CA: Snuffing out smoking in cars with children

Sacramento Bee ^ | August 14, 2006 | Jim Sanders

[50sDad]

...and that post did not in any way condone nor endorse the smoking of cigarettes by or around children, simply noting that the mindset we share has been "re-educated" by those who pull the strings.

[calcowgirl]

I knew he looked familiar! lol. Thanks.

[Zon]

Tweddle Dee & Tweddle Dumb.

[MEGoody]

Yep, cleaner air.

Breathe free while you can. Next up - taxes on each breath you take of that 'clean air'. Regulations indicating how deeply you can breathe and how often.

All brought to you by your government. After all, they are only there to help.

[calcowgirl]

The whole article has some more details. I wasn't aware of this little tidbit (further reinforcing a path toward banning):

Supporters of Koretz's bill say two relatively new developments improve prospects for passage:

• In January, the California Air Resources Board became the nation's first air regulator to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant, on a par with cancer-causing diesel soot, asbestos and lead.

[50sDad]

Shouldn't we be more worried about the fact that those kids obviously aren't in carseats? (Or that a convertable with the top down is far less likely to contain any smoking residue than a sedan with the windows closed?)

[desherwood7]

What's next for California, concentration camps?

[Moonman62]

I remember having candy cigarettes as a kid. They were among my favorites. They certainly didn't turn me into a smoker.

[Madame Dufarge]

In the not too distant future, California will be openly declaring that parents have been legally re-designated as Breeders for the state-owned children.

Conditional custody only will be granted the Breeders, revokable without notice upon violation of any part of the Canon of Liberal Utopia.

[Moonman62]

I'm not worried about the slippery slope. Regulating smoking unfortunately is necessary.

[hondo1951]

BUT, BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Roccus]

This idiot is sooo obviously obese and therefore in danger of having a heart attack that his DL should be revoked immediately!

[Alouette]

I have warned my husband not to smoke in my car but he does anyway.

The smoke gets into the upholstery and the HVAC and it stinks up the car.

[desherwood7]

Funny. Everyone of our liberties has either been stripped away for the children, or some other special interest group. I keep hearing those jackboots...

[Gabz]

Nanny State PING.


This isn't about smoking folks, it goes far deeper than that.

[SheLion]

Shouldn't we be more worried about the fact that those kids obviously aren't in carseats? (Or that a convertable with the top down is far less likely to contain any smoking residue than a sedan with the windows closed?)

When I started posting that picture, everyone got a big kick out of it, just like you!  Kids standing up in an open convertible.  No seat belts.  LOL

That's Maine Health Department for you! haha!

Shouldn't we be more worried about the fact that those kids obviously aren't in carseats? (Or that a convertable with the top down is far less likely to contain any smoking residue than a sedan with the windows closed?)

When I started posting that picture, everyone got a big kick out of it, just like you!  Kids standing up in an open convertible.  No seat belts.  LOL

That's Maine Health Department for you! haha!

[Just another Joe]

I'm not worried about the slippery slope.

We know, even though you should be.

[Bigh4u2]

"Next up - taxes on each breath you take of that 'clean air'."

It's been that way since the 'Clean Air Act' has been passed.

[Publius6961]

"If you're too stupid to recognize that on your own, then we have to pass a law to tell you, 'Don't be an idiot, don't smoke with your small kid in the car with you,' " Koretz said.

This statement, itself, is the epitome of stupidity.
Most people are too disengaged or apathetic to care where this is leading. Two observations should be sufficient to validate the absurdity of the movement:

When closer to 50% of adults smoked, the incidence of so-called "second-hand smoke" related illnesses was lower. So, empirically, the assertion fails the reality test.

Second, scientific studies carried on by legitimate non-agenda groups have found flat out that there is no connection between second-hand smoke and the illnesses claimed, specially the absurd "50,000 a year deaths". The largest (by far) such study by the U.N. World Health Organization, incidentally initiated to justify a war on second-hand smoke, done by true scientists, forced them to accept the science conclusion: there is no connection. I fact, they may have made a slight beneficial corelation.

The study was quietly shelved, and details have never been released.

Now, who is the stupid one Mr. Dork Koretz?

[MEGoody]

Regulating smoking unfortunately is necessary.

Why?