CA: Senate votes to ban smoking in cars carrying young kids (and much much more)

ap on Riverside Press Enterprise ^ | 8/28/06 | Steve Lawrence - ap

[TWohlford]

And in a previous thread, Freepers are wanting to protect children from swearing uttered during the 9-11 rescue efforts....

[dc27]

I like how our state can pass more nanny-state laws. Glad to see they have their priorities straight.

[dayglored]

> "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."

How's that work? Years ago when I smoked, I was up to a pack and a half a day, and could never pull that rate off. Doing a pack and a half in an hour would have required chain-smoking.

Not just chain-smoking -- more like running two cigarettes at a time. 30 cigarettes in an hour is a whole cigarette every two minutes, continuously.

WTF??!?!?

[donmeaker]

Of course if second hand smoke is harmful, there is no evidence of it.

[dayglored]

> And in a previous thread, Freepers are wanting to protect children from swearing uttered during the 9-11 rescue efforts....

It all depends on what you consider dangerous, doesn't it?

[cabojoe]

Just another reason for the CHP to pull over whoever they want to. Pathetic.

[Hunble]

Tie the kids to the front bumper!

Smoking is my symbolic definition of American freedom.

Do not tread on me, unless you are willing to place your life on the line!

[FairOpinion]

"Californians who smoke in motor vehicles carrying young children could be slapped with $100 fines under a bill approved Monday by the state Senate.
"


===

Pretty soon children of smokers will be taken away from them.

[facedown]

"Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."

And space aliens have taken over the Girl Scouts.

[eXe]

Its all BS, and designed to do one thing and one thing only. Keeping smokers from smoking because the nanny state doesn't like it. Thats all any of these laws are about.

If it were about health tobacco would have been banned years ago. Its not about anyones health anymore.. its a move toward prohibition and control.

[digger48]

You weren't supposed to notice that.

Just bow subserviently to the tobacco Nazis and slit your wrists for doubting them

[dayglored]

> Keeping smokers from smoking because the nanny state doesn't like it. Thats all any of these laws are about.... It's not about anyones health anymore.. its a move toward prohibition and control.

I'm afraid you're absolutely correct.

And what are we going to do about it?

[Hunble]

It has nothing to do with health, but about the government's ability to control every aspect of your private life.

I have drawn my line in the sand.

YOU CAN NOT CROSS THIS!

[dayglored]

> You weren't supposed to notice that.

OOOPS. Sorry about that, Chief.

> Just bow subserviently to the tobacco Nazis and slit your wrists for doubting them

I'm workin' on it...

[RockinRight]

Under current law, that would be children who were younger than 6 or who weighed less than 60 pounds. But a bill on the governor's desk would require children younger than 8 years to ride in child seats unless they were at least 4-foot-9.

Show me one child that size in a car seat and I'll show you a kid that gets beat up at recess.

[dayglored]

> Tie the kids to the front bumper! Smoking is my symbolic definition of American freedom.... Do not tread on me, unless you are willing to place your life on the line!

Take a deep breath. (Cigarette smoke may be included at your option.)

[goldstategop]

I find insulting parents need to be fined for smoking among their kids and its damning our legislators want to require Wal-mart to submit triplicate forms to set up new shopping centers in California. Your Nanny State at work.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

[Hunble]

Oh, I have been taking a deep breath since the murder of American citizens at Waco.

Just like Timothy McVeigh, I have drawn my line in the sand.

DO NOT CROSS THAT LINE!

[upchuck]

Kalifornika, the uber nanny state.