• tizzygirl said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I don't want to argue or cause a big stink because I honestly respect yout opinion but I have to say I think the law is a bit unfair.  Not because I think that parents should do anything to harm their kids BUT, I believe it's just pin pointing a certain type of person.  There are no laws about what you feed your children, yet, feeding children fast food over and over can cause many health problems like weight problems, cholestorol, diabetes and etc....there are many other personal choices that parents make that some would consider putting their children at risk, like what area they live in, where they are allowed to go, and certain age marks that allow a child to venture out into the world.  Every parent makes different choices with their children's lives and some I agree with and some I don't BUT they aren't my children and ultimately I believe that it should be up to the parent and not the state.  The only way to make this fair is to make laws about ANYTHING that ANYONE might consider a danger, and everyone knows that is impossible, so my question is why pick this ONE problem, what is the real agenda?  It is an extension of the no smoking in public places law....it won't make people quit smoking, it will either make more citizens break the law or I wouldn't be surprised in you see parent's having their children sit outside the car while they have a quick cigarette in the car.  Is that really better?

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  tizzy - I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this.  It is beyond some people's control as to what they feed their kids or where they live.  It is NEVER beyond a person's control to pull the car over and have a smoke if they so desperately need to.  Yes, more should be done to protect kids, but any little bit we can do helps.

• evil_twin said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I don't know about this one. I'm all for protecting kids and stuff, but I feel like they just keep pushing the boundaries and sticking their nose into people's lives where they don't belong. When I was a little kid, everyone smoked. Almost all of the adults in my life were smokers. They never worried about whether I was in the car or not. It just wasn't a real concern back then.
  
  And I'm okay. My brother is okay. All of my friends are okay. Etc. Maybe we'll all get cancer and die eventually, but what's to say that it was because our parents smoked around us?
  
  I'm not saying I think it's a good thing or okay for parents to do this nowadays, but I just think that making it against the law isn't fair. I've got friends who are smokers and what if they were on a long car ride or stuck in traffic forever? Trust me when I say they'd go insane not being able to light up. And sometimes you can't pull over.
  
  I don't know. I'm not really on board with the government trying to dictate personal issues like this. I think it should be a personal decision.
  
  -evil_twin LA
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  ET - Okay, put the health factor aside for a minute.  Do you think that reducing distractions while driving is another benefit for this.  They tell us we cant talk and drive, so smoking is not too far off of that.  Also, we have to wear seatbelts for health and safety, so is smoking that much further a reach.  The law also says that they can't pull you over for this, but can add it to an existing reason, so if you drive safely, keep your car registered and street worthy you could get away with smoking with minors in the car.

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I find it really interesting how we pick and choose which addictions are okay and legal and which are not.  People who smoke see it as their god given "right" and the argument that people would go crazy if they were stuck in a traffic jam without being able to light up just proves that this is a discussion about addiction.  In the early 90's, I was at a meeting at the company where I worked.  The company announced that they were going to start a policy of drug screening for all employees, which many consider to be an invasive procedure, to determine if employees were using illegal drugs.  At the very same meeting, it was announced that they were looking into setting up a smoker's lounge so all the smokers could practice their addiction on the job without having to go outside.  I grew up with two smoking parents who never gave a second thought to their children's health when they were lighting up in the home or car.  That attitude carried over into their other parenting protocols. I remember being infuriated once when I watched my mother smoking a cigarette as she held her infant grandchild, who, by the way, had a respiratory infection at the time.  Can we count on parents to do the right thing for our children?  Sadly, the answer is, not always.  Should we make laws to protect children from their parents' abuse and negligence?  Absolutely.  It is our responsibility to step in and protect anyone who is not capable of protecting themselves.  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  kruuyai - Good point.  I forget which founding father said it, but the jist of the quote is that "your freedoms end where my nose begins".  Children are in even a worse spot in that they have no rights until they are 18. 

