Maine City Bans Smoking in Cars With Children

[aps]

Gawd, I love all these new laws being passed on smoking. It really is a great thing!

Maine City Bans Smoking in Cars With Children
By PAM BELLUCK

BANGOR, Me. — Tonya Henderson will have to be more careful where she lights up her Marlboros.

Bangor is banning smoking in cars if children are present, and Ms. Henderson, 24, is accustomed to having a cigarette when her boyfriend’s 7-year-old daughter is in the back seat. [Boy, she sounds like a real classy woman. NOT.]

She is just the kind of person City Council members had in mind when they passed the ordinance, which has delighted some and angered others and prompted complaints about invasion of privacy and even threats to boycott the city, Maine’s second-largest. The ordinance, which takes effect on Jan. 19, allows the police to stop cars if an adult is smoking while a child under 18 is a passenger. The smoker can be fined $50. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/us/19smoking.html

 

[Caine]

Gawd, I love all these new laws being passed on smoking. It really is a great thing!

Another dumb non-enforcible law....................................:roll:

 

[aps]

Another dumb non-enforcible law....................................:roll:

What makes you say it's non-enforcible? Please tell me you don't smoke in front of your child.

 

[shuamort]

And Ms. Henderson, who has smoked since age 7

Seriously, wtf?

It's a dumb law with good intentions. Things like "driving in a convertible with the top down on an open highway" come to mind.

 

[reaganburch]

What makes you say it's non-enforcible? Please tell me you don't smoke in front of your child.

Arkansas has a law like this, I believe. A police officer can pull someone over and write that person a ticket if they see someone smoking while they have a child in the vehicle with them. Sounds pretty enforcible to me...

Whether a police officer CHOOSES to enforce this law, I guess it's up to them.

Caine, you're a police officer. If this law was on the books in your state, would you enforce it?

 

[jfuh]

Gawd, I love all these new laws being passed on smoking. It really is a great thing!

It's a good intentioned law, but it oversteps the boundaries of governing. Our society does not need to be nannied by government. What's the difference between smoking in your home in front of your kids vs that in a car? Smaller confined space maybe, but your stretching the law to what someone does within their own privacy.
I'm all against smoking but I don't believe smoking to be a crime.

 

[jallman]

This law is absolutely over stepping the powers of the government. Especially a local government. What I see is chest thumping from some local assembly man, probably in preparation for an election. Smoking in a car is not any different from smoking in a home...probably not quite as bad for the passengers because with the window rolled down, the vacuum effect draws the smoke out to the smokers left. This law is idiocy in action; thoughtless, not enforcible in the least, and a completely reckless precedent for a giving the government too much control over our actions.

 

[reaganburch]

This law is absolutely over stepping the powers of the government. Especially a local government. What I see is chest thumping from some local assembly man, probably in preparation for an election. Smoking in a car is not any different from smoking in a home...probably not quite as bad for the passengers because with the window rolled down, the vacuum effect draws the smoke out to the smokers left. This law is idiocy in action; thoughtless, not enforcible in the least, and a completely reckless precedent for a giving the government too much control over our actions.

How is it not enforcible?

And a question to you and Jfuh, isn't one of the purposes of Government .... 'supposedly' .... to protect and help those who cannot help themselves, i.e. children, poor, etc.

 

[jallman]

How is it not enforcible?

And a question to you and Jfuh, isn't one of the purposes of Government .... 'supposedly' .... to protect and help those who cannot help themselves, i.e. children, poor, etc.

It's not enforcible. Unless it is directly observed by an LEO, then it is simply not enforcible.

And no, it is not the place of the government to dictate what one does in his or her own space. Period.

 

[ngdawg]

I'ts a rather dumb law...
one cig in a car vs 30 in the house? Tinted windows-who sees the kid(s)?
Cops don't like paperwork. Just like they won't pull you over for doing 4 miles over the speed limit(unless they've had such a sh!tty day they have to take it out on someone), how many are going to use the valuable time to pull over a smoker?
If it's a really nice day and the sunroof and all the windows are open, why issue a summons?
If someone gets pulled over for smoking with a kid and along comes a wreckless driver, there's one less patrolman who could be doing something a bit more urgent.
Gotta love local politicians. If there's a way to waste money and time, they'll find it.:roll:

 

[reaganburch]

It's not enforcible. Unless it is directly observed by an LEO, then it is simply not enforcible.

And no, it is not the place of the government to dictate what one does in his or her own space. Period.

So, it's not enforcible because.... it's not enforcible... that's your answer? What's an LEO, BTW?

And my question wasn't whether the government can dictate anything... It was whether it's purpose was.. " to protect and help those who cannot help themselves, i.e. children, poor, etc."

 

[jallman]

So, it's not enforcible because.... it's not enforcible... that's your answer? What's an LEO, BTW?

And my question wasn't whether the government can dictate anything... It was whether it's purpose was.. " to protect and help those who cannot help themselves, i.e. children, poor, etc."

LEO= Law Enforcement Officer. Further, I gave you reasons that it is not consistently enforcible. I believe ngdawg followed up with more reasons.

And my answer was that it is not the place of the government to dictate the actions of a person within their own space. A child is in no more danger from the smoking than she is from being in the car in the first place. There is no vested interest by the state in dictating the legality of a smoker's enjoyment of their dirty habit.

 

[reaganburch]

LEO= Law Enforcement Officer. Further, I gave you reasons that it is not consistently enforcible. I believe ngdawg followed up with more reasons.

And my answer was that it is not the place of the government to dictate the actions of a person within their own space. A child is in no more danger from the smoking than she is from being in the car in the first place. There is no vested interest by the state in dictating the legality of a smoker's enjoyment of their dirty habit.

Well, that's the law... at least in Arkansas. If a LEO observes someone smoking with a child in the car, he/she can pull someone over. Whether they CHOOSE to do it or not is another story. Kind of like the speeder impeder laws, the law is on the books, whether the police officer chooses to inforce it or not is up to them. Then if that's the case, isn't speeding or any other thing that a police officer rights the highway use tax, oops, I mean speeding tickets, pretty much a judgement call?

Then if there is no vested interest in the state protecting children from a smoker, why enforce speeding? Or drinking & driving? Or talking on cell phones weaving across traffic? The driver is in their own space, according to you, so why enforce THOSE laws? Under your criteria, aren't those stupid laws, also?

 

[jallman]

Well, that's the law... at least in Arkansas. If a LEO observes someone smoking with a child in the car, he/she can pull someone over. Whether they CHOOSE to do it or not is another story. Kind of like the speeder impeder laws, the law is on the books, whether the police officer chooses to inforce it or not is up to them. Then if that's the case, isn't speeding or any other thing that a police officer rights the highway use tax, oops, I mean speeding tickets, pretty much a judgement call?

Then if there is no vested interest in the state protecting children from a smoker, why enforce speeding? Or drinking & driving? Or talking on cell phones weaving across traffic? The driver is in their own space, according to you, so why enforce THOSE laws? Under your criteria, aren't those stupid laws, also?

The space inside the vehicle and the vehicle itself are two completely different issues. The road is a shared space by the vehicles; thus the state has a vested interest in maintaining the safety of all vehicles on the road. Drunk drivers poses an external danger to themselves; clearly an uncontrolled ton of metal careening along the highway is a danger. Same with cell phones. Anything that distracts from control of the vehicle influences the space around the vehicle.

 

[reaganburch]

The space inside the vehicle and the vehicle itself are two completely different issues. The road is a shared space by the vehicles; thus the state has a vested interest in maintaining the safety of all vehicles on the road. Drunk drivers poses an external danger to themselves; clearly an uncontrolled ton of metal careening along the highway is a danger. Same with cell phones. Anything that distracts from control of the vehicle influences the space around the vehicle.

I agree 100%... although, I don't understand the purpose of someone getting a ticket speeding on the interstate when there isn't much traffic around, except to bolster revenues... but that's a subject matter for another thread...

However, drivers who smoke pose a danger to the children in the vehicle. And to be honest, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those people who are too weak to control their bad habits and force the dangers of cigarette smoke in a smallish confined space on their children who can't tell them to put the cigarette out. And according to Nancy Pelosi, the government is there for the children, so why shouldn't the government protect the children in this case?

Ngdawg mentioned something about rolling the window down. What if it's 20 degrees and snowing and you have a 1-year old in the backseat? Ok to roll the window down or put the top down?

 

[Dezaad]

Reaganburch points out that second hand smoke endangers children, therefore it should be illegal to smoke in the confined space of a vehicle with them present. I think the point is undeniable that this law will protect children from something they cannot protect themselves from (at least in a specific setting).

I have always thought that the functions of law are to protect people from each other and to preserve order. But, if this is the case, is there a place where we draw the line and decide that we will only protect people 'this much' (whatever 'this much' is)? Is there a point at which we recognize that we shouldn't make a law for every activity that puts other people in danger?

For example, should it be illegal for someone with children to engage in risky sports, like say, hang-gliding? It can certainly be shown that a child who loses a parent to sudden death is going to suffer long lasting emotional trauma. This trauma often/sometimes leads to life long impediments to happiness and success. This activity by parents certainly puts their children in 'danger'. Is this emotional trauma less bad than the physical trauma a smoker inflicts on innocent people? Why? I think I'd rather have asthma than have lost my parent when I was young.

The point is, do we need to protect children from every bad decision their parents make?

 

[reaganburch]

Reaganburch points out that second hand smoke endangers children, therefore it should be illegal to smoke in the confined space of a vehicle with them present. I think the point is undeniable that this law will protect children from something they cannot protect themselves from (at least in a specific setting).

