that smoking during pregnancy causes birth defects such as cleft lip or palate. Smoking mothers produce less milk, and their babies have a lower birth weight. Maternal smoking also is associated with neonatal death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, the major cause of death in infants between one month and one year of age.

Children's lungs and respiratory tracts: Exposure to ETS decreases lung efficiency and impairs lung function in children of all ages. It increases both the frequency and severity of childhood asthma. Secondhand smoke can aggravate sinusitis, rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, and chronic respiratory problems such as cough and postnasal drip. It also increases the number of children's colds and sore throats. (http://tinyurl.com/4wykh) In children under two years of age, ETS exposure increases the likelihood of bronchitis and pneumonia. In fact, a 1992 study by the Environmental Protection Agency says ETS causes 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections each year in infants and children under 18 months of age. These illnesses result in as many as 15,000 hospitalizations. Children of parents who smoke half a pack a day or more are at nearly double the risk of hospitalization for a respiratory illness.

The Ears: Exposure to ETS increases both the number of ear infections a child will experience, and the duration of the illness. Inhaled smoke irritates the eustachian tube, which connects the back of the nose with the middle ear. This causes swelling and obstruction which interferes with pressure equalization in the middle ear, leading to pain, fluid and infection. Ear infections are the most common cause of children's hearing loss. When they do not respond to medical treatment, the surgical insertion of tubes into the ears is often required.

The Brain: Children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy are more likely to suffer behavioral problems such as hyperactivity than children of non-smoking mothers. Modest impairment in school performance and intellectual achievement have also been demonstrated.

[Spider]

So left-wingers preach more government? Thanks for 'fessing up.

All those examples I gave are of parents/others permitting children to be faced with unnecessary risks. Period.

Obviously, your consistency and adherence to principle are squishy.

as to your anarchist views ........... better to be safe then sorry

[Spider]

Even if you're wife is cracking the windows she is still exposing them to dangerous carcinogens and other chemicals. Not all the smoke escapes the vehicle before the kids are forced to inhale it. You should have her read up on how much damage cigarette smoke does to developing organs in children.

huh mom , Dad, grandpa, Grandma , Uncles all smoked didnt matter when or where ............... at my age I out work 20 year olds .......... perhaps if I knew about this study , I could have been in compliance with it ..........

[Spider]

see what bothers me the most is .may cause .......... may ? either it does or doesnt .

[Bronco_Beerslug]

huh mom , Dad, grandpa, Grandma , Uncles all smoked didnt matter when or where ............... at my age I out work 20 year olds .......... perhaps if I knew about this study , I could have been in compliance with it ..........
Some people can drink and smoke and live to be a hundred, many others will die prematurely. I sure wouldn't want to roll the dice with my children.

[Spider]

Some people can drink and smoke and live to be a hundred, many others will die prematurely. I sure wouldn't want to roll the dice with my children.

rioll what dice ? On a it may cause ?
remember the big scare over the ozone layer ............ this is a problem ,they release findings that are subjective at best , then People take it as gospel ...
and it wasnt just me , my Brothers , sisters , all were exposed t osecond hand smoke , we all turned out healthy , as did my cousins ...............

[Bronco_Beerslug]

rioll what dice ? On a it may cause ?
remember the big scare over the ozone layer ............ this is a problem ,they release findings that are subjective at best , then People take it as gospel ...
and it wasnt just me , my Brothers , sisters , all were exposed t osecond hand smoke , we all turned out healthy , as did my cousins ...............
These aren't subjective findings, the numbers are scientific data. And the Ozone layer peeling away is a problem which was mitigated by outlawing certain chemicals.

[Spider]

These aren't subjective findings, the numbers are scientific data. And the Ozone layer peeling away is a problem which was mitigated by outlawing certain chemicals.

#'s Data , all will read what you want them to , outside of directly blowing smoke in Kids faces , realy not much a problem , I am sure there was no study on smoking with a cracked window and a car doing 75 MPH ............the hole in the ozone was as much natrual as man caused ...........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

#'s Data , all will read what you want them to , outside of directly blowing smoke in Kids faces , realy not much a problem , I am sure there was no study on smoking with a cracked window and a car doing 75 MPH ............the hole in the ozone was as much natrual as man caused ...........Sure there is (I linked to the numbers showing there is no safe place to be with a smoker, especially younger humans).

[Meck77]

Sorry, it's the way of the country now, stupid people having kids so society has to protect them from them. It'll (more laws for dumb people) only escalate as time goes on.

You know Slug for the first time in the history of the war forum you may have changed an opinion of mine. Maybe we do need laws to protect kids from their "idiot" parents like this. hmmm

I think it's a bad trend for our country but maybe it is the reality of what is going on. It use to be parents would take care of their kids. It was just a given. Now you have talk shows about people bragging that they put food on the table, buy diapers etc. As if that is something to be proud of.

It kinda goes along with my thread a few weeks ago about people having kids and not being able to take care of them/complaining about them.

[Spider]

Sure there is (I linked to the numbers showing there is no safe place to be with a smoker, especially younger humans).

no you linked a bunch of May cause , linked to , but no other health factors involved , like Asthma , Scare tissue on lungs etc .........

[Spider]

you know eating a Mushroom can cause cancer , should we ban mushrooms ?

[alkemical]

All in the name of "saftey"


God this country is going to die.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You know Slug for the first time in the history of the war forum you may have changed an opinion of mine. Maybe we do need laws to protect kids from their "idiot" parents like this. hmmm

I think it's a bad trend for our country but maybe it is the reality of what is going on. It use to be parents would take care of their kids. It was just a given. Now you have talk shows about people bragging that they put food on the table, buy diapers etc. As if that is something to be proud of.

It kinda goes along with my thread a few weeks ago about people having kids and not being able to take care of them/complaining about them.
Before my mom passed she told me how sorry she was for exposing us kids to her cigarette and my dad's pipe smoke when we were growing up. She said had they known how dangerous tobacco smoke was she wouldn't have allowed it to happen. There is no solid proof of a link but us kids had lots' of ear infections and strep and I ended up with rheumatic fever for a year in 9th grade.

In the 50s and 60s there just wasn't the information available then that there is now.

[Meck77]

I have a real hard time defending anything related to cigarettes myself as a former smoker. That **** was killing me slowly I could feel it. I fooled myself for years that I'm going to die anyway, something else will kill me etc. I feel as good as I did when I was 20 years old now and I'm now 32.

Hope you don't have any side effects in the future Slug. I may not be safe either but atleast I don't feel like an ashtray every morning like I use to.

[Spider]

it is against the law in Cheyenne to shower on wednesday ...........I guess second hand water spray can cause cancer

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I have a real hard time defending anything related to cigarettes myself as a former smoker. That **** was killing me slowly I could feel it. I fooled myself for years that I'm going to die anyway, something else will kill me etc. I feel as good as I did when I was 20 years old now and I'm now 32.

Hope you don't have any side effects in the future Slug. I may not be safe either but atleast I don't feel like an ashtray every morning like I use to.I remember your first failed attempt or two at quiting :)

Thx for the well wishes! Congrats Meck on making it!!! Feeling good every day and not smelling like crap has it's benefits moving through this life :thumbsup:

[gunns]

Sorry, it's the way of the country now, stupid people having kids so society has to protect them from them. It'll (more laws for dumb people) only escalate as time goes on. And all your samples sound good to the right wingers and others who preach less government but in reality don't compare to the dangers of forcing children to eat cigarette smoke.

It's getting sickening the way the government is raising our children. The funny thing about all these laws is if a parent is going to abuse their child, no law is going to stop them. The stupid one's who smoke in cars with children, will just go home and smoke in the home with them. You can't legislate stupidity.

[Crushaholic]

Gunns is right. You can't legislate stupid people. I feel sorry for babies in the womb whose mother is smoking. From that point on, I know he/she is doomed to have stupid, uncaring parents. I don't believe in abortion normally, but a part of me wants to make an exception in that case...

[alkemical]

you should all really take a hard look and listen to what you are saying.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's getting sickening the way the government is raising our children. The funny thing about all these laws is if a parent is going to abuse their child, no law is going to stop them. The stupid one's who smoke in cars with children, will just go home and smoke in the home with them. You can't legislate stupidity.
Sure you can. Outlawing smoking around other people is already working in helping people who are addicted kick the habit. The numbers don't lie, since the push to keep smoke out of public places started millions have quit, making our air that much cleaner and safer.

As far as your analogy of they will still smoke in children's presence in private, some will and some will become educated and or ashamed by their dumb actions and won't, that's their space, but in public, it's everybody's space.

[Spider]

overreaction .............

[Spider]

me thinks Maine listens to Canada too much ..............No concrete evidence of any of this , I wont call it Junk science , but I could also put out , Truckers over 50 that smoke or has been exposed to second hand smoke , will or will get hemrroids , the #'s are there to back me up , but we all know it would be a load of crap ................

[Bronco_Beerslug]

me thinks Maine listens to Canada too much ..............No concrete evidence of any of this , I wont call it Junk science , but I could also put out , Truckers over 50 that smoke or has been exposed to second hand smoke , will or will get hemrroids , the #'s are there to back me up , but we all know it would be a load of crap ................
This is what people who smoke and live with smokers always say :)

There's no denying what tobacco smoke does to people.


-----------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 27, 2006


Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
New Surgeon General’s Report Focuses on the Effects of Secondhand Smoke

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

The report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, finds that even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause immediate harm. The report says the only way to protect nonsmokers from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking indoors.

“The report is a crucial warning sign to nonsmokers and smokers alike,” HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt said. "Smoking can sicken and kill, and even people who do not smoke can be harmed by smoke from those who do.”

Secondhand smoke exposure can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, the report finds.

“The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought,” said Surgeon General Carmona, vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service. “The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.” Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals, and is itself a known human carcinogen. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke inhale many of the same toxins as smokers. Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says. In addition, the report notes that because the bodies of infants and children are still developing, they are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.

“The good news is that, unlike some public health hazards, secondhand smoke exposure is easily prevented,” Surgeon General Carmona said. “Smoke-free indoor environments are proven, simple approaches that prevent exposure and harm.” The report finds that even the most sophisticated ventilation systems cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure and that only smoke-free environments afford full protection.

Surgeon General Carmona noted that levels of cotinine -- a biological marker for secondhand smoke exposure -- measured in nonsmokers have fallen by 70 percent since the late 1980s, and the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable cotinine levels has been halved from 88 percent in 1988-91 to 43 percent in 2001-02.

“Our progress over the past 20 years in clearing the air of tobacco smoke is a major public health success story,” Surgeon General Carmona said. “We have averted many thousands of cases of disease and early death and saved millions of dollars in health care costs.” He emphasized, however, that sustained efforts are required to protect the more than 126 million Americans who continue to be regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in the home, at work, and in enclosed public spaces.

To help communicate the report findings as widely as possible, the Surgeon General unveiled an easy-to-read guide with practical information on the dangers of secondhand smoke and steps people can take to protect themselves.

Copies of The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General and related materials are available on the Surgeon General’s Web site at www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/.

[alkemical]

It's my right to kill myself. I don't smoke around others in an enclosed area that also don't smoke - so those of you who want to tell me what to do can kiss my hair butt!

[W*GS]

Outlawing smoking around other people is already working in helping people who are addicted kick the habit. The numbers don't lie, since the push to keep smoke out of public places started millions have quit, making our air that much cleaner and safer.

Correlation != causation.

As far as your analogy of they will still smoke in children's presence in private, some will and some will become educated and or ashamed by their dumb actions and won't, that's their space, but in public, it's everybody's space.

Since when is the inside of a car a "public" place?

Here I thought that if even one child's life is saved, it was a good idea for the State to use force. Now you say that "that's their space" takes precedence.

Why?

[bendog]

It's just one more little hindrance to make people quit, as slug said. And, he's right. Wherever there are the little hindrances, more quit. And where there are less hindrances, more smoke. However, I think the science of addiction indicates some may not be able to ... but then there are other ways to ingest nicotine.

Of course on the other hand, where there's something that kills stupid people ... like crack and crank ... is letting them kill themselves bad for society? (-:

[W*GS]

There's no denying what tobacco smoke does to people.

I just wonder when we can come after your car, because of what it does to people's health...

[Spider]

This is what people who smoke and live with smokers always say :)

There's no denying what tobacco smoke does to people.


-----------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 27, 2006


Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
New Surgeon General’s Report Focuses on the Effects of Secondhand Smoke

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

The report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, finds that even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause immediate harm. The report says the only way to protect nonsmokers from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking indoors.

“The report is a crucial warning sign to nonsmokers and smokers alike,” HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt said. "Smoking can sicken and kill, and even people who do not smoke can be harmed by smoke from those who do.”

Secondhand smoke exposure can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, the report finds.

“The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought,” said Surgeon General Carmona, vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service. “The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.” Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals, and is itself a known human carcinogen. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke inhale many of the same toxins as smokers. Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says. In addition, the report notes that because the bodies of infants and children are still developing, they are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.

“The good news is that, unlike some public health hazards, secondhand smoke exposure is easily prevented,” Surgeon General Carmona said. “Smoke-free indoor environments are proven, simple approaches that prevent exposure and harm.” The report finds that even the most sophisticated ventilation systems cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure and that only smoke-free environments afford full protection.

