Bangor makes it illegal to smoke in cars w/kids present

[steveyo]

So what do y'all think about this new law? I think is pretty a$$holish to smoke in your car with kids present, as the second-hand smoke is pretty thick, but should this be a law?

link

text:
BANGOR, Maine - The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.

When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.

People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.

"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.

The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.

An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.

Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.

"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.

But the ordinance also had its critics.

Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There's already too much government intervention in people's lives, she said.

Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel-good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.

[Gilby]

A $50 fine is not significant to deter anyone, and further those that do smoke with children in the car I would guess are more likely to not listen, in the long run, if pulled over. Educating them is probably better done with other methods than to make them angry at the officer and legislators.

[sugarloafur]

I'm surprised I haven't heard about this... and I go to school in Orono, about .5 minutes from Bangor...

If Bangor can pass this, can they make UMaine a smoke free campus? I'd really enjoy that; it's disgusting how many people smoke on campus.

[ivan]

I really don't understand this war on tobacco.
Isn't it like burning witches?

I think there are much more serious issues that should be addressed and this hunt on smokers is only busywork and doesn't actually help anyone in the long run, but makes things worse.

Originally Posted by sugarloafur

I'd really enjoy that; it's disgusting how many people smoke on campus.

Why is it so disgusting? Do they come and puff in your face?

[sugarloafur]

Originally Posted by ivan

Why is it so disgusting? Do they come and puff in your face?

Pretty much. Usually people smoke on the benches... so if you want to sit down, forget about it. Most benches are right next to the sidewalks, and when there's snow, you have no choice but to walk by. I'm not a big fan of second hand smoke.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by steveyo

So what do y'all think about this new law? I think is pretty a$$holish to smoke in your car with kids present, as the second-hand smoke is pretty thick, but should this be a law?

I think it should be illegal to smoke in your car altogether. Smoking and driving is more dangerous than talking on your cell phone and driving... someone who drops a lit cigarette in their lap is likely to swerve all over the road trying to avoid burning themselves / their car / etc... the dangers to smokers' children are more than just exposure to second-hand smoke, they're also exposed to getting in a wreck on account of their parents' carelessness.

Originally Posted by Gilby

A $50 fine is not significant to deter anyone... educating them is probably better done by branding them with hot irons

Fixed. Stupidity should be painful, and highly visible. It'd make it easier to avoid the stupid.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by ivan

I really don't understand this war on tobacco. ... this hunt on smokers is only busywork and doesn't actually help anyone in the long run

Every win in the war on tobacco extends the lifespan of smokers... giving families more time to spend together, as opposed to mourning the loss of relatives to cancer. It puts less burden on healthcare providers who must take care of those who suffer from smoking-related illnesses. It lowers the cost of health insurance when providers don't have to pay out so much for smoking-related illnesses. It beautifies parks, beaches, sidewalks and other places that are constantly littered with cigarette butts and packages. It sweetens the air around restaurants, bars and other public places where people are often found smoking. It protects those in the service industry who have to work around smokers and are often clouded in second-hand smoke. It protects children from having to breathe the second-hand smoke of their parents, relatives and/or caretakers. ...and the list goes on.

...so you still think there's no benefits to the war on tobacco?

[Blegas78]

Originally Posted by maestro8

Every win in the war on tobacco extends the lifespan of smokers... giving families more time to spend together, as opposed to mourning the loss of relatives to cancer. It puts less burden on healthcare providers who must take care of those who suffer from smoking-related illnesses. It lowers the cost of health insurance when providers don't have to pay out so much for smoking-related illnesses. It beautifies parks, beaches, sidewalks and other places that are constantly littered with cigarette butts and packages. It sweetens the air around restaurants, bars and other public places where people are often found smoking. It protects those in the service industry who have to work around smokers and are often clouded in second-hand smoke. It protects children from having to breathe the second-hand smoke of their parents, relatives and/or caretakers. ...and the list goes on.

...so you still think there's no benefits to the war on tobacco?

Well said! I'll have to remeber this for later.

[cathwood]

I was on the usual train journey on Monday morning. There was a sign on the window opposite me.

It said that putting your feet on the seats was antisocial and there was a maximum fine of £100 (I quickly took my feet off the seat as there was allegedly cctv in the carriage). The bottom half of the sign was a non smoking sign with a maximum fine of £50. So you could be fined £100 of possibly getting a bit of mud on somebody's skirt but would only be fined half of that for indulging in a habit that might hasten your own death & other peoples'. Outrageous!

[jagur]

if you really want to protect the children, make a law that you cant drive up to a grease pit window, grab a box full of sugars, nitrates and transfats...then give it to the kids and call it lunch!

[JJuggle]

Originally Posted by jagur

if you really want to protect the children, make a law that you cant drive up to a grease pit window, grab a box full of sugars, nitrates and transfats...then give it to the kids and call it lunch!

Oh, come on. That's just the pre-lunch.

[ivan]

Originally Posted by jagur

if you really want to protect the children, make a law that you cant drive up to a grease pit window, grab a box full of sugars, nitrates and transfats...then give it to the kids and call it lunch!

+1
That's a real problem!

[JJuggle]

NATIONAL Smoke harms pets
13 December 2005
The Florida Times-Union
Copyright (c) 2005 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

New York City is getting serious about stopping people from smoking, going so far as to warn pet owners who smoke about the risks for dear old Fido.

In fact, the city even released a health advisory for pets.

"Even cats and dogs whose owners smoke have higher rates of cancer," the Health Department release said.

The publicity is part of a larger campaign of Mayor Michael Bloomberg for "smoke-free homes." So far, the mayor has imposed smoking bans in bars, restaurants and in many other public places, the New York Post reported.

But Bloomberg is playing on people's consciences when it comes to their pets.

And his spin might not be too far from the truth.

The Journal of Epidemiology published a report claiming that dogs in smoking households have a 60 percent greater risk of lung cancer. A Tufts University study found that cats whose owners smoked were three times as likely to develop lymphoma.

In fact, both articles suggest that the pets don't just inhale the smoke, but when the tobacco particles get trapped in their fur, cats and dogs ingest it when they groom themselves.

Most people will do more for their pets than sometimes their own children. Though it might seem funny to many that Bloomberg would target pets to get people to stop smoking, he might just get a few to consider it.

[cathwood]

If you really want to protect your children - don't have any.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by maestro8

It puts less burden on healthcare providers who must take care of those who suffer from smoking-related illnesses. It lowers the cost of health insurance when providers don't have to pay out so much for smoking-related illnesses.

Thus resulting in less healthcare jobs... and us telling people what they can and can't do.

Originally Posted by maestro8

It beautifies parks, beaches, sidewalks and other places that are constantly littered with cigarette butts and packages.

Beautifies means it was dirty to begin with. You mean that it doesn't get as dirty, but the smokers will go elsewhere and then make that area dirty instead.

Originally Posted by maestro8

It sweetens the air around restaurants, bars and other public places where people are often found smoking.

At the expense of lost business. Let the restaurants choose where the smoking zones are on their own property.

Originally Posted by maestro8

It protects those in the service industry who have to work around smokers and are often clouded in second-hand smoke.

Have to work? I thought slavery was abolished... Do they not have a choice of where they work, what industry they are in, etc.

Originally Posted by maestro8

...so you still think there's no benefits to the war on tobacco?

Legislating against the "effect" does little to correct the "cause". What it does instead is take away the freedoms of people.