Oregon Legislature Passes Ban on Smoking in Car with Kids Present

[brian64]

Some of the responses here speak to why we're in this mess. You think you can use the sword of state as a tool, aiming it where you want it. You think you can control it. But the current trajectory of events should demonstrate unequivocally that you cannot.

+1
Once principals are abandoned, everything becomes based on precedent...which is always first set by targeting something that will be widely accepted as “reasonable”, or which most people will feel obligated to agree with, such as “protecting the children” (or any number of other PR slogans). But down the road, the true motives and aims of the powers that be always reveal themselves when the restrictions and penalties are continually expanded and increased.
Once people buy into the “end justifies the means” way of thinking, things degenerate rapidly. The power of the state is a blunt instrument, not a scalpel...it always leaves “collateral damage” in its wake...and often that collateral damage was the true objective to begin with, disguised as a mistake.
When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[flyguy]

When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Also: "The end justifies the means". It is amazing how quickly our individual rights can be eroded by the political fascists of this day who sacrifice the rights of the unpopular minority (like smokers) for the rights of the majority. They use children or, in some cases, the environment backed up by suspect science to fuel their agenda. It is real tough to stand up against these type of tactics. The people in the current majority don't seem to understand that they will be next to lose their rights.

 

[jndyer]

I do not support this law because people and families need to have personal liberty. Smoking in a car, house building is not a moral issue and therefore it should not even be something lawmakers concern themselves with. We have to be careful what we mandate by using the argument that it is for the children. It seems okay because you think parents should not smoke in a car with kids, but that should be a families personal choice. There are a lot of things I think people should do and not do with their kids, but I do not want to the government to force my views upon others. Parents should make sure their kids get exercise, but that is not my call. Families should eat healthy meals, but it is not my right to require that. I may not like all the choices that other families make, but I want a system of government that allows them to make these choices.

 

[brian64]

@flyguy: Very well said...I couldn’t agree more.
I re-read my comment above and I must correct my error: I of course meant principles, not principals (that type of mistake bugs me). Or perhaps I meant the principal principles.

 

[datascalabash]

Massachusetts has TWICE defeated such legislation...
First time writing here at the Pipes Magazine forums, and even though this 39-year veteran of the briar (and occasionally a very generously dimensioned, all-natural Dominican cigar as well from time to time) has seen all the sad silliness going on in some of the western states - especially in Washington State, which is the most inexplicable situation of them all (still no online pipe mixture orders via the Internet for Washington State pipefans, yet "wacky leaf" IS somewhat legal there now, thanks to the November 2012 elections?? — NO, thank you!)...
surprisingly, Massachusetts HAS defeated two attempts to limit smoking in private automobiles so far over roughly the last decade or so's worth of time, and no further attempts to do something that stupidly intrusive has been re-attempted since "up" here.
There IS still that idiotic regulation from 1988 in the Bay State that the most detested Bay State politician of the 20th century — Michael Dukakis, that grandaddy of modern nanny-state pols — left behind like a land mine, that forbids uniformed public service workers (firefighters and police) from enjoying ANY form of tobacco either on-duty, a completely understandable restriction (for the most part), AND off-duty, for which at least a few uniformed personnel, including a fire chief of a South Coast MA town (enjoyed a cigar at home "by mistake"), lost their jobs over.
Thankfully, Deval Patrick, the current Democratic governor of the Bay State, has on more than one occasion publicly stated that he was "not interested in micro-managing Bay State residents' lifestyle choices" — it's simply too bad that the "damn Duke" would not have been of the same mind as the apparently much clearer-thinking Mr. Patrick has been up here on such issues.
I'd have to think - where I DO believe their ethnic group follows the tobacco traditions of many Eastern North American native tribes - how out-of-joint might a Native American ethnicity firefighter (thinking of the local Wampanoag people up here) or police officer in a Massachusetts town might make a Bay State-elected "nanny-legislator" if they sued my state's government over losing their public service job over Dukakis' demented 1988-era legislation, simply for enjoying a calumet-ful of natural pipe mixture as part of participating in a Wampanoag cultural ceremony?
Of course, companies like Humama and Wegmann's are already said to be getting away with this sort of nonsense, in forcing their employees to be tobacco-free even AT HOME. Even though I've been unemployed for some 57 months due to the recession, I'd NEVER work for a firm — and would boycott such a firm stridently and vociferously — that tried to run their employees' home lives in such a manner as Humana and Wegmann's have been reported as doing.
Enjhoying some C&D New Market in a Bari (I believe) straight-stem presently...
Data's Calabash

 

[phred]

How much of second hand smoke do you think isn't really from tobacco but from all the smog in the air the corporations factories put in,

Actually, I've been looking up studies after listening to Fred Hanna's interview on the Radio Show, and in the case of "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" (the official designation for second-hand smoke), they (specificlaly, the California EPA) look for several marker compounds (including nicotine, which does not occur in automobile or factory emissions) that indicate the presence of cigarette smoke - the presence and concentration of those markers indicates the existence of ETS, and since the composition of ETS is known, the concentration can then be used to calculate the amount of smoke involved.
Mind you, there's still a lot of bad statistics, improper citations, and over-generalizations that don't accurately reflect actual findings - but they're not conflating coal smoke and car emissions to make it look worse.