Surgeon General Carmona noted that levels of cotinine -- a biological marker for secondhand smoke exposure -- measured in nonsmokers have fallen by 70 percent since the late 1980s, and the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable cotinine levels has been halved from 88 percent in 1988-91 to 43 percent in 2001-02.

“Our progress over the past 20 years in clearing the air of tobacco smoke is a major public health success story,” Surgeon General Carmona said. “We have averted many thousands of cases of disease and early death and saved millions of dollars in health care costs.” He emphasized, however, that sustained efforts are required to protect the more than 126 million Americans who continue to be regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in the home, at work, and in enclosed public spaces.

To help communicate the report findings as widely as possible, the Surgeon General unveiled an easy-to-read guide with practical information on the dangers of secondhand smoke and steps people can take to protect themselves.

Copies of The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General and related materials are available on the Surgeon General’s Web site at www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/.

this still doesnt tell me smoking in a car with a cracked window is harmfull .........I would agree blowing smoke directly into your kids faces is pretty harmfull , but you will never convience me Smoking in a car with a window open is harmfull ............you could make a case for someone smoking with the heater fan or AC on , blowing directly into the back seat , but not a wondow open ............. Nice try though

[W*GS]

Of course, the State receives so much money from tobacco taxes that it has a vested interest in keeping smokers addicted...

The State is quite fearful of all smokers quitting - it will cost the State plenty.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I just wonder when we can come after your car, because of what it does to people's health...
Those laws are already in place. Your attempt to compare the two worked out pretty well though.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

this still doesnt tell me smoking in a car with a cracked window is harmfull .........I would agree blowing smoke directly into your kids faces is pretty harmfull , but you will never convience me Smoking in a car with a window open is harmfull ............you could make a case for someone smoking with the heater fan or AC on , blowing directly into the back seat , but not a wondow open ............. Nice try though
Like I said, trying to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke is what smokers and defenders of smokers try to do :)

The report finds that even the most sophisticated ventilation systems cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure and that only smoke-free environments afford full protection.

[alkemical]

Of course, the State receives so much money from tobacco taxes that it has a vested interest in keeping smokers addicted...

The State is quite fearful of all smokers quitting - it will cost the State plenty.



Wags,

DYK: that in the state of PA - if i buy a pack of cigs - they run about roughly $4.85 - i can however buy a CAN of smoke, plus a carton of tubes for $10 and pay roughly 1.02 a pack of smokes - ALL without paying the "class" tax for a pack of smokes.

[Spider]

there is nothing more zealous then an ex .ex smoker , ex drinker , ex sinner , ex wives , this list goes on and on ........... They all have a the same belief , they saw the light , and all hell be damned you will see the light also , if not on your own , then by law ............Whats worse is people support this point of view .......How about the infamous gas leak ?
should we ban natrual gas ? that shít will kill you quicker .........
Hell I wonder how many people will die over the stress of second hand smoke , then of second hand smoke itself ?

[Spider]

Like I said, trying to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke is what smokers and defenders of smokers try to do :)

and over zealous people keep telling us we are wrong , despite the evidence ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Of course, the State receives so much money from tobacco taxes that it has a vested interest in keeping smokers addicted...

The State is quite fearful of all smokers quitting - it will cost the State plenty.
That's good considering how many millions smokers cost every state.



Since when is the inside of a car a "public" place?
Autos are used in public and may be stopped and or entered for any number of unlawful reasons.



Here I thought that if even one child's life is saved, it was a good idea for the State to use force. Now you say that "that's their space" takes precedence.

Why?
The same reason it isn't legal to listen to my phone calls or enter my home without court approval.

[W*GS]

That's good considering how many millions smokers cost every state.

Smokers are a net benefit to the public coffers, so to speak.

[alkemical]

Like I said, trying to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke is what smokers and defenders of smokers try to do :)

Oh now i see - careful not to hold your head up too high - it's tough to see where you are walking - and of course i wouldn't want you to get a cramp in your neck....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Oh now i see - careful not to hold your head up too high - it's tough to see where you are walking - and of course i wouldn't want you to get a cramp in your neck....You must be a smoker :) but what I said isn't conceited or untrue, just the way it is (for most tobacco users).

[Spider]

Surgeon Genral has issused this precaution .............Sitting on your ass and keeping your mouth shut is the best way to prevent aids .................and the first sign of aids is a severe pounding pain in the ass area ...........

[alkemical]

You must be a smoker :) but what I said isn't conceited or untrue, just the way it is (for most tobacco users).


Just wait, the state will come for your vice(s).

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just wait, the state will come for your vice(s).They have been for many years.

Smokers are a net benefit to the public coffers, so to speak.Are they? I don't know all the numbers but here are some of them...

----------------------------------------------------
The high cost of smoking

These days, smoking can even cost you your job, not to mention the expense of cigarettes, dry cleaning and insurance. But a 40-year-old pack-a-day smoker who quits and puts the savings into a 401(k) earning 9% a year will have $250,000 by age 70.

By Hilary Smith

If the threat of cancer can't convince you to quit smoking, maybe the prospect of poverty will.

The financial consequences of lighting up stretch far beyond the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Smokers pay more for insurance and lose money on the resale value of their cars and homes. They spend extra on dry cleaning and teeth cleaning. Long term, they earn less and receive less in pension and Social Security benefits. And now, being a smoker can not only mean you don't get hired -- you can get fired, too: Weyco Inc., a medical benefits administrator in Okemos, Mich., after announcing it would no longer employ smokers, fired four employees who refused to submit to a breath test.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) National Workrights Institute estimates that more than 6,000 companies refuse to hire smokers. A few examples:

* Kalamazoo Valley Community College in Michigan stopped hiring smokers for full-time positions at both its Michigan campuses;
* Alaska Airlines, based in Washington State, requires a nicotine test before hiring people;
* The Tacoma-Pierce County (Wash.) Health Department has applicants sign an "affidavit of nontobacco use;"
* Union Pacific won’t hire smokers.

The costs don’t stop with your paycheck. New CDC figures assert that smokers cost the economy nearly $94 billion yearly in lost productivity. An additional $89 billion is estimated spent on public and private healthcare combined. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Taxpayers says each American household spends $596 a year in federal and state taxes due to smoking.

Some of these numbers are disputed, however, by the Bureau of National Affairs which says 95% of companies banning smoking report no financial savings and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which finds no connection between smoking and absenteeism.
CONT (http://tinyurl.com/3leo8)

------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs, including health care, more than $167 billion yearly (http://tinyurl.com/ydrksr)
Dateline: July 2005

While fewer Americans light up every day, smoking-related deaths still costs the nation about $92 billion a year in the form of lost productivity, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data, covering the years 1997-2001, represented a $10 billion increase in productivity losses during the years 1995-1999.

