Calif. Bans Smoking in Cars With Kids

Calif. Bans Smoking in Cars With Kids
Published: 10/11/07, 9:45 AM EDT
By STEVE LAWRENCE

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.

The ban, which takes effect Jan. 1, joins a string of smoking prohibitions adopted in California, including a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and within 25 feet of a playground.

"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. "It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do."

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?bfromind=7814&eeid=5459655&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=ne

You know how we could make kids really extra-special safe? Let's just take them away from their families at birth and raise them in institutions as wards of the state. That way, the government can protect them from any and all dangers. Think of the lives that would be saved! :eyes:

That way they would never get sick or hurt.

And while we're at it... make sure that they have absolutely no human interaction. We don't want their FEELINGS hurt, either.

The logistics of it is probably all that keeps it from occurring. We'll probably have a pill for that though.

I am so glad they are doing this. I still remember going on trips with both my parents smoking and literally feeling like I couldn't even breathe.

I would beg and beg to open a window. Both my parents smoked in the car. Just thinking about it makes my throat sort of clench.

They would finally relent and let me open the back window an inch and i'd be there with my little nose stuck out that sliver of fresh air. Which of course meant not wearing a seatbelt when I think about it. This was back in the 60's...

so Grandma would stay warm on the way to her chemo appointment.

Not in the winter.

"What are you doing opening that window? It's freezing out there!"

:eyes:

I'm sure I have a permanent loss of lung capacity from that. I don't blame my folks; they didn't know better- and I tend to err on the side of individual freedom where laws are concerned- but frankly I think awareness around this is a good and long overdue thing.

I still remember my eyes burning and having trouble breathing. And rolling the window down in the winter was out of the question, because they didn't want to be cold.

I'm glad California is taking the lead on this and I wish more states would follow.

I don't feel it should be up to the gov't to force us to act like adults...period!! AND I resent it to hell and back...Every liberty they take, no matter what the premise is...is still a liberty or choice gone...wake up people...this IS bullshit!! what happens when they start telling you what you can do in your own home...??? will that be ok too???? Where and WHEN does or should their authority stop?????wb

by smoking while they're in the car with them.

we wouldn't have a Republican Party :P

at high speed.

what you gonna do when they come for you...Cops...Smokers on the Run!

:rofl:

No Fear.

I grew up with my mom always smoking in the car. When I was 12, I went to a gymnastics class and the coach asked if me if smoked. I never knew that I smelled just as much like smoke as my mom. I don't want a nanny state either, but I have to say I was really embarrassed by that incident. Shortly after, I nagged my mom until she stopped smoking in the car. There is that besides the health aspect.

I grew up with a smoking Mom and a very small Pinto hatchback. The worst were the 5 hour long drives to Lake Tahoe in the fall and winter months. She would be smoking the entire way and I would be begging her to crack the window or at least open a vent -- she would not do it because it was too cold outside. Smoke made me SICK. I hated it so much. Those trips were torture for me.

If one kid gets to be/smell smoke-free because of this law, I would be happy.

I completely understand. I guess people don't realize that their kids smell like an ashtray when they're exposed in a small space. Honestly, I don't think my mom ever thought about it, whether or not it was a good thing to do. Of course that was the 70's and my mom smoked when she was pregnant too.

it was back in the 60s and 70s, before awareness about second hand smoke. Due to a serious space shortage we shared a bedroom until I was 12. She would smoke at night and in the morning -- I would go to school smelling of smoke. :(

She finally quit around 20 years ago -- she had developed life-threatening asthma and had watched her own Mom die of smoking-related cancer. When she had finally gotten away from smoking, she realized just how bad being around a smoker was -- all the smell, the nausea, the nasal irritation.

I think you never realize just how bad it is until you get away from it.

Wanna bet? :eyes:

that makes me scream. I am sick of this sort of legislation.

As if there is no real crime to deal with, now we get to smack down the real elephant in the room, the guy who is smoking with his kid in the car.

It's bad for their health and developing lungs --and it is NOT necessary by any means.

You want to smoke, fine, keep the smoke away from your kids. Doing otherwise means you're ignorant or don't care about harming your kids with smoke.

There seem to be an awful lot of "If we CATCH you" laws being written lately.

I guess rolling down the window isn't an option...

Of course, in LA, you'd probably be better off in a car full of filtered air with a smoker than with the windows open....

:)

:crazy:

Meanwhile, grannies who smoke pot for chemo in the privacy of their own homes or medical marijuana clubs are hauled off to PRISON.

Yes, the poor oppressed cigarette smokers, not able to smoke in EVERY SINGLE PLACE they want to... and if they do, they might -might, mind you- get a TICKET! That, and the guy at Circuit City wanted to check my reciept when I left the store! Fascism! Big Brother, Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan! :eyes:

Beyond that, I'm torn on this- on one hand, I tend to err on the side of individual freedom. OTOH, I was one of those kids who was stuck in a car full of cigarette smoke throughout his childhood, and it sucked. There are serious, legitimate health issues associated with exposing your kids to that crap in a small enclosed space. Maybe I wouldn't make it illegal, but I certainly think anyone who does it is a self-centered asshole and a shitty parent. At least now, when people should know better- back in the day of my folks, people were pretty clueless.

move on

not being allowed to smoke in ANY place we want to, including OUR OWN HOMES and OUR OWN CARS!!!

Re Yes, the poor oppressed cigarette smokers, not able to smoke in EVERY SINGLE PLACE they want to... and if they do, they might -might, mind you- get a TICKET!

I almost never post on any of these DU smoking threads because they always turn into flame wars, but that is just damn too much! I have totally HAD IT with you smoking Nazis and I hope one of these days you go too far and generate a major backlash.

