House passes bill prohibiting smoking in cars with child passengers (Maine)

[Maine-ah]

Source: Capital Weekly

AUGUSTA – The Maine House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that will prohibit smoking in cars when children under age 16 are present.


A series of health experts supported the bill through the legislative process, saying that the damage caused by secondhand smoke is compounded in a car, where the carcinogenic chemicals are boxed in with passengers instead of dissipating in open air. Bill supporters said that children are left defenseless in a car with adult smokers because they are not likely to convince or even ask the adults to put out their cigarettes.

The bill was originally modeled after a city ordinance passed in Bangor, which restricts smoking in cars with children under 18 present. So far the Bangor ordinance has resulted in one fine, while child care and health care providers have offered anecdotal evidence that the ordinance has successfully acted as a deterrent to smoking in cars because fewer children in the area have exhibited secondhand smoke-related health problems and no longer regularly smell like cigarette smoke.

The Health and Human Services Committee amended the proposal slightly from the version that passed in Bangor, instead requiring the age limit to be lowered to 16. The bill requires a one-year period during which time police may only issue a warning. One year after the bill is enacted, a civil violation resulting in a $50 fine will go into effect, with the warning option still available at the discretion of officers. In addition, committee members added a clause similar to the seat belt law that would limit the extent to which police may search vehicles when stopped for a smoking violation.


Read more: http://www.courierpub.com/articles/2008/03/26/capital_weekly/local_news/doc47ea432a61779969373577.txt

[asthmaticeog]

1. Of course, this isn't aboud child-protection, it's about pecking at smokers.

I'll buy "child welfare" when the same people start lobbying for laws against Happy Meals.

[sandnsea]

10. demonize and tax

There are studies that show that the highest polluted intersections have worse air than bars. If this was really about health, we'd be instituting indoor air quality monitoring and converting city busses to cleaner biofuels.

[pnwmom]

14. It's more damaging for children's lungs to be exposed to smoke, since they

are still developing.

[saigon68]

40. Why stop there--Hell "Ban Smoking" in houses with children too

just imagine how cool it would be, if a cop were in each house in amerika 24/7. That would surely cut down not only on smoking-- but other forms of vice like gay sex, birth control and drinking to intoxication.

This is another foolish law designed to make a few lepers behave.

Its like a seat belt law, a cell phone law

A law to ban radar detectors

Or my favorites a law to prevent felons from wearing bullet proof vests.

and this gem

CHAPTER 167
SAFEGUARDS OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY


167.07 Manufacture, storage and distribution of matches.
167.10 Regulation of fireworks.
167.11 Hazardous substances.
167.12 Safety appliances.
167.13 Operation.
167.14 Sale regulated.
167.151 Unlawful operation of corn shredders.
167.18 Threshing machine joints to be covered.
167.19 Farm machinery storage.
167.20 Stairway guards.
167.22 Cigars not to be manufactured in basements.
167.25 Refrigerators and iceboxes.
167.26 Leaving unguarded ice holes.
167.27 Capping and filling wells or similar structures.
167.30 Use of firearms, etc., near park, etc.
167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows.
167.32 Safety at sporting events.

Wis Stats 167.22

167.22 Cigars not to be manufactured in basements. No shop or place wherein cigars are manufactured shall be located below the ground floor.

[JeanGrey]

43. That is VERY GOOD idea. If you smoke take your ass

outside if you have children. Pretty simple. :-)

[High Plains]

58. So then you can bitch about smokers polluting the air?

[saigon68]

64. I Don't smoke

It is an evil addiction that for some people can be almost impossible to remedy. Undoubtedly bad for health.

My post was meant to illustrate the Nannie state we have become.

This year my state passed 200 more criminal laws to regulate behavior.

I don't particularly like people smoking :-) :-)

[Winterblues]

26. Why do you think smokers should have the right to pollute the air?

Why do you feel it is a right to litter the air with tobacco smoke and not a right to litter the ground with cigarette butts? They are both littering. You feel smokers have the right to poison the air for other Americans including children because you have an addiction. I find that very self centered and extremely rude behavior. Give me one justification for that behavior if you can..

[asthmaticeog]

35. Set those strawmen up and knock 'em right down!

You must feel so proud. The discussion is smoking in/on one's privately-owned property. I actually support restaurant bans, which you'd know if I'd said so, and I'd have said so if that was anywhere near the topic of the discussion.

By the way, I'm not a smoker.