The new lost productivity estimate when combined with smoking-related health care costs, which was reported at $75.5 billion in 1998, exceeds $167 billion per year in the United States.

The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. In comparison, approximately 440,000 smoking-related deaths were estimated to have occurred annually from 1995-1999.

“Cigarette smoking continues to impose substantial health and financial costs on individuals and society,” said CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding in a press release. "We’ve made good progress in reducing the number of people who smoke, but we have much more work to do. If we want to significantly reduce the toll in this decade, we must provide the 32 million smokers who say they want to quit with the tools and support to do so successfully.”

This latest study updates the number of deaths due to smoking during 1997-2001, specifically updating the 1995-1999 average estimates previously released. It also reports productivity losses from deaths and finds that smoking causes 3.3 million years of potential life lost for men and 2.2 million years for women. Smoking, on average, reduces adult life expectancy by approximately 14 years.

“Despite the slow steady declines in prevalence in the United States, cigarette smoking still causes hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths each year," said Dr. Corinne Husten, acting director, CDC Office on Smoking and Health. “It’s in everyone’s best interest to prevent and reduce tobacco use. People will have longer, healthier lives, and there will be fewer smoking-related costs."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here's the ALA's state grades if anyone's interested.

-------------------------------------------

Tobacco Control Laws in Your State
Choose a state below to view state grades, or view
National Grades (http://lungaction.org/reports/national06.html) to see how the federal government performed. <form name="USMAP" action="reportcard06.tcl"></form>http://img.getactivehub.com/gv2/custom_images/reports/sotc06_map.gif

http://lungaction.org/reports/tobacco-control06.html

[Spider]

grades .......... passing out grades ........
here is spiders grades .............
Bítching and moaning A+ to the pussys that want to legislate our lives
Squimish double talking bastards - Again A+
damn hippies that want to run our lives = A but these bastards are gaining ground fast
........... How is that for grading

[Hogan11]

And, after three pages of drviel...the fact remains that it is an uninforcable law. Any law that cannot be enforced is a waste of time, money and resources....but if spitting into the wind makes you feel good, then go ahead and celebrate it. The fact remains that the best this law can hope for enforcement wise is to be on par with the no cell phone use in the car law....meaning this law changes absolutely nothing, period.

[W*GS]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/857476.html

[Hogan11]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/857476.html

A spot on article. I'd like to call this *(the real)truth.com

[Garcia Bronco]

Why does there have to be a law for this? Parents shouldn't smoke in the car anyway.

[Hogan11]

Why does there have to be a law for this? Parents shouldn't smoke in the car anyway.

Because we gotta protect the children!! Ha!

[RMT]

You know Slug for the first time in the history of the war forum you may have changed an opinion of mine. Maybe we do need laws to protect kids from their "idiot" parents like this. hmmm

I think it's a bad trend for our country but maybe it is the reality of what is going on. It use to be parents would take care of their kids. It was just a given. Now you have talk shows about people bragging that they put food on the table, buy diapers etc. As if that is something to be proud of.

It kinda goes along with my thread a few weeks ago about people having kids and not being able to take care of them/complaining about them.

You hit the nail on the head - parents don't seem to be as involved in their chidlren's lives anymore. Of course, it takes the incomes of both parents to raise a family. Americans work longer hours than any other industrialized nation ... and who suffers? The kids.

[RunByDesign]

Smokers are a net benefit to the public coffers, so to speak.

Gee, I'd really like to see your financial figures that account for all the healthcare costs and associated missed days of work, to explain your 'net benefit.' :rofl:

[RunByDesign]

Oh wait a sec, I guess 'Slug already gave a rough breakdown of your 'net benefit.' http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1438265&postcount=73

If you have some figures that would counter this 183 Billion dollar pitfall, by all means....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why does there have to be a law for this? Parents shouldn't smoke in the car anyway.But they do, hence the stupid laws for stupid people.

[W*GS]

Gee, I'd really like to see your financial figures that account for all the healthcare costs and associated missed days of work, to explain your 'net benefit.'

See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1438425&postcount=77

[W*GS]

But they do, hence the stupid laws for stupid people.

What's worse? Stupid people or stupid laws? The latter, by several orders of magnitude.

[Meck77]

Well people shouldn't drink and drive with their kids in their car but they do. Isn't it a bigger crime if you have a kid in the car?

Heck I was just watching TVlast night and there seems to be a trend of people putting their kids in microwaves/ovens/freezers to get rid of them. Unbelievable.

It won't be long before we need a law that says don't put your kids in appliances .

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What's worse? Stupid people or stupid laws? The latter, by several orders of magnitude.That depends on which end of either you're on, by several orders of magnitude. Most people don't have to worry about being on the wrong end of stupid laws.

[gunns]

Sure you can. Outlawing smoking around other people is already working in helping people who are addicted kick the habit. The numbers don't lie, since the push to keep smoke out of public places started millions have quit, making our air that much cleaner and safer.

As far as your analogy of they will still smoke in children's presence in private, some will and some will become educated and or ashamed by their dumb actions and won't, that's their space, but in public, it's everybody's space.

I sincerely doubt that the fact you cannot smoke in certain places was a catalyst for people to stop smoking. If the chance of cancer wouldn't do I can guarantee that legislation was not the reason. The majority of smokers want to quit and from what I've heard the legislation just made them want to continue, to prove some point. In certain age groups it is in fact increasing. But those that did quit were on that road DESPITE the legislation.

Most will continue to smoke in their children's presence, there are few in this world that aren't educated to smokings damning virtues and they may feel ashamed but they are addicted. I haven't disputed the fact that it's everybody's space, only the continued intervention of the government in parents lives.

[W*GS]

Most people don't have to worry about being on the wrong end of stupid laws.

Think again - stupid laws effect everyone, and reduce the respect for law generally.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I sincerely doubt that the fact you cannot smoke in certain places was a catalyst for people to stop smoking. If the chance of cancer wouldn't do I can guarantee that legislation was not the reason. The majority of smokers want to quit and from what I've heard the legislation just made them want to continue, to prove some point. In certain age groups it is in fact increasing. But those that did quit were on that road DESPITE the legislation.

Most will continue to smoke in their children's presence, there are few in this world that aren't educated to smokings damning virtues and they may feel ashamed but they are addicted. I haven't disputed the fact that it's everybody's space, only the continued intervention of the government in parents lives.
There's no doubt restricting smoking in public places has greatly added to the quit smoking numbers, along with higher taxes, etc... And peer pressure is a b*tch sometimes.

Would anyone think we shouldn't have laws against physically assaulting children? Smoking in the presence of children is exactly that.

[W*GS]

Would anyone think we shouldn't have laws against physically assaulting children? Smoking in the presence of children is exactly that.

Have you seen how fat kids are these days? What about laws against feeding your kids junk food?