"Give 'em an inch and they take a mile" indeed. For years it's been one damn restriction after another in public spaces (which is understandable) but now you want to tell people they can't smoke in PRIVATE spaces (if they are rented spaces anyway) or that they can't smoke OUTDOORS, including within 25 feet of a playground?

Nope, that's where I draw the line. I don't give a damn how "afflicted" you are by secondhand smoke outdoors and I don't want to hear about it. The hell with you...you aren't afflicted and you aren't suffering. You are OFFENDED, and that's not the same thing!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2020234&mesg_id=2021953

Beyond that, you don't understand why anyone might not want you lighting up within 25 feet of a playground? I live in a town where smoking is banned at all city playgrounds, and despite that, invariably every other week I'm at one with my kid and someone is lighting up right at the bottom of the play structure. And blowing that shit all over the kids. Now, these are generally playgrounds where there is a much larger green open park area around.. so really it would be very little skin off these folks' noses to take a walk away from where all the two and three year olds are playing.

Usually, I let it slide. Even though it's against the law, even though it's disgusting. If my kid starts to cough, (that's my child, just being offended.. right?) sometimes we'll even leave, ourselves. After all, what is a public playground for, if not self-centered adults who want to smoke? :eyes: Every once in a while, though, I or my wife will say something. At which point- surprise- invariably these people aren't even parents. It's not like they're sitting there keeping an eye on their kid while they blast everyone else's kids with cigarette smoke. They're just clueless assholes who like the bench.

That said, aside from playgrounds... outdoors, in your car, in your apartment, in your house.. I could give a shit. Smoke the whole fucking pack. Knock yourself out.

Re Now, these are generally playgrounds where there is a much larger green open park area around.. so really it would be very little skin off these folks' noses to take a walk away from where all the two and three year olds are playing.

But some people are just rude and inconsiderate. Of course, pretty soon the anti-smoking ordinances will extend to those "green open park areas" you talked about as well, as I'm sure they do in many places. Then you snoking Nazis will all applaud because NOW you can sit on any park bench in the entire park and not have to be bothered with anyone's secondhand smoke.

And when the smokers complain about not having even ONE park bench, you'll say, "Oh, the poor oppressed smokers! Can't light up EVERYWHERE they want to!" So again...go to hell!

indoor, enclosed public places are legitimate. Although I understand the rationale behind the law about people smoking in cars with their kids (I was one of those kids, once upon a time) and I think anyone who smokes in their car with their kids in it is an asshole, I think the law goes too far.

I think if you're intellectually honest, you'll see that EVERY single smoking ordinance- the ones about bars, the ones about restaurants- generated the same level of histrionic bullshit in some quarters about 'smoking nazis'. I've said where I draw the line.. I don't want to keep people from smoking, I want to keep people from smoking in such a way that I or my kids are forced to breathe it in. I don't support banning smoking everywhere, and I never will. How about this- when they actually try to ban smoking everywhere let me know, then we can have the debate about whether I'm a smoking Nazi who just wants to keep you from your buddy Joe Camel. Until then, that's not what this is about.

Yes, some people are just rude and inconsiderate. If they weren't, we wouldn't NEED laws around this shit, because people would understand that blowing cigarette smoke at a bunch of 3 year olds isn't an "annoyance" or an "irritation", it's a fucking health hazard. (In addition to being obnoxious as shit.) No one would need to be told that they should walk outside of a restaurant to light up as opposed to blowing dog ass all over other peoples' breakfasts. If you want to smell like a dogs' ass, that's your business.. It doesn't make me a "nazi" to want my kid to be able to play on a fucking slide without having to breathe it in, too.

Law or not, it's just wrong.

Children are adversely affected by 2nd hand smoke. And I have seen many times children begging their parents to quit, but because of the nature of copying your parents, they become smokers themselves.

Then we could make sure they live a pure, injury free life, without the worry about germs, unhealthy diets, tv, video games.

They could be kept in a liitle white padded sterile room....

Yes smoking is bad, yes you shouldn't smoke around kids. You also should do alot of things around kids. How much are we willing to allow the government to regulate how children are raised? Where is the line? When does it become a violation of rights?

of this? You support our rights slowly being taken away? What did you expect?

Look, I smoke, but if I'm in my vehicle with my kids, hell, even without them, I have my sunroof open and windows cracked when I smoke so the smoke gets drawn outside, not through the AC/Heat system. I remember being choked out by smoke from both parents smoking when I was a kid.

So the State is well within their bounds to impose conditions upon your operation of a motor vehicle.

"I remember being choked out by smoke from both parents smoking when I was a kid."

The sins of your parents, visited upon your own children.:thumbsup:

Thank jeebus you're allowed your own opinion.

Why don't they just outlaw smoking altogether?

BTW, what do you think about the law just passed in Belmont, Ca. making it illegal to smoke inside your own apartment or condo??

"BELMONT, Calif. — Officials in Belmont have given final approval to a new smoking ban that is considered to be one of the toughest in the nation.

After a late push to ease some of the restrictions, the Belmont City Council voted Tuesday to pass the anti-smoking ordinance.

Prohibitions on smoking in parks and other public places will take effect in 30 days. The ordinance's most hotly contested elements — which ban smoking inside apartments and condominiums — won't be enforced for another 14 months.

Officials say the ordinance was written so that smokers will only face enforcement if their neighbors complain.

People will still be able to smoke on Belmont's streets and sidewalks as long as they are not loitering near the entrance to homes or businesses and in parking lots and designated smoking areas."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300658,00.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Thank jeebus you're allowed your own opinion."

Here's another one for you:

I think smokers who light up in their cars with their children (even with the windows cracked) are complete and utter inconsiderate assholes.

.......(even with the windows cracked) are complete and utter inconsiderate assholes."


Couldn't agree more.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This smoker agrees with you. Abuse can be both active and passive...

<cue the cries of righteous indignation using the trendy words-of-the-month-- authoritarian and nanny-stater>

"jackboot thuggery" and "authoritarianism"

:rofl: poor, poor smokers...

