Banning smoking in the car...

[Guest LadyC]

I used to smoke and I cannot count how many times a cigarette nearly caused an accident, by either dropping it or by it coming back in my window.

I've heard of cigarettes coming in other cars windows too.

It's truly a safety issue.

you make yet another strong case for why throwing out cigarette butts should be enforced under littering laws.

[Fiosh]

Well you know, I'm not completely "there" with you on the seatbelt laws thing, Butero, but I see where you're coming from. A lot of states have helmet laws for motorcycle riders, but some don't. I can;t think of any state that does not have seatbelt laws. Well, if seatbelt laws are designed to protect drivers from serious injury or death, shouldn't helmets - which are essentially the "seatbelts" of motorcycle operators be just as mandatory. I think it sends conflicting messages.

It's not realistic to see the federal governments or local states banning cigarettes altogether. As you pointed out, there's too much tax money involved. SOme of that tax money goes to schools and social programs too. As a taxpayer you wouldn't want to have to foot those extra millions in revenue if they banned smoking. Then there are the farmers, farm subsidies, local economies, etc. that would all be affected.

What really "chaps my hide" about this whole issue, though, is this: Smoking is the second most destructive cause of preventable death in America. Want to know what number one is? Alcohol!

Alcohol causes more highway deaths, physical ailments from long-term abuse, and more heart problems than smoking. Yet we don't see the huge campaigns out there trying to restrict alcohol usage, do we? We don't see commercials on television organized by huge non-profits against drinking. The best we can hope for is a disclaimer on one of those beer commercials - you know, the ones they run ever 15 minutes during the ball game or during the Olympics? - that says, "Drink responsibly."

Uh...drink responsibly? How about "DON'T DRINK AT ALL"? Well, that's what we hear from the "non-smoking ads" don't we? We hear, "Quit smoking now. Do it for your health. Do it for your kids." Then we hear about the Nicoderm patch and the nicorrette gum, and all the programs to help all those poor smokers to quit and SAVE THEIR LIVES.

But we never - NEVER - see, read, or hear a commercial telling us to, "Stop drinking now. Do it for your health. Do it for your kids." In this society we have a terrible habit for demonizing the minor demon! Instead of attacking the beast that's swallowing us whole we chose to kick the dog that's nipping us at our heels.

It really is disgusting to me.

While I can see where you're coming from & you make some good points, you overlook the extensive "Don't drink and drive" campaign.

As for smoking, it's also a bit personal to me. I have asthma. I don't mind if you have a few beers in my company. But if you smoke, I have trouble breathing. Of course, I have the option to leave.

Now imagine I am your child of say 5 years old, trapped in the car with your smoke.

[Guest LadyC]

OVEYDA,

i'm glad someone else has the same soapbox as i do! alcohol is by far more dangerous to the general public, including non-drinkers and innocent children. and yet the taxes are very low for alcohol. a few years ago, the cigarette tax in our state increased by 45 cents per pack... and the taxes on alcohol increased by a NICKEL per SIX-PACK.

it truly is disgusting. it nauseates me every time i hear of yet another drunk driver plowing into a bus stop killing innocent people at 7 a.m. last year in our city, at least six people that i can think of off hand died that way... four teenagers, one toddler, and one adult. and that's only from the bus-stop accidents...

[Fiosh]

With all due respect, smoking is vastly different in that if I do it, the kids are still directly and definitely effected....as proven by years of research. Second hand smoke kills, plain and simple. Suppose a kid (who has no choice) spends an hour a day in a smoke-filled car. His/her chances of not only cancer, but asthma, emphysema, heart disease, etc go up significantly.

With a "smoker" parent it is daily and certain exposure to a deadly substance. It is not sporadic or potential danger. It is actual, scientifically proven, REAL danger.

The child is at the mercy of the parent.

with all due respect fiosh, you're repeating hyped up media reports that exaggerate the actual studies on second hand smoke. we've been through this before and i won't be drug into that again, but butero is right not to believe all the hype. second hand smoke aggravates existing conditions but has never proven, with any scientifically statistical relevance, that second hand smoke CAUSES a single disease. when you read the research, read the studies themselves, not the reports about the studies. it's the only way you'll find out the truth about the studies, and that goes for ANY kind of research, not just the affects of tobacco.

feeding your kids fast food has, on the other hand, proven without a doubt that it causes obesity and diabetes, ADD and other learning disorders, hyperactivity, etc. etc. EVERYBODY'S children are at the mercy of their parents... not just the children of smokers.

and you don't need research to see the affects of loud music from a car on the public. i can't tell you how many times i've seen or almost been involved in accidents with emergency vehicles because i could not hear them due to the stereo on the car next to me... and i rarely have my own radio above "background noise" level because i am very careful about making sure i can hear what's going on around me.

how do people here feel about parents who have wine in the home? i'd really like to see if everyone is as adamant about the dangers of alcohol as they are about believing second hand smoke "kills" just because it's easy to believe something about a habit that smells bad.