[alkemical]

Yeah but i'm a smoker who doesn't smoke in the presence of children - and i'm often very polite about it.

Why is it that non-smokers are more militant about trying to save me. It's like some f'ing missionary telling me i'm going to hell.....

[Hogan11]

It won't be long before we need a law that says don't put your kids in appliances .

We gotta protect the children!!

Hey, wait a minute...you mean I can't cram that little bastige into the microwave anymore? That's going to Gaddamn far!!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah but i'm a smoker who doesn't smoke in the presence of children - and i'm often very polite about it.

Why is it that non-smokers are more militant about trying to save me. It's like some f'ing missionary telling me i'm going to hell.....
I don't think most people care what you do to yourself as long as it doesn't involve other people or their money.

[alkemical]

I don't think most people care what you do to yourself as long as it doesn't involve other people or their money.

It doesn't for my instance. Therefore i'm still subjected to the candy-assed whinings of those of you whom prefer the carress of big brother. I hope the soft nipples of the state taste good to those of you who wish to feed from this poisen.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It doesn't for my instance. Therefore i'm still subjected to the candy-assed whinings of those of you whom prefer the carress of big brother. I hope the soft nipples of the state taste good to those of you who wish to feed from this poisen.
Life is what it is. If you want to live in an ordered society you have to resign yourself to all facets of that life including the fact that the more people in that society the more people there are that need to be controlled by laws. There are countries that aren't as "civilized" as ours and others so you have options.

[alkemical]

Life is what it is. If you want to live in an ordered society you have to resign yourself to all facets of that life including the fact that the more people in that society the more people there are that need to be controlled by laws. There are countries that aren't as "civilized" as ours and others so you have options.



So i have to CONFORM to society because i choose something that is distasteful to others? Why do you want to live in a totalitarian society? What happened to "land of the free"?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So i have to CONFORM to society because i choose something that is distasteful to others? Why do you want to live in a totalitarian society? What happened to "land of the free"?Who said so? I'm just telling you the way it is, the current world we live in. The more people there are (concentrated areas of people), the more laws needed to control them. I'm not championing that fact, just stating it.

If you think it's just our country that is doing this research the other populous, civilized countries and check out their laws. Now, if you don't want to live in one of these "civilized" countries, there are other countries, far less populated with far less laws, that was my point about other options.

[alkemical]

Who said so? I'm just telling you the way it is, the current world we live in. The more people there are (concentrated areas of people), the more laws needed to control them. I'm not championing that fact, just stating it.

If you think it's just our country that is doing this research the other populous, civilized countries and check out their laws. Now, if you don't want to live in one of these "civilized" countries, there are other countries, far less populated with far less laws, that was my point about other options.



See i disagree - it's a choice and people make that choice to either be self-reliant and sufficient and civilized - or less human-than human.

[W*GS]

If you want to live in an ordered society you have to resign yourself to all facets of that life including the fact that the more people in that society the more people there are that need to be controlled by laws.

Just how much are people "controlled by laws"?

[RunByDesign]

Thanks for supplying some figures to counter those in question, W*GS.

On a side note, I can't believe that people are actually b****ing about their so-called 'right' to pollute the airspace of a fellow citizen and in a sense, one without their own say in the matter. Children are generally under the control of whatever adult is 'caring' for them (if that's what you'd call a hotboxed -all windows rolled up in the car-smokers case..)

It speaks to the selfish nature of people in general.

'It's my right to subject my children to second-hand cigarette smoke if I want to.'

That's a laughable disposition and without a doubt, a selfish one. But we all understand, nicotine is the World's most addictive drug, after all. Hilarious!

[alkemical]

Explain to me how "I", claviculasolomonis - by smoking outside, away from people effects "you".

[W*GS]

On a side note, I can't believe that people are actually b****ing about their so-called 'right' to pollute the airspace of a fellow citizen and in a sense, one without their own say in the matter.

Why limit this nonconsensual exposure to risk to just cigarette smoke?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why limit this nonconsensual exposure to risk to just cigarette smoke?This one is defined and documented.

[alkemical]

This one is defined and documented.

That's only because big oil and big auto won't tell you how much harm you get from their products.

[RunByDesign]

Explain to me how "I", claviculasolomonis - by smoking outside, away from people effects "you".

I certainly don't have issue with this scenario at all. In fact, I think the effect is negligible.

What I do take issue with (and this is why I support the measure,) is when adults are smoking in an enclosed area in the presence of a child, essentially sharing the same (and often confined,) airspace.

In this scenario (especially in a car,) you may as well (not you, but the responsible party,) just give the child a cancer stick and tell them to puff away.

Entertaining the thought of public areas in general, however, I must tell you that I personally would be more inclined to visit nightclubs and such, if smoking were banned altogether.

[RunByDesign]

Why limit this nonconsensual exposure to risk to just cigarette smoke?

Being that the subject certainly evokes broader questions of government intervention, I suppose that would require it's own thread topic. But in hopes of mainting a certain degree of rationality, I think that you would have to take each instance of goverment overstepping it's bounds - for what's it's worth.

The way I see it is: if you're doing something harmful that only affects you, it should probably be considered your right, in a sense. When that harmful act affects others, and juveniles specifically, maybe those who don't know any better, or don't have the ability to remove themselves from the harmful circumstance willingly or knowingly, ought to be afforded a little consideration for their own good.

The science would certainly suggest that it would be appropriate. Whether or not it is a right to actually cause harm to a person because they are in one's custody is debateable to some, but to me it is absurd.

I suppose we ought to define 'right' and determine a baseline standard and figure out where and when a person's 'right' ends and moral resonsibility begins, in regards to your query.

[maven]

This thread is entertaining. 108, soon to be 109 posts about a town with 31 thousand plus residents.

[W*GS]

When that harmful act affects others, and juveniles specifically, maybe those who don't know any better, or don't have the ability to remove themselves from the harmful circumstance willingly or knowingly, ought to be afforded a little consideration for their own good.

What needs to be shown is that a given act is significantly harmful to others, that those others did not consent to the risk of harm, that State restrictions upon that act are enforceable and reasonable, and that the intercession of the State is less harm to our rights than the original harm.

"Protect the children!" as a metric is lousy.

[alkemical]

I certainly don't have issue with this scenario at all. In fact, I think the effect is negligible.

What I do take issue with (and this is why I support the measure,) is when adults are smoking in an enclosed area in the presence of a child, essentially sharing the same (and often confined,) airspace.

In this scenario (especially in a car,) you may as well (not you, but the responsible party,) just give the child a cancer stick and tell them to puff away.

Entertaining the thought of public areas in general, however, I must tell you that I personally would be more inclined to visit nightclubs and such, if smoking were banned altogether.



Then why not open NON-smoking establishments, or allow a place of business to react to the market - instead of FORCING business to be done this way?

[spdirty]

next will be no smoking in your house if you have children.

[Hogan11]

"Protect the children!" as a metric is lousy.

and someday it'll be exposed for what it truly is...but by that time, the Safetyocracy will be firmly inplace. "For Thy Own Good" will be the new national motto.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

and someday it'll be exposed for what it truly is...but by that time, the Safetyocracy will be firmly inplace. "For Thy Own Good" will be the new national motto. It's not some big brother act. It's child abuse plain and simple, there is absolutely no defense for allowing it to happen, NONE!

[alkemical]

It's not some big brother act. It's child abuse plain and simple, there is absolutely no defense for allowing it to happen, NONE!

I know. We should ban all cars from driving down the street. Emissions may seep into the windows and cause cancer!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I know. We should ban all cars from driving down the street. Emissions may seep into the windows and cause cancer!That comparison isn't applicable. But getting away from polluting autos ASAP is good for all humans.

Trying to justify exposing children to smelly, nasty, dangerous vices doesn't wash in any sane person's world.

[alkemical]

That comparison isn't applicable. But getting away from polluting autos ASAP is good for all humans.

Trying to justify exposing children to smelly, nasty, dangerous vices doesn't wash in any sane person's world.

Well then i'll switch to chew and just spit everywhere.

That should appease you ****ers.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well then i'll switch to chew and just spit everywhere.

That should appease you ****ers.
Maybe you "****ers" ought to just move out :)

[alkemical]

Maybe you "****ers" ought to just move out :)



No i'm not the one dictating what to do with everyone's life. But then of course you do like totalitarian gov'ts - so keep destorying america. Eventually you will get your nat'l healthcare and everything else.

You unamerican POS. **** off.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No i'm not the one dictating what to do with everyone's life. But then of course you do like totalitarian gov'ts - so keep destorying america. Eventually you will get your nat'l healthcare and everything else.

You unamerican POS. **** off.
Ah, you start with the name calling, get a little back in return and can't handle it. Shows your true colors I guess.

[BRNCOS1]

next will be no smoking in your house if you have children.

I would vote for that.

The fact is cigarrettes should be outlawed altogether.

Do you honestly believe that if a company came up with a product that did to you, what smoking does to you and others, the government would, or should, allow it?

The reality is there are people out there too stupid to protect themselves and thier children. I suppose all traffic laws are too much govt. oversight as well. We should all be allowed to go as fast as we want, wherever we want.

[W*GS]

I would vote for that.

Do us all a favor and go back to the womb.

[BRNCOS1]

Do us all a favor and go back to the womb.

Wow, that is really intelligent.

The guy has 33 posts so he must not know what he's talking about.:notworthy

So you feel cigarrettes are perfectly safe.

[W*GS]

Wow, that is really intelligent.

More intelligent than your comments. Really, someone so dependent on the State really should go back to some place very safe, warm, and limited.

So you feel cigarrettes are perfectly safe.

You feel State control is perfectly safe. The dead giveaway was the use of "allow".

[alkemical]

Ah, you start with the name calling, get a little back in return and can't handle it. Shows your true colors I guess.



Nah, your true colours showed when you want to dictate how others live. So as long as you are human, and you make f'd up choices - get the F off my back.

It is unamerican your behavior and it a good example of why and how things get so F'd up in this country. If I, ME, CLAVICULA is not effecting you, or causing an affect upon you - leave me the **** alone. Got it?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nah, your true colours showed when you want to dictate how others live. So as long as you are human, and you make f'd up choices - get the F off my back.

It is unamerican your behavior and it a good example of why and how things get so F'd up in this country. If I, ME, CLAVICULA is not effecting you, or causing an affect upon you - leave me the **** alone. Got it?
I could care less what you do to your paranoid self, you're not that important, get it?

[alkemical]

I could care less what you do to your paranoid self, you're not that important, get it?



Sure i am, if you support laws that effect people like me - it's important enough for you to stick your nose in it, isn't it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Sure i am, if you support laws that effect people like me - it's important enough for you to stick your nose in it, isn't it.

Sorry, you're not, nor am I and you yourself said this law wouldn't affect you since you weren't stupid enough to expose children to your habit.

[Hogan11]

The law isn't going to affect anyone because it's unenforceable, period.

Truth.com may claim it as some sort of victory, but really this has been just a waste of time and taxpayer money. It'll end up ignored and forgotton.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The law isn't going to affect anyone because it's unenforceable, period.

Truth.com may claim it as some sort of victory, but really this has been just a waste of time and taxpayer money. It'll end up ignored and forgotton.I don't think so. It gives police the right to stop and ticket anyone exposing children to tobacco smoke in their vehicles and I'm sure that will happen a few times. The best thing it does is make people aware of the fact that making children eat smoke isn't too bright.

[Hogan11]

I don't think so. It gives police the right to stop and ticket anyone exposing children to tobacco smoke in their vehicles and I'm sure that will happen a few times. The best thing it does is make people aware of the fact that making children eat smoke isn't too bright.

What you're going to see is it be totally ignored...like most seat belt laws and the no hand held cell phones while driving laws. The only time they're enforced at all is at DWI checkpoints. Awareness? That's just like a momentary thing to the nonsupporter....once they see that it's not actively enforced (and how could it be?) any "awareness" will fall by the wayside in a hurry.

[alkemical]

Sorry, you're not, nor am I and you yourself said this law wouldn't affect you since you weren't stupid enough to expose children to your habit.

Ahh but first it's in a car with children, then it's in your home with children - then it's just in your car, then it's just in your home (sans children).

I know how gov't works. Soon i'll be taxed (punished) for every "transaction" i make.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ahh but first it's in a car with children, then it's in your home with children - then it's just in your car, then it's just in your home (sans children).

I know how gov't works. Soon i'll be taxed (punished) for every "transaction" i make.You're all over the map with your fears of living in an USSR state. And what happened to your insults and profanity for added emphasis on your posts?

[alkemical]

You're all over the map with your fears of living in an USSR state. And what happened to your insults and profanity for added emphasis on your posts?



Would you like them included?


I'm not all over the map - the state gets the ball rolling on the slope - it's for the children today - then tomorrow it's for "you". Just let me kill myself and be done with it bastard!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Would you like them included?


Works about as well as the rest of your paranoia
& schizophrenia filled ranting.

[alkemical]

Works about as well as the rest of your paranoia
& schizophrenia filled ranting.



Well i'm not schizophrenic - so of course you are off base there - Some paranioa is healthy - i mean i wouldn't want to believe the gov't is in my best interest all of the time. I guess that's where you and i differ.

But then i guess you could always report me to my place of business and maybe a newspaper or two to have someone keep an eye on me, eh?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well i'm not schizophrenic - so of course you are off base there - Some paranioa is healthy - i mean i wouldn't want to believe the gov't is in my best interest all of the time. I guess that's where you and i differ.Your posts suggest otherwise.