When I started dating my wife, she was living in an apartment. You could tell whenever the couple on the other side of the wall from her were home, as her apartment would reek of cigarette smoke. Which was really quite bizarre, as they were both elderly, and one of them was on oxygen. Gee, I wonder why? :eyes:

When I was in college, I had some friends that lived in an older apartment building with the apartment doors off of interior hallways. I would almost choke as I walked into those hallways, as the years of accumulated smoke had permeated everything. :puke:

They should designate blocks of apartments for smokers and non-smokers. Let the smokers stew in their own marinade, and let the rest of the folks breath easy.

But I'm not okay with Belmont's new law.

I live in Belmont, CA--in an apartment. I don't smoke, but my neighbor (who I frequently visit) does. His apartment is 10 feet away from mine and I've never smelled smoke.

The building owners are okay with him smoking, so why should the city butt in? (no pun intended) People who want a guarantee that they won't live in the vicinity of a smoker can live in "smoker-free" buildings! (those do exist!)

and folks who aren't really Dems.

To hell with the kids' health!!!! I got MY rights!!!!!

Since when was it decided people who vote, support and canvas for Democratic candidates aren't REAL Dems? That line reminds me of the endless fracturing of the Socialist Left. If your bent is authoritarian issues you really care about so be it.

You'll see that many at DU aren't really Dems, just keep watching.

IMO, if the Libertarian Party had more influence and a better chance of getting elected to higher offices, they would most likely flee the Democratic Party. The DP is the only chance they have to affect government (and since the Republican Party is so in to legislating morality, it is not considered an attractive alternative.

other smoking ordinances, I resent that, another in a long line of little rhetorical elbow jabs at those of us (a large majority, by the way) here who self identify as small-l, left or socially libertarian.

Most small-l libertarians I know understand that the freedom of one individual ends where the freedom of another individual begins. The right of people in indoor public enclosed spaces to breathe clean air supercedes the right of a smoker not to be "inconvenienced" by having to go outside.

But, yes, I think, for instance, that it should be legal for consenting adults to watch films of other consenting adults screwing, to point out one example of a "libertarian" viewpoint that gets the shorts of a particular small, very vocal minority here in a seemingly perpetual bunch.

Since I agree with the ACLU and not the Christian Right, on that matter, I guess I'm "not really a Dem". :eyes:

I think the drug war is a waste of time, pot should be legalized, regulated, and taxed (and subject to at least the same kind of public smoking restrictions cigarettes are, too) I think we have better things to do than play morality police over consenting adults who aren't harming or endangering anyone else.

Shocking and upsetting, I know.

Separates the liberals from the moderates. I think it's a good law. If parents don't care enough about their kids to protect them from secondhand smoke---you know that stuff that affects breathing, that exercise of intake and out-take that we need to live---then the government needs to step in and take measures. I'm all for that, which makes me a damn good liberal.

Sid

\

#
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 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9
#
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11
#
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.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13

more here:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

thats perfectly legal to engage in a crime. smoking is a LEGAL habit sanctioned by the government (otherwise the government would do something about it legally). but you & i both know that they won't.

Alcohol is a legal substance, but we don't allow parents to give alcohol to their kids.

or purchase it, or transport it in your car. since the inside of your car is your personal space, no one should be able to tell you what you can do in it. that is just bullshit. just like no one should be able to tell you how to raise your kids. it's intrusive and its bullshit!

Or keep them locked in a cage? Can you give them alcohol to drink? How about seatbelt laws?

This thread will end up in a flame war. No scientific study, no evidence will ever be good enough to convince some smokers of the dangers of secondhand smoke. And, even knowing of the dangers, some people consider their individual rights more important than someone else's.

My father smoked and I grew up with it. I myself smoked until 13 years ago. I am in my early forties and hope that with a healthy lifestyle, I will be able to reverse any damage smoking has done.

then take them, but don't expect ME to support them & don't expect that they will ever come back into my house. you can't have it both ways.

How does that apply to my post (58)?

some of those children NEED the shit beat out of them.

No need to further discuss this. Your posts speak for themselves. Have a nice day and good luck.

more respectful of their elders etc.

They would have to walk to school and there would be no more family vacations.

Hes gonna take it out on his because the government will not let him polute his kids lungs anymore.

I said yesterday that smoking spreads from one apartment to the other or from apartment to the areas outside the apartment and was excoriated that it does not or that "it's just the smell".

There are some big time ignoramuses defending smoking and minimizing the dangers of smoking "it's just the smell" on DU lately.

Our neighbor smokes and we can smell the smoke in our side of the duplex. It seems to be mostly seeping through the bathroom fan opening. It is especially bad in the winter, when it is too cold to open the windows.

We haven't complained since we don't want to "infringe" on her personal rights and it probably would just get us a hearty "f*ck off". We are looking for a single-family house and are planning to move out asap.

The thing that make me shake my head is that she goes to the emergency room at least twice a month. She has high blood-pressure (the ambulance just picked her up last week again for a suspected heart attack), already had several strokes, has bronchitis or pneumonia every other month, stomach ulcers...and other illnesses. She was on oxygen for a while and we were afraid that she'll blow the whole duplex up because she was smoking right next to the oxygen tank.

Smoking is an addiction and I don't think anybody does it without the urge created by addiction.

I want, anytime I want. To hell with those dumbass kids! Let them buy bottled air.

Don't like choking? Open a can of air, kid!

Dog got lung cancer.

This is a small step in the right direction. Noone should have a right to poison anyone else with tobacco smoke.

Good sarcasm.

Here in the Central Valley, we have one of the highest rates for childhood asthma and other breathing ailments in the country.

I'm a long ago reformed smoker and former managment employee of Philip Morris. Trust me--second hand smoke kills.

