Proposed anti smoking in car law!

[fundonny]

Now this is a great great law! When I was very young, I remember my aunt taking me to go go-karting, but she smoked the whole time in the car on the way. I asked her to stop because I was feeling sick. She didn't. I was sick the rest of the day. Glad my uncle divorced that b$tch.

[Chieflongtee]

Now this is a great great law! When I was very young, I remember my aunt taking me to go go-karting, but she smoked the whole time in the car on the way. I asked her to stop because I was feeling sick. She didn't. I was sick the rest of the day. Glad my uncle divorced that b$tch.

Was the go-kart smell any better?

[fundonny]

When you're not enclosed, absolutely!

[fundonny]

Personally, I think anyone who smokes with a child in the car should be put in jail for a week for directly harming their child. It's abuse, no grey area about it.

[rsx25]

i agree with you, it makes me mad when i see people smoking in the car with kids.

[Chieflongtee]

i agree with you, it makes me mad when i see people smoking in the car with kids.

What makes me even madder is someone driving like a maniac with the 'kids in the car' sign in the back window

[covanant]

Yeah..i dont understand how these idiots can do that to their kids?
Its about time something is done about it but.....where does it stop?Whats next?
Can you imagine what some people are feeding their kids,how some are dressed for winter?I think if someone is caught smoking in their car with kids inside,childrens welfare should be called in to do a home assesement

[314314]

Same should apply to healthcare. If they get lung cancer due their smoking habits then they should play their bills not me… Why are we subsidizing smokers?

[PEI Golfing]

Unfortunate some of these anti-smoking bylaws could not have taken place a generation ago...................

I am sure there are many on this forum who remember the days when there was smoking in the workplace....................

And everyone can remember not long ago going out to a bar for the evening and having to take a shower when you got home just to get rid of the smoke smell............

[sillywilly]

there is no way this law will get passed. A car is a perosnal personal properly. You can't tell someone not to smoke in their house.. you can't tell them not to smoke in their car either.

[jonf]

I think it's a stupid law, BUT you can tell someone not to smoke in their car/house if it is harmful to others. Saying that they can do what they want in their house/car is like saying that someone can beat their wife, as long as they do it in their own house. I know the two things are on entirely different levels, but the principle is the same. In this case, they're obviously treating smoking/subjecting children to 2nd hand smoke as a form of assault, and thus have the right to step in no matter what the venue.

[nhwott5]

Same should apply to healthcare. If they get lung cancer due their smoking habits then they should play their bills not me… Why are we subsidizing smokers?

slippery slope though, now lets say you get live problems, do you drink at all? if so, then i shoildn;t have to pay your bills too rioght?

or lets say you get skin cancer, do yo go outside in the sun of rextended periods? if so i shouldn't have to pay your bills as well righ?


most health issues, or issues that rtequire health care are a reult of things people have done to themselves , you have to watch out saying the person has to pay for their own bills, you never know when it will be you

[nhwott5]

there is no way this law will get passed. A car is a perosnal personal properly. You can't tell someone not to smoke in their house.. you can't tell them not to smoke in their car either.

it is not a question of it being pesonal property, it is a question of it being a health hazzard to a child.

yes you can tell people what to do in their personal property, ie, in a car you have to wear a seatbelt, and if you do not put one on your kids, you will be fined. this is exactly the same.

[fundonny]

I don't understand how you can think this is a stupid law. If you believe that it's harmful for babies and kids to be in such an enclosed space with cigarette smoke, why shouldn't it be enforced as a law. It's abuse. Private property, public property, whatever, you don't force smoke on babies.

I think it's a stupid law, BUT you can tell someone not to smoke in their car/house if it is harmful to others. Saying that they can do what they want in their house/car is like saying that someone can beat their wife, as long as they do it in their own house. I know the two things are on entirely different levels, but the principle is the same. In this case, they're obviously treating smoking/subjecting children to 2nd hand smoke as a form of assault, and thus have the right to step in no matter what the venue.

[Pinshark]

slippery slope though, now lets say you get live problems, do you drink at all? if so, then i shoildn;t have to pay your bills too rioght?

or lets say you get skin cancer, do yo go outside in the sun of rextended periods? if so i shouldn't have to pay your bills as well righ?


most health issues, or issues that rtequire health care are a reult of things people have done to themselves , you have to watch out saying the person has to pay for their own bills, you never know when it will be you

With all the taxes smokers pay one could argue they are subsidizing there own health care.

[314314]

It's coming... Smokers have a pre-existing condition ("Smoking")...Why do you think smokers get a higher insurance premiums...and they do not cover you for pre-existing conditions...

