# Smoking ban in cars



## amber (Jan 9, 2007)

My hometown in Maine is the first in our state to make smoking banned in cars that have children under age 18 in the car.  People can now be fined. This takes effect on Jan 18, and police are hoping that people will do this willingly.

I am a smoker, but never smoke in my car.  There are two sides to this.  Some say the government should not pry into what people do in their cars/space, others agree that it's not good to smoke in the car where children  may be. 

Personally, I dont like smoking in cars, it's too congested for me even as a smoker, plus I wouldnt subject kids to the smoke.  

Thoughts?


----------



## sattie (Jan 9, 2007)

I never liked climbing into cars that reeked with ciggy smoke. I am a former smoker... so I know. I also think that if you are a responsible parent, you would not smoke in a closed area when your children are present unless they smoke too.

I for one like the idea because hopefully it would mean less ciggy butts on the ground!!!! Why can't they use the ashtray instead of my front lawn????

When I smoked, I never smoked in the house or smoked in the car. It really makes it hard to sell your vehicle when it smells like a smokers lounge.


----------



## kitchenelf (Jan 9, 2007)

Wow!  I guess it's one way to "protect the children" since they don't have a say - but - Wow at the same time.


----------



## -DEADLY SUSHI- (Jan 9, 2007)

Its sick.   They have NO right!


----------



## middie (Jan 10, 2007)

I'm a smoker. I don't smoke in the car when my son's with me for the simple fact he has asthma. I don't smoke in my house either. But I'm tired of people stepping in and telling other people where they can and can't smoke.


----------



## daisy (Jan 10, 2007)

They'll be telling us what we can and can't do in the bedroom next! Keep out of my private space, law-makers!


----------



## skilletlicker (Jan 10, 2007)

kitchenelf said:
			
		

> Wow!  I guess it's one way to "protect the children" since they don't have a say - but - Wow at the same time.


 My sentiments exactly.  I quit about 5 years ago and am all for protecting the children and really hate to see butts thrown out the window...

" - but - Wow at the same time."

If it is necesary, for the health of a child, to criminalize smoking in your car, how can society tolerate smoking in your house if it is also occupied by children?​


----------



## attie (Jan 10, 2007)

It's coming in to play here to, also fines if butts are thrown out of windows. The only place where we can realy smoke legally is at home when you consider all the places we can't


----------



## Candocook (Jan 10, 2007)

If these people WON'T protect their own children, then I guess someone should. At the same time, I'm not sure it will be legal if tested.  But there is NO doubt that second hand smoke is a health hazard and these children have no recourse to avoid it. It can become a public health issue when the health care system is accessed for their pulmonary disease.


----------



## VeraBlue (Jan 10, 2007)

Plus, people who smoke in cars tend to view the entire earth as their ashtray.
How many times have you been behind a car where a smoldering projectile lands right in front of your car....or heads towards the grass?

The fires that destroyed all those 'celebrities'' homes were caused by a cigarette tossed from a car window, according to fire forensics.


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

I think the law show be re-written. I think it should be illegal to smoke in a car * that has a child under 18 in it*. If it is all adults in the car then the law should not apply. The children do need to be protected, but adults should be able to smoke in their car if they want to. Throwing butts on the ground should carry a heavier fine though. Use the darn ashtray in your can instead of dumping your trash on the roads.


----------



## crewsk (Jan 10, 2007)

To help solve the problem of throwing butts out ofthe window for those who don't want to use the car ash tray, get one of these Amazon.com: BUTT BUCKET ASH TRAY: Home & Garden I agree with what GB said though.


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 10, 2007)

GB said:
			
		

> I think the law show be re-written. I think it should be illegal to smoke in a car *that has a child under 18 in it*. If it is all adults in the car then the law should not apply. The children do need to be protected, but adults should be able to smoke in their car if they want to. Throwing butts on the ground should carry a heavier fine though. Use the darn ashtray in your can instead of dumping your trash on the roads.


 

The logical progression of this would be to outlaw smoking on your home if there are children under 18 present.  

If cigarette smoking is such a bad thing.  Outlaw cigarettes, not smoking.


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

The difference being (and I know if is a fine line) that in a house the child or adult can be in different rooms. In the car, the child is stuck with no choice, but to sit there and suck in the smoke. Of course I do see the downfalls in my statement. Not all houses or dwellings have more than one room. Not all adults would go to a different room to smoke. Etc. I think there is a difference though.


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 10, 2007)

GB said:
			
		

> The difference being (and I know if is a fine line) that in a house the child or adult can be in different rooms. In the car, the child is stuck with no choice, but to sit there and suck in the smoke. Of course I do see the downfalls in my statement. Not all houses or dwellings have more than one room. Not all adults would go to a different room to smoke. Etc. I think there is a difference though.


 
I didn't say they were the same, just that I thought the logical next step would be to ban in home smoking.

I ready to outlaw the growing of tobacco.


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

You are absolutely right Andy. I am sure that would be the next step.


----------



## Constance (Jan 10, 2007)

Big Brother is "taking care of us". Government has become way to invasive in our private lives.


----------



## skilletlicker (Jan 10, 2007)

And then to enforce the bans you could require nicotine sensitive smoke detectors in all vehicles and residences, linked of course to federal monitoring stations in each region manned jointly by the Department of Justice, FBI, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and the Department of Homeland Security.


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 10, 2007)

...and swat teams roaming the neighborhoods ready to kick down your door at the first wiff of tobacco smoke.


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

OK folks this is starting to go down a political road and we all know we can't do that here. Lets try to get this back on track and just discuss the topic at hand without the politics involved. Thanks.


----------



## Reanie525i (Jan 10, 2007)

I think we as smokers should use common sense when it comes to smoking but do not feel this is the way to go -


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

I agree Reanie, that smokers should use common sense. The problem is that while you are a responsible person and have good common sense, there are just so many others out there who either don't know better, or don't care. They do not and will no use common sense. There are children who pay the price because of that unfortunately.


----------



## Reanie525i (Jan 10, 2007)

GB - So sad, but true.


----------



## jennyema (Jan 10, 2007)

GB said:
			
		

> I think the law show be re-written. I think it should be illegal to smoke in a car *that has a child under 18 in it*. If it is all adults in the car then the law should not apply. The children do need to be protected, but adults should be able to smoke in their car if they want to. .


 
Isn't that what she said?  _"My hometown in Maine is the first in our state to make smoking banned in cars that have children under age 18 in the car. "_

And, that is, I believe, just how Bangor's law is written.  It's fine by me.


----------



## CharlieD (Jan 10, 2007)

Good, let them fine my father, he always smokes in the car and having my kids doesn't stop him, no matter how many times I've asked him.


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

jennyema said:
			
		

> Isn't that what she said?  _"My hometown in Maine is the first in our state to make smoking banned in cars that have children under age 18 in the car. "_
> 
> And, that is, I believe, just how Bangor's law is written.  It's fine by me.


Thanks Jenny. You are absolutely right. I should read things a bit more carefully  
Since that is the case then I am 100% behind this law.


----------



## Renee Attili (Jan 10, 2007)

When will it end? I don't have kids, but, I think that the law makers are the last ones to make moral descisions for the population. In their world it is wrong to smoke near children but it is O.K. to get drunk and send them sexual emails. They should leave it to the parents to control the safety of their childrens enviroment


----------



## CharlieD (Jan 10, 2007)

One doesn't exlude another. I think it's not a good idea to have anything sexual around children, but the fact that there is no law about it, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some kind of protection for children about smoking. One doesn't exlude another. And yes you are corect parents should control the safety of their kids, no matter if there is or there is not a law.


----------



## Renee Attili (Jan 10, 2007)

But when do we say enough micro managing is enough? If we let them go long enough they will be telling us what we are and are not allowed to teach our children. Again I say let parents do the parenting


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

Renee Attili said:
			
		

> Again I say let parents do the parenting


The problem is that lots of parents don't do the parenting. Look at how many parents do smoke in their cars with their children. Kids are sucking in this dangerous smoke every day.


----------



## Renee Attili (Jan 10, 2007)

But it still is NOT the governments place to tell people how to parent. Otherwise, if that is their job, maybe they should decide on who gets the right to have children and who does not.


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

Well we need to keep politics out of the conversation. If parents are putting their children in danger then something should be done. JMHO.


----------



## jennyema (Jan 10, 2007)

In point of fact, the government "tells people how to parent" every day.  Kids have to go to school, ride in car seats, etc.