The tire particles in the air that come from cars were linked to the increase in asthma in kids. So if California really wanted to address asthma, they would ban tires on cars.

Low sulfur diesel, ultra-low and zero particle emissions engine tech have made big improvements in air quality.

Changing the fuel doesn't change the tires, now does it?

Even in the greenest of futures since I suppose solar powered mass transit is generating a small amount of brake dust somewhere.

Tell me tire expert, what percent of California air polution are rubber particles from tires?

Answer: I didn't.

over your cities from the air. it's not gone. i prefer my air where i can't see it.

is one of the main causes of asthma. What I posted from the lungusa.org website was:

"Seconhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.

The environment our children grow up in is already bad enough. Why add to them?

Could you please post a link to the studies that found that tires cause asthma. Thanks.

And there are air pollution laws on the books, with ambient standards for ozone (.08ppm for ozone) and (15ug/mL) for fine particulates. In the parts of California referred to in Southern California and the Central Valley are the worst and most violative of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the USA.

And California has the strictest laws related to mobile emissions of any state and in fact have strengthened them time after time.

This smoking thing IS totally in keeping with California's work against air pollution. Sad to say, this and the air pollution regulations have not been enough so far.

Good God.

Good luck.

:sarcasm:

pollution as thick as pea soup.

However, if we cut emissions and reduced carcinogens that companies are allowed to spew into the air and no one quit smoking, there would be marketed less pollution.

Or, are you that daft?

Hell, by your definition, a 'fart' is pollution.

In a car, with a cabin volume of say...20 cubic meters, what is the absolute number one pollutant in the air (in that car) if the driver of that car is smoking?

I was addressing a complaint above that smoking causes asthma - it doesn't to the degree that pollution does. It may aggravated it, but, then again, humidity, fireplaces, perfumes and soaps and activity can aggravate asthma.

I just feel anti-smoking legislation has gone entirely too far when it gets into your personal space.

AT THE SAME TIME that the anti-smoking laws have been getting more and more restrictive and intrusive. As a matter of fact, I think it's one of the big reasons that the anti-smoking laws have been getting so restrictive. Individual behavior (i.e. smoking cigarettes in this case) is relatively easy to control, but any large-scale reductions in pollution would necessarily involve controlling the behavior oF CORPORATIONS, and that's a lot more difficult. So to maintain some kind of illusion of control, the states focus on the SAME group of "environmental polluters," namely cigarette smokers, over and over again.

"The impact of tobacco use is considerable in the Head Start population. Increasing quitting
among parents and household members will benefit the children in a number of ways, including
reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, a leading cause of childhood asthma and upper respira-
tory illness."

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:bJJi9W3SG6AJ:www.doh.wa.gov/tobacco/newsletters/tpcp_news01-07.pdf+%22leading+cause+of+childhood+asthma%22+tobacco&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

My dad and step mom were chain smokers. I would see them every other weekend, and by the Monday after that weekend I would be so ill I couldn't attend school. My sister and I would spend hours in the back of their sports car, windows rolled up in the winters, gagging on second hand smoke. I always came home smelling of it, with bright red eyes, a raw throat and extreme headaches and nausea. I would BEG them not to smoke in an enclosed area with me there, but they pretended that they couldn't hear me. Why should kids breathe toxins against their will just because another person "enjoys" killing themselves and handing over a chunk of their paycheck to Big Tobacco? Kids have a right not to be physically abused in other ways that could kill them, they should have the right not to be physically abused by cigarette smoke, too.

Talk about a nanny state.

Saying that cigarette smoke doesn't contribute to asthma, either as a cause or as a trigger for asthma attacks is both ignorant and irresponsible.

Usually you and I just disagree, but this issue is not disagreement, you are JUST PLAIN WRONG ON YOUR FACTS.

Sorry people, but the government has to make rules because there are a lot of idiots out there who won't follow common sense.

Seriously, do you think you have a "right" to blow smoke in your kids' faces? If not, then what rights are you losing? If so, well you're a fuckwit.

I smoke, but not with my kids in the car, but I'll be damned if I let some group of politicians tell me what I can and can't do.

feel free to drink and smoke in your own vehicle on private property.

Even on your own, private property, it is illegal to harm your children.

You'd be in jail for life.

Way to go, hero. :thumbsup:

i.e. not illegal to feed them McDonald's fatburgers.

with young children living there even if you own your home. If cigarette smoking is defined as "harming children," that's what's coming next, property rights or no property rights.

if its not there its still legal

must be legal, huh? :shrug:

"if its not there its still legal"

as long as your erratic driving does not kill me. your rights stop where my death ensues.

and actually believe that, since the DMV does not address crack cocaine use in motor vehicles, such use is legal.

Yikes.

prescription drugs, so yes, it's there. It's all in reading comprehension.

In which case, Squatch's point still holds...

At least I thought I was, anyways. Go back, re-read everything, make sure you fully understand what is being said, then get back with me, okay?

Crack cocaine is SMOKED, not SNORTED.

You should educate yourself before posting your BS opinions so you don't look.... well, stupid.

:shrug:

ergo it can't possibly be wrong.

Driving under the influence isn't just about alcohol. It covers prescription & illegal drugs too.

http://www.tobacco.org/News/95.07.19_Tob_News.html#aa10

Duh

The article you linked to says that "The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that nicotine is an addicting drug, and therefore must be regulated", but it doesn't say that their conclusion was correct or if it was passed into law.

However:

"House Blocks FDA Oversight of Tobacco
GOP Leaders Engineer Move; Result Is Seen as Setback for Health Care Groups

By Dan Morgan and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 12, 2004; Page A04

When the Senate voted 78 to 15 in July to give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate cigarettes, it seemed that health advocates were on the verge of a major legislative coup.