• hillbillygirl said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Well I myself am a parent who smokes. I don't in my home, I step outside on my back porch or stand at my back door. I can't smoke inside of my work place. And there is a smoking ban in the city that I live in that if it is a place of business that anyone under the age of 18 can enter it is non-smoking. BUT I do smoke in my car. When I read this about the smoking law I was suprised to hear that the second hand  smoke int the car is10 times more harmful....that is really kinda scary. When I smoke in the car the window is always rolled down and I do try and keep my cigarette close to the window. I do try and limit my smoking when my kids are in the car....but I am not going to say that I dont smoke when they are in there. Long car rides can sometimes be stressfull with the kids and if your a smoker it is definatly something you crave. I just think its something else that the goverment is trying to control personaly. I see plenty of mothers behind the wheel doing things that are as dangerous if not more dangerous everyday.....such as kids in no seat belts, putting make up on while driving down the interstate at 70 mph, arguing on the cell phone and not paying attention to the road.

• evil_twin said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I knew my opinion would probably be an unpopular one :-P You do bring up some good points though. If you're arguing the law by saying it's safer to have less distractions while driving, then I can give you that.
  
  Personally, I don't smoke so this law wouldn't effect me one way or the other. But I guess it just seems to me that every year they keep making new laws that are infringing on everyone's rights.
  
  I don't think smoking is a good thing, nor do I think you should smoke around kids or anyone else who is bothered by the smoke. But what's next? Will they stop you from smoking in your house? In your own yard? I already read recently where some apartments and condos have banned smoking inside the units. I think that's going way too far myself.
  
  But that's just me :-P
  
  -evil_twin LA
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  hillbillygirl - While I agree that people do other equally as stupid things behind the wheel I find it interesting that you don't smoke in the house, which you might presume you spend more time in than your car.  I know it's a hassle to pull over to smoke if you have the kids with you on a trip, but perhaps it's worth it for their health?
   
  ET - That city that has banned smoking in apartments, condos, etc is about 5 miles from where I live.  I feel awful for smokers in apartments, but have to say that it would solve a lot of my frustrations having to put up with tobacco smoke seeping through my walls.  The next thing I have to question is whether or not smoking is a right.  I mean, you don't die if it's withheld from you, not covered in the constitution, so what's your definition of a right?

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  hillbillygirl:  "Long car rides can sometimes be stressfull with the kids and if your a smoker it is definatly something you crave. I just think its something else that the goverment is trying to control personaly"  Let's look at this from another perspective.  You're addicted to nicotine, so you made the statement that I've quoted here.  What if someone who was addicted to alcohol, another legal drug, said the same thing... "Long car rides can sometimes be stressful with the kids and if you're a drinker, it is definitely something you crave.  I think it's something else that the government is trying to control personally."  Kind of sheds a different light on the issue, doesn't it?
  
  e_t:  If some apartments and condos have banned smoking, it's probably more because of the fire hazard than for health reasons.  I don't know the statistics, but I do know that a good number of homes burn down every year because of smokers falling asleep with lit cigarettes in their mouths or hands.  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  kruuyai - I can see we think among the same lines.  I do sympathize with smokers but for so long non-smokers right were abused.  Maybe the pendulum is just swinging back in the other direction.

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  uniquely:  I don't think it's even a matter of the pendulum swinging in the other direction.  That would imply that it has to come back again.  I just think that necessary adjustments are being made in the light of new discoveries about the hazards of cigarette smoke.

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  kruuyai - It certainly could do more good to enforce this, than bad.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  personally, i am against "we know what's best for you" laws. i am also against "what you can do in your own space" laws. this violates both of those principles for me.
  
  consider: how much time will kids spend in a car vs in their respective homes? are you going to support banning people from smoking in their own homes?
  
  frankly, i think that this is yet more "feel good" legislation that will have negligible impact and does more or less nothing to address the ill that it wants to address.
  
  ed

• hillbillygirl said on Oct 11, 2007....

  UI~No I dont smoke in my home....but I wouldn't say that I spend more time in my car. I do however spend more time in my car alone than with my children. I agree that I could pull over and smoke...my kids would probably appretiate it seeing how they want me to quit. I have before for 3 months it was fantastic, and I realized during those 3 months how much smoking stinks up your home, and your clothes, and everything....this is one of the reasons I dont smoke in my home. The main reason is my children and that I dont want them to live in a house that is filled with cig smoke.
   
  Kruuyai~When you look at it from that approach yes it does shed a differnt light. And your right I am addicted to nicotine. But there is a big difference between nicotine and alcohol in that I am not imparing my ability to drive a car from smoking a cigarette. So in that sense I dont think its exactly fair to compare the two.
   
   

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  SW - Hold on there a minute!  Time you spend in your car is spent on public roads and in close proximity to other drivers.  I will defend a person's right to smoke in their privately owned home to the death, but if you do something that could hurt me in public I want it stopped.  Also, second hand smoke statistics do not leave much if any doubt that it is a dangerous practice.
   
  hillbillygirl - the law is designed to protect the health of minors and does not encompass safety issues.  You can still drive alone in your car and smoke according to this specific law. 

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  u-i: i'm sorry, i thought the thrust of the law was to protect smokers' children, not other drivers? but even so, how much time do you really spend next to another car and someone is smoking?
  
  ed

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 11, 2007....

  unique- I think like anything else it needs to be put into perspective. Let me say first I'm not for the smoker, there should be definite limits. But I have noticed in the last many years almost a sheer hatred directed toward smokers by so many. Non smokers want it all regardless of whether its sensible or violates rights.
  
  An Eastern legislator produced a bill to eliminate smoking in vehicles for safety reasons. Stats showed what was causing accidents and smoking in vehicles was so small as to hardly be mentioned. None of the main causes of accidents were attacked in the bill. Plain old hatred sensibility.
  
  I read an article in a paper from a woman about how smoking could affect her daughter with a respiratory problem. Laws were already in place on smoking almost everywhere but she wanted it eliminated completely except homes. She lived in a city where air quality was equal to smoking about a pack and a half a day. Her job didn't keep her there, being close to family did. So what is this- lets all die together as a family?
  
  There are so many dangers around us that affect many more people than smoking, especially with the laws already in effect.
  
  I like perspective. Where's the perspective? Smokers have already been run into the ground and lost their dignity at the hands of over two thirds of the public. They are going to die out in the next twenty or thirty years anyway either literally or by stopping or by cost.
  
  The best way to put an end to smoking- shut down tobacco companies and imports. If half the energy had been put into this instead of laws of where to smoke, it would now be eliminated except for a few smugglers.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  SW - I will not reap the benefits of this law.  You're right.  My children can, and my grandchildren, etc. 
   
  I have on occaision been stuck in traffic where the smoke of a cigarette has noxiously filled my nostrils.  The best I could do is roll up my windows and hope to get away from that car.  If I thought the population would tolerate it I would ban any public smoking only because it's a nuisance to me and potentially a health hazard. 
   
  Can I ask why the rights of the smoker should superceed my rights to clean air?

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  u-i: your right not to be offended is trumped by the right of an adult to do as he or she likes within his/her property. it's no different from someone smoking in their backyard next door, or leaves from their tree falling into your yard.
  
  the problem here is rudeness, and that's what you seem to want this law to stop.
  
  beyond: thank you, i didn't know about that study.
  
  ed

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  SW - I guess rudeness would be the issue for me.  I would love to see a smoker politely roll HIS windows up so that he could smoke in his private property for a change.