But then i guess you could always report me to my place of business and maybe a newspaper or two to have someone keep an eye on me, eh?
I already told you not important enough to care about.

[alkemical]

Your posts suggest otherwise.

I already told you not important enough to care about.



Sorry charlie - they don't. Of course now you are just slandering me, which is nothing different than Yavoon does. So unless you are a PHD, and are a psych by trade - and have done clinical evaluations - i guess your "evaluation" has just as much merit as well - nothing.

I probably could have merit to Sue you with the E-annoyance act. I'm getting itchy to tries this legislation out. I'm not sayin, i'm just sayin..... Also by that legislation, if you wish to continue to slander me - I need to know your personal identification (name, address, etc) - and you have to make it avail to public record - Or i can to to the site admins, and get any personal info turned over to me - and then go to your ISP and get your info via your billing information - Take your pick.

[Spider]

unless you are a PHD, and are a psych by trade - and have done clinical evaluations - i guess your "evaluation" has just as much merit as well.

i did stay in a holiday inn express if that helps ;D

[alkemical]

i did stay in a holiday inn express if that helps ;D


LOL Spider - it may - it's more training than beerslug has had.

[Spider]

LOL Spider - it may - it's more training than beerslug has had.

not to mention Iam a damn good dancer ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Sorry charlie - they don't. Of course now you are just slandering me, which is nothing different than Yavoon does. So unless you are a PHD, and are a psych by trade - and have done clinical evaluations - i guess your "evaluation" has just as much merit as well - nothing.

I probably could have merit to Sue you with the E-annoyance act. I'm getting itchy to tries this legislation out. I'm not sayin, i'm just sayin..... Also by that legislation, if you wish to continue to slander me - I need to know your personal identification (name, address, etc) - and you have to make it avail to public record - Or i can to to the site admins, and get any personal info turned over to me - and then go to your ISP and get your info via your billing information - Take your pick.
LOL You're a funny guy. You lose your cool, fly off the handle in profanity laced tirades and then take offense when you get called on it. Maybe you need to look up definitions for slander, schizophrenic and hypocrite?

Like I said, it shows your true colors though ames. Probably nothing you can do about it, just the way you are.

[alkemical]

LOL You're a funny guy. You lose your cool, fly off the handle in profanity laced tirades and then take offense when you get called on it. Maybe you need to look up definitions for slander, schizophrenic and hypocrite?

Like I said, it shows your true colors though ames. Probably nothing you can do about it, just the way you are.



*Cough*

It's illegal to annoy -A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."


___


So how about giving me your personal information. If you wish to continue this - i need your info. or you'd be in direct violation of the law. Which means i'm also entitled to civil action included in this as well. Since what happened to Tensi - i'm more than obligated to ask for complience in order to protect myself from people that may ruin my life. Since after all you support the laws that govern people from hurting others, i'm sure you'll comply.

Thanks,

[Spider]

you guys think you have it bad , I just found out I wear dresses and like comic books , what will I tell the children ?

[Crushaholic]

You're all over the map with your fears of living in an USSR state.

Josh's fears of intrusive laws "for the children" actually has more merit than your insistence that Bush actually cares about listening in on your daily conversations...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

*Cough*

It's illegal to annoy -A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
___

So how about giving me your personal information. If you wish to continue this - i need your info. or you'd be in direct violation of the law. Which means i'm also entitled to civil action included in this as well. Since what happened to Tensi - i'm more than obligated to ask for complience in order to protect myself from people that may ruin my life. Since after all you support the laws that govern people from hurting others, i'm sure you'll comply.

Thanks,
LOL
What happened to Tensi, did he open his mouth and get called on it?

Maybe you better sue the website owner to get the information you need for remedy for your personal injury?

But wait, didn't you "annoy" me first? :welcome:

[alkemical]

LOL
What happened to Tensi, did he open his mouth and get called on it?

Maybe you better sue the website owner to get the information you need for remedy for your personal injury?

But wait, didn't you "annoy" me first? :welcome:



Nope - I called you unamerican - by comparision to your views of wanting a totalitarian state - you need to support this legislation. I'm asking you for your information first. Provide me with your name, address - job - etc.

I'm just using new legislation to protect myself from people that will stop at nothing to destroy someone's life. So until you provide me with that information - you need to rescind/strike your comments from this board - or make an apology.

Hey i'm only following the laws of the land Beerslug, you know to punish the stupid ones that can't be productive members of society.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nope - I called you unamerican - by comparision to your views of wanting a totalitarian state - you need to support this legislation. You lost your cool so bad you can't even remember what you said, and it wasn't confined to "unamerican" though I'm sure you feel pretty foolish for "annoying" me now. :welcome:

[alkemical]

You lost your cool so bad you can't even remember what you said, and it wasn't confined to "unamerican" though I'm sure you feel pretty foolish for "annoying" me now. :welcome:

Nope, just showing you that laws are dumb. Yet - while i don't support being told what to do and how to behave, you do support that - but don't want to abide by the laws you feel would be necessary.

So all in all - you are really no different than any one you chastise.

Have a good day, don't trip over your ego on the way out. Hilarious!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nope, just showing you that laws are dumb. Yet - while i don't support being told what to do and how to behave, you do support that - but don't want to abide by the laws you feel would be necessary.
Apparently you didn't read the first post where I stated the law is stupid, stupid law for stupid people.


So all in all - you are really no different than any one you chastise. Have a good day, don't trip over your ego on the way out. Hilarious!Oh be a man ames and admit your little juvenile tantrum got the best of you because of poor reading comprehension.

http://www.danasoft.com/sig/DS1a.jpg

[alkemical]

Apparently you didn't read the first post where I stated the law is stupid, stupid law for stupid people.

Oh be a man ames and admit your little juvenile tantrum got the best of you because of poor reading comprehension.

http://www.danasoft.com/sig/DS1a.jpg



I can't admit to what i didn't do. *Inhales deeply on cig* - *Exhales in face of BB*

[W*GS]

Apparently you didn't read the first post where I stated the law is stupid, stupid law for stupid people.

Unfortunately, stupid laws affect everyone, not just the stupid ones.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Unfortunately, stupid laws affect everyone, not just the stupid ones.I realize that (that some may to some degree) and don't champion them but do see a need for some of them.

[loborugger]

I havent weighed in on this thread. I see its drawn quite a load of comments.

I am on the side of fewer laws and more freedom. So, normally, it would be that I would be against this kinda law.

However, I lived this first hand. My father smoked any and everywhere. In the car, at the house, first thing in the morning, etc. The whole family would have to sit at the smoking section of the restaurant because he wanted to - the rest us were pleading for fresh air.