The Senate amendment was attached to a massive, "must pass" corporate tax bill that Republicans in both houses badly wanted. Supporters strengthened their hand by coupling FDA regulation with a House proposal for a multibillion-dollar buyout of struggling tobacco farmers.

But in the end, a strong-willed group of Republicans in the House outmaneuvered Senate negotiators and pushed through a tax bill that gives corporations billions of dollars in new breaks, and preserves a $10 billion buyout of tobacco farmers, but leaves FDA regulation of cigarettes on the cutting-room floor for this session of Congress."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24429-2004Oct11.html


I'm not worried anyways. My brand of cigarettes isn't harmful to me. The warning label says "Surgeon General's Warning: Smoking By pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth And Low Birth Weight"

I ain't worried 'bout birthin' no babies! :evilgrin:

Apparently, I am not as well versed in the proper (sic) use of illegal drugs as you are.

:evilgrin:

I just think it's important for you to have your facts straight if you're going to try to make a stand on an issue... don't you?

You learned something today, don't you feel better? You don't have to thank me though...

:hi:

All up to date driving books that I've seen mention DUI, including alcohol and drugs. DUI laws are NOT exclusively for alcohol.

Go read a book and get back to me, okay?

The DMV manual does not mention snorting crack.

In this subthread I had pointed out a factual mistake the he made. The same one that you just made. Crack cocaine is NOT SNORTED, it is SMOKED.

Why don't you try following along here, huh?

Or I can keep pointing out the sheer stupidity of your statements all night long. Doesn't matter to me... I'm bored and have nothing better to do right at this moment.

The point of this subthread is that he should at least get his facts and talking points down straight if he's going to take a stand for or against something. Or would you rather be compared to that Repug from Ga that was pushing to have the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings, but couldn't even recite them?

Maybe you just enjoying spewing baseless rhetoric without knowing what you're talking about? It might fly with your buddies or something, but it doesn't fly here, comprende amigo? Get your facts straight before you spout off to me.

The poster didn't say crack is snorted, he said the dmv manual does not mention snorting crack while driving.

Have you got a page number where the DMV manual mentions snorting crack while driving? If so I'd like to see it.

Please try to follow along here.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Squatch (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-11-07 12:25 PM
Original message
Snorting crack while driving is also not in the drivers manuals set forth by the dmv
must be legal, huh?

"if its not there its still legal"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Do you see the problem with your own statement? It doesn't matter whether he's talking about what the book says or not, it's still a factually incorrect statement because crack is not snorted, it's smoked. Again, please try to keep up with the subject being discussed.

BTW: The book doesn't say it's against the law to jerk off and drive either, but if someone sees you they can call the cops and you can be arrested for indecent exposure.

Way to go, hero. :thumbsup:

And while in possession of an illegal controlled substance.

So, no, not legal by a longshot.

The nanny state at its worst. What's next? No music with kids in the car? You might get distracted!!! This is crazy. I don't allow smoking in my car by anyone because of my kids, but this is going too far.

Really, nothing to see here. Certainly if you can't smoke everywhere and anywhere you want to! What a suck-ass place! Waaaah!

Now they're trying to stop me from smoking my kids out.

Tear up your drivers license, and don't renew your insurance as well. After all, you'll "be damned if I let some group of politicians tell me what I can and can't do."

:eyes:

The less smokers the better. Im getting ready to move to california!

Maybe California should just be declared a no-smoking state.

Smokers, of course, would have 90 days to either quit smoking or vacate, surrender or sell their property and get the hell out!

I'm kidding, of course, but you never know how far some might go.

who applaud such legislation choke on your self-righteousness and purity.

then move elsewhere, like my city, to filthy up the air here with your big SUV's and gas guzzlers. stay the hell where you are.

Breathing in toxins must damage one's soul, too.

If I were pregnant now and didn't stop voluntarily, the nanny state would probably have me incarcerated for the duration. For the protection of my unborn baby, of course. It really isn't that far a stretch considering the way things are going.

kids in car seats and, in some places, not talk on the damned phone.

I believe that the folks that make Nicorette Gum are behind all this nonsense.

Just trying to make smoking completely unacceptable socially - and it's working.

*and by things, we mean everything.

This message brought to you by The Nanny State.

it simply a more British name for babysitter. They don't have any malice or ill will towards those who they care for or are employed by.

Society and interactions between individuals is getting more complex not less. A modern civilization cannot be run on libertarian ground rules. Personal freedom of choice is preferred for the vast majority of actions because it is the most efficient scale to achieve recognized common aims.

that just seems to be the phrase that's been adopted for this milk-sop society that the US is becoming. We don't try to educate people on why smoking in their cars with minor passengers is a bad idea, we just legislate it away...but we don't even reaaaaaaaaly do that...we pass legislation that says "if we catch you doing something else, we can also ticket you for this as well." Of course, anyone with two brain cells to rub together who happens to be in this situation is going to have the sense to put out the cigarette when they get pulled over and before the cop gets to the window. So the ban-brigade gets their Pyhrric victory and can pat themselves on the back while failing to realize that the angle of the slope they're going down is getting progressively steeper.

"Sir, I pulled you over for not wearing a seatbelt can I see your lic...hey, were you smoking in this car with a child present?"

"No officer, I just collect cigarette butts."

"Oh, okay then...now, about that seatbelt."


Society and interaction between individuals is becoming more complex because of a few busy-bodies out there who go on personal crusades to ban this, or legislate that because they find it offensive, or harmful, or annoying, or have just run out of shirts to iron and don't have anything better to do or whatever. What they don't think about is the aggregate total of stupid shit that every other crusader out there wants to ban, or legislate or get rid of because they find it offensive, or harmful or annoying...

Look around DU and you'll find threads on banning dozens, if not hundreds of things. It's funny because some of the same people who laugh at and mock some "crazy bitch in Georgia" who wants to ban Harry Potter books from her school library because they promote witch craft are the same people who happily jump on the ban-wagon (see...it's like bandwagon, but ban-wagon. I rule!) when the next crusader comes along trying to ban something they DO want to see banned or legislated away.