On edit: hey, where the fuck did I ever even say anything about butts? Hell, even when I *was* a smoker I'd find a trash can for the butts, nobody wants to see a sidewalk full of that shit.

[mainegreen]

49. It's already illegal to shove happy meals in children's lungs. n/t

[Ellen Forradalom]

2. Doesn't seem enforceable.

I agree with the sentiment, though. Smoking in cars with kids is uncool in my view.

[asthmaticeog]

3. Agreed. Before I quit, I would always try to hide my cig if I saw a kid even walking up the street.

But this is a huge private property issue. Banning smoking in private autos opens the door to banning smoking in private homes.

[Ellen Forradalom]

4. Calabasas CA is seriously considering the latter.

That's going a bit far in my view.

[pnwmom]

15. There is a great deal of research out there on the effects of second hand

smoke on children.

No one should be smoking in their presence.

[asthmaticeog]

17. Agreed.

There is a great deal of literature on the effects of french fries on children, too. We can't ban parents from feeding their kids shite food, nor can we ban them from smoking around kids in their own cars and homes.

[pnwmom]

22. A car is a more confined space, and we CAN ban smoking there.

Just as we can require parents to have their kids in seatbelts.

And both laws would be enforced the same way -- when a driver is stopped for something else.

[JeanGrey]

45. Sure we can and we will. :-)

[Bigmack]

5. My parents taught me NOT to smoke...

by driving around - both smoking - in a closed car in mid-winter in Michigan with the windows rolled up.

I'm grateful for the lesson, but a little concerned that they may even yet kill me with residual oxidants from the tobacco.

They both died of smoking-related diseases.

[LynneSin]

6. My father had his 'smoking' car

if he wanted to take us kids anywhere it was in mom's non-smoking car where he was not allowed to smoke inside.

Ironically he died of lung cancer himself.

It's a shame that this law is being passed but I still can't understand why any parent would do that to a child. But then again my friend from college, a smoker, would do that to her daughter. When I suggested perhaps she should stop that it was hurting her daughter my friend's attitude was "My parents did it to me". I felt bad for the little girl because she hated it but ironically now the girl is in senior high school and took up smoking herself.

[pnwmom]

23. It isn't ironic that the girl took up smoking -- it's the natural consequence

of being exposed to second hand smoke throughout her childhood.

The research shows that second hand smoke can lead to addictive levels of nicotine in the bloodstreams of children who are exposed to it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

28. I know it did for me...

My parents would both smoke on long car trips, and often insisted on keeping the windows closed so we wouldn't let out the air conditioning or heat, or muss up hairstyles. :(
As much as I hated the smell of it, I took up smoking occasionally when I was in high school...when I went away for summer camp.
When I left for college, it became a regular habit. I finally quit ten years later.

[pnwmom]

29. Good for you. I understand that's just about the hardest thing

there is to quit.

And all the more so, probably, when the addiction begins with exposure as a kid.

[noamnety]

7. There are some students at my school

That I can't talk to first hour because the cigarette smell from driving in with their parents sends me reeling.

When my daughter was small, she had a friend who wasn't allowed to come to our house, because the stink stayed in our house and in our furniture for days afterwards - I couldn't sit in the living room for a while after she was there.

I can't imagine why parents would ever want to do that to their kids. Do they not get that it affects not only their health, but how others interact with them, because the smell that sticks to the kids makes other people physically ill?

[kiva]

8. Good idea, lwfern.

Maybe I'll adopt it with a few revisions--no one can bring their infant into my house, since we all know how smelly poopy diapers are; and maybe I'll refuse to talk to my student who wears cologne I don't like, and that young woman who sweats too much is definitely off my list too, maybe I can get her to drop my class. :sarcasm:

[noamnety]

9. It's not an "idea" one way or another

It's the reality that it makes me physically ill - to the point where I am throwing up by the end of the day. Sorry if that offends you, but it is what it is.

[kiva]

12. Yes, I do find it offensive to ban a child from your home for this reason.

My mother was very sensitive to smells, and would get headaches from certain perfumes and plants. She never, however, considered not allowing someone in our home for this reason; obviously you feel differently. The idea bothers me so much because it seems to brand a child as inferior. Though you obviously wouldn't have become a teacher if you felt that way--God knows we don't do it for the money--it really does send that message to children.

[noamnety]

21. Well, I guess you'd feel differently

if you had to chose between having someone in your home or throwing up and having headaches for days afterwards. :)

Picture it this way - would you eat something that you know will give you food poisoning? I'm guessing not.

(I think the real problem is you don't understand or refuse to believe that it really can make people that ill.)

