Posted on 06/29/2006 7:49:10 AM PDT by SmithL
SACRAMENTO - Should it be illegal for parents to smoke in the car while their children are in the back seat?
One day after the U.S. Surgeon General released the most damning study yet on secondhand smoke, a state Senate committee approved a bill Wednesday that would allow police to stop drivers guilty of puffing in the confines of their car when a child passenger is secured in a safety seat.
If the measure becomes law, violators who smoke a "lighted pipe, cigar or cigarette containing tobacco or any other plant" would receive a warning on the first offense, and a $100 fine the next time they are pulled over.
Under the bill, a smoker could be found guilty even if the car is parked or on private property. It would not, however, apply if the child were at least 6 years old -- old enough to legally not have to be in a safety seat.
"There's no excuse in today's society for any mother of any age, or any level of education, to do something which I consider akin to child abuse," said Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, chair of the Senate Health Committee, which approved the measure.
AB379, introduced by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, previously passed the Assembly on a 49-30 vote and still needs to be approved by the full Senate and signed by the governor.
Similar measures two years ago failed, but Koretz and health professionals who testified on behalf of the bill were encouraged because of the recent studies, which show the effects of secondhand smoke on children -- including high rates of bronchitis, pneumonia and asthma -- are more alarming than previously thought.
Koretz's position also was bolstered by the Surgeon General's report that stated that brief, secondhand smoke can cause immediate harm.
"For children who live in households where someone smokes, as I did growing up as the son of two chain smokers," Koretz told the committee, "the effects are worse during the first five years." He added: "A child exposed to one hour in a smoking room or car is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he or she smoked 10 or more cigarettes, according to the Mayo Clinic."
Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-San Luis Obispo, also voted in favor -- and told of a recent experience that disturbed him.
"I was at a stoplight and this young woman, I don't know how old she was, in a small little car, smoking up a storm inside the car, two kids in the back," he said. "I just couldn't understand the concept."
Opposition to the measure was succinct.
Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, voted against the bill, concerned over the state government regulating someone's "private space," such as an automobile. He also suggested the proposed law is inconsistent because older children would still be able to ride in the front seat with a parent who smokes.
Sen. Dave Cox, R-Roseville, jokingly asked if the ban would exempt drivers in convertible cars. (The answer was no. In fact, studies show, secondhand smoke affects children in cars even if the windows are rolled down, Alicia Sanchez of the Children's Advocacy Institute, testified).
A leader of the Santa Clara County Libertarian Party expressed opposition to the measure in a telephone interview.
"This just demonstrates the state of government today -- and this is why I'm active in the Libertarian party, to try to fight this type of mommy and daddy government, or nanny government," said Lois Garcia of San Jose. "The Libertarian view is against any sort of government interference in a person's personal life and choice," she said, "including the way that they raise their children."
Representatives of pro-health organizations spoke in favor of the measure; no one from the public opposed it.
"A recent study published by the Pediatrics journal confirmed that more children die of secondhand smoke exposure than all other accidental causes of injury and death combined," said Brendan Twohig of the American Heart Association. "We see AB379 as an extension of California's commitment to protecting the health of our most vulnerable population, our children."
Three similar measures were introduced in 2004 by then-Assemblyman Marco Antonio Firebaugh; each failed in different stages of the legislative process.
Firebaugh died in March, of influenza and liver failure, at age 39. The new measure is called the Marco Firebaugh Memorial Children's Health and Safety Act of 2006.
Ping ..... it she comes!
We are gathered here today to mourn the death of personal responsibility. Once upon a time folks were responsible for their own actions... alas, the government now feels the need to take over that task. You will be missed personal responsibility... you will be missed.
????? ... it she comes = here it comes!
Please.... Call it what it is Marxist, not cute "nanny"
They have found that they can dam near pass anything if it is under the mantra of......it's for the children!
Sorry I have to call BS on this. Parents do not have the right to treat their children how ever they want. They can't beat up their kids, starve them, or otherwise abuse their children. How is locking your child up in a smoke filled room or car any different than child abuse?
I'm against government regulation in many things, but too many stupid people having kids who shouldn't, doesn't give them a right to raise them in bad conditions.
A) How did we ever survive without such benevolent people like this looking out for us?
B) Here's to being liberated from CA for 5 years!
NB: The original sponsor died of "Liver failure and influenza" at age 39.
You consider smoking in a car with your children child abuse, I dont.
That's all.
I got a question for you then.
Would people who are cited for moving violations (speeding, turning right on red when not allowed, etc..) also be guilty of child abuse?
Because, while there may be an increased risk of health effects for smoking near children, a moving violation in the wrong place at the wrong time may kill them instanty.
yup, and where will they go next? Inside the homes of smokers.. this is getting way out of hand.
"We are gathered here today to mourn the death of personal responsibility. "
And, sadly, personal responsiblitiy's close relative, personal freedom is on life support.
Have they voted to ban abortion yet?
here we go.
"Because, while there may be an increased risk of health effects for smoking near children, a moving violation in the wrong place at the wrong time may kill them instanty."
The proverbial slippery slope. However, I think the people behind this are more than comfortable taking more and more control of our lives.
BTW, my parents smoked like chimineys, yes, while I was in the car with them. I'm 48, no ill effects. I know it's not scientific, or conclusive, but, it's also pertinent.
She said this under oath?
"A recent study published by the Pediatrics journal confirmed that more children die of secondhand smoke exposure than all other accidental causes of injury and death combined," said Brendan Twohig of the American Heart Association.
Cite two death certificates, please.
Correct. I'm an ex-smoker, but for goodness' sake, where's the limit to gubmint intervention? Here comes the chip monitors...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.