Recent Changes to Vermont's Tobacco Laws

[numbersix]

Changes to tobacco laws: Starting in July, tobacco products and tobacco substitutes will be prohibited in or around childcare centers and smoking in a motor vehicle occupied with a child may result in a $100 fine. Manufacturers of e-cigarettes will be required to use child-resistant packaging to sell liquid nicotine in Vermont. Smoking in and around State buildings will be prohibited in a 25’ zone from the property.

What do you think?
I am generally not in favor of nanny-state laws. However, on the surface, these laws seem pretty reasonable and I don't have a real problem with them—at the same time they're just one more nail in the coffin for personal rights and the ability to govern one's own world.

 

[conlejm]

I don't have an issue with any of these, because they don't affect me personally. I don't "do" any of these things. But it's not a far stretch from saying "don't smoke in your car" to "don't smoke in your home". And even though I only smoke out on the porch of my home, and outlawing indoor smoking wouldn't affect me personally, I think this would violate my liberty. Just my opinion.

 

[Perique]

What do I think? I think we place ourselves in mortal danger as we continue to allow the state to exceed its mandate, using the threat of implied violence to enforce increasingly voluminous code. But, hey, it's "for the children". The only thing more dangerous than potentially dangerous behavior is the force of state trying to protect us from ourselves.
What's next?

 

[numbersix]

As for forbidding smoking in a vehicle with children, if it's winter and the car windows are up, it's dumb period to smoke when there are non smokers with you, regardless of the age. It's even bad for you.

I grew up in an age when people drove without seat belts *shock!*. And both of my parents smoked in the car when I was a kid, sometimes with the window opened only a crack. I survived.
I will admit, these days it's not something I would do and I am always a little ticked off at parents who do it - but do we need a *law*? As with many things, a case could be made for either side, but personally I'd prefer education over incarceration (or fines).

 

[rasselass]

Thats the way it started over here in the U.K...reasonable and understandable sort of demands,then it snowballs,Supermarkets not allowed to display Tobacco brands,you have to look at their displayed list,then ask the assistant for what you want,its like a "slippery slope" to make smokers into the "Pariah's of society",our problem was we did'nt do enough to "lobby"objections to sympathic politicans....it's a slippery slope.

 

[dmcmtk]

Six, in the Peoples Republic of Vermont, anything is possible. Wait for "...if you have children, smoking will be prohibited completely, violations will be punished by..." Despite all the crazies, I still miss the beauty of the Green Mountain State, lived there from 1984-95.
Dave

 

[macabra11]

These are the kinds of things that I struggle with. Like others have said, I feel that once you concede to letting government/laws/rule something like this, that they will want to keep going. Just like in a battle, once you gain ground, you don't give it up. You push forward. Like conlejm mentioned, what's next, your home? Are they going to take your child away if you smoke around them?
Morally, I do not smoke around my kid nor would I do any of the things declared in the new laws Vermont is putting together. I grew up in a smoking home (albeit cigarettes) and I suffered the effects from it, and would not subject my little guy (or any child) to that. BUT, I don't like ANYONE telling me what to do with myself or my family. Especially not in/on my own property.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

If it wasn't for Big Tobacco having lied , bribed, covered up, and deceiving the public for so long, we wouldn't be in this mess. This isn't just some law-makers enforcing their wishes on us. This is Our neighbors twisting the arms of the lawmakers to do this to us. The perception of Big Tobacco in the casual in the street person is full of animosity towards any tobacco, mainly because of decades of unethical behavior by that industry.
We get mad, and rightly so, but place the problem where it belongs. What we need is not a bunch of angry inconsiderate smokers protesting, but we need the pipe tobacco industry to educate people. And, we need the public to perceive pipe smokers as "good" guys.
This is not one party or one side of the political spectrum doing this to us. If the voters want these types of laws, the elected will give them what they want. It's only logical.
The solution is education and perceptions, IMO.

 

[numbersix]

The solution is education and perceptions, IMO.

I hate to say it, but I don't believe there is a solution. It's like trying to stop the waves from hitting the shore. Anti-tobacco has become a force all its own and after decades of PSAs and whatnot, they've succeeded in getting the majority of kids to stop smoking cigarettes, which is great news.
But funny how it's never enough.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I don't agree that kids have stopped smoking. I see these kids with vaporizor things everywhere here, and kids lined up to buy packs of cigarettes in front of me at the stores. This I see across the South. I can't say for how it is in the North or West Coast, but kids here still comply with peer pressure and curiosity. Heck, the pipe club that I belong to is mostly kids just learning to shave and smoke. It makes me feel a little odd... and old, lol.

 

[pitchfork]

Like conlejm mentioned, what's next, your home? Are they going to take your child away if you smoke around them?

That's where "3rd-hand smoke" will come into play. Count on it.

 

[daimyo]

This is a tough one. I don't want kids being harmed without being able to have a say of their own. That said, I don't want police pulling over parents and fundraising for the state because some parents make bad decisions. I do think we need to keep ecigs away from kids but kids have always found a way to get products they aren't supposed to have. Personally, my kids don't even know I smoke. Any cigars or pipes are smoked outside after they are in bed.

 

[sablebrush52]

at the same time they're just one more nail in the coffin for personal rights and the ability to govern one's own world.

