nwanews.com — Arkansas has passed a bill banning smoking in your own vehicle if you have children (7 and under) with you. Anti-smoking activists are pursuing an "informal, unorganized and quiet movement toward making it a criminal act to smoke around kids" under any circumstances, including in parents' own homes, which would be categorized as child abuse.
May 4, 2006 View in Crawl 4
jaymoonMay 4, 2006
And you're saying that it isn't abuse? Even cracking a window, a car is still a pretty small enclosed area.I'm no big anti-smoking person, but I don't think that it's NOT going to affect the child somehow. I just wonder why they came up with age 7 as the stopping point...
megatonMay 5, 2006
I'm a reformed smoker myself, but legislation dictating where one can and cannot smoke is just plain wrong. (In any non-government location, anyway. Gov can do whatever they want to their own offices.) Regardless of your stance, the country has done a superb job self-regulating the smokers and non-smokers. Restaraunts have smoking and non-smoking sections, workers typically have to remove themselves from everyone else, etc. I can't see this huge dilema that's being caused? In fact, I rekon the toxins expelled by our fossil fuel motors are far more dangerous to our health than any second hand smoke. (Which, incidentally, does not cause cancer -- check it out.)You know what? I'd be okay with this if they took a wholistic approach: no eating junk food in public, no going to bed late at work, no watching TV in public restaraunts, etc. At least this wouldn't look so absurd, then, and SOME good would come out of it. (A nation of opressed healthy people.) One can dream...
Closed AccountMay 5, 2006
Smoking near a small child is like getting an abortion. It just happens alot slower before they get cancer.
canadianguy33May 5, 2006
I think calling it murder is a big stretch. Mens Rea?
chompyMay 5, 2006
I'd like to see this law in every state, and raise the child's age to 16.
dancingsamuraiMay 6, 2006
They do use that precise argument for banning alcohol use IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. For example, driving a car while intoxicated.This is the exact approach the government is taking in this case - they are banning the use of a substance when that use could endanger others (i.e. kids). I don't see how this is any different than already existing legislation for alcohol.
dancingsamuraiMay 6, 2006
A number of commentators to this article have brought up some variation on the argument that the harmful effects of second hand smoking have not been 'proven'. Many refer to the 2003 BMJ study by Enstrom and Kabat, which looked at the spouses of adult smokers compared to non-smokers and their rate of death from heart disease, lung cancer, and COPD (medical conditions commonly associated with smoking, and second-hand smoke). The study claimed that there was no difference in the rates of these diseases in studied participants.<a class="user" href="http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057?view=abstractfp=1057&vol=326&lookupType=volpage">http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057?view=abstractfp=1057&vol=326&lookupType=volpage</a>First off, that study has little to no relevance to this particular article (banning smoking in a car with young children present). Even if the BMJ study were rock-solid, all it would prove is that second-hand smoke is not harmful to adults. One can only make a very tenuous hypothesis that this would also apply to children. For example, doses of many drugs that are safe for adults would be toxic for a young child.Furthermore, the study by Enstrom has a number of fatal flaws, most notable of which is an inability to differentiate people who were exposed to second-hand smoke from those who were not. See:<a class="user" href="http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Condemns_Tobacco_Industry_Study_for_Inaccurate_Use_of_Data.asp">http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Condemns_Tobacco_Industry_Study_for_Inaccurate_Use_of_Data.asp</a>In addition, there are numerous, scientifically rigorous studies detailing correlation between second hand smoke and adverse health outcomes, one of which is mentioned in the article above, or do a search on PubMed which brings up thousands of results, mostly supporting harm from smoking. See also the report on carcinogens:<a class="user" href="http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf">http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf</a>I also came across an interesting study that compared papers showing negative effects from second-hand smoke to those which showed no effects. The biggest difference? The papers which showed no effect were 88 times more likely to be funded by tobacco companies.<a class="user" href="http://www.ocat.org/pdf/JAMA_ETSreviewarticles.pdf">http://www.ocat.org/pdf/JAMA_ETSreviewarticles.pdf</a>Furthermore, in specific relation to children, there are numerous studies once again detailing a high correlation between smoking and adverse health outcomes such as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (see Anderson and Cook, Thorax Vol 52 No 11, Nov 1997 pp 1003-1009.), respiratory illness, middle ear disease, lung function, and exacerbation of asthma. (see a great comprehensive review, Hofhuis et al. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:1086-1090.)Strictly speaking, the naysayers are right, this is not "proof" that second-hand smoking causes harm (in theory it could be cause by something else we are overlooking). We are all told that correlation does not equal causation (witness the meme regarding pirates and global warming). However, if there is a plausible biologic mechanism, as in this case, correlation is strongly suggestive of causation. To obtain the gold-standard of scientific proof, one would need to do a randomized control trial and essentially blow smoke in babies faces and see if they do worse than non-exposed babies. Try to run THAT design by your local ethics committee. (Especially since similar studies in animals have indeed shown harm).To ignore the enormous amount of evidence is to be the proverbial ostrich sticking your head in the sand; cigarette smoke clearly does cause harm; the question is how much, and to find the best way of limiting that harm to others, especially children. Other references:<a class="user" href="http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/ets_health.html">http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/ets_health.html</a><a class="user" href="http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_kids.htm">http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_kids.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/05/16/smoking030516.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/05/16/smoking030516.html</a>Schick and Glantz, Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke, Tobacco Control 2005; 14:396-404.Brims and Chauhan. Air Quality, Tobacco Smoke, Urban Crowding and Day Care; Modern Menaces and Their Effects on Health. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2005 International Congress on Respiratory Viruses. 24(11) Supplement S152-158, November 2005.
procyonMay 6, 2006
Demon you are missing the point. Smoking is a choice as is alcoholism. Food...not a choice. You have to eat and I don't think anyone should regulate what we as a society wants to eat. Smoking on the other hand is dangerous to everyone and anyone who may inhale it. Second hand or otherwise. Parents who smoke with their children in an enclosed area are endangering their children's health. I know about the food and parents need to be more intelligent when selecting food for their children, but smoking is a choice that people make that can in time kill you and the people around you. It also sets the example for their children that it is OK to smoke....and that my friend is a bad example.
