No smoking in car with kids

[Moxie]

Eyeball wrote: think official hypocrisy is probably more damaging than the police-state that's required to enforce prohibition.

Opinions such as this scare me, you justify any means to force your socialist agenda down the throats of all Canadians. Socialism slash Communism has killed enough people, how many million more must die before you wake up and realise your ideology is just plain stupid and generated by feeble minds that need the goberment to hold their hand whilst crossing a cow path?

An adult chooses to smoke, a child doesn't. A responsible parent would not smoke in an enclosed place, second hand smoke kills and that's a fact. If you want to smoke go outside, or park the car for heavens sake it taint rocket science.

[Melanie_]

I’m having a hard time with this law. I understand the reasoning behind it; it certainly is a health hazard for children to be exposed to second hand smoke in confined spaces. But legislating against smoking in cars is micromanaging peoples’ parenting. I’d rather see more of a public education campaign (there is a nasty commercial on TV showing mouth cancer as I write this) so that parents are aware of the damage they are doing to their kids. Criminalizing parents isn’t going to help the kids.

[Topaz]

Would you turn in your neighbour if you saw him standing out on his patio smoking a J?

The cops would probably tell you they'd look into it and then laugh behind your back. As if one person smoking a joint is worth a police visit.

Good thing most police officers know what's "busybodiness" and what is real criminal activity.

I know a mother who wished someone had done that on her soninlaw! He was known in the community of doing and pushing drugs and he came from a well respected family. He got high, got into a fight with his wife killed her, took her body and buried and then in the AM called the police to report his wife missing. It took a couple days but they found her and he said he didn't mean to do it, it was the drugs.

[eyeball]

Would you turn in your neighbour if you saw him standing out on his patio smoking a J?

The cops would probably tell you they'd look into it and then laugh behind your back. As if one person smoking a joint is worth a police visit.

Good thing most police officers know what's "busybodiness" and what is real criminal activity.

According to my MP and others like him the state wants to reverse the perception that pot is legal. Apparently lots of people think the law was struck down in some case in Ontario and that the Liberals also talked about decriminalization adding more confusion.

Right now in my town police and concerned citizens are having regular meetings on how to stop drug use. There are no cops laughing here.

[eyeball]

Are you being facetious ? I sure hope so.

Rat out parents?

Apparently.

· A Colorado DARE officer got a student to turn in his own parents, then bragged to the national press that it's what he had "taught him to do".

Source

Of course I'm being facetious.

[eyeball]

Criminalizing parents isn’t going to help the kids.

Do you think its going to help the kids if parents keep smoking in defiance of the law? Society has a lot to lose if its kids learn to ignore the law.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a lot of the allure of drug use is the illicit thrill that simply comes from rebelling against the authority of the state.

[Wild Bill]

There is nothing so popular as telling your neighbour what to do!

Except maybe making him pay for YOUR "great" idea!

Anti-tobacco folks are perhaps the worst example of this trend. The power has gone to their head and their true character has been revealed.

The cure is worse than the disease! What group is next?

BTW, I am NOT a smoker! I just respect my fellow man to much to tell him what to do.

[seabee]

What group next?

Fatsos

oops, I meant obese and overweight people. The health nazis rant is likely to go something like this. Fatsos sweat too much, they stink, their deodoriser contains xy chemicals that have been proven to cause asthma and allergic reactions, as insidious as second-hand smoke, etc... Don't laugh; one city, I think it is Halifax has banned people who wear perfumes and deodorisers from municipal building.

Expect "sin taxes" on sugar and foods containing it, or equivalent. Salt might also be a target.

[eyeball]

Eyeball wrote: think official hypocrisy is probably more damaging than the police-state that's required to enforce prohibition.

Opinions such as this scare me, you justify any means to force your socialist agenda down the throats of all Canadians. Socialism slash Communism has killed enough people, how many million more must die before you wake up and realise your ideology is just plain stupid and generated by feeble minds that need the goberment to hold their hand whilst crossing a cow path?

An adult chooses to smoke, a child doesn't. A responsible parent would not smoke in an enclosed place, second hand smoke kills and that's a fact. If you want to smoke go outside, or park the car for heavens sake it taint rocket science.

Settle down Moxie. Sorry for alarming you. I actually think all drugs should be legal. I also think however if a state takes it upon itself to protect children from dangerous drugs it should be consistent.

Did you know that 1/4 of the people in Canadian jails were born with fetal alcohol syndrome? The only drug that actually leads directly to criminal behaviour happens to be the one the government approves of and sells.

I guess I should have said the hypocrisy of the state pushing alcohol with one hand while busting people for drugs with the other is what's really dangerous.

Allowing kids to be exposed to cigarette smoke is probably less dangerous than parents exposing kids to rebellious behaviour that makes a mockery of the law. That seems to be what otherwise law-abiding people in this thread are advocating. Perversely you can bet many of these very same people would just as quickly have the state continue to shove their anti-drug agenda down your throat. They want it both ways and they'll probably get it.

[kimmy]

Probably because they have an ashtray in the car. Or because they smoke with the windows up. All the why ifs in the world will not alter a cast in stone scientific principle proven millions upon millions of times over. Despite the fervent wishes of the societal nannies and busy bodies.

I'm aware of the scientific principle. And yet, smokers' cars still smell like crap. This is empirical evidence that suggests rolling down the window is somewhat less than 100% efficient at removing smoke from the vehicle.

-k

[kimmy]

Did you know that 1/4 of the people in Canadian jails were born with fetal alcohol syndrome? The only drug that actually leads directly to criminal behaviour happens to be the one the government approves of and sells.

Alcohol is the only drug that leads directly to criminal behavior? That's pretty doubtful. Marijuana and Ecstacy might make people pretty benign and mellow, but some drugs cause users to become agitated, violent, and destructive.

Also, people with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome making up a disproportionately high percentage of the prison populace isn't actually an example of alcohol leading directly to criminal behavior.

The high incidence of alcohol being a factor in violence and in criminally bad driving is an example of alcohol leading directly to criminal behavior.

But again, there's other drugs that often cause people to become violent. And there's other drugs that often cause people to drive erratically too.

-k

{"Relax, man. If there's one thing I know, it's how to drive when I'm stoned."}

[kimmy]

What group next?

Fatsos

oops, I meant obese and overweight people. The health nazis rant is likely to go something like this. Fatsos sweat too much, they stink, their deodoriser contains xy chemicals that have been proven to cause asthma and allergic reactions, as insidious as second-hand smoke, etc... Don't laugh; one city, I think it is Halifax has banned people who wear perfumes and deodorisers from municipal building.

Expect "sin taxes" on sugar and foods containing it, or equivalent. Salt might also be a target.

Being morbidly obese is bad for your own health, but it's not hazardous to people around you, unless you accidentally sit on them.

-k

[kimmy]

If it becomes a crime to smoke with children in a vehicle (or the home), then it should also be a crime to feed them unhealthy foods.

If somebody wants to feed their kids asbestos crackers with benzene jelly, should that be a crime?

Banning smoking in : workplace, malls, restaurants and other enclosed public spaces I do not have a problem with. If the government is telling me what to do in my own car or home, then I will gladly hand over those responsibilities to the government. They can take up the financial burden and other every day activities that goes on in my home and car. Get out, or take over completely.

Since it is my place, I will continue to make the rules.

So, if somebody was feeding their kids asbestos crackers with benzene jelly, you'd be ok with that as long as they did it at home? Their place, their rules?

There is nothing so popular as telling your neighbour what to do!

Except maybe making him pay for YOUR "great" idea!

Anti-tobacco folks are perhaps the worst example of this trend. The power has gone to their head and their true character has been revealed.

The cure is worse than the disease! What group is next?

BTW, I am NOT a smoker! I just respect my fellow man to much to tell him what to do.

The cure is worse than the disease? I'm not sure that asking people to not light up until they've dropped their kids off is worse than lung cancer.

If somebody is so stupid that they don't see a problem with smoking with their kids in the car, or if they're so selfish that they can't wait a few minutes out of consideration for their children, then maybe they deserve to be told what to do (or where to go, at the very least.)

-k

[kimmy]

I’m having a hard time with this law. I understand the reasoning behind it; it certainly is a health hazard for children to be exposed to second hand smoke in confined spaces. But legislating against smoking in cars is micromanaging peoples’ parenting. I’d rather see more of a public education campaign (there is a nasty commercial on TV showing mouth cancer as I write this) so that parents are aware of the damage they are doing to their kids. Criminalizing parents isn’t going to help the kids.

I feel the same way, but darn it, some of the arguments being put forward in this thread are just too much fun to leave alone. "It'll cause road rage!" "It'll cause diabetes!" "Bernoulli's Principle proves that there's not actually any smoke in the car!" "It's my car and I can do whatever I want in my car!"

Not very long ago there was another discussion where for some reason we were discussing the hypothetical case of somebody driving around with unsecured kids in the back of his pickup truck. My thoughts in this situation are a lot like my thoughts on that one: you can't have a cop on every street to enforce it... but if a cop does catch somebody doing that, I'd like the cop to be able to stop the guy, give him a warning or write him up a nice little ticket, and tell him to stop being an asshole.

I sometimes find it frustrating that many irresponsible idiots seem to be having children. I sometimes find it frustrating that people want to stand up for their right to be irresponsible idiots regardless of the welfare of the children.