Personal rights need to be taken in context. What about the rights of a child or infant sitting next to a smoker in a car? The argument could easily be made that these rules protect the personal rights of children. I'm considerate of others in the enjoyment of my pipe. But I've seen many others who don't seem to give a shit about anyone else.

 

[claypipesarchaeologist]

I second that, sablebrush! Let's not leave the kids out of this equation. They shouldn't be subjected to second-hand smoke in closed spaces (smoke is far too concentrated)or near learning/care centers (these places should be smoke, drug, and weapon free).
If people could police themselves and behave as respectful citizens of a society of people, laws like this wouldn't be necessary. Don't smoke around kids. It's harmful, unfair, uncaring and, yes, it's that simple. I don't know why they call it common sense. There's nothing common about it.

 

[rasselass]

I totally agree with sablebrush 52,its a tricky subject, because of some bad parental behaviour,all tobacco smokers are tarred with the same brush...As others have said on here ,this is only the"starting point"of further restrictions.Its easy to blame Tobacco Co.'s et al in the past for irresponsible behaviour,not giving health warnings etc.,as i said over here in the U.K. the "antismoking" propaganda is out of control,there is a total ban of advertisements(years ago) for any Tobacco Product(billboards,T.V.,Radio etc.)....Strangely enough Alcohol does not get the same reputation,children can watch parents consuming the same,in Pub's, Restaurant's or watch T.V.,Radio adverts etc.and this has a large Fatality and huge Healthcare costs in all Countries...As someone once said to me "I've never heard of people causing murder or injury overdosing on Tobacco" ...its a different perpective and makes me wonder WHY Tobacco is the "Big Taboo". P.S. I like a drink i'm not teetotal.

 

[numbersix]

This is a tough one. I don't want kids being harmed without being able to have a say of their own. That said, I don't want police pulling over parents and fundraising for the state because some parents make bad decisions.

This is kind of how I see it. Every year those who govern us create a slew of new laws to "protect" us from ourselves. Like @daimyo, for me it's a tough one. I can see both sides of the argument.
I grew up surrounded by smokers. My parents smoked, my relatives, etc. My professors in college smoked during their lessons. There weren't even smoking "sections" in restaurants or airplanes - everywhere was a smoking section. And yet, incredibly, we all survived.
Now we have laws that tell us when and where we can smoke. Is that a good thing? Maybe yes and maybe no. The real problem as I see it is that lawmakers and zealots don't know when to stop.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Like I said, the lawmakers will only pass laws that will get them kudos from the public. no law maker is going to worry him-herself with an unpopular law. Change the public, change the laws. This all is not new at all. This has been a battle from the day tobacco was unloaded off the first boat from the New World. All through Europe there have been crazy laws regarding pipes and smoking. It has swayed back and forth. In parts of Germany in the 1700's a man seen smoking a pipe in public could be flogged with sticks. Some even gave pipe men death sentences. Those laws were set aside as public perceptions changed. I just see this current trend as a swing in public perceptions. We've got to find a way to swing it back our way, and hanging onto the coats of evil Big Tobacco (cigarettes) and taking the angry victim route is not going to work.

 

[claypipesarchaeologist]

As much as I don’t want to see smoking banded from people’s cars because they have children, there are parents who make bad decisions and, if the parent won’t protect the child as they should, then somebody should step in. If a child is constantly showing up to school with suspicious bruises, the government investigates and tries to determine whether or not the child is being harmed by a parent/guardian.
Smoking around a child and hitting them ARE different actions with different results. However, both are harmful to the child and the child has the right to a certain standard of health and living in both contexts. Sure, people can survive second-hand and/or first-hand smoke their whole lives. But, I hope there is no question as to whether or not breathing smoke is harmful over sustained periods of time and can cause serious health issues, especially to developing youth.
When it comes to protecting kids from ignorant or careless parents, I think there are bigger things to focus on than smoke. And yes, lawmakers could be hiding behind “it’s for the good of the children” just to get ahead in an election. But, neither or these things invalidate the issue at hand.
Personally, I wouldn’t want my child subjected to random, selfish jerks’ smoke because the smokers were standing outside the playground gate. And I’d rather just ask them to stop smoking around my kids, and force them physically if they refused. But, sadly, everything has to go through court these days...or you yourself could end up in court. And I wouldn’t smoke in an enclosed space amongst children. Kids have rights too, not just their parents. If an adult transporting a child is smoking in the car, someone should stop them. I only wish it didn’t have to be the government.
FYI: I’m seeing a good deal of slippery slope fallacies in people’s logic and concerns.
“The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
1.Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).

2.Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.”

 

[tuold]

Because we no longer have the force of shame to modify bad behavior we have to turn over such things to the police and the courts. You can call it "slippery slope" but I call it a trend of just giving up social responsibility to faceless, impersonal institutions. Things that used to be merely offensive and correctable by friends or family are now crimes to be punished by the state.

 

[claypipesarchaeologist]

Slippery Slope is something else, tuold. I guess you try to read this quickly while at work, as I do
But I completely agree with your statements:
"Because we no longer have the force of shame to modify bad behavior we have to turn over such things to the police and the courts"
"Things that used to be merely offensive and correctable by friends or family are now crimes to be punished by the state."