The fact that it's the government's job to protect and promote the health and safety of children seems like a very apolitical notion to me.


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 10, 2007)

Laws are generally written to protect against the lowest common denominator in society.  

The idiots that abuse children, poison aspirin bottles in pharmacies, rob convenient stores, etc, etc, are the ones that get laws written.  

If you are a responsible parent who puts a child in a car seat and doesn't smoke in its presence, laws aren't needed force you to do the right thing.


----------



## suzyQ3 (Jan 10, 2007)

jennyema said:
			
		

> In point of fact, the government "tells people how to parent" every day.  Kids have to go to school, ride in car seats, etc.
> 
> The fact that it's the government's job to protect and promote the health and safety of children seems like a very apolitical notion to me.


Thanks, jennyema. You saved me from constructing a long post with your very succinct message. 

I wonder whether those who are so concerned about Big Brother telling them not to fill their kids' lungs in a confined area like a car are also against being told to make sure that their kids are either in child-restraint seats or, at the appropriate age, properly belted up and against helmet laws, just to name a couple measures.

The fact is that  some policies that may fee intrusive not only promote health and safety but  also save society the expense incurred from not taking some action when it is deemed necessary.  

As for this thread, I appreciate GB's reminders about the site's policy against political discussion. But I think that given the parent post here, any discussion will touch on the political because the debate inherently involves the nature and scope of government.


----------



## skilletlicker (Jan 10, 2007)

Note to all forum members and administrators.

This began as a private message to GB but as much as I love this forum, I think it is being abused, and feel the need to speak out.  If worst comes to worst, I have enjoyed our conversations and wish you all well.  

GB, first let me say that I am not criticizing the administration or moderation of the forum. I have a question about what is allowed and what is discouraged and what is banned. Please be patient with me because these kinds of things confuse me easily.
Amber started by evenhandedly reporting a recent political event, specifically the adoption of a new ordinance in her hometown.

The original post was followed by 11 replies, most of which voiced approval or disapproval.  One of the eleven was yours in which you advocated amending the law under discussion and increasing the fine for violation of other laws involving the improper butt disposal. That, it seems to me, was the most politically activist post in the thread.

The conversation then evolved into a discussion, mostly between you and Andy, about what might be the next child protective mandate logically required if the original premise was correct. This was a question I  posed earlier and Andy restated without the question mark.  A couple post later, I was amazed to see you admit that regulation in the home would indeed be the next logical step.

At this point, barring a retraction, the debate is over and somebody lost. No shame in that; it happens every day. Doesn't even mean the loser is necessarily wrong, just out-argued today. Better luck next time. All that's left is to discover the decorum with which the participants accept the results. No more arguments are necessary. A laugh is shared, here and there, in honor of recuctio ad absurdum.

And then rank is pulled.



			
				GB said:
			
		

> OK folks this is starting to go down a political road and we all know we can't do that here. Lets try to get this back on track and just discuss the topic at hand without the politics involved. Thanks.


 In the words of my NBA forum friends,

This whole thread has been about politics, but the least political posts are clearly the ones you are objecting to.

Okay I calm down and don't say anything more and think that the political discussion has been ended but lo and behold, you resume your political advocacy here and here and here.  Then a relative newcomer to the forum disagrees and you bully her (him?) with,


> Well we need to keep politics out of the conversation. If parents are putting their children in danger then something should be done. JMHO.


 JMHO indeed!  I seen nothing humble about it.


----------



## amber (Jan 10, 2007)

It is indeed a very touchy topic not only on here, but in my hometown.  I went to buy cigarettes today, and a woman that I know there mentioned this very topic today.  She was obviously angry that people can no longer smoke in cars with children under 18 and she doesnt have children.  I bit my tongue, nodded alot to her in respect to her thoughts, and really what more can I do?  People want to smoke in cars but they will be fined here.  

I really dont think children should be subjected to smoke in confined spaces such as cars.  Sure as GB mentioned, there could be confined spaces in houses, but lets face it, cars are a one room vechicle people. 

This woman concluded that, much like our seatbell law, the police will be adamant at first, but then will not bother pulling people over after some point in time because they have better things to do. Lets hope not because I cannot stand to see little babies and even young children belted into the back seat sucking up second hand smoke, whether or not you open the window.  

