Smoking in Cars
By speakeasy
@speakeasy (4171)
United States
January 10, 2007 7:53pm CST
Bangor, Maine just passed an ordinance that forbids smoking in vehicles when children are present. People who were for this law said that it was necessary to protect children (who cannot protect themselves) from second hand smoke. People who were against it said that "most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children" and the law was not necessary. It is listed as a "primary offense" which means the police can pull over anyone inside city limits who they see smoking if anybody under 18 is in the vehicle. The fine is $50.00.
We do need to protect small children from secondhand smoke but do we need to protect 18 year olds? The smokers with "enough common sense not to smoke around children" won't be affected by this law anyway, just the ones with no common sense. Is a $50.00 fine enough to make them stop? What do you think?
5 people like this
41 responses
@miakakiri (57)
• United States
11 Jan 07
I wish I could say I thought that this would help, but I really don't. It's an addiction, and people will, sadly, pay anything to feed their addictions.
Personally, I think that this law is perhaps more necessary than most people would think. I'm not saying everyone who smokes is a jerk who doesn't think about people around them, but unfortunately in my experience a lot of smokers don't care about the effect of their habit on others. Even young children. I used to work in a parking garage, and I saw a suprising number of people smoking in their car. I'll give them the benifit of the doubt and say they didn't realize that when they open the window to pay the gal at the exit, the smoke blows right into her face. It also bothered me how many cars like this I saw come through that had kids in them. I'm not talking teens, here, I mean little kids. Around 5 or younger, some in booster seats or carseats. This is why such laws are called for. Because some people are either inconsiderate enough or stupid enough that it never occurs to them that the smoke is really bad for little kids, and they can't be bothered to exercize some self control and not poison these young children.
Personally, I think smoking in general ought to be more restricted than it is--like you have to stand away from the doors of major public buildings (such as the mall for example). I hate having to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into or out of the mall or a resturant or someplace equally public.
3 people like this
@Ciniful (1587)
• Canada
11 Jan 07
I'm in Ontario, Canada, and they are attempting to pass the same law here. However, they are going one step further, and laying the groundwork to remove children from smoking parents on claims of 'child abuse'.
Yet people still drink around their children. *rolls eyes*
Honestly, is $50.00 enough to stop them? Nope. Not in the least. And regardless, the government has NO place regulating every step of parenting, no matter the risks. I'm sure this sounds harsh, but think about it ... where is the line drawn? Will the police start passing out fines in fast food joints to parents who feed their kid greasy foods? It's not good for them, high cholesterol has been proven to have serious health risks, so why not?
There has to be a line, and the anti-smokers are trying to blur the line. It will backfire on them when something they condone but a small minority rally against is the new hot topic. I happily await the day. :)
3 people like this
@zuri25 (2125)
• United States
11 Jan 07
Hmmm...this is an interesting concept. I am not a smoker nor have I ever been a smoker. I have a child who is almost three years old. One of my biggest pet peeves is inconsiderate people who smoke around my child. I'm in favor of this law because if second hand smoke has the ability to kill adults imagine what it might be doing to the lungs of our children. It's our role as adults to take care of our nation's children. This new law in Maine does just that. In Pennsylvania, where I am from, people are still permitted to smoke inside public places. Grrr!
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
11 Jan 07
This law is currently only in effect in one town in Maine and I personally don't think the fine is enough to make people stop. But if this is something you feel strongly about, you could take this information to your town council, mayor, etc. and see if you could get a similar law passed in your town/city.
2 people like this
@sizzle3000 (3036)
• United States
11 Jan 07
I was just wondering since you are willing to ban smoking because of it being bad for children, are you willing to ban red meat, salt, and caffine. Why stop there lets ban all movies that are rated R and all songs and music lyrics that mention violence. Where do you stop? What about all pollin in the air that is bad for you as well. We as humanbeings have a choice you can choose not to do somethings or to do. This is free will but some people think they have more rights than others.