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  ed:  come, come now.  Nobody's talking about the "right not to be offended."  (only in America do people put everything in terms of 'rights')  ... and I'm going to follow suit.  We're talking about the right not to breathe a substance that could give us a life threatening disease.  If you want to do it to yourself, that's your business, but you don't have a right to force me to do it.  Or to force your children to do it, or anyone else.  That being said, I find it hard to believe that cigarette smoke is going to make its way over in any significant way from one car to another in a traffic jam.  I think this law applies to smoking in the same car with children who don't have a choice about being in that care or not.
  
  beyond:  I think that one reason so much anger has been heaped against smokers is that so many of them, at least historically, have so obnoxiously defended their "god given right to smoke" regardless of who else they are harming.  Is there some overreaction at times?  Probably.  But it's usually in proportion to the anger that comes from smokers any time there's a discussion about anything that will curtail their ability to take a hit whenever they want to.  It's no secret that nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man, so that's why this is such a hot topic.  Threaten to take away an addict's supply, and you've got a war on your hands.  I do not think that prohibition is the answer.  It didn't help with alcohol.
  
  hillbillygirl:  "But there is a big difference between nicotine and alcohol in that I am not imparing my ability to drive a car from smoking a cigarette. So in that sense I dont think its exactly fair to compare the two."  You're right that there is a big difference in that smoking doesn't impair a driver's ability whereas alcohol does, but the fact is that both activities are life threatening.  Alcohol, because of the impaired ability of the driver, and smoking because of the risk of cancer with second hand smoke.  Obviously, the effect of smoking in the car is less dramatic, because it doesn't happen all of a sudden like a car accident, but how would you feel if one of your children was diagnosed with lung cancer because of second hand smoke?  At the moment of receiving the diagnosis, it would feel a lot like a car accident, or maybe a trainwreck, wouldn't it?
  
  
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  uniquely:  lol... the only problem is that they probably rolled down the window in the first place so they wouldn't smoke out their passengers!  :)

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  u-i: tell you what, when i'm driving and smoking i'll try to be more considerate of other drivers next to me in traffic/at traffic lights. as it is, i avoid smoking near the entrances of buildings to give non-smokers non-toxic air. i would think this common darned sense but it just takes a few idiots to make everyone else look bad, i've always felt. :>
  
  kruu: about kids in the car--that's clearly a case of bad parenting, IMHO, and sadly, that isn't against the law. neither is draconian disciplining of one's children. it isn't the government's place IMV to tell parents how to raise their children, beyond certain very basic things.
  
  ed

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  ed:  I would certainly think that an activity that endangers the life of the child would be one of those very basic things.  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  SW - I would never have thought that you would do less if you knew it to be a problem.  You have behaved like a gentleman on many occaision.

• hillbillygirl said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Kruuyai~ Well of course it would....if I knew I solely was responsable for something so awful as that to happen to my children I would be devastated.....not to say that I wouldn't be devastated regardless....but to know that I alone caused it would be more than I could probably bare. And as I said earlier I didn't realize that the statistics showed that the second hand smoke inside of a car was 10 times stronger.....I have to think this would be strickly if you were one of those that didn't roll down their window to smoke???
   
   

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  kruu: obviously, where you draw that line and where others do differs. when there's disagreement, is an outsider's view to be valued more than the parents'? this is not unlike incredibly ill christian scientist children's parents refusing medical treatment. while i disagree w/ them, it is their right to do what they think best, IMHO.
  
  u-i: [bows] you are kind to say so. :>
  
  ed

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  SW - sorry, but I'm taking kruuyai's side on the "what's in the child's best interest" argument.  The child is stripped of rights by society, so it should be society's job to enforce treatment that is in the best interest of the child.  It's done every day in the US.

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  hillbillygirl:  Sorry, I don't know.
  
  ed:  "when there's disagreement, is an outsider's view to be valued more than the parents'?"   My father believed it was okay to beat his daughter until she was black and blue from head to toe and to sexually abuse his other two daughters.  Most "outsiders" would probably disagree with his views.  Should the outsiders' views be valued more than the parent's?  Why don't you answer that one for yourself, ed.  This is clearly a case of a person's attachment to their addiction (nicotine) getting the best of what would normally be a logical mind.  Your logic gets you twisted up on this issue every time, ed.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  kruu: i'm sorry, but are you seriously likening smoking to sexual and physical abuse? really? i find that...well, not good, and let's leave it at that.
  
  ed

• quietone said on Oct 11, 2007....

