Bill Signed Banning Smoking In Cars With Children

It is nice to know that thing is getting rid and banning smoker almost possible no where they can enjoy.

I remember, in my home state that doesn't allow smoke in almost anywhere. When I went to Texas and happen go out to eat and happen the person is asking, "smoke or non-smoke" I was like wow.. it been a while to asked because home state stopped asking because most of place non-smoker.

When I ate there, its kind bother me because.. its smoke.. ugh... At least, hopefully out there will have some kind of anti-stress stuff to relax. My point, I don't understand why they want to smoking while they are eating...

I remember one of kid, when I was young at school. One boy wasn't happy because the father wouldn't let them open window to get some fresh air while boy's father was smoking. Father forbid them to open windows because it was cold outside.

It just something that smoke can harm children even they complaint. Parents or adult don't see what the problem...

World still cruel.
 
doh said:
My livlihood depends on taking a train to Leeds every day. I am VERY GLAD England made it a CRIME to smoke at train stations! Every day I smelled of smoke. I just wish it was enforced.
Click to expand...

The big fire was began in King's Cross Underground of November 1987 is the reason why the smoking is strict forbidden in all underground/railway stations in England.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
The big fire was began in King's Cross Underground of November 1987 is the reason why the smoking is strict forbidden in all underground/railway stations in England.
Click to expand...

No, on July 1st the smoking bans in England took effect. Smokefree England - all about the smokefree legislation on 1st July 2007 That banned smoking at train stations and enclosed bus stops as well as many other areas.


And to those still claiming civil rights violations: what about the rights of children to grow up without being poisoned? If the parents want to smoke then go ahead, but do it when around people who have no choice and no where to escape. Cracking a window doesn't work. :lol:

Amusing anectdote: when I was younger 1 year for my birthday I asked all of my aunts and uncles to stop smoking. They did so (or at least around me) for a while but then restarted. :(
 
doh said:
No, on July 1st the smoking bans in England took effect. Smokefree England - all about the smokefree legislation on 1st July 2007 That banned smoking at train stations and enclosed bus stops as well as many other areas.


And to those still claiming civil rights violations: what about the rights of children to grow up without being poisoned? If the parents want to smoke then go ahead, but do it when around people who have no choice and no where to escape. Cracking a window doesn't work. :lol:

Amusing anectdote: when I was younger 1 year for my birthday I asked all of my aunts and uncles to stop smoking. They did so (or at least around me) for a while but then restarted. :(
Click to expand...

Yes I know that new law about public smoking last July 2007 due health ground but it's train and underground, I referring to. The smoking in underground/raliway were being banned straight way after happeend at King Cross. Many years later on July 2007 then public smoking .

Well, I am non-smoker but I would like to remind you that it's not just smoking who affect people including children's healthy but air polluotion, dirty air, many chemicals in the foods/drink, junk foods, etc.

I find sad that the smokers ignored non-smokers's wish for not want to smell of their smoking... near their smoking... They are supposed to respect their wish and smoking somewhere distance from them.

I do not allow anyone to smoke in my house and car. It's my decision, not anyone including government because house and car belongs to me, not them... It's good that they respect my decision and Rules.

If they want to ban smoking in the car then they should do the same for ban smoking in the house either. Why only car?
 
Liebling:-))) said:
If they want to ban smoking in the car then they should do the same for ban smoking in the house either. Why only car?
Click to expand...

Probably because there's enough space in the house for any child to seek refuge from the poison smoke but not enough in the car.
 
Maria said:
Yep lol

Umm my experience : 2 smokers can't taste " ashtray ", because they BOTH smoke.

One who don't smoke while the other does smoke, the non-smoker will taste " ashtray " from a smoker.

Big difference. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct.

My hubby quitted smoking last April 2004.
 
Tousi said:
And Defee, you mentioned passing a law about an activity within the confines of our homes. Maybe you were just being sarcastic but if not, uh oh! You are talking about, pardon me, if this is not apt, the "holy of holies"; no politician, good or bad or in their right mind would even begin to think about passing something like this; he'd be dead before sundown, lol.
Click to expand...