For the smoking banners, I wish they'd just have the balls to say what they really want: illgalization of smoking, period. Instead, they chip away and erode bit-by-bit other people's rights because a full on smoking ban would probably be impossible at this point. Of course the ban-brigade will laugh and say "oh poor smokers, can't fill my air with poison anymore" but those of us who actually don't like to see people's rights trampled on are going to get the last laugh when the jack-boot eventually lands on them.

It's coming.

(P.S. I'm not a smoker)

*Edit, spelling: I forgot which witch was which.

So I say, we ban clothes.

How the hell does what you said follow, at all? Do you think such ridiculous hyperbole helps your case?

hear you.

got a kid in the house? NO SEX! END OF STORY! (why...it could damage them for life!)

childhood. Not too many years later I watched my dad die of lung cancer.

Yeah, smoking in a small enclosed space is harmless, and people who infer it's bad for kids are just whiny prudes. Keep telling yourself that, genius.

crawling up your ass??

you may like the way it feels--maybe it makes you feel "safer" but it's a fucking slippery slope. WAKE UP!

Slippery slope, right? I mean, if we don't allow people to smoke WHEREVER AND WHENEVER THEY FUCKING WANT, we're inviting fascism.

Right?

Wake up, yourself.

Obviously, you didn't.

They DO NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW. You can say anything will happen because of x, who can argue with you unless they have a time machine, no matter how patently ridiculous the claim is. Such as "they're going to ban sex!"

i mean, just because they take away the rights of "terrorists" doesn't mean they'll do that to american citizens; just because corporate interests finance the bush team doesn't mean they'll pay back their pals and fuck up air & water & safety standards, etc etc

have you learned nothing from this administration when it comes to slippery slopes?

People say that a lot of other things would absolutely certainly result from Bush's power trips: DU getting shut down, all of us in camps, nuking Iran, etc etc.

My point stands firm: Claims made from slippery slope arguments may or may not come to fruition, therefore they are not any more logical than any unsubstantiated attempt to tell the future.

habeas corpus with a stroke of a fucking pen, but as long as du is still up and running things aren't so bad? they can wiretap YOUR phone but that's okay because at least we're not in "camps"

give me a fucking break!

My post in no way reflects me being 'okay' with any of the shit Bushco does. My post is about how inane and unhelpful slippery slope arguments are. Now you're arguing with me about things no one even said ("things aren't so bad"), perhaps because you know how silly the original idea is (that banning smoking in cars will lead to x, y, z, and then some) and are trying to change the subject.

There's no doubt about that. However, diet is far more responsible if you look at the statistics. Japan has almost twice as many smokers per capita as the USA but the USA has 300% more lung cancer related deaths. That's a three fold magnitude. It's not just that smoking is unhealthy, it's that our lifestyles in general are unhealthy.

So if it is the states responsiblity to make sure we're healthy it should start banning unhealthy food before it starts doing anything else.

Walk into just about any 7-11 in the USA and ask for a pack of Marlboro Reds. If you're over 18, you will see rather quickly just how *banned* cigarettes are. :eyes:

What smoking ordinances invariably have to do with, rather, is the exposure of OTHER people to cigarette smoke- not the smoker him or herself. And, yeah, your freedom to fuck up your own body ends where mine begins. It's very simple, and given the air of sophistication many smokers like to imagine they have, I assume that point is not lost on them despite protestations to the contrary.

Hey- I think pot should be legal, too- but that doesn't mean I don't think cities and states should be free to regulate whether it can be smoked in indoor, public places. The law in question in this thread, here in California, has to do with kids in cars with cigarette smoke, which has been documented to be a particularly unhealthy situation- for the kids, that is. Whether or not I think this law is a good idea (I tend to think we have enough unenforceable laws as it is) the fact of the matter is, it's a damn shame ANY parent needs to be TOLD that they shouldn't smoke with their kids in the car.

Fucking selfish, if you ask me.

This is an indisputable fact. So while you might want to hang on that very simple word so pedantically, you might want to consider what I was saying.

If "regulating cigarette smoke" is necessary for the "health of others"...

...then why isn't regulating the diets of American people necessary? Please, explain to me. The facts are clear, the American diet is substantially more responsible for the pathetic average lifespan of an American than smoking ever thought about being. Really, the statistics don't lie. Look at Japan smokers, look at American smokers. Look at Japan lifespan, look at American lifespan.

Give me a holler when they *ACTUALLY* ban your smokes, Jack. It's not "pedantic" to say smokes are legal when you can buy them at 50 million retail outlets in this country.

For now, what is banned is your right to smoke cigarettes whenever and particularly wherever you please. I know, creeping fascism. Waaaaah.

And it's not about protecting the health of the smoker, it's protecting the health of the people AROUND the smoker. Do I need to say it in French or Swahili for you to understand? Maybe I should say it in all caps: IT'S NOT ABOUT PROTECTING THE SMOKERS HEALTH, IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF EVERYONE ELSE. If eating trans fats gave heart attacks to the people sitting next to you as you ate your lunch, then maybe it would be legitimate to say where people could eat them.

It's about protecting people from one another? Because I can't walk away or hold my breath when I go around people who smoke? Because I can't chose to go to places where smoking isn't allowed?

How I see it is that the state is attempting to protect people from unhealthy behaviors. That is, it doesn't want people to have to hold their breath when they walk by a non-smoking zone, it doesn't want people to have to avoid going to a restaurant because it allows smoking. All the while car pollution is significantly worse for your health than smoking ever thought about being.