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
15 Jan 07
Of course you can always protect your own children from smoke in cars by not letting then ride with smokers. You also have the option of not letting them go to a friends house if there is a smoker who lives there. Unfortunately, many parents don't even think of these things or know whether their child's friends parents smoke or not.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
11 Jan 07
I agree - the smoke itself is dangerous for the occupants of the car and it is dangerous for other drivers when a smoking driver "loses control" while trying to light up or if the "fire" falls off into their lap, etc.
3 people like this
@sizzle3000 (3036)
• United States
11 Jan 07
Talking on cellphone while driving is dangerous, however most states let you do that. For some people even having another person in the car with them is a distraction. Putting makeup on or reading the newspaper while driving is dangerous. These are all things that I have personally seen people doing while driving, if you can call it driving.
2 people like this
@preetrulz (16)
• India
11 Jan 07
i don't think that fine is enough. The harmful consequences also will spread awareness
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
11 Jan 07
I agree, I don't think $50 will make them stop, they will just do it over and over. Also, with a stiffer fine, they could use the extra money to sponsor "stop smoking clinics" or health care for kids who don't have health insurance.
3 people like this
@lynn3024 (198)
• Canada
11 Jan 07
I don't believe in smoking around children. I have two children who i have never smoked around and if i am in a place were people are smoking i take my kids out. i also will not smoke around other peoples children even if they do and tell that they don't mind if i do. on the other hand i wonder why they don't protect the children (who cannot protect themselves)from abortion.
@tnuctipun (24)
• United States
12 Jan 07
I am an avid anti-smoker but I believe the govt should not get involved with stupid laws like that. What if you have your windows open while driving? That way the child doesn't get the smoke. What about a cabrio? Does the law consider that?
Wait. Driving in LA with your windows open and children in the car should be fined too. With all the smog there that's as bad as smoking in front of a child. Why stop there. Just living in an area with smog is child abuse and a child should be taken away from parents. Since air quality in major cities is mostly bad anyway, why not ban minors from cities altogther?!? It's bad for them and they can't defend themselves.
1 person likes this
@emeraldisle (13139)
• United States
12 Jan 07
Well said and some very good points. It would be nice if they would notice things like that as well.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
12 Jan 07
I know what you mean. That is why I started this discussion, because it has two sides to it and I can understand both sides. Is it good or bad? Does it go far enough or too far? It is good to want to protect children (they are our future) but how far do you go?
@ElusiveButterfly (45940)
• United States
11 Jan 07
Kudos to Bangor for passing such a great law! Why should children be subject to smoke. People who smoke need to realize that they have the right to choose when it comes to smoking, but the children and people who don't smoke should not have to inhale their smoke. Second hand smoke is a proven killer. I think that most people who smoke will not stop doing it even when a fine is involved. It is selfish of them to smoke around their kids.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
11 Jan 07
I agree, second hand smoke is unfilterd smoke so it is more hazardous. Since this law is only for one town, I do not know how effective it will be, especially with just a $50 fine. But anyone who CANNOT stop smoking for the 5 - 30 minutes it takes to go some place in a car is not just selfish - they are SO addicted that even if they wanted to quit, it may be too late for them.
1 person likes this
@ladysurvivor (4746)
• Malaysia
12 Jan 07
I think the law should be equal to protect everybody who is not smoking. not only for people under 18 but also for the babies, women and the elderly people. If they only protect people under 18, that means the law is not sensitive enough about the other groups of people who should be protected too. Well, that's my opinion only. Other people may have their own views about this matter.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
12 Jan 07
I think they were afraid if they made it cover even more groups it would not get passed. I also think they just assumed that adults over the age of 18 could tell the smoker "where to go" if they didn't like it (babies are included because they are under the age of 18).
@vincialmighty (79)
• India
11 Jan 07
yes u r absolutely right ... pl shud be fined 2 smoke in public ... they spoil the genx ... gret thought
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
11 Jan 07
I agree and many small children don't have the option of rolling down the window to get away from it either, like an adult or older child could.