It's difficult but it's already here... You smoke, you get Cancer...as simple as that.. I have seen some people taking oxigen and still don't stop...they just dont care...

slippery slope though, now lets say you get live problems, do you drink at all? if so, then i shoildn;t have to pay your bills too rioght?

or lets say you get skin cancer, do yo go outside in the sun of rextended periods? if so i shouldn't have to pay your bills as well righ?


most health issues, or issues that rtequire health care are a reult of things people have done to themselves , you have to watch out saying the person has to pay for their own bills, you never know when it will be you

[nhwott5]

I say again then, you drink,, then any thing related to your liver shoudl be paid only by you, you go otu in sun, any skin condfditions shoudl be paid by you, you water ski and break your leg, paid by you, etc tec etc.
it is not going to happen with smoking, specialy since it is legl to sell them, and the govet profits form there sale,

It's coming... Smokers have a pre-existing condition ("Smoking")...Why do you think smokers get a higher insurance premiums...and they do not cover you for pre-existing conditions...

It's difficult but it's already here... You smoke, you get Cancer...as simple as that.. I have seen some people taking oxigen and still don't stop...they just dont care...

[scanner_66]

Once again we are allowing someone else to solve our problems by banning, making illegal or otherwise politically posturing for the sheeple. Banning drinking and driving didn't work, banning handgun ownership didn't work, banning domestic abuse didn't work and the list goes on. Creating STUPID laws that costs me money is political grandstanding at its best, it obviously appeals to some though because it gets votes...wait until they ban what you enjoy - maybe no one can play golf if the temp is over 23 deg C because of the risk of heat stroke...who will you cry to then?

Why not push for politicians to do something actually useful, if you have a problem with smoking then push for smoking to be banned (oh right, that will not work either, just ask the dope smokers)...

We do not need laws - we need morals and they can not be legislated.

[fundonny]

And while you're living in your utopian society....

C'mon. Morals have left the building, a long time ago. 90% of people are good. It's that 10% that requires laws and punishment.

[nhwott5]

might want to go look at some stats and trends beofre making these claims.

banning hand gun ownersip? sure has worked, compare canada to the US and hand gun related fatalities and hand gun related crimes, the diferrences are staggering.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

	Homicide	Suicide	Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001)	3.98	5.92	0.36
Italy (1997)	0.81	1.1	0.07
Switzerland (1998)	0.50	5.8	0.10
Canada (2002)	0.4	2.0	0.04
Finland (2003)	0.35	4.45	0.10
Australia (2001)	0.24	1.34	0.10
France (2001)	0.21	3.4	0.49
England/Wales (2002)	0.15	0.2	0.03
Scotland (2002)	0.06	0.2	0.02
Japan (2002)	0.02	0.04	0

drunk driving? this has decrased significvanty over the last 25 years,

and how exactly do these laws cost you money?

Once again we are allowing someone else to solve our problems by banning, making illegal or otherwise politically posturing for the sheeple. Banning drinking and driving didn't work, banning handgun ownership didn't work, banning domestic abuse didn't work and the list goes on. Creating STUPID laws that costs me money is political grandstanding at its best, it obviously appeals to some though because it gets votes...wait until they ban what you enjoy - maybe no one can play golf if the temp is over 23 deg C because of the risk of heat stroke...who will you cry to then?

Why not push for politicians to do something actually useful, if you have a problem with smoking then push for smoking to be banned (oh right, that will not work either, just ask the dope smokers)...

We do not need laws - we need morals and they can not be legislated.

[scanner_66]

I never said that laws were not needed, wasting money having beauracrats sitting around mkaing up the laws that govern common sense is wasteful...enforcing laws that exsist would work as well....

As far as drunk driving decreasing - sure it has but it has nothing to do with laws, it has to do with public pressure and education...

If you want to debate gun control lets play

The Canadian National Weapons Enforcement Support Team has annually reported that out of all recovered crime guns lass than 5% are found to have been stolen from legal handgun owners in Canada. So in turn, a final and total ban on legal handguns in Canada would only eliminate less than 5% of the supply of illegal handguns to criminal elements...at a cost of close to 1.5 billion in compensation and an additional 200 million in implementation.

So to recap...an estimated 1.7 to 2 billion additional tax payer dollars for a potential 5% drop in illegal handgun availability.

Also to add, Since the UK banned handguns and semiautomatic firearms they have seen a 500% increase in all violent crime in only 10 years since implementation back in 1995. Their violent crime rate is 2013/100,000 population (Home Office Statistics Bureau 2006).

For comparison, the US violent crime rate has steadily dropped since 1995 and is now hovering at around 740/100,000 population despite firearms ownership rising by more than 40% in the same 10 year period from 1995-2005(FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, US Justice Department)

Pointing to one select statistic (suicide) is misleading as well - the number of suicides has not dropped, only the method has changed...what have you accomplished...

[nhwott5]

this is not the place to debate this, as per forum rrules,

now i am not pointing at suicide rate, it is the total rate of gun deaths.

and yes, as you ahve shown you can use stats both ways, but I feel, ( amore so than feel i know) it is a fact that ther is by fdar more gun deaths and atacts in th us than in cananda per capita, and the big difference is the gun laws.

not the much talked about bill c-68, but rather the original bill c-51 from 1977

strict gun control is welcome anywhere i live, anyone who has a problem with gun control is soemone who should not own a gun

[The Saint]

Personally, I think anyone who smokes with a child in the car should be put in jail for a week for directly harming their child. It's abuse, no grey area about it.