[JeanGrey]

46. Look, I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and my son is a heavy

smoker - I cannot STAND to be around him when the smell of tobacco lies so heavy on him and it also makes me sick. Sorry.

[Kolesar]

11. What if you're riding to school with your buds?

[RadioactiveCarrot]

13. Great!

They care so much about the welfare of children!

This means they'll stop sending them to fight bullshit wars for money anytime now, right?

...anytime.
Yessir.

[erebusman]

16. im for this myself

I had pneumonia 3 times when I was an infant. I've always had extremely sensitive respiratory system.

My mother was a chain smoker, 3 packs a day average. Sometimes more.

Even though our home and my air I had to breath in shared environments with her (such as the car on the way to school or other events) was saturated with smoke enough you would think I would be unable to smell it or desensitized to it to the point that it did not bother me .. but it did bother me very badly.

It caused me sneezing fits, extreme sinus irritation, sinus pain, watering eyes and other related problems. I often wondered if I will someday have lung, throat, or nose cancer.. and this year I had sinus polyps removed that showed signs that they might become cancerous. They havent come back since being removed in late January, but I know someday I will have other illnesses that I can relate back to those 17 years of smoke infused hell.

I often asked my mother to not smoke, to put it out, and often threw away her cigarettes or flushed them down the toilet when she refused to stop. We fought over it for years.

Its interesting/ironic that the lawmakers quote children who might not be convince their "adult" parents not to smoke around them because I fought this battle for many years.

The first truly smoke free environment I enjoyed was when my mother told me at 17 years old in my senior year of high school that she was "moving out at the end of the month" with her girl-friend and co-dependent drug/alcohol abuser. This was my clue that by the end of the month I would have to have my place. So I got a job after school and got my own place, and Ill be damned if I ever let anyone smoke in my home or automobile since.

I support this law.

Sure , do we need more laws for clean air? Yes.

Sure do we need to improve our health and either educate or legislate poisonous toxic foods & chemicals out of our diet? You bet your butt.

Because we have not done so yet, does not excuse the parent smokers.

Smoking harms those around you, including minors under your supervision. Because nicotine addicts have no remorse I would support the same level charges for smokers who smoke around children in closed environments as those who supply or sell cigarettes to children. Children should be able to report their parents/ press charges against them in this regards as well. I most certainly would have.

[LanternWaste]

18. This coming from a smoker...

Knowing what we now know about the effects of cigarettes, who in the HELL would smoke around their kids?

It's bad enough that I'm addicted and will undoubtedly reap the rewards of my twenty plus year habit soon, I simply can't imagine being so uncaring, so selfish, so indifferent towards any child as to light up in a small, enclosed space.

I'm not talking about the good or bad points of the law itself, just the attitudes many of us smokers force on those around us...

[askeptic]

19. We'll call it the sensitive nose-iness law!

Pretty soon, you can just let the State decide everything for you! This is way beyond the business of the State and it's citizens. So will the State be telling you what to cook and what can and cannot be fed to children? Gawd, what a bunch of busybodies!

[LanternWaste]

20. We are not allowed to cook endangered species

"So will the State be telling you what to cook and what can and cannot be fed to children?..."

We are not allowed to cook endangered species or even purchase knowingly contaminated meats. We are not allowed to feed liquor to children.

One man's common sense law is another man's intrusive nanny state I suppose.

[askeptic]

25. Hamburger's fries soda candy

are you allowed to feed those things to kids! Good for their health? I guess if it serves to obfuscate my comments then that's OK

[LanternWaste]

27. No obfuscation. You asked when the state would mandate what you can and cannot cook.

No obfuscation. You asked when the state would mandate what you can and cannot cook. They already have.

Again-- what may be intrusive nanny-statism (I'd love a in-depth definition of that, btw) to one person is common sense to another person.

Less obfuscation on my part and what seems more like wiggling on yours...

[KamaAina]

34. But, are you allowed to drink around children?

We are not allowed to feed liquor to children.

Yet, presumably, you are allowed to drink while in their presence (not in a car, obviously) -- otherwise, what would be the purpose of a holiday party? :shrug:

[WildClarySage]

38. Drinking alcohol in the presence of a child does not impair the

child physically. I woulda thought this was a no-brainer. If the adult's consumption of alcohol does pose a threat to the well-being of the child, then it does become a legal issue and children's services becomes involved.

Why should any person be exposed to cigarette smoke against their wishes and/or to the detriment of their health? If the poisons in a cigarette were given to a child in liquid form, an adult would be jailed for endangering the health of a minor. Why is airborne contamination different simply because the exposure is from an adult feeding an addiction?

[LanternWaste]

52. All other things being equal...

All other things being equal and as fas as I'm aware, there's absolutely zero effect from alcohol to anyone other than the person ingesting it.

[pnwmom]

30. We tell parents they must use seatbelts on their kids.

What's so different about protecting them from the hazards of cigarette smoke in a confined space?

[askeptic]

24. 220,000 injured, 2136 killed kids in car accidents

I wonder why we even allow kids to ride in cars, since this seems to be much more detrimental to kids health and well being
- but I'm sure second hand smoke can match those statistics!

[pnwmom]

Because we've determined that there's a positive benefit/risk ratio for cars.

And not for cigarettes.

[mainegreen]

50. Kids now must sit in the back, in safty seats,

as opposed to in the front, sitting on the floor, playing with toys.

Of course, that intrudes on driver's rights.

:sarcasm:

[Quantess]

56. You can't drive with the kid on your lap, either.

[LanternWaste]

53. There's a positive cost-benefit ratio

There's a positive cost-benefit ratio (culturally, economically and personally) from driving, none from smoking...

Seems as though you're comparing apples and elephants.

[Alexander]

31. What if the window is open? I have no problem with that.

Is there an exception?

[Maine-ah]

32. no exceptions that I know of.

[superconnected]

33. It only took them 108 years to come up with this.

[angrycarpenter]

36. slippery slope

I think that we should quit giving law enforcement more reasons to pull people over and extort money from them.

To most a ticket is an affordable and annoying inconvenience. But to a single mom raising kids it is a disaster. People shouldn't smoke around kids period. But giving a single working mom a ticket takes food right out of those kids mouths. Find another way to do it.

[Zhade]

37. Good. Anyone selfish enough to advocate forcing children to be exposed to cancer should fuck off.

You don't have the right to give kids cancer. Don't like it? Too fucking bad.

[Mind_your_head]

39. Giving your kid lunchmeat from the deli is more likely to cause cancer than passive smoke

See here:

ingredients used on food labels that are, in fact, extremely toxic to the human body, and yet are not listed with appropriate descriptors. One such ingredient is sodium nitrite. Sodium nitrite is added to most packaged meat products found in a grocery store, and even in health food stores.

To most people, sodium nitrite simply sounds like a form of salt, but, in fact, this ingredient is extremely carcinogenic. When combined with your saliva and digestive enzymes, sodium nitrite creates cancer-causing compounds known as nitrosamines. These nitrosamines are so toxic to biological systems that they are actually used to give lab rats cancer in laboratory tests. In humans, the consumption of sodium nitrite has been strongly correlated with brain tumors, leukemia, and cancers of the digestive tract. Yet this ingredient carries absolutely no warning on food labels, and in fact, seems to sound like a perfectly safe ingredient, like sodium

http://www.naturalnews.com/001529.html

--------

Stop giving your kids cancer......stop giving them lunchmeat laden with nitrites!!!!! If you don't like it, f**k U!!!!!

[JeanGrey]

47. Oh yeah, I've read ALL those studies about lunch meat caused

lung cancer - right. Look if you want to smoke don't do it around kids and you can FO yourself! You won't be around when your kid is dying of lung cancer.

[Mind_your_head]

70. Who said lung cancer? Lunch meat typically causes pancreatic cancer

and the 'cure' rate for pancreatic cancer is abysmally low, even lower than than the survival rate of lung cancer.

Just ask those who remember Andy...

[Zhade]

74. There's no such thing as second-hand lunchmeat, so try again!

NT!

[Maine-ah]

77. lol, ever see school lunches?

:puke:

[Thepricebreaker]

41. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY LIFE...

[callous taoboy]

57. My mom has stayed the fuck out of my life: Dead at 44, me age 9, stroked out due to smoking

so I have no problem with this bill. Basically advocating for letting adults smoke with kids in the car is advocating for lifting the ban on underaged smoking.

[Scout]

61. it's not yours they are worried about n/t

[JeanGrey]

42. GOOD. It's about time!! I remember being trapped by my

chain smoking parents and I HATED IT.

[LostinVA]

48. Change "Parents" to "Father," and I'm right there with you

[JeanGrey]

54. I don't think people understand what they are doing to their kids.

Just the other day we walked past a walmart "smoker" tub that cigarette smoke was pouring out of the top and it almost made me want to puke. People don't understand how they stink.

