I don't have any problem with this. Children are incapable of protecting themselves from actions taken by adults that harm them. If people are too darned dumb to stop smoking with all of our medical knowledge, let them kill themselves (got to die from something, right? ). But there's no reason they should be able to expose a child to their unhealthy vice in a confined space like at automobile.

 

This law is no different than child labor laws, health and sanitation laws, truancy laws, (vehicular) child restraint laws, or laws governing pornographic material involving children. It sounds like a reasonable, narrowly-written law that restricts the rights of certain individuals in the interest of protecting the well being of children.

I probably should have included, "I've been told" at the beginning of the post.

 

Just as anyone claiming anything different should.

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.

 

Not really. We lock people who assault children up because assault of ANYONE is against the law, and we as a society have chosen to uniformly reject the behavior of someone assaulting someone. Sometimes the SEVERITY of the PENALTY is worse if the assault is of a child, but the punishable offense is the assault itself, not just because its a child.

 

Now, if you smoke in a sealed up car with a child who has bad asthma or some similar bronchial issue, you should be taken to task for that discretionary stupidity under the general auspices of child endangerment, and leave the work to the people who do that to make a decision. But there is no reason to create an entirely new law, with all that that entails, proscribing a particular behavior on a wholesale basis for everybody, even those affected only minutely by this.

Not really. We lock people who assault children up because assault of ANYONE is against the law, and we as a society have chosen to uniformly reject the behavior of someone assaulting someone. Sometimes the SEVERITY of the PENALTY is worse if the assault is of a child, but the punishable offense is the assault itself, not just because its a child.

 

Now, if you smoke in a sealed up car with a child who has bad asthma or some similar bronchial issue, you should be taken to task for that discretionary stupidity under the general auspices of child endangerment, and leave the work to the people who do that to make a decision. But there is no reason to create an entirely new law, with all that that entails, proscribing a particular behavior on a wholesale basis for everybody, even those affected only minutely by this.

There are most certainly individual laws against child abuse that carry different charges and penalties than assault.

I don't have any problem with this. Children are incapable of protecting themselves from actions taken by adults that harm them. If people are too darned dumb to stop smoking with all of our medical knowledge, let them kill themselves (got to die from something, right? ). But there's no reason they should be able to expose a child to their unhealthy vice in a confined space like at automobile.

 

This law is no different than child labor laws, health and sanitation laws, truancy laws, (vehicular) child restraint laws, or laws governing pornographic material involving children. It sounds like a reasonable, narrowly-written law that restricts the rights of certain individuals in the interest of protecting the well being of children.

 

I disagree. There are SOME statistics, geared toward (as 02Ram points out) children with asthma and bronchial conditions, indicating that being concealed with the smoke causes damage. However, as to most others, the evidence is very scant and hardly conclusive. That is unlike the child restraint and child ponography evidence, which is legion.

There are most certainly individual laws against child abuse that carry different charges and penalties than assault.

 

There are different penalties based upon the age of the child, but not different charges (at least not in Kentucky). An assault of a child will be prosecuted under the general assault statutes. Sexual abuse of a child will be prosecuted under the general sexual abuse statutes, and the level of felony might be determined based upon age. Even non-sexual, non-assault endangerment of the child is prosecuted under the general Criminal Abuse statute, which has subsections for children, the elderly, etc.

 

But the underlying offense is general, in terms of proving the act and the required mental state.

Here is another example of attempted government incursion into the arena of parenting choice, that is unwarranted by available evidence.

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070105/NEWS0101/701050393/1024

I disagree. There are SOME statistics, geared toward (as 02Ram points out) children with asthma and bronchial conditions, indicating that being cocealed with the smoke causes damage. However, as to most others, the evidence is very scant and hardly conclusive. That is unlike the child restraint and child ponography evidence, which is legion.

 

 

The EPA classifies secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen and published a report in 1993 concluding that "secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and impairs the respiratory health of children." Furthermore, the EPA added that, "these findings are very similar to ones made previously by the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Surgeon General." Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

 

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet9.html

 

Now, we can choose to put our heads in the sand because a specific study has not been done on health effects of children exposed to secondhand smoke in a confined space like a car, or we can act in a reasonable manner and limit this unnecessary risk.

Question....

 

Are the penalties increased for a driver who's pulled over for DUI, if there are children in the car?

 

What if a driver is pulled over for something like not using a turn signal, and then it's found that he/she is drivining impaired, and has children in the car?