In the end I think it would be just fine to outright ban a parent from taking their child to a fast food restaurant and feeding the child unhealthy food. I mean, using this sort of reasoning it only makes sense. Since we're protecting the child from the behavior of the parents. Also, those people, who make said food, adults need to be protected from people who don't know better, and they shouldn't be allowed to sell unhealthy food. Really, the line of reasoning is infallible. If you are protecting the health of individuals from the effects of other individuals, then it should actually apply to everything.

Rinse. Repeat.

I'm sure you think you're making a wonderfully unassailable logical case here. Just like so many people think those burning things that make them, their breath, and their clothes smell like a dog's ass are "sexy", and "sophisticated".

Far be it for me to burst your bubble. I'm just about done with this. I know better than to argue with an addiction.

But.. are you seriously suggesting that anyone who doesn't want to choke on smoke in an indoor, enclosed public place should HOLD THEIR BREATH? Good fucking grief.

How about this, for exercising of individual choice: Any self-centered ninny who can't control their own addiction long enough to step outside to smoke or can't enjoy their Marlboro fix if they're not blowing it into the faces of other people eating in a restaurant, should choose to stay the fuck out of California.

Because we like the laws we have, and they're not going anywhere. Ever.

Waaaaaaaaaah. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Whatever contortions you feel you need to go through to justify forcing OTHER people to breathe your cigarette smoke, I can only hope you ("When we were kids we'd make our parents roll down the window and cry and moan about the smoke bothering us.") don't have any children of your own, given your attitude.

Only time is when I'm drinking. So please don't project. Thanks. I'm about freedom, not restricting behavior.

There's a difference between, for instance, saying porn should be legal and saying people should be able to pull out a Hustler and start masturbating at the table in a restaurant.

Gum, pills, patches, chew -- something that leaves the kids and the rest of us out of the equation.

relatively easy way to quit if they really wanted people to quit. I don't understand why more research dollars don't go in to finding was to help people quit. (Actually I do, corporation payoffs and tax dollars.)

Gotta watch the kids' cholesterol.

I think everything is going to be okay.

This thread just reminded me of the inefficiencies of the imperfect human animal, and how if we can just take that inefficient form of life out of the equation, we could reach that perfect state that must be the endgame in what we're doing.

The only question left is; who gets to define the words "first class" and "best"?

I'm very inefficient(not that I mind), so obviously I know I'm not able to define them(although not a smoker, but my dad is, mom was on occasion, and sister is).

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911taylor.html

In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. This in no sense, however, implies that great men are not needed. On the contrary, the first object of any good system must be that of developing first-class men; and under systematic management the best man rises to the top more certainly and more rapidly than ever before.

This paper has been written:

First. To point out, through a series of simple illustrations, the great loss which the whole country is suffering through inefficiency in almost all of our daily acts.

Second. To try to convince the reader that the remedy for this inefficiency lies in systematic management, rather than in searching for some unusual or extraordinary man.

Third. To prove that the best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation. And further to show that the fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations, which call for the most elaborate cooperation. And, briefly, through a series of illustrations, to convince the reader that whenever these principles are correctly applied, results must follow which are truly astounding.

I don't smoke, but my mom did and it was sheer hell in the winter with the windows rolled up driving around.

I know a lot of moms who smoke with their kids in the car and the kids reek. It's not right to subject another person to that.

If you want to smoke, do it so it doesn't annoy anyone else.

Here in NY it is illegal to:

honk your car horn in a non-emergency.
talk on a cell phone while driving
go over 35 mph in the city

All are ignored and there is zero enforcement.

The real purpose of these laws is to give the police a reason to pull you over or come into your home, if they feel like it.

I'll scream over other laws which are bad laws.

But smoking regulations are good.

But they cannot do anything about smoking on the car sitting on your driveway, or can they?

I hated it as a child. It's not right and though I've been a smoker at times I never did it and would never do it.

Police intervention would have been a lot worse, however. This is a misguided law in the spirit of authoritarianism.

It shouldn't have to BE legislated, people should suck it up and protect their kids themselves, but if that's not going to happen....

I think any parent who, in this day and age, smokes with their kids in their car is a fucking ASS. If the nic-fit gets that bad, find a fucking rest stop and pull over. Good grief.

Or just cigs?

I'm not a smoker, but I think the various anti-smoking legislation is ridiculous. Why not just make it completely illegal at this point instead of picking and choosing when it's ok and when it's wrong? What's next? Smokers can only smoke on the far right hand corner of their property, outside of their house between the hours of 3am and 6am while wearing special vests with various warnings regarding the danger of smoking on it?

So- you don't understand why there are ANY restrictions on when and where people smoke, at all? Do you get why people can't walk into the Hospital ICU and light up? How about at a gas station?

Gotta watch out for that slippery slope!

Oh, "ridiculous", right- why do we need to TELL people where they can and can't smoke? They do such a fine job of making that determination by themselves. Like, during my childhood in the Midwest- all the bars and restaurants were "free" to allow smoking or not- so of course, you couldn't go ANYWHERE without being choked by cigarette smoke.

Just because it's legal to smoke doesn't mean people can smoke whenever and wherever they want. And putting restrictions on that, despite the whining from the smoking crowd, is NOT "fascism". I'm sorry, but telling people they have to GO OUTSIDE to light a cigarette is not equivalent to "jack booted thuggery". It's merely legislating a level of common courtesy that many smokers- and you can see why, from the angry responses these threads get- seem incapable of managing themselves.

Like I said above, I'm generally against more laws telling people what they can or can't do on their own property. I think banning smoking in indoor, public spaces is enough. But I also think that any parent who smokes with their kid in the car in this day and age is an asshole. Pure and simple.

I didn't see an outrage about too MUCH Government intrusion after we found out how many lead-painted toys were imported from China. Or after the dog food killed thousands of our pets.

To call a Government that is trying to protect children from at least some known harmful substances and carcinogens "fascist" is pretty much out there. I don't think they do enough to protect us from all of the harmful substances in our environment.

The odd thing is that people who use these arguments don't mind being manipulated and exploited by greedy, rich corporations. Philip Morris and others are buying "scientists" to cast doubt on the hazards of secondhand smoke:

http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200503071/


The documents show that the tobacco industry hired scientists on at least two different occasions to prepare articles challenging the SHS/SIDS connection. The first one failed to attract an influential journal. But then Philip Morris retained a consultant to write a comprehensive review of all known risk factors for SIDS. Philip Morris was to provide the literature review, and the hired scientist was to write the paper. The company's documents show that Philip Morris budgeted $50,000 to $100,000 for this project.

The company's papers reveal a concerted effort by Philip Morris to influence the paper's content and conclusions. When the author completed his first draft, he sent it to the company for review. The original conclusion stated that secondhand smoke increased the risk of SIDS. But a Philip Morris scientific affairs executive questioned this conclusion. The author accommodated many of Philip Morris' suggested changes, and when he submitted his final draft to them, he had removed his original conclusion about the effect of secondhand smoke on infants. Instead, he wrote that "the majority of the effects of smoking can be explained by prenatal smoking by the mother," and that postnatal (infant) secondhand smoke effects were "less well established" than prenatal smoking.

As published, the article mentions the financial support of Philip Morris, but does not acknowledge that the article was initiated, reviewed and influenced by the tobacco company. Not only does the limited acknowledgement mask the extent of the tobacco company's influence on the conclusion, but totally hidden from view is the fact that the article was essentially conceived by the tobacco company in the first place, UCSF's Glantz points out.

"This study of Philip Morris activity since the tobacco industry signed the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998 shows that the industry continues to use its 50-year old strategies to sow confusion about the real dangers of secondhand smoke and to distort the entire scientific process," says Glantz.

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

more at link.

I guess Government control is bad while rich corporations controlling you and your life (or death) is good.

There are people in this thread calling this law "fascist", but I'm not one of them. We've heard the same arguments before, here in California- when the "fascist" law saying smokers had to -gasp- step outside of bars and restaurants before lighting up was passed.

Frankly, I think when people who want to smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes are still being hauled off to prison, it's a little specious for cigarette smokers to complain that being asked to go outside to light up is "fascism". When Vibrators are illegal in Texas, when Alberto Gonzales's DOJ makes fighting pictures of consenting adults fucking a top priority, it's a little ridiculous to whine that not being allowed to smoke wherever and whenever one wants is the penultimate attack on personal liberty in America today.

But, my position on this issue is summed up in a post upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2020234&mesg_id=2021953

I'm generally against more laws telling consenting adults what they can or can't do with their own bodies on their own property. We have enough of those. That said, I was one of those kids forced to sit in smoke-filled cars throughout my childhood. I watched my dad die of lung cancer. You don't need to finger-wag at ME about how bad cigarettes are. I'm well aware. I also am not going to get bent out of shape about this law.. I understand the rationale.

Frankly, whether or not I think it should be illegal, the bottom line is that anyone who smokes in a car with their kids is a fucking asshole and a shitty parent. End of story.

We live in CA and I am so glad that we have these laws. My father smoked two packs a day and I was exposed to it. I started smoking when I was 13 and quit at 30. I am 43 now. My father quit, too and is smoke-free for over 20 years.

:hi:

I'm so glad I never picked it up as a serious habit. I know if I had, I would have had an unbelievably difficult time quitting. I really respect that you and your dad managed to. :thumbsup:

not against the ordinance, just pointing out how fucked up perceptions give us a false sense of security (and insecurity). Drinking kills more people than marijuana. Car accidents kill more people than TERRA and smoking combined! Poverty and inadequate healthcare kill people. Environmental hazards kill people.

mandatory seat beat laws, mandatory child safety seat laws, etc.

Your point suggests that we are doing nothing about car safety for kids. I guess you're wrong.

First, the hazard of smoking is not a "perception" issue, but a real public health hazard, probably on a par with vehicle accidents.

Second, you implied that the law is directed at the perceived risk rather than the actual risk, well that's wrong too.

The law is aimed at cigarettes and children and there are laws aimed to protect kids from vehicle accidents.

So your point is poorly taken.

There seems to be a lot of selfish, self-centered people in this thread that care more about their "god-given right" to smoke anywhere they damn want to then they care about the kids in the back seat of the car.

but I just don't see how it'll be enforced...and I can see this as another excuse to pull people over - especially minorities.

I'm surprised cops can enforce the seatbelt law, but they've learned to detect the movement of someone pulling on a belt when they see the cops are behind them.

With the cigarette safely stowed in the ashtray until time for a puff. And they'll be always on the lookout for officers.

This will contribute to more gasoline usage, thus more pollution. And the safety of a driver who is merely holding a cigarette out of their window contrasted to one that keeps putting it down in an ashtray looking for it is incredibly poor. Thus more car accidents.

Just you watch.

:evilgrin:

They should lose parental rights. SMOKING KILLS PEOPLE!! Are we not on the reality based side of the aisle? Kill yourself if you want -- but whackjobs who do this to their kids should not be allowed to be parents.

and the cops said "Go ahead. We won't enforce it. We've already got enough to do."


Apparently the police in California are a little less busy.

and not harming or endangering anyone else?

I bet they don't.

The law specifically says that the tickets for this will only be issued if people are stopped for something else. At least that's how I read it.

That said, I think it's a bad idea. An over-reach, but an over-reach I understand as I was one of those kids in one of those cars once upon a time, before people knew better- and fuck yeah it was a form of abuse. I think the law is a waste of time, but I also think any parent who smokes with their kids in the car in this day and age is an ass.

Voters decided a few years ago that pot smoking was to be considered "the Lowest priority" in Law Enforcement matters.

It is overreaching...And it will be VERY difficult to enforce.