Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Snuffing out smoking in cars with children
Sacramento Bee ^ | August 14, 2006 | Jim Sanders

Posted on 08/14/2006 7:32:01 AM PDT by calcowgirl

Targeting a new frontier in the fight against smoking, California lawmakers may ban motorists from lighting up near young passengers.

The measure would mark the first time that Californians would be prohibited from smoking legal tobacco products on private property not open to the public or employees.

No state had passed such a vehicle smoking ban until this year, when Arkansas and Louisiana set a precedent by barring the practice when passengers are under 6 or 13, respectively.

Assemblyman Paul Koretz, a West Hollywood Democrat who proposed California's ban, Assembly Bill 379, said some parents don't seem to know -- or care -- about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

"If you're too stupid to recognize that on your own, then we have to pass a law to tell you, 'Don't be an idiot, don't smoke with your small kid in the car with you,' " Koretz said.

AB 379 makes no exception for vehicles whose windows are open to increase ventilation. It applies to motorists whose passengers are younger than 6 or lighter than 60 pounds.

Violators would be subject to a base fine of up to $100, which could rise to more than $350 through penalty assessments for courts, jails, trauma centers and other programs.

Opponents call AB 379 another example of "nanny government" in which lawmakers intrude into private lives or property rights.

"I think we try to micromanage people's lives to an extent that's getting ridiculous, whether it's health or dietary or lifestyle decisions," said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg.

Canciamilla predicted that if AB 379 succeeds in limiting smoking in vehicles, other private property will be targeted next.

"The argument would be the same: Why would you let someone smoke in a car with children present? Then, why in an apartment? Or a house?"

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 4moregovernment; 4thechildren; 4thecommongood; 4thestate; ab379; callegislation; cradletograve; govwatch; nannystate; paulkoretz; pufflist; smokingban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last
To: Publius6961
I should have added...

What's next?
How about fatty foods that create "beached whale" politicians?
Heart attacks.
Clogged arteries.
Clogged brains

41 posted on 08/14/2006 8:15:26 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

They will have trouble with the Hispanics!


42 posted on 08/14/2006 8:15:38 AM PDT by mdmathis6 (Proof against evolution:"Man is the only creature that blushes, or needs to" M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

You're probably right.

You know, I don't care much for smoking inside. (I think there are ways of accomodating smokers and non-smokers without turning smokers into the equivalent of biblical-era lepers, though. ) But the absolute worst air I've ever experienced, much worse than any tobacco-smoke-filled room I've been in, was outside -- on the streets of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains (I guess that's the explanation right there.) The traffic was so congested and the auto exhaust fumes so thick that I coughed and gagged while I was going down the sidewalk. I'm just thankful that I didn't run into any cigarette smokers along the way, and I hope against hope that no one in those cars was smoking and endangering their passengers.


43 posted on 08/14/2006 8:17:06 AM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican (The moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

"The study was quietly shelved, and details have never been released."


Here is part of it that I found a long time ago in a 'cached' website. It disappeared from the internet shortly after.

"UK Sunday Telegraph...

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official


Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.





The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.





The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."





Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."


44 posted on 08/14/2006 8:17:15 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

simple just tell the cop it's a joint and you're off scot free


45 posted on 08/14/2006 8:17:35 AM PDT by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I'm not worried about the slippery slope.

We know, even though you should be.

At the same time smoking is more regulated, concealed carry is becoming more widespread. Not to mention that the smoking bans are being initiated at the local level.

46 posted on 08/14/2006 8:20:43 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
• In January, the California Air Resources Board became the nation's first air regulator to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant, on a par with cancer-causing diesel soot, asbestos and lead.

In the late 19th century, the state legislature of Idaho came within one vote of declaring the value of pi, by law, to be 3.1.

It was done for the public benefit of not having to waste time with all those useless and bothersome decimal points.

Laws and "declarations" can be as stupid and insane as the individuals making them.

47 posted on 08/14/2006 8:21:12 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Most smokers are addicts. They don't listen to reason, or behave accordingly.


48 posted on 08/14/2006 8:21:41 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Seig Heil!


49 posted on 08/14/2006 8:22:13 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Has there ever been any hard evidence of the harm of second hand smoke?

I recall the original EPA report turned out to be a bunch separate studies lumped together with no clear outcome.


50 posted on 08/14/2006 8:23:36 AM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Anti-smokers are the addicts..........they have no concept of reason and thus act accordingly.


51 posted on 08/14/2006 8:29:07 AM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

"I think we try to micromanage people's lives to an extent that's getting ridiculous, whether it's health or dietary or lifestyle decisions," said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg.



It is an upside down world when this "D" gets it and many FReepers don't. I regretfully will no doubt read some FR comments in support of this legislation.


52 posted on 08/14/2006 8:30:53 AM PDT by CSM ("The fatter we get as a country the more concerned we get about smoking" - ichabod1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
I've been predicting this. Nationwide resteraunt and bar ban within 10 years, and the ban of smoking in houses with children within 20. In divorces, the spouse who smokes will lose custody, and eventually smoking around children will be a factor in big brother taking them away.

Enjoy the bloated, cancerous police state. We vote for it time and time again when we vote for the statist superparties, so that's what we must want.
53 posted on 08/14/2006 8:32:21 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

"Yep, cleaner air."

You sure about that? Let's see the proof. Of course, we all know you meant, "Yep, less smelly air."


54 posted on 08/14/2006 8:32:45 AM PDT by CSM ("The fatter we get as a country the more concerned we get about smoking" - ichabod1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

"Regulating smoking unfortunately is necessary."

Says the enemies of individual liberty, private property and personal responsibility.


55 posted on 08/14/2006 8:35:42 AM PDT by CSM ("The fatter we get as a country the more concerned we get about smoking" - ichabod1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I don't know, it is said that candy is a gateway drug that takes you right to the hard stuff...ice cream. The guys at the Center for Science in the Busybody Interest say that's where the real lawsuit action is.
56 posted on 08/14/2006 8:37:19 AM PDT by 50sDad (ST3d: Real Star Trek 3d Chess: http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~abartmes/tactical.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Most smokers are addicts. They don't listen to reason, or behave accordingly.

So you are saying that anything people can be addicted to should be regulated? Gambling? Sex (including porn)? Junk food? Sports?

57 posted on 08/14/2006 8:37:50 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Regulating smoking unfortunately is necessary.

Why?

Most smokers are addicts. They don't listen to reason, or behave accordingly.



Is the regulation of caffiene also a necessity? How about all other addictions?


58 posted on 08/14/2006 8:40:26 AM PDT by CSM ("The fatter we get as a country the more concerned we get about smoking" - ichabod1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Most smokers are addicts. They don't listen to reason, or behave accordingly.

Funny thing is, the exact same thing can be said about irrational, neurotic, rabid anti-smokers...

59 posted on 08/14/2006 8:47:06 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I regretfully will no doubt read some FR comments in support of this legislation.

Didn't take long to fine 'em, did it?

;-)

60 posted on 08/14/2006 8:54:17 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson