I did manage to find a link: http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/full/152/4/491
Posted on 08/28/2006 8:05:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO
Californians who smoke in motor vehicles carrying young children could be slapped with $100 fines under a bill approved Monday by the state Senate.
But a measure to force automakers to produce more lower-polluting, alternative-fuel vehicles fell four votes short of passing.
The smoking ban, in a bill by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, would cover vehicles carrying children who were required to ride in a child safety seat.
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.
Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, said the Koretz bill was an attempt to "protect the health of children who cannot protect themselves."
"We all know that secondhand smoke is hazardous," she said, particularly for young children whose lungs are still developing. "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."
A 23-14 vote returned the bill to the Assembly, which initially approved it last year when it dealt with a different subject.
The alternative fuel bill, by Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, would require the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations requiring that at least half the new cars and light trucks sold in California starting in 2020 be classified as clean-running alternative vehicles.
Battery-powered cars, vehicles that ran on ethanol or another alternative fuel, and vehicles that used a fuel mixture that was less than half gasoline would meet that standard.
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, said the bill would "help move us away from our 99 percent dependence on petroleum for motor vehicle fuel."
But the bill, which did not generate debate on the Senate floor, received only 17 votes. It needed at least 21, a bare majority of the 40-member Senate, to pass. Eighteen senators voted against it.
Supporters indicated they would take up the measure for a second vote before lawmakers adjourn their 2006 session on Thursday.
Here's a rundown of some of the other bills voted on Monday:
POOL SAFETY By a 28-7 vote, the Senate approved another bill designed to protect children. The measure by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, would require homeowners to install fences, door alarms or another anti-drowning device when they remodel a swimming pool or spa.
The bill, which goes back to the Assembly for a vote on Senate amendments, extends requirements that now cover new pools to older pools and spas when they are remodeled.
CELL PHONES The Senate, by a 23-16 vote, approved a bill by Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, that would give consumers 21 days to rescind a new cell phone service they found dissatisfactory.
The measure now goes back to the Assembly for a vote on Senate amendments.
DARFUR By a 29-7 vote, the Senate approved another Koretz bill that would attempt to pressure Sudan to stop genocidal violence in the Darfur region.
The bill would prohibit California's two giant public employee pension funds, the California Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System, from investing in oil and other energy-related companies that operate in Sudan but haven't taken steps to stop the violence.
The measure also would bar the funds from investing in companies that supply weapons to Sudan.
Sen. Jack Scott, D-Pasadena, said a similar investment ban helped bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING The Assembly approved a bill by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would extend public services such as refugee cash assistance, Medi-Cal benefits and employment services to non-citizen victims of human trafficking, domestic violence and other violent crimes.
In order to receive state and local aid, those individuals would have to show that they were taking steps to meet eligibility requirements for federal benefits.
The bill passed 45-4 and now goes back to the Senate for a vote on Assembly amendments.
WAL-MART The Assembly voted 41-31 along party lines to approve a bill by Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys, that would require so-called "superstore retailers" such as Wal-Mart and Costco to provide cities and counties where they wish to build with a detailed economic impact report.
The reports would include an assessment of the effects the superstore would have on local retailers.
Assembly Republicans argued that the bill would create a hostile business environment and harm healthy competition among retailers.
It now returns to the Senate for a vote on Senate amendments.
___
Associated Press Writer Robin Hindery contributed to this report.
___
On the Net: http://www.assembly.ca.gov and http://www.senate.ca.gov
According to these jokers my son, who's four foot eight, should still be in a car seat. And he's just turning 13.
Yeah, that would go over like a lead balloon.
Rather interesting article located here:
European Journal of Endocrinology (2005) 152 491–499
The article is long (smoked an entire Diamond Crown Maximus Double Corona while reading it) and rather boring, but essentially seems vague and inconclusive in many areas of the health-smoking relationship.
I can't link to the article but I will put it in a separate post for those interested.
I'm glad we see eye to eye on that.
> Where we may depart, is how we view what Sam Adams would do in this situation. Sorry, but I highly doubt that Sam Adams would have only written a "strongly worded email" to his local government officials.
Hardly. He'd be the firebrand leading the charge, no doubt. He'd be advocating resistance, even to the point of armed rebellion, against the oppression of his people by their government. That's why he's one of my heros.
He would not be advocating the murder of innocent bystanders, however. Even at his most vociferous times, he was careful to know his target. I know of no circumstance where he considered murdering bystanders a virtue.
> Actually, I think he did something rather important, as a result of, or closely related to, the government's tobacco laws.
Now that's a new one on me. I'm aware of the Tea Party of course, and a number of other adventures, and his advocacy of the Bill of Rights. But I didn't know he was involved with tobacco. Do you have a reference on that?
Actually, I'm leaning to the McVeigh/Bin Laden connection. You can check it out at http://www.jaynadavis.com or http://www.jaynadavis.com/nm.html
This is why I don't want a government run by doctors (apologies to Bill Frist and Ron Paul). We would be prohibited from doing anything pleasurable.
I did manage to find a link: http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/full/152/4/491
Totally agree... add that to the fact that you now have to look for the part of the sample ballot that is in English. Got to vote these people out.
Sorry, but I am not buying the Muslim argument!
The attack was targeted against the HQ of the FBI and the BATF. A very specific goverment building.
Non-government civilians inside of that building were not targeted, but "shit happens" in these situations.
This was not the local shopping mall where innocent civilians were targeted and murdered.
You know that, and I know that. It is rather insulting that you are implying something other than the factual information.
Good thing that Samual Adams was able to write such a strongly worded email to HIS GOVERNMENT, and was never forced to harm "innocent civilians" for the next 12 years.
Both my kids should be dead according to that equation, but amazingly they aren't and neither ever developed asthma from their parents smoking, or any of the other ailments claimed
New Jersey or New York must be getting ready for a similar ban. A commercial on my tv has a little baby in the back seat of a car coughing and coughing, then it pans to the mother at the wheel with a cigarette in her hand, smoke filling the back seat around the kid and then the voiceover telling how dangerous it is and what it's doing to the baby. Like who would keep all the windows rolled up when smoking. Such a load of crap.
Point granted: Of course he targeted a specific government building. Great, he got that right.
But the fact is that McVeigh chose a time (9AM) when the maximum number of innocent people would be there. He had to know that -- saying he "didn't target non-governmental civilians inside the building" is just disingenuous bullshit. Blowing up a building with a day-care in it is not "shit happens", that's "I'm gonna kill as many people as possible and I don't care who they are".
McVeigh was not carefully targeting government personnel, he was commiting mass murder of innocent people, and justifying it because it was a "government building". What a horrific and evil error of judgment that was!
Look, let's get practical for a moment.
There would have been many more effective ways to specifically target the FBI and BATF, including locally-placed explosives inside parts of the building, assassination of official individuals, all sorts of stuff (none of which I advocate here, by the way -- rules are rules). But those take more planning, more thought, and a lot more risk.
McVeigh was chickenshit. He didn't target carefully -- you and I both know he could have been more specific if he was out to do damage to ONLY the FBI and BATF. Nope, he targeted a building that had many other functions. He was out to make a hell of a mess, and he did succeed in making one hell of a mess.
I'm sorry, I don't buy your rationale. But I note with respect your long tenure at FR, and appreciate your sharing your views, even the ones I find pretty unpalatable.
Unfortunately, I'm also out of time. It's 3AM here and I've gotta say goodnight. Thanks for an invigorating exchange -- even though we disagree on some things, we do share similar goals with regard to getting the government off our backs.
And best of continued good fortune with your tobacco enterprise.
Anyway, have a good night, catch ya later...
"Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."
Logically challanged folks might actually believe this!
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
And the Nazis here on FR will be cheering.
I can't wait to tell my sister in law that she may have to ride in a baby seat. Shes about 4'9". Shes 56 years old. LOL
Just damn!
How about banning the use of cellphones by soccer moms who are driving small children?
And when will California tackle the problem of "stripper moms"?
And taxes, and fines, and class action lawsuits...
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.