[LostinVA]

55. I started smoking at 17 (college Freshman) because my Dad did it

I even smoked his brand (Salem). I finally quit when I was 30, after a 10+ year habit of two to two-and-a-half packs of day. April 1 will be 13 years since I quit.

Both my sister and I have respiratory issues that we (and our doctors) believe stem from growing up in a smoke-filled home. My wife smokes, but she smokes outside, and she can't kiss me after she smokes (even though she's really cute).

[JeanGrey]

68. Try to get a cat scan if you can - early detection is vital

with lung cancer.

[Lorien]

67. Me too. I would have celebrated this law as a child

because family vacations were SHEER HELL with two chain smokers and the windows rolled up. I always ended up sick for days after my return home. I'm now so sensitive to cigarette smoke that I can't even stand near a smoker who just has it on their clothing. If this law saves one child from that kind of misery then it's worth it..

[JeanGrey]

69. Me, too - it's awful.

[Ordr]

44. Completely unconstitutional.

This is one of those uncomfortable lapses of progressivism into totalitarianism.

[Demeter]

51. Raising Taxes and Cutting All Corporate Welfare for Tobacco

would do much more for everyone (except the corporations, of course). Even a ban on the sale of tobacco in any form would do more, and be legally defensible, to boot. Public health programs for the addicted would be the logical support for those affected.

I've never understood until now that Prohibition was overkill. It shouldn't take an Amendment to the Constitution to institute public health policy. It just takes smart regulations.

While the intention of this law is well-meaning, this regulation is not smart. It works against the Constitution, not with it.

[Traction311]

59. More of our freedom going down the toilet

N/T

[Maine-ah]

60. but what about your kid's freedom?

kids don't have choices when it comes to their parents habits. Many posts in this thread are from people, who as children were forced to ride in a car with a parent that smoked.

Look, I'm a former smoker, with a kid. I would never, even before I had BB Maine-ah, have smoked in a car with a child in it.

Is it so hard to just wait until you're out of the car?

I want my child to grow up healthy and strong. I would hope all parents would want this for their kids.

[Traction311]

62. I don't like government rules

While smoking around a kid is a bad thing to do, I just hate the fact that more and more Big Brother laws appear each year.

[lakercub]

63. I DO like government rules

when they are designed to protect me from other people and other people from me. It's the rules protecting me from myself I don't like. If I want to smoke, drink, do drugs, commit suicide, etc. then I should be free to. The minute I endanger someone else however, there needs to be a mechanism to stop me. When a person smokes in a car with kids, they aren't just hurting themselves...they are hurting the kids. It is the old "my rights stop where your nose starts" thing.

The right to privacy, property rights, etc. are all superseded by laws designed to protect others. Just as one could not claim property or privacy rights if they beat the hell out of a visitor to their house, they should not be able to damage their children's health...and claim privacy or property to do it.

[Traction311]

65. Government rules lead to dictatorships

The far-right loves them. Look at the police state we're getting at. I don't support it at all.

[Lorien]

66. The far right hates rules when it infriges on their right to cheat customers,

pollute the environment, harm the public, and outright lie to make an easy buck. It was lack of regulation and enforcement of the rules that fucked up the economy. Sadly, people are too greedy, stupid and corrupt to police themselves.

[Mind_your_head]

71. Right. And you don't need a LAW to force you to do the right thing, do you?

That's all I think a lot of people are saying here.

Most people will do the right thing.

You're not gonna get 100% compliance with a law or no law anyway. People are tired of being 'scared'/bullyed by all these laws.

Stop all of this 'bully-ing' shite is what people are saying. And it's not just about smoking (or not).

[Maine-ah]

73. I don't need the law, because I will do the right thing

a lot of people won't do the right thing, and this is a law to protect kids who otherwise wouldn't have a say when it comes to their parents smoking in a very enclosed space. If you have ever been in a car with someone who smokes, even with the window cracked, the car still fills up with smoke.

Last night at work (I waitress) I was talking to another server who happened to be in with her kids, and I know she smokes in the car with her kids. I mentioned this new law to her and she's rather pissed, even though her kids at the table were cheering it, and were telling their Mom and Dad that they needed to quit, and didn't like being in the car with them when they smoked.

[Orsino]

72. There would be a year of warnings. "One year after the bill is enacted...

...a civil violation resulting in a $50 fine will go into effect, with the warning option still available at the discretion of officers. In addition, committee members added a clause similar to the seat belt law that would limit the extent to which police may search vehicles when stopped for a smoking violation."