Closed AccountMay 6, 2006
808kick is correct. We need to get rid of all these anti-homicide laws, and fast. They restrict my freedom.
pinto32May 7, 2006
I like it...its not fair to kill your kids. They deserve to do it on their own...its their right as an American....dammit.
benjamin2040May 7, 2006
Lol, yeh sorry - missed that one =)
mobberMay 8, 2006
yeah, tobacco lobbyist have an interest in this. it is in their best interest to fund studies. tis better for them to find out before the public, but yet, they continue selling their product. also, it shows they care. good pr...just because a study is financed by a party does not mean it's biased. if so, it could always be proven wrong. that's the thing with science, you have to get the results every time to explain facts. these majority of cases that can't and don't prove any harmful affects of second hand smoke would be discredited if they, in fact, could. the issue of smoking has a certain conspiracy theory element doesn't it? both sides just want to be right, have to be right...i applaud this research, far more effort than any of the others. good of you to admit that there's "no proof". yet you are still willing to criminalize someone over your opinion? so, it "clearly" does harm. hmmm, what harm? prove it. then a law can be justified. at this stage it is speculation at best. of the different sides, yours seems to be the one with their "head in the sand". they have the "facts" in front of them but are still willing to keep their view. what an agenda...now, there's nothing wrong with wanting 2nd hand smoke to be harmful. seems like it would be, but putting out a law saying it is bad is just plain "lying to the public". the public tends to believe what they are told & have faith in what they believe is right. people should beware of not really willing to re-consider their view from time to time. not willing to listen to the devil's advocate. not interested in continual self-improvement. the more one practices it, the more they can rest assured they are doing what is right. btw: you don't have to blow smoke in babies faces. but you mentioned that it did do harm to animals. wouldn't that be the proof we needed? let's see more of that.
gimpbullyJul 13, 2006
Philz:I don't think a law is required. I think this is legislation pandering to the foolish and all too often alarmist anti-smoking and "think about the children" groups. What I didn't agree with was the premise that smoking in a car with the windows up happens. What this law is doing is making smoking in an environment where smoke is exhausted properly illegal. That is ridiculous.As for the perfume, I was making a ridiculous comparison. And in response, where are you getting your data? I would bet you would get rather sick if subjected to prolonged exposure to perfume, perhaps even die. Also, how trustworthy are the figures you're using to make the claim that second-hand smoke is deadly? Why don't you look into the methodology and funding of those studies.
pinba77Aug 21, 2006
I totally can't understand people who claim that second-hand smoke has NO EFFECT on those near them. My best friend's father was a chain-smoker. All his children had asthma. Coincidence? I think not. I have friends who both smoke. Both their kids have many breathing-related problems. Coincidence? I think not. When I was a kid, my father brought me once to the place where the members of his Union gathered. The room was about 12 feet by 20 feet. In it, there were about a dozen smokers. About 30 minutes later, I passed out. Later, when I got to the hospital, the doctors said my passing out was due to smoke inhalation in an enclosed space. Kinda like smoking in a car, you know?And people still claim that second-hand smoke has NO EFFECT on those around them? Who are they kidding? I don't need to take my facts from obscure research: I have PLENTY of evidence around me that PROVES smoking and second-hand smoke is dangerous.I'm all for such a law, in the sense that if people don't behave properly around their children, then somebody should enforce it. If I go too fast on the road, a cop will remind me that it's dangerous and fine me with a ticket. So why shouldn't there be something similar for people who put their child's life in danger with second-hand smoke?
pinba77Aug 21, 2006
Religion causes more harm than good? And you can PROVE it? In order to be objective, please research what harm has been done and what good has been done. It's easy to show the harm, because media feeds on what shocks. But what about the good? How many people have turned their life around because they found God and left a life of crime behind? Have you considered that as well, among your proofs? Too often, the good is overlooked or attributed to something else. Open your eyes to more than just what the media show you.
dysfunctionNov 18, 2006
I don't even understand how you can be against this bill. The logic seems to be "the government does not have the right to dictate my freedoms." Well, of course they don't... until your freedom starts to violate *my* freedom. To the commenters saying: "Well, people who don't like my smoking can just leave": children can't just leave their parents' car when they light up. You have the right to smoke whenever and wherever you want- so long as you are not intruding on someone else's freedom not to have to breathe your smoke. You do not have the right to damage my, or your children's, right to good health.To the commenters saying: "Why don't we ban x first, it's more dangerous": so because x is more dangerous, we shouldn't ban smoking in public places or cars with children?To the commenters saying "We should ban all smoking": People have the right to kill themselves if they wish. It is ONLY when that right intrudes on other people's right NOT to be slowly poisoned that the government should step in.
epiphosJan 17, 2009
Wow, some of you guys are really HARSH on smokers! It's an addiction that is hard to break. Doesn't anyone understand this? For those of you who want to KEEP smoking but don't want to put others at risk of second-hand smoke (not to mention yourself...), check out <a class="user" href="http://www.thevaporcig.com">http://www.thevaporcig.com</a> . I found an electronic cigarette that basically takes all the "poo-poo's" out of smoking and it's about 75% CHEAPER than regular cigarettes. This thing really works and has helped me breathe better. But I still get my nicotine fix as well. Which keeps me happy! :)