Parenting Club - Parenting Advice, Parenting Message Boards, Baby Message Boards, Pregnancy Message Boards, TTC Messge Boards
Shop for Baby Items | Parenting & Family Blogs

CA bans smoking in car - with minors present


mysweetpeasWil&Wes wrote: What do you guys think?

My Webpage

I think it is GREAT! thumb.gif But they say that one has to be pulled over for another offense first (like speeding) before being cited for smoking with minors in the car. Seems odd to have to wait for a double-offense before getting ticketed. dry.gif I think smoking in a car with minors present is a legit reason alone to pull someone over. JMHO.

coasterqueen replied: There was legislation presented in our state for the same thing. I believe it did not pass, though. I am not sure how I feel on this. I have such mixed views - some for and some against.

suzykrul replied: I think that it is wrong to subject a child to 2nd hand smoke....so im for it. But i think its sad to have to pass a law that is just Common sense.

DVFlyer replied: I agree with it.

PrairieMom replied: redbounce.gif redbounce.gif redbounce.gif redbounce.gif redbounce.gif redbounce.gif redbounce.gif
I'm sure there are no surprises there. Humm... I wonder what the respiratory therapist thinks of this one... rolleyes.gif rolling_smile.gif

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied:
Ditto to that! thumb.gif

gr33n3y3z replied: mixed feelings
pretty soon they will be telling you what you can and can not buy
And how high to jump and what paper towels to use and what car you have to buy .......... I can go on forever it just never ends.

A&A'smommy replied:
yeah I feel the same way.. this really isn't a free country anymore

ON the other hand I think its a great law, and I think its a perfectly good reason to pull someone over.

BAC'sMom replied: Land of the Free my a$$ huh.gif

What a load of Crapola!

luvmykids replied:
Same here, it's a necessary evil for the folks too stupid or careless to NOT smoke with kids in the car. On the other hand, the government feels more meddlesome to me by the minute dry.gif

jcc64 replied: In light of the fact that bad health is something that affects us all as a society, I think it's a completely legitimate law and I support it. it's in our best interest to keep those kids healthy. It goes w/o saying that from a moral perspective, for those kids whose parents won't/don't care for them properly, it's incumbent upon the state to step in to protect them. It's not the kids' fault their parents are idiots.
We stopped being the land of the free a long time ago, guys.

Crystalina replied: I would only think this is wrong if it were for everyone. Since it is only for people traveling with minors I say it's about time! Kids cannot stand up for themselves and there are alot of parents who would rather puff on a smoke while going down the road then worry about their childs health.

Calimama replied:
I agree.

MyBabeMaddie replied: I think it is absolute BS! I would NEVER smoke with Madison in the car, but who in their right mind has the right to tell me if I can or can not smoke IN MY CAR THAT I OWN. I think they are way over-stepping their bounds. JMO

lisar replied: I am a smoker. (hopefully not for much longer though) And I DONT smoke in the car with my kids, and we dont smoke in the house at all. So it wouldnt bother me if they passed it cause I dont do it anyways and I am a smoker.

MyBabeMaddie replied: I understand all the health risks associated with smoking and 2nd hand smoke - However, I see this law not as a law protecting minors from 2nd hand smoke (which it is a good thing no kid should be subjected to the nasty smell(I wish they had this when I was little)) I see this as stupid law makers taking over my rights as an American. They are definitely violating my civil rights and I think it is absurd.

Edited for typo's

My2Beauties replied:
Sadly, you're not the majority though, hon! I see this everyday, Mom lighting up with 2-3 kids in the backseat inhaling that crap. It's sad that the gov does have to step in but something has to be done, it's absolutely insane to smoke with your kids in the car - horrible horrible horrible. At least in your house you can go in another room and spare them some of that God awful smell and inhalants but to be subjected to inhaling it in a tiny car with about 2 feet space between you and them is absurd, it's sad that the gov has to take these types of steps. If only parents weren't so ignorant nowadays then this wouldn't have to be a law! sad.gif

Insanemomof3 replied: I am a smoker. I smoke in my car. My kids are not in the car when I do it though. BUT. The government should not be able to take away our rights on where we can smoke. JMO Where is the freedom going?

holley79 replied: Well I'm a smoker but I don't smoke in my vehicle with my child present, I don't smoke in the house, heck I normally don't smoke where she can see me. On the flip side they are going to have a tough time passing the law because people are going to throw in the Violation of Civil rights.



jcc64 replied:

What about the rights of those children to enjoy good health? Which is more important- your freedom to smoke anywhere you want, or their access to breathable, clean air?




MyBabeMaddie replied:
Look I know its a law to protect the kids, but putting that aside... They can't tell us where and where not to smoke - I'm not saying I'm against the law because I hate seeing people smoke around their kids and I would never/could never do it... All I'm saying is that its rediculous that they think they can tell people where and when to smoke...

jcc64 replied: Listen, no one is more pro civil liberties than me, and anyone who knows my politics on this board can certainly attest to that. However, the ill effects of smoking on childrens' LONG TERM health is well documented and unquestionable, and it DOES affect us all as a society. You don't smoke around your kids b/c you're a good mom and you know right from wrong, but unfortunately, laws have to exist to protect EVERYONE, and when deciding whether something makes sense often requires us to look beyond our own front doors, kwim? Some kids do need to be protected from the bad behavior of their parents. Your kids are safe- many other kids are not so fortunate. Shouldn't we care about what happens to them, in light of the fact that they have no one else to protect their interests?
If you don't smoke in your car with the kids, why on earth would you have a problem with this law? You're already following it! Somewhere in there, is the admission that it makes sense, kwim?

my2monkeyboys replied: I don't have a problem so much with that particular law, though I'd rather it not be on the books. I will say that every law that is made makes it less and less free in this country.
I just wonder how many would be upset if they passed a law against feeding your kids fast food???

Jackie012007 replied:
I'm a former smoker (it's almost 2 years smoke free now, YAY!) and nothing makes me more mad than when I see someone pregnant or in a car with their kids, lighting up. It's so bad to expose your kids to that.

I dunno how I feel about the law, I agree with whoever posted above about fast food - yeah the law makes sense, but what's next, a ban on taking anyone under 18 into a fast food restaurant?

jcc64 replied: Some people seem to be missing the point of my post. I have no judgments about people on Medicaid whatsoever. I have judgments about people who smoke in their cars with their kids present, regardless of the type of insurance they carry. The only reason I brought up the medicaid issue is this: a few people mentioned here that it's not the gov't's business to tell people when and where they can smoke. But the medical repurcussions of smoking are very expensive to treat, and when we the taxpayers are footing the bill, then yes, it IS our business. That was my point, and I can't really find any other way to phrase it. The gov't intrudes into our lives ALL the time, in many many ways, and I think when childrens' well being is at stake, it's appropriate.

gr33n3y3z replied: and when we the taxpayers are footing the bill, then yes, it IS our business. That was my point, [/QUOTE]


I agree and then the same goes for abortions

I just wanted to add I have nothing agaist anyone on any one program just as long as its needed and not abused in any way.

jcc64 replied: I'm feeling a little upset about the way this post turned out, guys. Someone COMPLETELY misunderstood what I was trying to say, and then jumped on me, thinking I was saying something derogatory about Medicaid recipients. Lisa edited it all out, but I don't like my words being twisted around to mean something unintended. No one's a stronger advocate for social programs and their recipients than I am, and in no way was I passing judgment on the need for social services. I think I've gone over that point already in this thread.
I am asking that before reacting to someone's post, please read each word carefully, and then read it again- because in this case, it was the difference between two words that caused someone to extract a very different meaning than what I intended.
Thanks

redchief replied: Hmmm... hot topic. I'm glad it settled into civility at least.

This might fan the flames further, but I promise to stay on topic. First let me say that I'm an ex-smoker who never smoked in our home with our kids. Most people would say that ex-smokers are the worst nannies in the world when it comes to others' smoking. I am not. This isn't because I like cigarette smoke or being around it. Watching others smoke is, in fact, difficult for me, since the craving for a cigarette is a constant struggle. This legislation is BAD.