  boy looks like this article already opened up "a can of worms" right here!! LOL but a good topic no less.  I think I have mixed feelings about this.  It is overkill a bit because it IS their property...a car a home anyway.  My biggest thing is why are they making such a "stink" over smoking when there is SO MUCH alcohol abuse going on ...dui's drinking in homes, parks, events, everywhere...then going home to kids, or still driving down the raod drunk and running into a family car filled with family and kids??? Why not go after that a bit harder...make alcohol "an illegal drug" Sorry, a bit off the subject of smoking, but I have always said "Id rather have my child go for a ride with someone smoking a few cigarettes than a 6 pack of beer"...to me the smoking is the lesser evil

• Eilan said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I'm curious as to how this law will be enforced.  Will it be a primary violation or a secondary violation? 
  
  I don't know how other states work, but in Ohio, a primary violation is something that you can be pulled over for (like speeding), whereas a secondary violation  (like not wearing your seatbelt) is something that you can only be cited for if you've already been pulled over for another violation.
  
  I don't see how a law-enforcement official is supposed to have time to look into passing vehicles and 1.) see if there's a smoker and 2.) see if there are children in the car with the smoker.
  
  At what point will it become illegal for parents to take their children to McDonald's?  Or smoke in their own homes?
  
  I guess I'm of the same opinion as SW when it comes to feel-good type laws like this one.
  
  BTW--I'm a non-smoker.
  

• Pontius_Pilate said on Oct 11, 2007....

  
  Nice. Thank you for forcing your views down my throat. I do appreciate it.
  Now, when I get booze or pop pulled off the market and made illegal, no whining. k? k.
  Afterall, In my view, booze is more hazardous to your family and that is all I am doing, looking out for your family.
  

• LadyGamer said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I do not smoke. But I think laws like this should not ever exist. E.V.E.R. When "public opinion" and "what's healthy" have taken away smoking, what do you think will be next? Salt? Relaxing and being happy? Most likely.

• kruuyai said on Oct 12, 2007....

  ed:  I was responding to your question: "when there's disagreement, is an outsider's view to be valued more than the parents'?"  In response, I gave an example which you may consider to be more drastic to illustrate a point.  However... is it really more drastic?  They (physical abuse, and forcing a child to repeatedly remain in an enclosed area where s/he has to breathe a substance that can cause a deadly disease) are both life threatening activities on the part of the parent against the child... whether it is intentional or not.  We all have to be aware of the consequences of our actions, no matter what those actions are, and no matter how strongly attached to those actions we may be.  I have a friend whose mother died of emphysema from living all her life with a man (her husband) who smoked heavily.  Her death was definitely a direct result of inhaling cigarette smoke second hand.  There was no doubt about it.  And even during the years that she was dying of emphysema,  her husband refused to give up smoking.  It wasn't until after she died, that he got scared for his own life and finally quit.  Like someone said above.. your rights end where my nose begin... and this is not an issue of simple annoyance or offense.  This is literally a matter of life and death.

• sweet_cookie01 said on Oct 12, 2007....

  in my opinion its fine with me... its for the betterment of those around him and the smoker...

  i mean if you want to smoke... i have no means to offend smokers... then go to your room and inhale your own waste...

• silverwhisper said on Oct 12, 2007....

  kruu: yes, it's absolutely more drastic. and frankly, your implication that my personal perspective is distorted and therefore suggesting that yours isn't is quite insulting. the notion that smoking is anywhere near as bad as child abuse is indicative of that.
  
  ed

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 12, 2007....

  quietone - I think drinking and driving is horrible too, but there are already laws on the books for that.  Both are potentially fatal and both are legal drugs.  I think if you want to smoke yourself to death in your car that's fine, but don't take the kids with you.
   
  Eilan - It's a secondary offense, like not wearing your seatbelt.  They can't pull you over just for that.  I'd be curious to know how you feel about talking on cell phones, seat belt and other secondary laws. 
   
  Pontius - I'm not sure where all the hostility comes in.  You're welcome to your point of view and I'm welcome to my point of view, and I would never attack you.  I guess that's where we're different.
   