@s_ritesh20 (222)
• India
11 Jan 07
i think so smoking is injuries to health so all goverment make band on it
1 person likes this
@sizzle3000 (3036)
• United States
11 Jan 07
I grew up in a house with a mom that smokes as well as a dad that smoked. I did not turn out bad. Who has the right to tell me what to do in my own home or in my car. I am paying for that house and I paid for the car. What happened to the constitution? We only have the right to privacy when it suits others. We only have the right to persue of happiness when it suits others. If smoking is bad for us and the government has the right to say we can't do it what is next? I know red meat is bad for us so lets get rid of that. Salt is also bad for us so lets take it off the shelves and not sell it. Fried food is bad for you so now you can only back your food. Once we get rid of all the things that are bad for us what is left? A very boring life or a police state. I am sorry but I want to smoke and I want to eat red meat and I like to flavor my food with salt. America was founded on freedom. Instead of worring about a child being in a loving home with a smoker maybe someone should worry about the children being molested and beat on. There are more serious problem going on around us than to worry about someone smoking.
1 person likes this
@HighPriestess (739)
• Melbourne, Florida
11 Jan 07
I think the government has gotten out of hand. I think there are way too many laws. And not enough focus on the real criminals.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
12 Jan 07
If we could get people to act responsibly in the first place we would not need government or laws and there would be no criminals. Unfortunately, we are stuck with us imperfect beings and all the baggage that goes along with that.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
20 Jan 07
Good your you. It sounds like you are one of the many responsible smokers out there. It is too bad others don't recognize the danger to others and take a few simple precautions like not smoking when you drive.
@adnan82 (672)
• Pakistan
12 Jan 07
u cannot stop a person who is 15..to 18 yrs of age.... they . are highly grown up... ppl...n know wat they are doing.. n know the effects n all ... so smoking not allowed in front of.under 18 person . is.. foolishness... ppl dont smoke in front of kids.. thats for sure.. i haVe seen it.. many many times.. ..
1 person likes this
@kathy77 (7486)
• Australia
11 Jan 07
I am from Australia and they are trying to pass this law here as well. I am a smoker and I do not smoke in the car while children are present, and you are right the people doing this are only thinking about themselves and not thinking about anybody else health this is the problem. Maybe they will start with the $50 fine and then if this is not stopping them they may increase the fine.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
11 Jan 07
Is the law there in Australia - a local law or on a larger scale? The one here in Maine is just one town so far. I am glad to hear you are a responsible smoker. Like I said, people like you would not be affected since you don't behave this way in the first place. The only people this affects are the smokers who are subjecting children to their smoking habit.
1 person likes this
@Fishmomma (11377)
• United States
13 Jan 07
I am a non-smoker and several of my friends smoke and feel what they do in their car or home should not be anybody elses business. I think smoking in your home or car is your choice, as long as you don't smoke around me. Personally, I don't think a $50.00 fine would stop people from smoking in the car with their children and am certain my mother in law would have just paid the fine. She passed away last year from lung cancer and use to tell me I will smoke and will not quit until I die.
If the law went into affect in other states, I hope the fine is higher and the money is used to inform children of the dangers of smoking, as people tell me its difficult to stop smoking. I understand having a bad habit, as mine was coffee and had a hard time kicking the pot of coffee every day.
I would like to see people fined for doing any type of thing that distracts from driving like putting on makeup, reading a map, talking on the cell phone and playing with the radio dial. Think of how many accidents would be prevented.
@tnuctipun (24)
• United States
14 Jan 07
Many states already have laws concerning cell phone usage in cars. What I find interesting is that emergency vehicles are exempt from those laws. Those vehicles that drive faster and more dangerously than the rest of us ARE allowed. Strange.
@tnuctipun (24)
• United States
15 Jan 07
Most emergncy vehicles have 2 people in them???
Police cars: almost always only have one.
Ambulances: If the other guy is sitting up front with the driver and not trying to save a life (on their way to a hospital) or get equipment ready for use (on the way to an accident , etc) then they are not in an emergency situation and by law are not allowed to use lights or sirens and the driver is NOT allowed to use cell phones.