If I'm in the parking lot at the shopping mall on a hot day, and I see a car with a baby in a car seat, the windows rolled up, and no parent in sight... what would people suggest I do?

-k

[Wild Bill]

I feel the same way, but darn it, some of the arguments being put forward in this thread are just too much fun to leave alone. "It'll cause road rage!" "It'll cause diabetes!" "Bernoulli's Principle proves that there's not actually any smoke in the car!" "It's my car and I can do whatever I want in my car!"

Not very long ago there was another discussion where for some reason we were discussing the hypothetical case of somebody driving around with unsecured kids in the back of his pickup truck. My thoughts in this situation are a lot like my thoughts on that one: you can't have a cop on every street to enforce it... but if a cop does catch somebody doing that, I'd like the cop to be able to stop the guy, give him a warning or write him up a nice little ticket, and tell him to stop being an asshole.

I sometimes find it frustrating that many irresponsible idiots seem to be having children. I sometimes find it frustrating that people want to stand up for their right to be irresponsible idiots regardless of the welfare of the children.

If I'm in the parking lot at the shopping mall on a hot day, and I see a car with a baby in a car seat, the windows rolled up, and no parent in sight... what would people suggest I do?

-k

Well, not that it changes anything about the right of an adult citizen to make his own choices but who makes the decisions about what's harmful? Obviously, on this issue you've decided passive smoke is dangerous to children and that an open window doesn't work.

How you figure that a lingering smell is scientific evidence is beyond me. I would imagine most smokers light up in their cars when they DON"T have their kids with them! Why would they worry about opening the window just for themselves?

If my neighbour wants to tell me what to do, then I would like the chance to return the favour. If it becomes a popularity contest with everyone else in town feeling qualified to enforce their opinion then it's time for me to find another town.

This attitude is a slippery slope. There HAVE been calls to put fat and out of shape patients to the end of the line in Ontario! Also "dangerous" sports like parachuting or downhill skiing. The reason given is usually that health care resources are at a premium so why waste it on those to lazy to look after their own health?

Actually, I can see some logic in this philosophy but I'm bothered by just one thing. In Canada it's ILLEGAL to make your own payment arrangements for health care!

In effect, people of this persuasion are saying that they have the right to deny care to those who they feel are not doing what they're told as regards to their personal health because it costs all of us! Even though we're not allowed to pay direct or for some other insurance.

Seems kind of a smarmy attitude, to me.

Where will we end up? Everyone in front of a scanner every morning, doing Winston Smith's "jerks"?

I'm not saying there's no argument to protecting children or the health of your neighbours from your own actions. I'm just saying that from what I've seen these past few years there are a lot of people just leaping at the chance to make their neighbour do what they say!

It goes to character, and it's NOT pretty!

Edited March 7, 2008 by Wild Bill

[kuzadd]

what percentage of the population , with children actually smokes?

what is the income status of those people?

[Topaz]

what percentage of the population , with children actually smokes?

what is the income status of those people?

Smokers, will do anything to have that smoke and its not that they are bad people its the addiction is so great some can't live without. Smoking in a car is 60% worse than in your house and that why they don't want kids in the car they adults do it. Patrick Swayze is now dying of pantcreatic cancer and he smoked 3 packs a day and he 55years old. If smokers are smart and want to live longer than that, I get their doctor to give then a chest x-ray to check for lung cancer, it saved my hubby back in 2000 age the age of 50 and the cancer had been there a couple years. He's cancer -free so far and it was early detention that did it.

[Drea]

While I don't have any stats -- I think about 15% of Canadians still smoke -- don't know their income nor whether or not they have children.

But I was in the Timmy's drivethrough lineup this morning -- there were 6 cars ahead of me and all of them had a cig going (didn't see any kids at all). All I know is that 100% of this morning's 7:40 am drivethrough were smokers. *shrug*

Edited March 7, 2008 by Drea

[socred]

If that's what the government decides who are we to argue? The most important thing kids need to learn is respect for law and order. If the state, in its wisdom, decides that something should be illegal and it passes laws that prevent or prohibit people from acting illegally then its our duty as law-abiding citizens to obey those laws.

Just like a good little Nazi or Communist?

If the government passes laws that it's our duty to kill Jews, then "who are we to argue"? After all, the government knows what's best for us

[GostHacked]

I know a mother who wished someone had done that on her soninlaw! He was known in the community of doing and pushing drugs and he came from a well respected family. He got high, got into a fight with his wife killed her, took her body and buried and then in the AM called the police to report his wife missing. It took a couple days but they found her and he said he didn't mean to do it, it was the drugs.

Methinks there was more to this than just pot/drugs. If he is a drug pusher and many people knew this, then you have a different scenario, and in this case, calling the police would be a good idea. But I suspect a crappy marriage and other social factors had a play in this. Also the guy could have been not right in the head way before this.

Pot does not make you kill people. Cocaine, heroine, meth .. I guess so (never tried those drugs so I am not sure) it also depends on the persons mentality. Your scenario indicates more beneath the surface than what you have stated.

Also ..

Patrick Swayze is now dying of pantcreatic cancer and he smoked 3 packs a day and he 55years old.

3 pack a day????? And he is still alive??

Kimmy

Not very long ago there was another discussion where for some reason we were discussing the hypothetical case of somebody driving around with unsecured kids in the back of his pickup truck. My thoughts in this situation are a lot like my thoughts on that one: you can't have a cop on every street to enforce it... but if a cop does catch somebody doing that, I'd like the cop to be able to stop the guy, give him a warning or write him up a nice little ticket, and tell him to stop being an asshole.

Being stupid and unsafe is dfferent from long term health effects from smoking. Unsecure in the back of a pickup, can cause instant death. I have yet to see anyone die instantly from a smoke, less from second hand smoke.

[Leafless]

Just like a good little Nazi or Communist?

If the government passes laws that it's our duty to kill Jews, then "who are we to argue"? After all, the government knows what's best for us

That is why people like Mc.Guinty pass ILLUSIONARY laws that give the false impression children won't be a burden on society with cancer related disease and be rather productive healthy little workers.

But do you think Mc.Guinty really cares whether it be children or adults live or die?

If he did cigarettes would be banned.

Vote for Mc.Guinty is what this is all about.

Edited March 7, 2008 by Leafless

[Wild Bill]

While I don't have any stats -- I think about 15% of Canadians still smoke -- don't know their income nor whether or not they have children.

But I was in the Timmy's drivethrough lineup this morning -- there were 6 cars ahead of me and all of them had a cig going (didn't see any kids at all). All I know is that 100% of this morning's 7:40 am drivethrough were smokers. *shrug*

I've heard 25% of adults smoke. Guess it's who you listen to and what point they're trying to make.

Coffee shop drive-thrus sprung up as the nico bans began to kick in. Made sense. Smokers could no longer sit at a table inside and have a cig with their coffee (and maybe buy an extra doughnut) so their car became their refuge. I do remember just before the drive-thrus came to town watching smokers buy their coffee and walk out to their cars to drink it with a cigarette. Tim's was smart to provide the convenience.

Makes me wonder about the calls here in my town to ban drive-thrus as a blow against the pollution from cars idling in the lineup. I can't help but question if the real goal is just to take yet another refuge away from the smokers. We already here have made having a roof over a smoking area illegal. The idea obviously is to make them as uncomfortable as possible. I guess if they refuse to do what they're told they deserve to catch pneumonia!

As I've said, I'm not a smoker myself but in the days when smoking was allowed in bars and restaurants I always would forego the non-smoking sections to sit with the smokers. I found (and still find!) too many non-smokers to be a preachy, cheerless bunch!

[Leafless]

I found (and still find!) too many non-smokers to be a preachy, cheerless bunch!

That's because they also have a bias against alcohol, consumed in moderation of course.

Of course though we would all enjoy living to 110 yrs. old all crippled up in a wheelchair with 110 additional ailments, I think.

[DrGreenthumb]

I just read a story on google saying how bars in michigan are exploiting a loophole in the anti-smoking laws that allow for smoking as part of an entertainers act. The bars have got their customers all claiming to be actors in a play, in fact improv acting as themselves before the smoking ban too effect. Pretty funny and creative if you ask me. It has the antismoking nazi's down there quite upset.

I quit smoking almost a year ago, but the anti-smoking police still offend my sense of freedom and fair play.

I guess because they display the very same attitude that the prohibition loving, anti-cannabis crowd exhibits.

They think they have the right to dictate to others how to spend what precious little time we have here in this world. Everyone should be free to choose quality of life over quantity of life. Who decides what constitutes a quaality life? Only the one experiencing that life can choose.

[eyeball]

(eyeball @ Mar 6 2008, 12:14 PM)

If that's what the government decides who are we to argue? The most important thing kids need to learn is respect for law and order. If the state, in its wisdom, decides that something should be illegal and it passes laws that prevent or prohibit people from acting illegally then its our duty as law-abiding citizens to obey those laws.

Just like a good little Nazi or Communist?

If the government passes laws that it's our duty to kill Jews, then "who are we to argue"? After all, the government knows what's best for us

The government knows it has to prohibit pot and many of the people who hate the nanny-state will just as blithely shrug that off by stating "if you can't do the time don't do the crime".

I get a real chuckle over so-called libertarians who decry the nanny-state while voting for political parties that are forever cracking down, getting tough and imposing more law and order. Ten bucks says a vast majority of Conservative MP's think Ontario should scrap this new law and that Ontario get off its people's backs. Its perverted.