It is now illegal to smoke in your own car with you own children present.

[ladiesbballcoach]

in Maine. Wow. I am not fond of smoking and even I find this...........Wow.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/01/09/bangor_makes_it_illegal_to_smoke_in_cars_with_children_present/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Maine+news

 

The health group announced Maine's high rating on Tuesday, a day after Bangor City Council broadened the state's war on smoking by passing an ordinance that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present

 

When Bangor's ordinance goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.

 

People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.

 

An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.

 

Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.

 

"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.

 

Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel-good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.

 

 

Maine raised its cigarette tax by $1 per pack in 2005, bringing the current state tax to $2, which is among the nation's highest.

 

The lung association says Maine's per capita tobacco consumption declined by 29.2 percent between 1997 and 2005, due in large part to the state's tobacco control efforts.

 

Again, wow. And the underline part I am not sure is accurate.

 

The italics part will due more to decrease smoking than anything else.

[T-CAT4LIFE]

At least we still have our freedom.. :madman:

 

This is strait up ridiculous, and I don't even smoke.

[Hearsay]

The Courts have been ordering this in child custody and visitation disputes for years. Incremental incursion by Big Brother into our lives . . .

[T-CAT4LIFE]

By the time Im 40 I'll probably have to call local law enforcement and ask permission to go outside after 10pm. Big Bro will claim not allowing people outside late at night will cut down on burglaries. :irked:

[02Ram54]

Do you believe that second hand smoke exposure in closed enviornents can possibly cause cancer, lung disease, heart disase, and other ailments?

 

Is exposing children to those risks, basically without their consent, child abuse?

 

Do I think this is good? No. I think that educating people about the danger they put their children in by smoking in close, confined quarters with them present would be both more effective and less politically damaging. But if you answered 'yes' to the first question, the second one becomes pretty uncomfortable.

[02Ram54]

By the time Im 40 I'll probably have to call local law enforcement and ask permission to go outside after 10pm. Big Bro will claim not allowing people outside late at night will cut down on burglaries. :irked:

That argument would be just as valid (or invalid) if you took the proposed legislation and replaced smoking with drinking alcohol. That's personal liberty too, right?

 

The problem with a personal liberty versus nanny state argument in this case is that it's not about YOUR personal health and safety and your right to smoke- it's about the personal health and safety of children, who are not chosing to smoke but being exposed to the dangers anyway.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Do you believe that second hand smoke exposure in closed enviornents can possibly cause cancer, lung disease, heart disase, and other ailments?

 

Is exposing children to those risks, basically without their consent, child abuse?

 

Do I think this is good? No. I think that educating people about the danger they put their children in by smoking in close, confined quarters with them present would be both more effective and less politically damaging. But if you answered 'yes' to the first question, the second one becomes pretty uncomfortable.

I agree. I understand the mentality but putting it into practice this way, as you very accurately state, makes me feel uncomfortable.

[scooterbob]

1984 has finally arrived. I quit smoking years ago but am seriously considering starting again. Of course, as with Honest Bill Clinton, I never did inhale so I guess the risk is minimal. I also don't buy into this second hand smoke argument. Those who are making the argument are somewhat like August Busch IV preaching the dangers of Jack Daniels.

[Hearsay]

Do you believe that second hand smoke exposure in closed enviornents can possibly cause cancer, lung disease, heart disase, and other ailments?

 

Is exposing children to those risks, basically without their consent, child abuse?

 

Do I think this is good? No. I think that educating people about the danger they put their children in by smoking in close, confined quarters with them present would be both more effective and less politically damaging. But if you answered 'yes' to the first question, the second one becomes pretty uncomfortable.

 

"Potential" risks are always determined by demographics and statistics. Statistically, exposure might possibly lead to lung cancer. However, there are a lot of risks we expose our children to that are potentially equally as harmful (or even more so) that are not child abuse. For instance, should Maine pass a law that children should not be transported by car? The potential risk of death or serious physical injury for a passenger in a car, statistically speaking, is higher than the risk posed by second-hand smoke (I am violating the cite rule, I don't have a cite, but have read that).

 

By passing this law, this particular Township has created a whole new set of collaterally related laws that are unnecessary. Is there a civil damages cause of action for violating it? Should child protective services take the children away from the parent for breaking it?

 

There are too many laws and too little discretion, and it will someday implode on us.

[T-CAT4LIFE]

I don't 'choose' to breath in toxins when I pass by Marathon Oil in Catlettsburg either, but I do. You don't see BigBro harrasing them about it.

[UKMustangFan]

Second hand smoke is just that smoke. It does not contain the chemicals that are found in the actual cigarette. Is it harmful? Yes, but it is not going to lead to lung cancer.

 

I am 100% against this, and I hate everything that is associated with smoking.

[Hearsay]

That argument would be just as valid (or invalid) if you took the proposed legislation and replaced smoking with drinking alcohol. That's personal liberty too, right?

 

The problem with a personal liberty versus nanny state argument in this case is that it's not about YOUR personal health and safety and your right to smoke- it's about the personal health and safety of children, who are not chosing to smoke but being exposed to the dangers anyway.

 

We CHOOSE almost everything we expose our children to. What they are going to eat, for example. We know fatty foods increase the risk of heart disease, for example, but should there be a law against feeding McDonald's to our children? We know that playing youth sports statistically increases a young girl's chances of avoiding teenage pregnancy dramatically. Should be make it a law that young girls be required to play sports?

 

There is a balancing test between public health and safety and our constitutional right to raise our children as we see fit and in the environment we so choose. There are limits, and I just don't feel that this law balances anything other than the government wanting to tell us what we can and cannot do around our kids.

[02Ram54]

"Potential" risks are always determined by demographics and statistics. Statistically, exposure might possibly lead to lung cancer. However, there are a lot of risks we expose our children to that are potentially equally as harmful (or even more so) that are not child abuse. For instance, should Maine pass a law that children should not be transported by car? The potential risk of death or serious physical injury for a passenger in a car, statistically speaking, is higher than the risk posed by second-hand smoke (I am violating the cite rule, I don't have a cite, but have read that).

 

By passing this law, this particular Township has created a whole new set of collaterally related laws that are unnecessary. Is there a civil damages cause of action for violating it? Should child protective services take the children away from the parent for breaking it?

 

There are too many laws and too little discretion, and it will someday implode on us.

I agree with most of what you say. I don't think the law is a good idea.

 

However, there are some flaws in your argument. Cancer is not the only risk involved with the kind of second hand smoke exposure that we're talking about. What about bronchial disorders or asthma, which children are more prone to than ever. There's a CHANCE kids might get cancer, just as there's a CHANCE there might be a car accident. But I would say that it's almost certain that kids exposed to such an enviornment will develop some damage to their lungs. Hitting a kid creates a chance that the kid might die, but that's not why we lock up people that hit kids. We lock them up because the CERTAIN damage is bad enough.

[02Ram54]

Second hand smoke is just that smoke. It does not contain the chemicals that are found in the actual cigarette. Is it harmful? Yes, but it is not going to lead to lung cancer.

 

I am 100% against this, and I hate everything that is associated with smoking.

Uh, what?

 

That doesn't make much sense to me, knowing what I do about chemistry. You're going to have to prove that one to me.

[UKMustangFan]

Uh, what?

 

That doesn't make much sense to me, knowing what I do about chemistry. You're going to have to prove that one to me.

 

 

I just had a health and wellness class last semester where my professor told us that. I was skeptical, but she seemed to have plenty of material to back up her claim. I probably should have included, "I've been told" at the beginning of the post.