 

[allan]

Data
Welcome to the forum and thanks for that thoughtful post.
I like the 'hammer' and 'nanny state' anology posted.
In addition, the thoughts about the really serious issues for our children regarding exercise and diet. No one seems bent on that major issue for state legislation (certainly I'm not advocating any legislation on that at all).
Just where to personal liberties end and necessary control begin or end? I remember way back about the seat belt laws and when they first came into play. Many of my friends were vehemently against them and refused to wear them; I think there are few of us who don't wear them now.
Its troubling when spurious science is used to link all tobacco products under one heading, but of course with our current trend of 'nanny state' pretty soon many other liberties will be on the cutting block.
IMHO

Allan

 

[zonomo]

Some of the responses here speak to why we're in this mess. You think you can use the sword of state as a tool, aiming it where you want it. You think you can control it. But the current trajectory of events should demonstrate unequivocally that you cannot.

Well stated.
Welcome Data - I enjoyed your post.

 

[marlboromoro]

A ban like this I believe was implemented in South Australia, the state where I live, a few years ago I believe and I remember at the time thinking how ridiculous it was. Fair enough it is designed to protect children, but it's completely irksome that you should be told how to behave in your own vehicle. Now, as a 21 year old who doesn't have any kids :P this isn't something that effects me directly, but as a smoker I thought well if they can tell you what to do in your own car then where will it end? I remember talking to much older friends with kids who pointed out that they don't smoke when their children or grandchildren are in the car anyway but still thought it was a "nanny state" law (there are a lot of those here in Australia).
Since then, there has been a ban implemented on smoking in Rundle Mall, basically a closed street with only foot or bicycle traffic with shops on either side, completely open, outdoors. I'm thinking that pretty soon there will be a ban on smoking anywhere in the CBD. Sigh.

 

[datascalabash]

That "land-mine" of a tobacco ban just struck again...
Dear Fellow Pipesters:
Data's Calabash here again - one of my local Boston area stations JUST had an "investigative report" on Wednesday evening (October 3rd) concerning that Dukakis-era "total tobacco ban" I mentioned earlier in this thread. The report is mentioned at its CBSBoston page on the story, and yours truly responded as "Dave from Norfolk County".
The "first responders" involved with losing their job(s) WERE polluting themselves with the danged toxic butts, which SHOULD be completely off-limits when ON-duty. I did agree with firefighters and police going tobacco-free while on-duty, but I'd always allow pipe and/or cigar enjoyment off-duty by a firefighter or officer at ANY time. Basically, only a suspension should be used for a first offense, with increasingly longer suspensions (without pay) for continued citations for self-pollution with butts on-duty, coupled with cigarette-cessation therapy to get that filthy pastime "in their rear-view mirror". However, since this same "land-mine" of a law HAS been used against firefighting and officers who are pipe and cigar enthusiasts as well while off-duty (completely OUT OF BOUNDS as far as yours truly is concerned!) for off-duty smoking, a serious process needs to be engaged in NOW to keep the on-duty ban portion of the law in effect, but COMPLETELY ditch the off-duty section for pipe and cigar enjoyment, and get the cigarette addicts "cured" of their habit while on-duty in a more thoughtful manner, without completely losing their jobs unless they simply cannot stop polluting themselves with butts while on-duty, following three to five suspensions, and no less.
Thank you,

Data's Calabash

 

[mustanggt]

I absolutely hate being told what to do by someone who has no idea how I live my life. No one has the right to tell me how to live my life period. The bludgeon that our political ruling class uses against us is what is strangling us to death. How does anyone reckon with the fact that children are handed back to drug infested abusive homes time and time again till one of them dies or has further abuse perpetrated against them before something is done??? I don't understand how anything as stupid as this is even worth the policeman's' time and effort to enforce!!! Leave us the hell alone to raise our families and live our lives as we see fit!!!

 

[tarak]

I do have to say- as a former nurse- we need to realize the children that are subjected to horrendous levels of second hand smoke. Ever watched an infant's oxygen levels plummet in the ICU when the parents walk in after smoking? Ever taken care of a kid in the ER whose hair, clothes, and toys reek of smoke? Ever battle with a kid coughing and gagging incecently while waking up from surgery, knowing it's because they are from a smoking environment?
I'm not saying laws like these are practical, nor am I supporting our governments micro level of control...but I'm not opposed to this one.

 

[rmason]

This creates so much conflict in me I want children to be safe but at the same time I don't want the government dealing in our private lives. I guess the only approach would be for people to be responsible and make grown up decisions.

~Ron

 

[mustanggt]

I agree with you Ron. I am a responsible parent and grandparent and resent being lumped into the category with the dumbasses that this law was designed to be slapped with.

 

[burlpettibon]

Does anyone else remember the EPA study on secondhand smoke being overturned by the Supreme Court due to lack of scientific evidence and fraud? I'm not saying I want to stick one of my kids in a closed car with a couple chain smokers and I'm not saying that it DOESNT do anything but the basis for all of these anti-smoking laws and policies are based on a fraudulent study. So what are they citing as evidence for the health hazard? Common sense? Thats all well and good but when is taking all of our weaponry so we dont hurt ourselves going to be common sense? When is having video in our homes to look for terrorist actions going to be common sense? I'm not saying I am against this law just that I need EVIDENCE and JUSTIFICATION for actions taken against the American People. Or maybe I'm just a wing-nut!