The EPA classifies secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen and published a report in 1993 concluding that "secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and impairs the respiratory health of children." Furthermore, the EPA added that, "these findings are very similar to ones made previously by the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Surgeon General." Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

 

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet9.html

 

Now, we can choose to put our heads in the sand because a specific study has not been done on health effects of children exposed to secondhand smoke in a confined space like a car, or we can act in a reasonable manner and limit this unnecessary risk.

 

Call me an ostrich.

 

I think the hair is equally as sandy for those of us who choose to latch on to a superficial government classification such as "Class A Carcinogen" without looking at the agenda behind it or the substance of the finding.

 

For example, combustion diesel and jet fuel is also a Class A Carcinogen, as are the active agents in most industrial cleaners. Yet, we are not going to pass a law prohibiting children from living around airports, refineries or laundromats because the key to the study is that there is research indicating that they cause cancer when THEY ARE INGESTED IN SIGNIFICANT DOSES. Its akin to saying that the research shows that Coca-Cola can cause cancer in monkies, where the monkeys drink a six-pack of Coke a day every day for ten years. There has been no significant research done on the effects of second-hand smoke in confined spaces.

 

Nothing causes more cancer than the sun, but am I sticking my head in the sand if I refuse to accept the validity of a law that FORCES us to put sun-tan lotion on our children?

 

I am going to the doctor now, so I'll sign off. I've got a bronchial condition he needs to look at.

Question....

 

Are the penalties increased for a driver who's pulled over for DUI, if there are children in the car?

 

What if a driver is pulled over for something like not using a turn signal, and then it's found that he/she is drivining impaired, and has children in the car?

 

In Kentucky, its an "aggravating circumstance" to have a child under 12 in the car while you're DUI, which provides a mandatory minimum jail term of 4 days.

I don't have any problem with this. Children are incapable of protecting themselves from actions taken by adults that harm them. If people are too darned dumb to stop smoking with all of our medical knowledge, let them kill themselves (got to die from something, right? ). But there's no reason they should be able to expose a child to their unhealthy vice in a confined space like at automobile.

 

This law is no different than child labor laws, health and sanitation laws, truancy laws, (vehicular) child restraint laws, or laws governing pornographic material involving children. It sounds like a reasonable, narrowly-written law that restricts the rights of certain individuals in the interest of protecting the well being of children.

So you favor making it illegal to buy a Happy Meal for your kids? After all childhood obesity is one of the latest "public health" crisis-du-jour.

 

That's the slope that laws like this one take you down. The ink was barely dry on the no smoking law in Louisville before the council started talking about outlawing transfats at all food businesses. Where do you draw the line?

So you favor making it illegal to buy a Happy Meal for your kids? After all childhood obesity is one of the latest "public health" crisis-du-jour.

 

That's the slope that laws like this one take you down. The ink was barely dry on the no smoking law in Louisville before the council started talking about outlawing transfats at all food businesses. Where do you draw the line?

 

We just had that discussion here. There are absolutely some things that the government MUST step in and say we are going to stop this. And other things that it is the responsibility of the person. Where that line is, is the continually changing and open debate.

 

Not to turn this into a pro-life thread but ironically funny that you can't smoke around your child but you have every right to end that child's life before they are born. Can't give them cancer but we can kill them. Ironic.

Call me an ostrich.

 

I think the hair is equally as sandy for those of us who choose to latch on to a superficial government classification such as "Class A Carcinogen" without looking at the agenda behind it or the substance of the finding.

 

 

An authoritative source on public health issues has reported that secondhand smoke impairs the respiratory health of children and we're mired in a word parsing exercise about the meaning of the term Class A Carcinogen?

 

I guess we need conclusive scientific evidence that childrens' heads spontaneously explode in a car with secondhand smoke to agree that this type of unnecessary behavior should be outlawed.

An authoritative source on public health issues has reported that secondhand smoke impairs the respiratory health of children and we're mired in a word parsing exercise about the meaning of the term Class A Carcinogen?

 

I guess we need conclusive scientific evidence that childrens' heads spontaneously explode in a car with secondhand smoke to agree that this type of unnecessary behavior should be outlawed.

 

How am I word-parsing? By defintion, there is no safe level of exposure to Class A carcinogens. The research on second-hand smoke (and estimates of the CDC) are all based upon high levels of exposure. You didn't tell anyone that in your post.

 

If there is no safe level of exposure to Class A carcinogens, then we should pass laws banning children from being around them all. Yet we don't. Why?