Lol! I understand what you are saying, Tousi...it would never
even be mentioned in Congress...no way, i was just being
sarcastic, of course..I know a lot of smokers do go outside to smoke
in consideration of others, especially children.
My husband did just that before he quit smoking...thanks to the
wonderful prescription drug, Chantix.:thumb:
 
doh said:
No, on July 1st the smoking bans in England took effect. Smokefree England - all about the smokefree legislation on 1st July 2007 That banned smoking at train stations and enclosed bus stops as well as many other areas.


And to those still claiming civil rights violations: what about the rights of children to grow up without being poisoned? If the parents want to smoke then go ahead, but do it when around people who have no choice and no where to escape. Cracking a window doesn't work. :lol:

Amusing anectdote: when I was younger 1 year for my birthday I asked all of my aunts and uncles to stop smoking. They did so (or at least around me) for a while but then restarted. :(
Click to expand...

You cannot equate a smoking parent to a parent who actively engages in poisoning a child. If a parent actively poisons a child,they have engaged in an illegal activity. A parent who smokes is engaging in a legal activity. You seem to be forgetting the difference between a legal activity and an illegal activity. To prohibit one group of people from engaging in a legal activity is to violate the civil rights of that group. Pure and simple.

And children are dependent beings under the law, not autonomous beings.
 
doh said:
Probably because there's enough space in the house for any child to seek refuge from the poison smoke but not enough in the car.
Click to expand...

That is not it at all. Once again, smoking is a legal activity. Therefore, they cannot prohib one from engaging in a legal activity within the sactinity and privacy of one's own home. How about if they cam in and told you that you could no longer pray in your home because of separation of church and state? Same difference. Your home is not a public location.
 
jillio said:
That is not it at all. Once again, smoking is a legal activity. Therefore, they cannot prohib one from engaging in a legal activity within the sactinity and privacy of one's own home. How about if they cam in and told you that you could no longer pray in your home because of separation of church and state? Same difference. Your home is not a public location.
Click to expand...

I don't pray. :) And there is no separation of church and state in England - there is a state religion... :)
 
doh said:
Passive harm is just as bad, if not worse, than active harm.
Click to expand...

Not under the law. I personally believe that parents who don't learn sign language for their deaf chidlren create passive harm. But to make it illegal for them to refuse to learn sign would be a blatant violation of their civil rights. I personally feel that parents who feed their children a constant diet of fast food create a harmful situation for their children. But to pass a law that mandates how many times a week a parnet can go through a fast food drive through would be a blatant violation of their civil rights. I personally feel that people who don't become actively involved in their child's education create passive harm. But to enact laws requiring that all parents spend 3 hours a night helping their child with homework would be a violation of civil rights. Why? Because even though it may create harm to feed a child a constant diet of fast food by increasing their chances of developing heart disease and contributing to childhood obesity, feeding your child fast food is still legal. Not being able to communicate fully with your child has been proven to create psycho-social harm for that developing child. But it is not illegal to refuse to learn sign. Not taking an interest in your child's education creates harm to their developing minds that lasts a lifetime. But it is not illegal to neglect to encourage and support your child's academic pursuits.

All of these things, smoking included, may be objectionable from a moral standpoint, but no matter how objectionable they may be on moral grounds, they are still legal activities. We cannot legislate morality. That is not the purpose or intent of any law. Morality is for the indiviual to determine.
 
doh said:
I don't pray. :) And there is no separation of church and state in England - there is a state religion... :)
Click to expand...

Okay, we'll use another example. Would you agree withthe government entering your home and determining what books you are permitted to won an read? Or how about which sexual positions you and your partner are allowed to use? How about which foods you are permitted to feed your children? Or what color upholstery you can have on your furniture? Or what radio station you are permitted to listen to in you car? Or, better yet, how about if you were subject to becoming apart of the criminal jsutice system because you choose not to pray? There are those that believe that not raising a child in a religious home does passive harm to that child. Would you like to be mandated to maintain a home contrary to your personal values and morals simply because someone who believes differently that you has determined that is the way you must raise your child?
 
Freaky Cat said:
Thank you! Ever since I quit cold turkey- I dont have cough fits and phelgms. I can breath better, taste foods better, smell EVERYTHING and oh yes less allergies. YES i am allergic to smoking! believe it or not and I didnt listen to my doctor. duh me!

My mom quit smoking too and its been 5 yrs for her too! She is suffering from Emphysema and its horrible to watch her having trouble breathing. She is on oxygen and on several medications. I think Emphysema is worse as you are suffering from it for many years with coughings fit, phelgms, short of breath and can lead to pnuemonia than other diseases. she cant walk without stopping just to breath. It is not a funny disease.

my sis in law have emphysema, along with my sis Dori, too. they both are still smoking. My sis said she enjoys smoking. So it is her business and I cant tell her what to do! :(

so at my moms house she doesnt allow smoking in the house due to her trouble breathing and kids are around too. my son is allergic to smoking along with me too. kids havent gotten sick since no one smokes in the house? I believe smoking cause kids to get ear infections all times.

I almost forgot to say that they just passed law here in ARkansas. if have more than 10 people in a housing project or apartment- Smoking are not allowed. I saw it on the news other day. More stricter than ever before...
Click to expand...

All I can say is:
1.) Its going to be hard to enforce if the occupants are smoking either outside the apartment or if they are smoking inside with the door closed and the blinds drawn shut. I really don't see the police ticketing occupants over a cigarette. The only reason they ever want to go the projects is for domestic calls.

2.) A single apartment is a private residence. Yes the landlord/complex manager can give preference to non-smokers but they legally cannot discriminate solely based on that person's choice to smoke, a legal activity.
 
Dixie said:
All I can say is:
1.) Its going to be hard to enforce if the occupants are smoking either outside the apartment or if they are smoking inside with the door closed and the blinds drawn shut. I really don't see the police ticketing occupants over a cigarette. The only reason they ever want to go the projects is for domestic calls.

2.) A single apartment is a private residence. Yes the landlord/complex manager can give preference to non-smokers but they legally cannot discriminate solely based on that person's choice to smoke, a legal activity.
Click to expand...

but the niehgbor can smell smoke thru vent.. i remember living at the apartment in Morrilton.. I could smell the smoking from next door neighbor that came thru the vent.. i was like ugh!

I believe that if neighbors smelled the smoke= they would file complaints and reported them to police and landlord then they would be fined and be in trouble for that.
 
Wow I am too past on this thread, but I like Jillio's post.

Even myself as a smoker, I wouldn't smoke with the children in the car or in my house or any else's home. I would never roll my cigarette front of children or let the children have the sight of my cigarettes. I only don't mind if they saw me smoking outside, that's all. Children first before cigarettes of course, but banning the smoking seems too bizarre to me... Even the smoking ban in bars, casinos, etc seems ridicilious to me because I know there is lot of nonsmokers who like to smoke during drinking, gambling, partying, etc.

Also I don't smoke in my home that often myself, I only smoke in my room when I am mood into such like struggling to sleep, working so hard on my own stuff and don't want to go outside and smoke, etc... But smoking in my home is fairly rare. Also I don't mind if my friends or families come over to my place and smoke in my house, I always focus on the fun rather than the serious. If there is children in my house, I would say no smoking in house, only outside.

It's STILL up to the people. Some people simply don't care and their children don't care too. I have known many of my family members and friends who raised with smoker parents who smoke inside the house and they was doing fine.
 
jillio said:
Okay, we'll use another example.
Would you agree withthe government entering your home and determining what books you are permitted to won an read?
No harm to other, invalid comparison
Or how about which sexual positions you and your partner are allowed to use?
No harm to other, invalid comparison
How about which foods you are permitted to feed your children?
They already do recommend nutritional things

Or what color upholstery you can have on your furniture?
No harm to other, invalid comparison

Or what radio station you are permitted to listen to in you car?
No harm to other, invalid comparison (And I don't own a car or listen to radio)

Or, better yet, how about if you were subject to becoming apart of the criminal jsutice system because you choose not to pray?
No harm to other, invalid comparison

There are those that believe that not raising a child in a religious home does passive harm to that child. Would you like to be mandated to maintain a home contrary to your personal values and morals simply because someone who believes differently that you has determined that is the way you must raise your child?
Click to expand...

I can't have children but I would be interested to hear how raising a free thinking child is harmful. :lol: :lol:
 
Back
Top