Or better yet.. instead of putting them in jail, put them in a car for a week and pipe the exhaust back into the car. It would have to be in an inclosed area of course so that you don't get fined for the no idling bylaw..

[Kilroy]

Please return to the topic of the smoking bylaw.
Thanks.

[jonf]

I don't understand how you can think this is a stupid law. If you believe that it's harmful for babies and kids to be in such an enclosed space with cigarette smoke, why shouldn't it be enforced as a law. It's abuse. Private property, public property, whatever, you don't force smoke on babies.

Well, first of all, it's virtually unenforceable.

Secondly (and I will probably get jumped on for this), it's just a drop in the pond compared to time spent in the home with a smoker. While I think most smokers at this point are conscious of their habit and its effect on others, and choose to smoke outside, there are those who don't. These are the same ones who will be smoking in cars. Saving a child from smoke in a car is only a very small part of the battle.

Thirdly, it is enormously hypocritical for government to reap the rewards of tobacco sales, and then turn around and vilify (yes....smokers are now vilified by society) those who choose to smoke. If you really want to save everyone in the world from second hand smoke - which is clearly what governments have been trying to do for the past 5 years - then stop selling cigarettes.

If second hand smoke is abuse, the government should stop selling the weapon...over and over and over again. Why? Because it is virtually impossible to smoke without subjecting others to it. Unless you're doing it in a wide open field with nobody else around, others will be subjected to second hand smoke, no matter how conscientious a smoker is.

[spackler]

Thirdly, it is enormously hypocritical for government to reap the rewards of tobacco sales, and then turn around and vilify (yes....smokers are now vilified by society) those who choose to smoke. If you really want to save everyone in the world from second hand smoke - which is clearly what governments have been trying to do for the past 5 years - then stop selling cigarettes.

Bingo. Anyone think smoking would still be allowed if it was revenue negative or even revenue neutral? This is just another case of political grandstanding. The effects of second hand smoke are widely known now and if politicians wanted to make an actual difference, they'd have proposed a total ban on smoking long ago. These half measures are very cynical and only designed for personal aggrandizement.

[nhwott5]

to yoru points,

1- it is just as enforcable as the sdeat belt law, which is pretty well enforced, so yes it can be enforced easily.

2- it sure is just a drop in the bucket, now problem is that to truly enforce the law in homes would be near impossible, so they can not do that. but in a car, yes they can, it is a long standing misunderstanding that peoplke h ave that in their car they are in private property, they arenot, if you are in yor car in a public place, you are in public, your car is not private property, your home is

3- yes again, it is hypocritical of govt to reap rewards fro procecuting smokers for violations to what they sell, we all know govts profit form sale of smokes, alas they also profit form sale of alcohol, yet we have laws governing that, govts profit form all sors of things that are still strictly enforced.

now are you saying you are against a law that woudl help to allieviate soem of the smolke a small child will h ave to inhale into theior lungs? it is abuses on a youngster to force them to inhale this without their consent.

[jonf]

now are you saying you are against a law that woudl help to allieviate soem of the smolke a small child will h ave to inhale into theior lungs? it is abuses on a youngster to force them to inhale this without their consent.

Yes. I am saying that.

Again, I doubt very much whether anyone will obey this law. And, unless they are going to set up 'smoke traps' then I can't see it being very well enforced.

And, more importantly, it is not the BEST way to limit harm to minors. I'm all for full measures, but can't stand these piddly, hypocritical half-measures. If you want to eliminate the EFFECTS of smoking, then ban the CAUSE. Which, of course, is cigarettes.

[Chieflongtee]

Donny. You need to change your avatar. You,re stinking up the room

[Golfbum]

As a former pack a day guy let me weigh in on this law.

Is it a good law to be passed?
Yes it is. now don't get me wrong, I am not one of those EX SMOKERS who tells everyone to quit. I quit because I had a heart attack, my wife quit to help support me quitting.

Any second hand smoke that can be eliminated from children's lungs is a good thing IMO.

We quit smoking in the house 7 years before I actually quit smoking. Let me tell you our children appreciated that fact.

We always had windows down in the vehicles when we smoked, with or without the children in the car.

I am like everyone else though. I hate having the governments tell me what is right and what is wrong. The issue I have here is simple. The governments want us to quit smoking but offer no help. They rake in millions in taxes from smokers and yet they tel us to quit. If they want people to quit, make it illegal to smoke, period. Make it illegal to sell tobacco products in Canada.

But that will never happen, not in our lifetimes.

Is the law enforceable? Sure it is. I am a cop, I see you smoking in your car, you have children in your car. I turn on my flashing lights, siren and pull you over and write you a ticket. Simple as that.

I read an article on the weekend about a town on the East Coast that is working to pass a by law that will make it illegal to smoke anywhere outside of your homes in that town. No smoking in parks, golf courses, while walking down the streets. Or your own backyard while you have a beer and BBQ. Now that is a tough by law right there.


Do I care if you smoke? Nope. Could care less. I could care less if you smoke around me either. But if we can help children out health wise then I am all for that law. To be honest, I wish that law had been in place when my children were young and riding in the car with two smokers.