Doesn't sound too severe. A parent caught actually beating up the child might get in much worse trouble.

[eilen]

75. If the cigarette taxes and fines

went to help smokers quit and fund lung cancer as well as help pay for quitting aids such as the patch, aerosol (inhaler) and medications I would be all for it. If the substance is so freaking evil (tobacco) they could put some kind of program together to help farmers bridge over to different crops and gradually eliminate the farm subsidies attached to this... and ban it. If the government was as stringent about clean air with companies and corporations and did not merely just allow them to buy "credits" I might believe they really do care about our lungs rather than passing token nanny laws that penalize the average citizen. Nevermind that the state, in general, has a very crappy record of protecting abused children in general. Let's see them keep better track of say, the foster children in their care and the school children from shooters and gangs, and the adolescents in custody and residential programs. How about funding some after-school programs?

This is about controlling people, not air quality.

While the current literature states that smoking is the cause of 87% of lung cancer, understand to that 87% of smokers do not get lung cancer. There are plenty of lung cancer and other pulmonary diseases that are not linked to smoking. Plenty of non-smokers with lung cancer (although there are many many smokers who do get it--there are a significant amount of people who don't smoke). Radon is the second biggest cause of lung cancer, next is work related environmental --such as asbestos but also includes others and particulate matter air pollution. It is interesting that although there has been a marked decrease in smoking, the rate of lung cancer has only gone up.

What is also interesting is that even though there are less people smoking, there are rising cases of asthma in children as well as adults. This suggests to me that the air quality and our response to it has less to do with smoking habits (smoke most certainly makes it worse) and more to do with other sources. Consider that the acid rain we receive in the Adirondacks is from the pollution that was made by factories in Michigan causing dead pools.

My concern is that it is easy to park the blame at the feet of smokers and persecute them for the small part they may play in their immediate environment rather than enforce clean air laws to industry--automobile manufacturing, power plants, mining, pharmaceutical plants etc. and OSHA laws on work sites as varied as auto repair garages, construction sites and food processing plants. Not to mention the off-gassing of petroleum based products.-- As well as requiring stiffer environmental standards in the third world countries where manufacturing has moved their factories to.

I don't smoke. My husband just recently quit chewing tobacco. My father died of lung cancer (heavy smoker); my mother suffers from chronic bronchitis/emphysema and is a smoker, my brother and his girlfriend both smoke--both cigarettes and pot but for obvious reasons, only tobacco in front of children and in public.

Personally, I don't think it is appropriate to smoke in the car with children. I don't like it when people smoke in the car period but I don't know that criminalizing it is the appropriate way to go.

[Maine-ah]

76. not trying to be "picky"

but do you have any links to the statistics that you have posted?

[eilen]

80. Yes, I got my information from

The American Lung Association

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=22542

[Maine-ah]

82. thankyou!

[Orsino]

78. They don't seem to be criminalizing it at all.

The fines are akin to those for parking violations, maybe, and less than those for speeding.

[eilen]

81. The Canadian Lung Association

likened smoking in front of children as "child abuse."
http://www.data-yard.net/10z/cla.htm


"Peter Dudding, executive director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, agreed, saying: "Currently, smoking is not grounds that would warrant removal of a child from the home, but that's not to say it shouldn't be. There's a shifting level of knowledge and tolerance in our society about smoking.""


Also read: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/03/illinois-smokers-could-face-month-in.html

"Under the terms a bill sponsored by Illinois state senator Mike Boland, people who smoke in a car with children under 9 years old present would be guilty of a state crime - a misdemenaor - and would be subject to up to a $1,500 fine and a month in prison (see Chicago Tribune article).

According to the article: "Illinois could join the short list of states that bar people from smoking in cars when children are present, under legislation introduced by Rep. Mike Boland. Boland wants to make it a misdemeanor to smoke in a car if any of the passengers are 8 or younger. Violators could be slapped with a $1,500 fine and a month in jail. The Moline Democrat said he was inspired when he walked past a car filled with a cloud of smoke from the driver's cigarette. 'I saw some little heads in their little car seats and thought 'Gee, that's really awful,'' Boland said."

There are slippery slopes out there. Proceed with caution.

[poppysgal]

79. Whats next?

I am also not a smoker but I am an American concerned about our rights being chiseled away supposedly for our own good, wake up, are we now going to have a "bad habits" division of homeland security?:patriot:

[orangerevolution]

83. If we can get Mary Jane legalized

would that be an exception? Have we here at DU shown that it is not harmful?