I have always thought that the functions of law are to protect people from each other and to preserve order. But, if this is the case, is there a place where we draw the line and decide that we will only protect people 'this much' (whatever 'this much' is)? Is there a point at which we recognize that we shouldn't make a law for every activity that puts other people in danger?

For example, should it be illegal for someone with children to engage in risky sports, like say, hang-gliding? It can certainly be shown that a child who loses a parent to sudden death is going to suffer long lasting emotional trauma. This trauma often/sometimes leads to life long impediments to happiness and success. This activity by parents certainly puts their children in 'danger'. Is this emotional trauma less bad than the physical trauma a smoker inflicts on innocent people? Why? I think I'd rather have asthma than have lost my parent when I was young.

The point is, do we need to protect children from every bad decision their parents make?

You make a good point and I appreciate it. Where IS the place we draw the line? I guess it's different for everybody.

For ME, I don't see any purpose of an adult smoking a cancer stick in an enclosed vehicle with a child inside except to fuel their own selfish habit over and above the wants and needs of a child.... If that's the case, then why doesn't that adult reach behind him or her and have the child light up in the backseat? Is there THAT much of a difference?

And as a parent, I'd rather have a child without asthma or breathing problems than have a cigarette around my son. And as a parent, I'd rather than be around to see my son grow up than die of lung cancer... I don't need anything that much. But again, that's just ME.

 

[aps]

It is interesting to see people's thoughts on this. For me, I just have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who smokes.

 

[ARealConservative]

haha. I love it!

Not the law of course, that's idiotic.

I love that another large segment of the population are being alianated by the will of the do-gooders that happen to be in the majority.....for now.

 

[Caine]

What makes you say it's non-enforcible? Please tell me you don't smoke in front of your child.

No. I don't smoke at all.....
I'll explain the non-enforcible part in my next reply to reagan.

 

[Caine]

Arkansas has a law like this, I believe. A police officer can pull someone over and write that person a ticket if they see someone smoking while they have a child in the vehicle with them. Sounds pretty enforcible to me...

Whether a police officer CHOOSES to enforce this law, I guess it's up to them.

Caine, you're a police officer. If this law was on the books in your state, would you enforce it?

I certainly would not enforce it. Not only do I think that the government has no business getting involved in it, but the majority of the time smoking in a vehicle, when the window is cracked as Jallman already described earlier, passengers in the vehicle cannot even smell the smoke, let alone inhale the smoke.

Besides, I don't believe that seeing someone smoking in a car is reasonable suspicion enough to stop the vehicle. And since I work nights, Im not always able to tell how many passengers are in a vehicle, and I would not be justified in just stopping a car because the person is smoking and i ASSUME they have a passenger under 18.

Its retarded. Period. End of story. And I'll bet the cops up there probably agree.

 

[jfuh]

And no, it is not the place of the government to dictate what one does in his or her own space. Period.

Cars on public roads are not exactly private spaces though.

 

[jallman]

Cars on public roads are not exactly private spaces though.

The space inside the car is though. Your house isn't exactly a private space when you back up and look at the neighborhood. However, the interior is. It is subject to the need for warrants just like a house (barring probable cause/suspicion).

 

[jfuh]

And a question to you and Jfuh, isn't one of the purposes of Government .... 'supposedly' .... to protect and help those who cannot help themselves, i.e. children, poor, etc.

Eh, you're in the gray area. Yes the government needs to protect ppl but this law is hardly protecting, it's incriminating. Smoking is not a crime and should never be a crime ever - I don't like it but it's still not a crime.
the only reason this law is made is because the cars use public roads and thus the law was hyper extended to nanny. The law should never be hyper extended to such an extent as to dictate what a person can and can not do within their own privacy.
Certainly it's bad parenting, but it is not and should never be considered an illegal action.
Because here's the thing. If you've ever known a smoker, you would know that smoke doesn't just go away. The lingering "scent" stays in fabric like crazy. A heavy smoker that smokes in his car is going to leave those toxins within the car regardless of. A kid sitting in the back seat regardless of whether the parent is lighting up or not is still going to be getting the full effects of the cigarettes - as well as at home when the parent lights up. It's not like this law is making any impact whatsoever. Hence you have not succeeded in "protecting those whom are incapable of self-protection".

Now as I stated, I don't believe that anyone should smoke while driving, nor do I believe anyone should be smoking if they have a kid, in fact I don't believe ppl should smoke at all. But that's their freedom and I respect their choice of doing so. I'll also be damned to support any law that incriminates ppl for smoking.

 

[jfuh]

The space inside the car is though. Your house isn't exactly a private space when you back up and look at the neighborhood. However, the interior is. It is subject to the need for warrants just like a house (barring probable cause/suspicion).

Tough call I think. Because driving is not a right, it's a state granted priveledge, and so yes the state would have authority, to say what you can and can not do in your car while on the road. ie you must wear seat belts