If you choose to ignore the facts, you are certainly free to do so.

[Fiosh]

OVEYDA,

i'm glad someone else has the same soapbox as i do! alcohol is by far more dangerous to the general public, including non-drinkers and innocent children. and yet the taxes are very low for alcohol. a few years ago, the cigarette tax in our state increased by 45 cents per pack... and the taxes on alcohol increased by a NICKEL per SIX-PACK.

it truly is disgusting. it nauseates me every time i hear of yet another drunk driver plowing into a bus stop killing innocent people at 7 a.m. last year in our city, at least six people that i can think of off hand died that way... four teenagers, one toddler, and one adult. and that's only from the bus-stop accidents...

You are right.......the toll of drinking and driving is horrific. I know someone whose 12 year old grandson was killed by a drunk driver a few months ago. And we have laws against drinking and driving. And we have laws against giving alcohol to minors. And we have laws against public drunkeness, etc.

But this thread is about smoking in cars.

[Ovedya]

OVEYDA,

i'm glad someone else has the same soapbox as i do! alcohol is by far more dangerous to the general public, including non-drinkers and innocent children. and yet the taxes are very low for alcohol. a few years ago, the cigarette tax in our state increased by 45 cents per pack... and the taxes on alcohol increased by a NICKEL per SIX-PACK.

it truly is disgusting. it nauseates me every time i hear of yet another drunk driver plowing into a bus stop killing innocent people at 7 a.m. last year in our city, at least six people that i can think of off hand died that way... four teenagers, one toddler, and one adult. and that's only from the bus-stop accidents...

You are right.......the toll of drinking and driving is horrific. I know someone whose 12 year old grandson was killed by a drunk driver a few months ago. And we have laws against drinking and driving. And we have laws against giving alcohol to minors. And we have laws against public drunkeness, etc.

But this thread is about smoking in cars.

I see the issues as a whole - as being more than just about smoking. I see it as about the legislation of our personal freedoms. If they want to try and increasingly restrict a person's freedom to smoke they need to increasingly restrict a person's freedom to drink as well - if not, first.

You know, it also has a lot to do with the cultural perception too. In our culture smoking is considered a "disgusting habit," but a lot of folks think it's pretty funny to see a guy flat on his back drunk and laying in his own barf, and they'll even take pity on him in some cases - especially if it's a groups of friends. Their employers will give them a Monday "sick day" off after a holiday weekend to recover from the hangover. In fact, in my experience folks around the office take pity on a poor slob who's gotten drunk the night before. But those smokers - man they stink!

See what I'm getting at? Our culture has demonized smoking as a "disgusting habit," and therefore it wants to legislate strongly against it. But drinking is far more repulsive and disgusting, and yet....Hey......Friday night!

[ayin jade]

How quickly one forgets the prohibition. Drinking was banned, and yet it didnt work too well.

[Ovedya]

How quickly one forgets the prohibition. Drinking was banned, and yet it didnt work too well.

Ah yes. But why? The cultural establishment of "social drinking" was far to strong. Change the culture and you can change the laws.

[Guest LadyC]

i'm not ignoring facts fiosh, you are blinding yourself to them. like i said, read the research, not the reports about research. go to the source. here, i'll even provide you with one of many. feel free to muddle through all ten pages of technical scientific jargon to find out for yourself that second hand smoke has not been linked with any SCIENTIFIC STATISTICAL RELEVANCE to the cause of disease.

in fact, i'll even go ya one further. it doesn't rule it out with any scientific statistical relevance either. the research is unbiased, unlike your opinion, and unllike my OWN opinion. you and i both have our own bias. the research doesn't.

i'll bow out of this now, because this is already turning into a "let's bash smokers because they're all evil" thread instead of a discussion about how the government strips people of rights... not just smokers rights, but the rights of anyone who does something that the majority disapproves of... and there is no telling where it will end.

some day i hope to see a thread where people can discuss this issue with facts rather than with emotion. obviously that's not going to be today, and so i'm stepping out so that i don't get my blood pressure up.

[Catsmeow]

maybe instead of banning a legal activity, they should start enforcing littering laws and putting people in jail and fining them $500 for each butt tossed out a window.

I agree. This is ridiculous. I hate smoking but man, let's let people who smoke do so within the privacy of their own vehicles and homes...Geez, this is getting to be too "big brotherish"!