California Banning Smoking In Cars??

[KRL]

Just heard something about this on the news but didn't catch the whole piece.

Whoa, as much as I don't like cigarette smoke, that's really getting into a person's individual space and rights.

Thoughts?

[woj]

that's ridiculous...

[BigVlad]

Originally posted by KRL
Just heard something about this on the news but didn't catch the whole piece.

Whoa, as much as I don't like cigarette smoke, that's really getting into a person's individual space and rights.

Thoughts?

can't be.
just a simple question , what's the point ?

[=^..^=]

im not a smoker and i dont agree with smoking being allowed in public places
but a persons car is as good as their home

it's their space let them have it

[BigVlad]

Originally posted by =^..^=
im not a smoker and i dont agree with smoking being allowed in public places
but a persons car is as good as their home

it's their space let them have it

yep , ditto

[=^..^=]

Originally posted by BigVlad
can't be.
just a simple question , what's the point ?

maybe it has somehting to do with littering butts on the road and or causing fires?
i think i heard somethign abotu them wanting to do it for those reasons in my hoem state here in oz - bt of course it never got far, just talk

[KRL]

Just found the senate committee bill.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...ended_sen.html

Next it will be in homes.

[angeleyes]

If there are no children in the car.....that is by far one of the STUPIDEST things I've heard in quite a while.

[candyflip]

This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[clickhappy]

That would never pass.
But if it did, it would be funny to see the governor, a famous cigar smoker, get fined for lighting up in his car.

[KRL]

Originally posted by clickhappy
That would never pass.
But if it did, it would be funny to see the governor, a famous cigar smoker, get fined for lighting up in his car.

A lot of times though they try tacking controversial bills onto less controversial urgent bills and sneaking them through the system.

[Marcus Aurelius]

if they want to pay for my car then they can certainly tell me what to do in it. but until that day I say they can suck my dick and floss with a pube when their done.

[calmlikeabomb]

I think this only applies to having children in the car:

"It is unlawful for a person to smoke a pipe, cigar,
or cigarette in a motor vehicle, whether in motion or at rest, in
which there is a child passenger who is required under the Vehicle
Code to be secured in a child passenger restraint system."

I agree with the law if this is the case. Adult should be allowed to smoke in thier cars though without children....

[angeleyes]

Originally posted by mdcq
if they want to pay for my car then they can certainly tell me what to do in it. but until that day I say they can suck my dick and floss with a pube when their done.

ditto

Edit: Well, I don't have a dick, but the sentiment is the same.

[Tala]

WTF?!

"...inalienable rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.."

If it makes me happy to burn one, then who the fuck is the collective ass of California to tell me that I can't burn one IN MY OWN CAR?! What, are you going to say that I can't do it in my house next? Will the sale of tobacco products suddenly become illegal in California? Didn't Prohibition teach these fucks anything? How about the war on drugs, didn't that teach them anything?

Banning something makes the cookie jar syndrome come into play. If we can't have it legally, then we will jack up prices, smuggle shit in, and sell it on the black market for double value, instigating mafia and gang tactics, kill people over the money, and WE'LL STILL HAVE OUR GOODIES! Might not be legally had, but they'll be had.

Every time I hear shit like this, it reminds me of how much I hate the bereaucratic mentality and why, despite the fact that I love San Diego's climate and local flavor, I will try to avoid moving there like I try to avoid the plague.

*goes to burn one*

[KRL]

Originally posted by Tala
WTF?!

"...inalienable rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.."

If it makes me happy to burn one, then who the fuck is the collective ass of California to tell me that I can't burn one IN MY OWN CAR?! What, are you going to say that I can't do it in my house next? Will the sale of tobacco products suddenly become illegal in California? Didn't Prohibition teach these fucks anything? How about the war on drugs, didn't that teach them anything?

Banning something makes the cookie jar syndrome come into play. If we can't have it legally, then we will jack up prices, smuggle shit in, and sell it on the black market for double value, instigating mafia and gang tactics, kill people over the money, and WE'LL STILL HAVE OUR GOODIES! Might not be legally had, but they'll be had.

Every time I hear shit like this, it reminds me of how much I hate the bereaucratic mentality and why, despite the fact that I love San Diego's climate and local flavor, I will try to avoid moving there like I try to avoid the plague.

*goes to burn one*

Smoking really is a bad thing to do to your body though Tal.

It destroys your lungs especially.

[KRL]

So a question for the smokers on this thread then.

Are you ok with a ban on smoking in cars if there are children inside?

Or you have a problem with that also?

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally posted by KRL
Smoking really is a bad thing to do to your body though Tal.

It destroys your lungs especially.

agreed, it amazes me why people smoke

when you drink alcohol, you get at least a special feeling, when you smoke, you don't gain anything, just destroy your health.
And still about 50% of popultion in western countries smoke.

[KRL]

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat
agreed, it amazes me why people smoke

when you drink alcohol, you get at least a special feeling, when you smoke, you don't gain anything, just destroy your health.
And still about 50% of popultion in western countries smoke.

My first wife smoked sometimes and when she did it was in bed before going to sleep. It was very hard to deal with and we had lots of fights over it. I was always afraid she would fall asleep after I did and light the bed on fire accidently beside just stinking up our bedroom.

When we got married she promised she would never smoke again, but she didn't keep her promise.

Its very hard on the marriage if you don't smoke and your partner does. I would never make that mistake again.

We got divorced after only a couple years.

[Jinx]

Originally posted by calmlikeabomb
I think this only applies to having children in the car:

"It is unlawful for a person to smoke a pipe, cigar,
or cigarette in a motor vehicle, whether in motion or at rest, in
which there is a child passenger who is required under the Vehicle
Code to be secured in a child passenger restraint system."

I agree with the law if this is the case. Adult should be allowed to smoke in thier cars though without children....

It appears that it does only apply if children are in the vehicle. I would have to support this myself if that is the case. I don't think any parent should smoke around thier children, but if it's just parent in the car by themselves then WTF?!@#

[Tala]

Originally posted by KRL
Smoking really is a bad thing to do to your body though Tal.

It destroys your lungs especially.

You know, it's really kinda funny. I only smoke outside, and it's really rare these days that I smoke when I'm not around other smokers.

As for the ban on smoking with kids in the car, again, I'd have to say no to it. While I agree that no children should be exposed to second-hand smoke, I do not agree with a government of any type dictating what I can and cannot do in my personally owned vehicle or in a home or property that I pay for, whether renting or purchasing.

It's up to the parent to care for their children, educate them about smoking, and assure that no one will smoke around the children, not the state.

[Oberon]

Originally posted by angeleyes
If there are no children in the car.....that is by far one of the STUPIDEST things I've heard in quite a while.

your car is deemed a 'public space' most places, because you can have your windows open in which case it's no different than sitting on a park bench, and it's not like you can have total blackout tint so that it's completely impossible for people out in 'public' to see you / hear you.

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally posted by Tala
You know, it's really kinda funny. I only smoke outside, and it's really rare these days that I smoke when I'm not around other smokers.

As for the ban on smoking with kids in the car, again, I'd have to say no to it. While I agree that no children should be exposed to second-hand smoke, I do not agree with a government of any type dictating what I can and cannot do in my personally owned vehicle or in a home or property that I pay for, whether renting or purchasing.

It's up to the parent to care for their children, educate them about smoking, and assure that no one will smoke around the children, not the state.

but as a parent you're not allowed to give alcohol to a child.
And passive smoking is just as bad as active smoking i think

[Tala]

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat
but as a parent you're not allowed to give alcohol to a child.
And passive smoking is just as bad as active smoking i think

I can drive under the influence of a cigarette whereas drunk drivers kill more people each year than second-hand smoke does.

originally posted by Tala
While I agree that no children should be exposed to second-hand smoke

Miss that line? I wouldn't drink in front of my kids, (though many parents who are against smoking don't think twice about drinking in front of their kids), and I smoke OUTSIDE, thus not trapping smoke in my house for the kids to pick up, and I don't smoke in a car where children are present.

Does that make me a conscientious smoker, or am I just polite like that?

[KRL]

Originally posted by Oberon
your car is deemed a 'public space' most places, because you can have your windows open in which case it's no different than sitting on a park bench, and it's not like you can have total blackout tint so that it's completely impossible for people out in 'public' to see you / hear you.

Actually this is the case in fact. Try parking your car on a busy street and have sex in the back seat and see what happens next.

[mardigras]

Shouldn't have to be a law like that when it comes to children, people can be so selfish.

The tacking on of unrelated bills is why every governor and the president should have line item veto power.

[TheWildcard]

Damn, that's all I do in my car

[thumbsUP]

Originally posted by mdcq
if they want to pay for my car then they can certainly tell me what to do in it. but until that day I say they can suck my dick and floss with a pube when their done.

[jennym]

Aren't some of you who agree with this law the same people who think it is a PARENT'S responsibility to protect their own children from Howard Stern and porn, not the governments?

Hypocrites!

[Honeyslut]

We don't allow smoking in our home or cars. My husband lost his mother and one of his sisters to lung cancer. They were both in their early 50s at the time.


I really wish my dad did not smoke around me as a child. I wonder sometimes of that contributed to my asthma.

[DatingGold]

haha you serious?

[MiSsBeHeaDReSs]

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat
agreed, it amazes me why people smoke

when you drink alcohol, you get at least a special feeling, when you smoke, you don't gain anything, just destroy your health.
And still about 50% of popultion in western countries smoke.

People smoke because it's cool and you know it

That will not pass, but fuck I am tired of California, we can't even smoke in bars around here ...it's ridiculous.

[Jace]

Originally posted by mdcq
if they want to pay for my car then they can certainly tell me what to do in it. but until that day I say they can suck my dick and floss with a pube when their done.

dude, they already tell business owners that own their own land and building what to do in california...why not cars too?

if they can tell someone who owns the land, and builds a building on that land, ALL WITH HIS OWN MONEY, what to do without anyone successfully fighting it, then they can certainly do it to cars....

people bitch in california, but no one ever succeeds in changing the laws...it sucks for you all...

they tried to pass a anti-smoking thing here, and it got turned down a few times....you can not tell people what to do with their own property,property that they own.....but california seems to think you can, and gets away with it

[Tom_PMs]

bills/laws like this are entirely too invasive.

There was a case in NY where a mother wasnt allowed to smoke in her car *OR* in her home while she had her child during her parental visits!

So passing this into law would NOT surprise me, wherever its proposed.

I propose that a bill be drafted to ban children from riding in vehicles. If they need a "child seat", they should not be allowed to ride. Word.

[BadBrad]

Arnold Schwarzenegger is taking over!!

[Jace]

Quite simply, there is no valid statistic that shows a link between second hand smoke and cancer, illness or death. The one most often quoted comes from a 1992 EPA report which reported 50000 deaths a year due to second-hand smoke. This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, yet the raw data of this study was never released or independently verified.

An activist named Gian Turci made a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details on the study and all he got back were blank, crossed out and censored pages. In Mr. Turci's words: "If the mountain of evidence is so real, why are the scientific community and the public denied the possibility of verification?"

Indeed. In 1998 the American Cancer Society finally retracted this statistic, stating in a press release: "The American Cancer Society will no longer use.. the statistic because we too have been unable to acquire the documentation to support this citation."

In other words, it was a lie.

[quote]
If you repeat something often enough, especially in this anti-scientific world, people will believe it.

RSP or "Respirable suspended particulate matter" is the crap, or amount of pollutants, in the air. Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules state that a workplace must have a RSP rating of 5000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours in order to be considered officially dangerous to workers.

A Department of Energy study in 1999 found that the average RSP level in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking to be only 67 or 135 micrograms, respectively. In 2000, the Oak Ridge national laboratory, a part of the Dept of Energy, found RSP ratings of just 9.41 and 14.9. In 1993 the American Medical Association found 117 or 348 micrograms, the highest of the bunch and yet still far below the OSHA minimum danger rating of 5000.
[\quote]

SOME QUOTES

"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992

"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998
International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338

[Tom_PMs]

Shouldn't have to be a law like that when it comes to children, people can be so selfish.

Thats the point There *shouldn't* have to be, and there *doesn't* have to be.

It's probably a self-important jerk who observed a smoke filled vehicle next to him/her and spotted a child in the car.

[Fletch XXX]

KRL, it actually goes much deeper than anyone here is really mentioning, living here I know.

one part about smokin in cars is the siginificant amount of damage being done by smokers to the general opublic by throwing their cigarette butts out of their car windows.

Have you even bothered to read about all the fires they are causing???

Homes and neighborhoods are going up in flames because people cannot follow ONE RULE: DO NOT THROW YOUR CIGARETTE BUTTS OUT WINDOW.

Too many people have broken this law and their is NO WAY to enforce it.

So, smokers have brought this upon themselves. This is NOT ABOUT RIGHTS< this is about smokers abusing nature and killing people by burning neighborhoods by simply throwing cig butts out window.

think about it for a minute and youll see what i mean

not allowing people to smoke around kids is simply the right thing to do

[Tom_PMs]

not allowing people to smoke around kids is simply the right thing to do

Not allowing?
Whats next, not allowing people to spit around kids? Not allowing people to fart around kids? Not allowing people to eat fried foods around kids?

What about if they're on fire? Can the fire smoke around kids?

hehe, just busting your ass.

Whats next though seriously?

It just amazes me how people think that the only way to affect change is a piece of legislation that will inevitably lead to less and less freedoms. Think.

[Jace]

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

one part about smokin in cars is the siginificant amount of damage being done by smokers to the general opublic by throwing their cigarette butts out of their car windows.

i do agree with that shit....i have a friend that was from out of town when I lived in LA and he got pulled over and ticketed for throwing his butt out the window

they should enforce that WAY harder, you all are in a dry land out there and fires start so quick

[Fletch XXX]

Originally posted by Tom_PM
Not allowing?
Whats next, not allowing people to spit around kids? Not allowing people to fart around kids? Not allowing people to eat fried foods around kids?

What about if they're on fire? Can the fire smoke around kids?

hehe, just busting your ass.

Whats next though seriously?

not sure about you, but i see 16 yr old mexican girls on the street holding a baby in one arm and a cig in the other, im not one to really press against anyones rights but what i see makes me want to walk up and slap these dumb whore moms and yank the cig out of their mouth.

moms who smoke while caring for their child are dangerous.

I am firmly against moms who smoke around kids and smoke while pregnant, I have given a female webmaster shit on this board and another for smoking while pregnant, i dont think kids should have to inhale someone elses smoke.

its not good, im not usually for shit like this but seriously, think about the kids for a minute. this isnt about porn, its about the hazards of smoking.

[Jace]

Originally posted by Tala
While I agree that no children should be exposed to second-hand smoke

i guess you believe that fun little myth that has no evidenice to back it up huh? second hand smoke is not what you were taught

[Fletch XXX]

Originally posted by JaceXXX
i do agree with that shit....i have a friend that was from out of town when I lived in LA and he got pulled over and ticketed for throwing his butt out the window

they should enforce that WAY harder, you all are in a dry land out there and fires start so quick

people really have no clue how fast fires both STARt and SPREAD here.

I have seen a flame jump across and literally "flame run" across a 4 lane freeway and start on the other side.

fire is FAST here, once it starts its on, and the wind simply fuels it.

people cant even imagine flames growing so fast you canty even outrun them.

the news has shown flames that are faster than a human running, here, fuck all that, people simply cant imagine it.

[Tom_PMs]

Fletch, hear me out.

I believe you should have the right to slap that cigarette out of her mouth

[genomega]

Originally posted by KRL
So a question for the smokers on this thread then.

Are you ok with a ban on smoking in cars if there are children inside?

Or you have a problem with that also?

Would you have a problem banning porn in homes with children?

[Fletch XXX]

Originally posted by genomega
Would you have a problem banning porn in homes with children?

a childish argument point.

porn has a way of being filtered away from a child, parental controls, not allowing them online, cable parental controls etc...

blowing your fucking MARLBORO in the face of your 2 year old while Dad surfs online sipping a beer and smoking a cig, and mom is washing dishes and exhaling a Newport. there is a difference

[Jace]

Originally posted by KRL
So a question for the smokers on this thread then.

Are you ok with a ban on smoking in cars if there are children inside?

Or you have a problem with that also?

as long as the windows are down and the kids aren't getting hit with the smoke, it can be very irritating on the throat

[Fletch XXX]

I will let science decide.

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T105800.asp

Consider the physiological effects of smoking on yourself and your baby, especially the increased risk of SIDS.

1. It retards growth. Smoking stunts the growth of the developing fetus. Nicotine narrows the uterine blood vessels, thus reducing blood flow to the baby.

2. It retards brain development. Nicotine has been shown experimentally to retard fetal brain growth in animals. The developing brain is particularly vulnerable to low levels of oxygen, and immaturity of the brain center that regulates breathing could contribute to SIDS.

5. Passive smoking also harms the baby. When expectant mothers are exposed to smoke from other people's cigarettes, their babies are also exposed. One study showed that a pregnant woman's exposure to smoke for at least two hours a day doubled her risk of delivering a low birthweight baby. While older studies claimed no increased SIDS risk if the father smoked, a newer study reports a higher risk of SIDS if the father smokes. Demand that your husband and co-workers respect the life inside your womb. If your job requires working in a smoke-contaminated environment while pregnant, know that this is a proven health hazard to your baby and is grounds for reassignment to a baby-healthy environment. As a testimony to the wisdom of the body, many mothers find they have an aversion to being around cigarette and cigar smoke (and to drinking alcohol) while pregnant. Listen to the warnings of your body and hundreds of medical studies: Don't expose yourself and your baby to smoke while pregnant. Legally, you have the right to work in a smoke-free environment.

6. Smoking harms mothers and babies.

Increases infertility (smoking could account for ten percent of infertility problems in mothers)
Increases risk of ectopic pregnancy
Increases risk of placenta previa
Increases risk of premature separation of the placenta
Increases risk of placental abnormalities (known as "smoker's placenta")
Increases risk of problem pregnancies, e.g., pre-eclampsia
Increases risk of prematurity under intrauterine growth retardation
Increases risk of the newborn dying at birth by twenty percent; thirty-five percent if mother smokes more than thirty-five cigarettes a day
Increases risk of respiratory infections in infant
Increases risk of SIDS by two to five times

[Fletch XXX]

Second hand smoke is a major cause of children's illness -- yet 85% of adults who smoke and who live with a child do not ensure that the child is not exposed to the smoke from their cigarettes.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand...ealth_kids.htm

The impact of second-hand smoke on kids health

Second-hand smoke (which is sometimes called environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) contains toxic substances, over 40 of which cause cancer. Some of these substances are in stronger concentrations in second-hand smoke than they are in the smoke that goes directly into smokers? lungs.

ETS is causally linked with a number of adverse health effects in children (under 18), including:

lower respiratory tract infections (i.e. croup, bronchitis and pneumonia)
increased fluid in the middle ear
upper respiratory tract irritation
reduced lung function
additional episodes of asthma
increased severity of asthmatic symptoms in children
reduced oxygen flow to tissues, comparable to children with anemia, cyanotic heart disease or chronic lung disease ?

A U.S. analysis** of over 100 reports on pædiatric diseases concluded that children?s exposure to tobacco smoke is responsible for up to:

13% of ear infection
(approximately 220,000 ear infections in Canadian children)*

26% of tympanostomy tube insertions
(approximately 16,500 in Canada)

24% of tonsillectomies and adenoidectomies
(approx. 2,100 Canadian operations)

13% of asthma cases
(approx. 52,200 cases in Canada)

16% of physician visits for cough
(approx. 200,000 visits in Canada)

20% of all lung infections in children under 5
(approx. 43,600 cases of bronchitis in Canada and 19,000 cases of pneumonia in Canada)

136-212 childhood deaths from lower respiratory infection
(approx. 13-20 in Canada)

148 childhood deaths from fires started by tobacco products
(approx. 15 in Canada)

1868-2708 SIDS deaths?
(approx. 180-270 in Canada)

[Jace]

i agree that women shoudl not smoke while pregnant, same with doing drugs and anything else that is harmful to your body