I agree though, lets keep politics out of this thread, it was not my intention at all, I simply wanted to focus on smoking in cars with kids under 18 and your thoughts.

Woops, I was writing while skilletlicker was apparently, and so my post came up after I read the above statement by skilletlicker.  I did indeed bring about a thread in an even-handed manner, however I now realized this type of topic can get off topic and heated, so I do apologize for setting off what I meant to be a nice even-keeled topic.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jan 10, 2007)

I like the fact that it involves minors who have no say, but I think it is really an infringement on private rights. If you OWN the vehicle, and have paid taxes, you should be allowed to do whatever, WITHIN reason in it. What next, no smoking in your house? I dunno...

It ultimately is a smokers decision to stink there car up, and take the health risks. if the Government, FDA, ATF, and local governments are sooooo concerned about when and where a smoker can smoke, why not just ban it all together? Oh, thats right, tobacco helped found this country. Tobacco and alcohol are the LAST LEGAL vices in this country and they make too much money to prohibit.

I am NOT a smoker, but think that some of the laws are getting ridiculous. Granted, I don't like going in a bar that you can cut the smoke with a knife, or a restaurant that has a smoking section butted right up next to the non section, but that is the way it is. As a non smoker, it is my choice to move or not patronize those places, no biggie.


----------



## amber (Jan 10, 2007)

TATTRAT said:
			
		

> I like the fact that it involves minors who have no say, but I think it is really an infringement on private rights. If you OWN the vehicle, and have paid taxes, you should be allowed to do whatever, WITHIN reason in it. What next, no smoking in your house? I dunno...
> 
> It ultimately is a smokers decision to stink there car up, and take the health risks. if the Government, FDA, ATF, and local governments are sooooo concerned about when and where a smoker can smoke, why not just ban it all together? Oh, thats right, tobacco helped found this country. Tobacco and alcohol are the LAST LEGAL vices in this country and they make too much money to prohibit.
> 
> I am NOT a smoker, but think that some of the laws are getting ridiculous. Granted, I don't like going in a bar that you can cut the smoke with a knife, or a restaurant that has a smoking section butted right up next to the non section, but that is the way it is. As a non smoker, it is my choice to move or not patronize those places, no biggie.



I appreciate your input, however the thread was about minors in cars, not about adults that can make decisions for themselves.


----------



## GB (Jan 10, 2007)

skilletlicker, if you have a problem with me then you should take it to PM's. You could PM me directly or you could PM any of the other staff members. If you feel I said something in any of my posts that broke any rules then there is a report post feature next to every post that you can use as well. You already know, as you alluded to in your post, that things like this are not to be posted on the public forum.

I am closing this thread because it is obvious that politics are going to continue to be discussed no matter what. If anyone would like to discuss anything regarding the rules and what is or is not allowed then feel free to start a new thread or put it in a PM, but this thread is now closed.


----------



## Alix (Jan 11, 2007)

OK, I'm going to add something here to GB's post. 

I do not understand why it is difficult for people to see that it is OK to talk about a law but not how the government is infringing on our personal freedoms. We allow a certain degree of latitude with threads like this so that the discussion can take place. Those of you who complain most vociferously about the moderating here are the ones who are nudging us to stricter moderation rather than the opposite. 

If you need this to be spelled out then here it is. You MAY post about a law or some kind of legislation and whether or not you agree with it. You MAY NOT post how terrible it is that the government is legislating so many of your personal freedoms and where will it end. The REASON for this is that the former post is not (usually) inflammatory, and will not engender debate and the latter IS inflammatory and WILL cause people with another opinion to post and the fight will be on. 

I hope that is clear enough for all of you. And finally, if you really feel the need to question the moderation here (and you have the right to do that at any time) it would be so lovely to be afforded the courtesy of a PM rather than a rant on the boards which includes profanity that needs editing. Whether you believe it or not, the moderators here are VOLUNTEERS and they take a lot of crap from members everyday. They are people just like you and they do not deserve to be publicly slammed. Please people, if you wouldn't say to someone's face, don't say it on a public board. If you DO post it in public be prepared for a public reprimand, we don't like to do that but sometimes a public reminder is good for everyone to see. Remember your manners please.


----------