The California legislation is government nannyism at it's worst. Of course California is arguably the country's most prolific nanny state, so I would expect such a law to take foothold there early in the "control your lives" race. Arguably as well, NJ is the number 2 nanny state in the union, and similar legislation failed here last year, thank God.

California (and many legislators in NJ, I fear) believe they have the responsibility to protect me from myself, or at least to protect my children from me. Bullhockey! I believe I have the freedom to do what I wish, so long as I am not infringing upon the rights of others to do the same. While it may be argued that children in the vehicle are placed at risk by a smoking adult, you can take that argument into the home as well. Will that be next? I'm certain many hope so. I'm offended any time government passes a law to protect me (and by extension, my family) from myself, except in the case of obvious abuse of my child. While I do not smoke in my vehicle, I defend the rights of anyone else to do so. That's right, we have the right to privacy and in fact, to smoke in our vehicles if we so desire. The 4th Amendment gives me that protection.

I believe all legislated smoking bans are pure nannyism, and wrong. If a proprietor wants to serve me a drink and allow me to smoke in a bar, then I believe they should have the right to do that. The only area in which I believe the government should have a hand here is in informing those that may consider entering the privately owned establishment, that smoking is permitted within. Let the adult consumers choose whether or not they want to be in a place where smoking is permitted.

The next nanny argument in favor of a legislated ban is just as bad. Is it fair to subject your child to "passive smoking"? What's that? The Surgeon General, in 1998 declared that passive smoke is nearly as bad as actually indulging in cigarette smoking, based upon the results of a study by the EPA. The Surgeon General issued, from the "data" in the study, a set of rules he would like to see established protecting non-smokers from the evils of second hand smoke. What the head-nodders fail to disclose when they call upon this unarguable and unquestionable proof is that the results of the study were quantitatively dismissed by the Supreme Court after the methodology of the study was called into question. After examining the facts, it became clear to the courts that the EPA scientists conducting the study backward tracked the data from the conclusion the politicians wanted and even changed the methodology in the middle of the study when it was clear the data wasn't supporting the conclusion they'd been ordered to come to. Can second hand smoke be an irritant? Yes, of course it can. Can it kill you? Maybe over a lifetime of concentrated exposure to high levels of smoke it can, but most other studies have a hard time tracing any ill effects whatsoever from second hand smoke. I hate it when the government lies to me for my own good. Even worse, I hate it when, because altruistic nannies feel the need to protect me from myself, they push for bad laws to make me a criminal. Please don't think to steal my Fourth Amendment right to privacy for my own good.

Jackie012007 replied:
I hope you aren't referring to me - I merely was very confused as to why you brought medicaid into this. it seemed very out of left field and I have to admit, I was a little offended. But, that is because I'm on Medicaid. I think you have to look at it from someone like me, my POV. I know you didn't intend for it to turn into the discussion it did, but when it totally came out of nowhere like that, people were like "huh?". I don't really think anyone twisted your words, I think that a few of us were just questioning what the heck Medicaid had to do with any of it. And you replied why you brought it up and I read it and I respect your stance.

Something like that just tends to be one of those hot-button topics that some people feel very passionate about. hug.gif

jcc64 replied: It wasn't you, Carly, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond. Someone else DID in fact twist my words, and I could prove it to you if the post wasn't edited, but so be it. It's done.
Fwiw, I thank god for medicaid and other social programs- and ironically, would love to see them expanded to include more uninsured people. That's why I reacted so strongly to the fact that people seemed to feel I was indicting people on Medicaid. I was simply pointing out that it's in all of our best interests to enjoy the best health possible. If people can't see it from a moral perspective, I was hoping they could at least see it from an economic one. That was why I brought up medicaid, but NEVER did I say that all or even most people on medicaid are guilty of smoking around their kids. Anyway......