Fire engine: Everyone but the driver is too busy to talk on the cell phone.
The law forbids the driver from using cell phones because it distracts the driver. It would distract the driver of an emergency vehicle even more than a civilian since they usually drive faster and more dangerous.
Regarding the reporting of the truck that didn't move, why shouldn't private vehicles be allowed to use the same thing.
BTW, recent studies have shown that cell phone use while driving distracts less than other things while driving (i.e. a pedestrian that for some reason attracts the attention of the driver). Some states have even started repealling the cell phone laws.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
15 Jan 07
Many but not all states have those laws. However, exempting emergency vehicles - I have seen cases where they NEEDED cell phone or other communications access. In December alone - I saw emergency vehicles with BOTH lights and sirens going that were stuck behind vehicles that were ignoring them and NOT pulling over. (One was a propane truck and the other was a pickup hauling a trailer.) Why those drivers didn't get the point when ALL of the oncoming traffic was pulling over to try to let the emergency vehicle through, I don't know. But with a cell phone, they could have reported them and gotten police to write some tickets, With cell phones, they also could have let their dipatcher know what was going on and possibly someone else could have been sent to handle the emergency while they were stuck behind these idiots waiting for a chance to safely pass. Also, most emergency vehicles do have two or more people in them so the driver does not have to use the cell unless their partner is trying to save someone's life in the back (ambulance).
@coffeechat (1961)
• New Zealand
12 Jan 07
The saying - "if you must smoke - hold your breath" has some element of humour in it; it is also the plaintive call of the non-smoking minor exposed to second hand smoke.
A friend of mine, now in his seventies recounted growing up in a small London home where both parents were smokers. The steel blue haze that characterised his vision of the world. This man went on to earn a Ph.D in Nuclear Physics and was involved in the early development of semiconductor devices.
To this day he suffers respiratory problems.
We have seen people smoking in cars with non-smoking passengers, be they children or adults in Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, France, Germany, USA and in most of the 57 countries we have visited. We take particular note since MG is a smoker who has always been sensitive to the effects of secondhand smoke on other people.
We need to not only protect our children from second hand smoke, but every human being (what about our pets?) has the right not to be exposed to the secondhand smoke of others.
Here, in New Zealand where we live now people are generally very sensitive to environment and to each other. And yet, we see people smoking in cars with children in them. Every smoker knows that smoking in public places is banned and yet they callously inflict their children with the side-effects of their personal vice.
Yes, we believe that stringent fines need to be imposed while at the same time understand the difficulty in policing compliance. Unambiguous legislation coupled with extensive education is what we believe will save the day for the non-smoker, whether minor or adult.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
12 Jan 07
I know, they complain we are "picking on them" when all we are doing is trying to protect ourselves and others from their addiction. You are right about animals being subjected to the effects of the second hand smoke also. I have 2 cats which we rescued from a local animal shelter. The one cat was turned into the shelter by a pair of heavy smokers who lived in a tiny trailer with the cat. They turned him in at age 2 1/2 years because "he kept trying to get out and run away". The shelter workers said that the poor thing smelled so badly of smoke that they had to give him a bath (he is a long haired cat with claws - so this was not an easy task). we have a large home and do not smoke and he has never tried to get out. But, every now and then he does just start to cough for no reason. It doesn't last long and he has no other symptoms (no hairballs). We got him Sept 2006 and I have heard that it takes 6 months to completely clear the lungs of any accumulated nastiness. Hopefully he will soon stop coughing and no permanent damage has been done.
1 person likes this
@coffeechat (1961)
• New Zealand
18 Jan 07
Wow! I am amazed at the callousness of this couple. We do see a strong correlation between economic status and sensitivity to community. Clearly your cat's former trailermates were pretty callous.
We hope the cat recovers and lives a full, rich and loving life.
@jbones32103 (717)
• United States
15 Jan 07
A $50 fine won't stop them. People should have enough sense not to smoke around children.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
15 Jan 07
Unfortunately, there are some smokers who don't. Several of the people who have responded admit that their own parents are among them.