  LadyGamer - If you dislike this one I would image there are a whole bunch more that you dislike.  Setting a legal drinking age must be a real sore spot with you.
   
  Sweet - I agree with you.  I do not mean to control who smokes, just where they smoke when it can affect me.
   
   

• silverwhisper said on Oct 12, 2007....

  u-i: in some states, mobile phone use and seatbelt non-use are not secondary offenses. :>
  
  ed

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 12, 2007....

  SW - I know.  I'm sure it's not.  Perhaps I am comforted to have laws that reduce the possibility of injury on the road.  Maybe others find it more constraining.

• LadyGamer said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Unique~ You have obviously made up your mind and have no interest in ANY alternate opinions other than to make yourself feel high and mighty and better than those of us who disagree with you. That is okay. *I* think people have a right to their own opinions.

  It is exactly people like you who created this law that invades people's space and rights. It will be people like you who take away everything, I daresay. Because you are better than anyone else and you know better than anyone else.  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Ladygamer - Yes I do have an opinion about this law.  I'm actually entitled to it.  I don't think I'm any better than anyone else, but if you think I'm better than you it's your own problem.
   
  If it's "people like me" who created this law I would think that means that there are other people who share my opinion.  I'm sure many people share yours.  My only point to your comment was that you seem so dead set against a law that provides a protection for people (children) who cannot legally speak for themselves.  I have to wonder why your against protecting the welfare of these people.

• kruuyai said on Oct 12, 2007....

  ed:  Do you not see that smoking in a confined space with a kid is like putting a cigarette in his mouth and forcing him to inhale?  Come on.. you're usually a lot more logical than this.  What else can I conclude other than your own smoking habit has created a bias?   And I say this, not as a personal attack, but because you're not alone in this, and I want to demonstrate exactly how addiction works to cloud thinking when a move is taken to remove the addict from his supply.  I'm sorry if you're insulted, and I really didn't expect you not to be, but that's how I see it, and your arguments are demonstrating my points beautifully.  Thank you.

• Pontius_Pilate said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Hostility towards you? Where? Hostility in general? Hell yes.
  Let me make an example here.
  This law forbids smoking in cars around children, obviously bad for them right?
  I say there needs to be a law outlawing drinking at home. There already is one for drinking and driving, lets take that one more step.
  How many families, i.e. children, are hurt from drinking at home? Hmm?
  I can say alot more than most are willing to admit to.
  I for one am a good example of that. After 30 years, I still have habits that were formed from the step father drinking at home. I still sleep with my pillow wrapped around my head from his drinking. Blocking out the screaming of my mother calling out my name for help. All because he got drunk at home and decided it would be a good time to beat my mother.
  So yea, I do think banning drinking at home would be a good law.
  How many other families go through the exact same thing?
  How many children?
  Damn straight I am hostile.
  Take away my rights, because you feel that it is something that is better for my family when there are things that cause problems like this day in and day out yet you leave it be.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Pontius - If I had my say I would ban drinking when minors are present.  It's not up to me, since I don't work as a legislator.  If that kind of a bill did pass I'd support it.  I'm sorry your step dad was a fuck up.  Did your mother ever have his ass arrested or kick his ass out?  I'm not responsible for that, so if you have such stong feelings about drinking around minors, please write your congressman or senator, start a petition, don a cape and save people who are currently victims of that kind of thing.  Don't attack me.
   
  I'm sure now someone will attack me because I'm taking away their freedom to abuse alcohol and people who happen to be around.  So be it.  It would appear that any time the government restricts a behavior, all of a sudden it becomes an inalienable right.

• hillbillygirl said on Oct 12, 2007....