In short, he was gonna smoke, and the rest of us be damned. And now I have breathing problems. They stem from being exposed to a 2 pack a day smoker for the first 17 years of my life. I have always had seasonal allergies, but they were far worse when I lived in their house. I also had far more respiratory illnesses as a kid then on my own. Granted, kids tend to be sick, but I cant help but wonder.

As a child, you cant tell mom/dad to shove off, put it out, or leave when they do. It would be nice if smokers (a few do) had the courtesy to not light up while the rest of us are trying to breath. However, they don't. And a child's lungs are still forming. They deserve the right to develop healthy normal lungs - and then decide to destroy them on their own.

It might be a silly and hard to enforce law. Further, with the state of society, it doesnt seem overly important to stop 2nd hand smoke while drive by shooters are passing down the road in smoke free cars. Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction that requires people to at least think and maybe feel guilty before they light up in front of their 5 year old.

[Bronco Bob]

Here's an article about a kid who took it upon himself to get smoking banned
in cars in Connecticut:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/PersonOfWeek/story?id=2864236

>> When Justin Kvadas, of East Hartford, Conn., is not studying and playing video games, he's working to get a bill passed by his state legislature that would ban smoking in automobiles — to protect children from secondhand smoke.

"I came up with this idea one day when I was driving home from tae kwon do, and I was looking out the window and it just came to me — if you can't eat, drink or talk on a cell phone while driving, how come you can still smoke? It can be just as dangerous, or more dangerous," Kvadas said.

The fifth-grader said he wants to speak up for kids, who don't generally have a voice in society yet face greater health risks from cigarettes. Kvadas said if children are in an extremely smoky room for one hour they inhale the equivalent of smoking 10 cigarettes.

"Kids will inhale more of the chemicals and the smoke, because their breathing rate is faster than adults," he explained. <<

[cutthemdown]

Been to Bangor maine , nice place maine is , but ban smoking in a car with Kiddies ?
Bullshít law , most smokers I know crack a window , i dont smoke wife does , she cracks a window , I dont get a scent or a wif of smoke .............
Kids in general are more dangerous then smoking , mainly boys .........
a while back talking to wife on the phone , I hear oh shít I will call you back , cody is doing somthing ............5 minutes later she calls , it seems my son got the idea that removing the wheels off of a skateboard , and trying to use the board to go down the basement steps is a fun activity .... alot worse then smoking in a car , then there was that time he tried to snowboard off the roof of the house onto the garage ...............

You should send your scientific report on how cracking a window completely protects kids from second hand smoke in a car. I'm sure they will be astounded at how a trucker from the sticks has come up with this great way to measure the toxicity. HEY I JUST SEE IF I CAN CATCH A WIFF YA KNOW? Obviously this stupid law is because stupid people like your wife smoke around your kids in the car. Not to mention how stupid it is to compare kids propensity for doing stupid things and getting injured to second hand smoke laws designed to protect kids who are forced to be around parents who smoke. You might want to try and do more then just bash the president like reading a book that makes you slightly more intelligent.

[cutthemdown]

They should also make drive thrus illegal. I mean we have a problem with the emmisions that come from cars and trucks. Seems like saying no more sitting in cars going through drive throughs would be one small thing we could do to reduce that. I've never read anything on how much co2 that would eliminate from usa but it could be worth it to just park the car and walk in.

[Bronco Bob]

They should also make drive thrus illegal. I mean we have a problem with the emmisions that come from cars and trucks. Seems like saying no more sitting in cars going through drive throughs would be one small thing we could do to reduce that. I've never read anything on how much co2 that would eliminate from usa but it could be worth it to just park the car and walk in.

Or people could do like me, cook their own food, instead of eating that
grease laden crap from the fast food joints.

[cutthemdown]

Or people could do like me, cook their own food, instead of eating that
grease laden crap from the fast food joints.

the country is fat so it would help that maybe also. Maybe we wont stop so often at fast food if it's not so easy. Normally I would never say I would support something like this, but if the Earth really can't take the greenhouse gases anymore lets look for things that would be easy to do and get started. No drive thrus to me is a no brainer. True the restaraunt lobby would fight tooth and nail but maybe some tax breaks or something could make it happen.

[Spider]

You should send your scientific report on how cracking a window completely protects kids from second hand smoke in a car. I'm sure they will be astounded at how a trucker from the sticks has come up with this great way to measure the toxicity. HEY I JUST SEE IF I CAN CATCH A WIFF YA KNOW? Obviously this stupid law is because stupid people like your wife smoke around your kids in the car. Not to mention how stupid it is to compare kids propensity for doing stupid things and getting injured to second hand smoke laws designed to protect kids who are forced to be around parents who smoke. You might want to try and do more then just bash the president like reading a book that makes you slightly more intelligent.

LOL you are so full of shít , good thing we are not face to face with you insulting my wife , but no proof at all second hand smoke in ventilated area is dangerous , so take your drama queen bullshít somewhere else .... perhaps someday we can meet up , and you will have the opportunity to put this trucker from the sticks strait .if you have the balls

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here's an article about a kid who took it upon himself to get smoking banned
in cars in Connecticut:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/PersonOfWeek/story?id=2864236

>> When Justin Kvadas, of East Hartford, Conn., is not studying and playing video games, he's working to get a bill passed by his state legislature that would ban smoking in automobiles — to protect children from secondhand smoke.

"I came up with this idea one day when I was driving home from tae kwon do, and I was looking out the window and it just came to me — if you can't eat, drink or talk on a cell phone while driving, how come you can still smoke? It can be just as dangerous, or more dangerous," Kvadas said.

The fifth-grader said he wants to speak up for kids, who don't generally have a voice in society yet face greater health risks from cigarettes. Kvadas said if children are in an extremely smoky room for one hour they inhale the equivalent of smoking 10 cigarettes.

"Kids will inhale more of the chemicals and the smoke, because their breathing rate is faster than adults," he explained. <<
Good for Justin! A fifth grader with more common sense than many adults.

[cutthemdown]

LOL you are so full of shít , good thing we are not face to face with you insulting my wife , but no proof at all second hand smoke in ventilated area is dangerous , so take your drama queen bullshít somewhere else .... perhaps someday we can meet up , and you will have the opportunity to put this trucker from the sticks strait .if you have the balls

Don't throw how your wife handles second hand smoke in a thread about it if you don't want it commented on. Oh is that a lil threat from the lil fella? Set you straight? You are too far gone into your little brain to even understand but it's still fun to try.

[Spider]

Don't throw how your wife handles second hand smoke in a thread about it if you don't want it commented on. Oh is that a lil threat from the lil fella? Set you straight? You are too far gone into your little brain to even understand but it's still fun to try.

Lets do it big guy ........... you can have all the fun you want ......... where are you ?