And Ed, what can I say? I know you back up everything you say with proof- but I am flabbergasted with your suggestion that secondhand smoke is not harmful, and that the gov't is invested in deceiving us, for WHAT reason, exactly? Just so they can boss us around? The taxes collected from smokers are substantial, why would the gov't want to decrease that without good reason. It's funny Ed, that you pick and choose when to believe or mistrust what the gov't is saying. When it comes to Guantanemo, the Patriot act, and other clear abuses, you seem so willing to take at face value what they tell you with no proof whatsoever. But when it comes to this, it's all a big lie?!
Idk, I spent alot of time in bars when I was younger, b/c dh played in a successful bar band and I used to do the sound/lights. He has asthma, and I can tell you, by the end of the night, he was completely out of breath from the thick wall of smoke. The air was unbreathable- and it would take him days to recover. My lungs used to hurt too, and I don't have any breathing issues otherwise. That wasn't the gov't telling us it was bad- it was our own bodies. If you want to dismiss all of the evidence about second hand smoke- go ahead. Me- I think it makes a whole lot of sense.

When it comes to kids, I disagree that it's an invasion of privacy. If an adult wants to smoke alone in his car, he can smoke till his head blows up, for all I care. But the kids have a right to be protected from the ignorance, neglect, or abuse of their parents. I think smoking around kids is abusive, I'm sorry.

jcc64 replied: A very quick google search and I found these (supposed to be studying for my Spanish midterm right now)

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/secondhand...NNALinUrine.htm

Are they all in collusion with the gov't?

CantWait replied:
I agree. Although I don't know who (my mom growl.gif growl.gif ) would smoke in the car with there kids (or grandkids growl.gif growl.gif mom) in there.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: I think that it is a slippery slope we have begun to desend. In all honesty-it is scary to me that we have allowed the loss so many small freedoms. I believe this is just the beginning of a much more invasive big brother era.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Bad enough to have to sit next to an adult that reeks of cigarette smoke... but when you cuddle up to a child and gag because of the smell... poor babies. sleep.gif

in a car is just too close quarters for my "ok" to smoke with the kids in the car.

When we have guests in the house, we do allow smoking if they smoke, since we have very few smoking friends and they don't come often. However - they are usually respectful enough to decline the offer to be able to smoke indoors, and go outside. Really freezing or rainy days, I can't blame them for staying in though. lol
But even so... they will never smoke in the house unless the kids are up in their rooms and we are in the basement.

stella6979 replied:
I couldn't agree more!

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied: Jeanne, I have been following along with you and personally don't think you said anything out of left field. hug.gif Medicaid is a touchy subject, but I knew what you meant. I'm sorry your words got twisted and parts of posts edited. I really do agree with a lot of your views on this issue.

[/QUOTE]While I do not smoke in my vehicle, I defend the rights of anyone else to do so. That's right, we have the right to privacy and in fact, to smoke in our vehicles if we so desire.[QUOTE]
We're not talking about prohibiting people from smoking in their cars you guys - Yes as an adult, you have that right. But read the article again. It states that the law prohibits smokers from lighting up in their car when MINORS are present. Two different things. I could go on and on about the responsibility I feel to protect the children of our country by standing up for these type of laws...to me that's the big picture here: MINORS. I really could care less about MY freedoms when it comes to the future and health of our children. If this law gets at least one smoker to think twice before lighting up with a kid in the car, well then it is a GOOD law in my book.

For those of you who do smoke or were smokers, and said that you do NOT smoke in the car or home with your kids, good for you!! thumb.gif That is awesome, you are great parents. But unfortunately, there is a large population of this country who are not as smart as you. Again, we need to protect those kids IMO.

Insanemomof3 replied: Never mind, I didn't make any sense.

jcc64 replied: Thanks, Rae! hug.gif

luvbug00 replied: i don't smoke i have understanding of the "violated rights" part and the "great idea to prevent 2nd hand exposure" but i think we should be consintrating our govenment on more important laws. like fiding a resolution to our immigration debate and putting stricter rules on wepons acesses meaning not only guns ( which many people are pretty responcible) also knives and tazers (which in my area are more of a problem then guns.) and recklace drivers and pump up the DUI penalty!

MyBabeMaddie replied:
I agree 110% - Very well put...


redchief replied:
First, I'm glad the link to the Surgeon General's Report was posted. It saves me looking it up again. This is the report based on flawed science I wrote about (actually, this is the follow-up report to the follow-up study that was done after the Supreme Court nullified the first one because the methodology was changed in the middle of the EPA study - the reason this one is upheld so far is that the flawed methodology was used throughout the study and not changed). At any rate, my arguments against the legislation remain. According to doctors at NIH, also a government funded health agency, the results of the new study are based upon bad science just as the first one. The long-term effects of second-hand smoke on nonsmokers are still unknown. Now let's get back to my point, which was contextually removed from the argument. My point is, it doesn't matter how right your stance is, don't use manufactured "evidence" to support legislation.

If my memory serves me right, I didn't condone what happened in Guantanamo; I said the prisoners there have no right to protection under our Constitution - a document they see as evil. I also recall saying something along the lines that combatants against our country are not entitled to the same due process we take for granted. Due process is a civilian affair. My comments regarding the Patriot Act were along the lines of Constitutionality and the need for a government at war to gather intelligence in order to safeguard the nation. My further point was that the act was a bi-partisan product that was passed in both Houses - twice. The moment my Constitutional rights are infringed by any part of any legislation is the moment I will come out swinging. The Patriot Act is not immune from that. Don't forget, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian Republican. That means I don't like the government in my home, or my car.

Again, let me make my points in as few words as possible. Today, it's the car that's the target of the anti-smoking lobby. Tomorrow it will be your home. Smoking around children in any closed space is wrong. But we don't need legislation to tell us that. People who truly care for their kids won't do it simply because it isn't right. People who care only for themselves will do whatever they do regardless of whether there's a law against it or not. I'm simply not willing to sit quietly by while the government uses the Constitution as a shoe-shine rag once again. Where does it stop?

Perhaps we'll outlaw the use of the internal combustion engine. After all, they produce carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen (carcinogens), aldehydes (cause cancer), acrolein (yep, you guessed it - causes cancer), and respirable carbon particles (soot), plus traces of "other absorbed elements (who knows?). I daresay that the automobile is a deadly creature that must be eradicated through legislation. Does this sound reasonable? Of course not. We all have cars, and we need them, right? Or do we? What about your heating system? A natural gas heating system puts out many of the same dangerous chemicals as combustion by-products as does the car engine. Should we outlaw them too?

Who can argue that skydiving, scuba diving, surfing, rock climbing, mountaineering, storm chasing, hang gliding, and bungee jumping aren't hazardous activities? Yet you don't see the legislators lining up to outlaw them - why not? Because there isn't a strong anti-hang-gliding lobby, that's why!

Finally, who will enforce this silly law? The police? Let me ask you something. How easy is it to see the youngster in that big ole SUV? What? You can't see her? Oh, that's right, the seat is below sight level, isn't it? So, how would you propose to enforce this nanny-law? I have a great idea, why not set up road blocks like they do for alcohol checkpoints. What's that? Those things don't work either? Oh, studies have not shown that sobriety checkpoints have had any effect whatsoever on drunk driving deaths have they. Maybe a nicotine tube connected to the ignition that won't let the car start if you have cigarette smoke on your breath would work. Nuts, there doesn't seem to be a real workable enforcement policy.

As I said before. Smoking in the car with your kids is wrong. So is smoking in the house. I have smoked in the car with my kids and I regret it. I'm glad I've kicked the cigarette habit, and I wish everyone else, for their own health, and the health of their families would quit. Once again, at best cigarette smoke is an irritant, and kids shouldn't be subjected to it in any closed environment. At worst passive smoke is a health hazard, but the "at best" argument is enough. I'm opposed, however, to the government criminalizing things that consenting adults previously had the right to do under Constitutional protection. This country has already proven that Prohibition doesn't work. The erosion of our freedom from government intervention into our lives at the behest of moralistic morons comes at too high a cost.

jcc64 replied:

Ed, you know I love debating with you more than just about anyone else here, right?
Coupla things, though I admit we're straying off topic. But I think we've both said all we can say about that anyway.
First off, about the Gitmo thing. While I do agree that they are not entitled to the same rights as US citizens, we disagree about pretty much everything else. How do you suggest that we get to the bottom of whether each individual person is there legitimately, or as a result of a wide net cast across deeply entrenched tribal areas with all sorts of underlying conflicts. Don't like that guy b/c he's a Pashtun or b/c he stole your goat or whatever- great, tell the Americans he's with Al-Queda or the Taliban and he's gone forever. There is simply no proof that the guys they have down there FOREVER, it seems, are the RIGHT guys. I'll never know, and neither will you, b/c there is no opportunity to prove it legitimately. So, they're not entitled to the same rights as US citizens, does that mean we can do whatever we want? What about respecting the Geneva convention- which we did at one time agree to uphold, didn't we? Listen, Ed, I'm no apologist for the terrorists. I know there are many many people who would love to mow me down in an instant. But it's not possible to incarcerate our way out of this mess- it's only making it worse for us. One of the biggest casualties of this war imo is our moral high ground in world affairs- it's totally gone now, in the course of one administration.
And I get that you're a libertarian- and for the most part, I agree with you philosophically about the gov't staying out of our affairs. BUT, and this is a big but, there are things I'd like to do in the privacy of my own home, without any consequence to anyone but myself, that the gov't feels completely justified in telling me I can't do. So, my next question to you is this


[/QUOTE]This country has already proven that Prohibition doesn't work. The erosion of our freedom from government intervention into our lives at the behest of moralistic morons comes at too high a cost.

[QUOTE]

So, why can't we legalize marijuana, then? And let gay people get married, if that's what they want to do?
I know it seems like I'm all over the map here, but it's all related. If you're a true libertarian, how can you support the behavior of this administration????

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Man I love watching you two get it on. Highlights my day. rolling_smile.gif

jcc64 replied: I know Rocky, isn't it fun?! It's a good thing I don't live in Jersey anymore- I'd have to go to his house and beat him up! rolling_smile.gif rolling_smile.gif rolling_smile.gif

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Yeah it's awesome!!! Heck I'd pay to see you two at it in person. laugh.gif

Can you see it now? "Live..on your PC... Cam to Cam - Jeanne and Ed's Daily Debate!"

jcc64 replied: The thing about people from Jersey- they don't like to lose an argument, right, Ed?

redchief replied:
I dunno... I haven't met the Democrat yet I couldn't take. wink.gif

I don't have any problem with losing an argument... when I'm wrong. I'm trying to remember the last time that happened. rolling_smile.gif

At any rate, I'm not going to go full steam into Gitmo here, because I think we've pretty much beaten that horse to death too. I see how hard it is to understand that our Constitutional protections don't cross the border, but at the same time I understand the strong desire for some to see the rule of law applied. In the case of prisoners of war (or war criminals as I see those who would intentionally target civilians), I believe that incarcerating them in a military prison in Cuba is more than justifiable. I'm also pretty certain that those who have been locked up there who have not engaged in criminal activity against this country have been released. Amnesty International has posted nothing on Gitmo since March of 2006. I could be wrong, but I don't believe I am.

On legalizing marijuana - I believe marijuana should have been decriminalized long ago.

On gay marriage - Since marriage as an institution is based solely upon the religious tradition of the permanent mating of a man and woman, I don't think that it's possible for gay people to be married. I do believe that homosexuals who choose to live together should have the same legal rights as heterosexuals regarding health care, life insurance and their status as a couple. While I disagree with the lifestyle, you're correct in thinking that I don't think that the government belongs in the home of loving homosexuals any more than they belong in mine. To that end, you also need to understand that my view of marriage is the mating of a man in woman in the biblical sense. I see little value in the public definition of marriage with the exception of the rules of distribution on the dissolution of the union.

On the behavior of this Administration - There are many things this administration has done that I'm flatly opposed to. Most of them regarding passage and attempted passage of so-called socially conservative legislation. I don't like nannies in government, whether they're donkeys or elephants. wink.gif

jcc64 replied:

You haven't met ME, dude! rolling_smile.gif
I love you, Ed! This was fun.

redchief replied:
dito.gif
smile.gif
thumb.gif


CommunityNewsResources | Entertainment | Link To Us |Terms of Use | Privacy PolicyAdvertising
©2024 Parenting Club.com All Rights Reserved