  We as smokers have rights just the same as non-smokers. They have come in and stopped us from smoking just about anywhere in public.....and now it seems in some places in their own homes. I understand that it stinks, I understand what second hand smoke can do. But if I want to smoke its my right. And if I have my children in the car and I want to smoke a cig its my right to do that. Maybe its not just, maybe its not a good choice....but its mine to make....not yours. And it doesn't mean I am a bad parent who should be compared to someone who would abuse their children. How ridiculus!!!! I love my children with everything I have, I work very hard to give my children a good home, a safe loving home. BUT YES I AM A SMOKER!!!!! There are people out there right now high on crack, or drunk, or doped up on someother drug driving around endangering everyone around them lives. In my car or in my home smoking a freaking cigarette I am solely endangering myself....and yes maybe a slight amount of second hand smoke is making its way to my backseat to my children. But am I to keep them in a closed up bubble for the rest of their lives away from anyone else who smokes??? Because I would be a bad parent if I allowed them to be in their presense???? Yes children have rights just the same as you and I and someone has to be their voice I realize this.  BUT I really think it is a individuals choice and not the governments to make.

• Pontius_Pilate said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Think I need to clarify a bit real quick here.
  With my posts above, think it might be needed.
  Banning in cars is a crock. Same as banning drinking at home.
  It would seem my point failed, miserably, while not suprising, still annoying. :shrug:
  I personally would rather not have a big brother state, I will do what I choose to do in my home, my vehicle or my property.
  There are already to many laws that prevent me from doing this or that, enough already for crying out loud. Back off and let the families be.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 12, 2007....

  I think this blog has reached the point of having aired everyone's opinions and views and can not be further productive.  I never dreamed that a consensus would be reached on this topic.
   
  It was never my intention to offend anyone, and if you were offended, I apologize.  I do not apologize for opinion, just that I may have presented it in an offensive manner.

• Eilan said on Oct 12, 2007....

  I don't think people should be allowed to talk on their cell phones, text, eat, put on makeup, receive road head, or do anything while driving other than driving (and, yeah, I suppose smoking would be a part of that, because it's potentially distracting, not because I'm trying to save other people's children). But again, it's difficult enough to enforce traffic laws as it is.
  
  I am, honestly, opposed to seat belt and helmet laws, though I always wear my seat belt and insist that my passengers do so (if I rode a motorcycle, I'd wear a helmet). If someone wants to assume the risk of not wearing a seat belt, getting thrown out of a vehicle, and leaving his or her gray matter all over the highway for people like my husband and his former co-workers to find, he or she should have that right.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 12, 2007....

  I am amazed at the number of people who seem to think they have a "right" to smoke.  Where in the constitution does it mention anything about  a "right" to smoke?  Are you equally distressed by the fact that Americans have, in recent years, lost their constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process, to have an attorney present during questioning, to a fair and speedy trial, not to be held without charges, to remain silent, to make one phone call from jail, to not be tortured in prison, and to not have their phones tapped?  Perhaps what we need to make Americans accept that they shouldn't forcefully fill their own children's lungs with toxic waste is to have a doofus in the White House claim such activities to be acts of terrorism?

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Anonymous - I do not allow anonymous comments.  If you have something to say, you must do so under your sign in or your opinion is not welcome.  I will also delete comments who's sole purpose is to attack.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 12, 2007....

  kruu: suffice it to say that we do not agree on the matter.
  
  ed

• SilentChaos said on Dec 21, 2007....

  I completely agree with you. I HATED being at my grandma's house while she made me sit with her in her 10' x 10' living room smoking a pack of liggets end to end. Now that I can choose where I can be, I hate riding in the car with anyone who smokes-- it doesn't make a difference if they have the window cracked or all the way rolled down-- smokers don't know how badly it stinks because they've burnt their noses all up!

• uniquely-ironic said on Dec 21, 2007....

  Silent - Smoking is one of those hot button issues.  I can't say I'll ever be able to tolerate it willingly.  I can understand how being a "prisoner" in your gramma's smokey house has had a good outcome though, as you are not a smoker now.

• Nanny said on Jun 08, 2008....

  tizzygirl....It's not unfair...if you want to inhale cancer into your body so be it but dont KILL Children

Comment on "New Smoking In Car Fine"

Currently tagged	health smoking Cars children Smoking is a car with your small/young children with you is MuRDER (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment