I Do Miss Mom, but At Least the Car is Smoke-Free

Jacob Sullum | March 9, 2007

An Illinois legislator, Rep. Mike Boland, wants to make smoking in a car that is carrying a child below the age of 9 a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $1,500 and one month in  jail:

The Moline Democrat said he was inspired when he walked past a car filled with a cloud of smoke from the driver's cigarette. "I saw some little heads in their little car seats and thought 'Gee, that's really awful,"' Boland said.

More awful than locking people up and forcibly separating them from their children? Michael Siegel imagines an Illinois where parents are routinely jailed for misdemeanors such as feeding their kids fast food, failing to apply sunscreen, and letting them rollerblade or ski without helmets.

Comments

|3.9.07 @ 12:21PM|#

Here is a new rule: If you start your sentence out with the expression "Gee" then no jail time should be allowed for the supposed infraction that caught your attention.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 12:22PM|#

Jacob,

I see your point, and I agree that there has to be an end to which extent the gov (local or national) can interfere with people's lives. However, I then ask myself, "What's the difference between this and, say, a drunk driver with a child in the back seat?" They are both endangering the life of the child. In one case, death or injury could come suddenly. In the other, the child may develop a liking for cigarettes, take up smoking as a young adult, and slowly be subjected to death or injury.

Yet another way to put it: Forcing kids to inhale your second hand smoke is akin to forcing them to drink alcohol. One is obviously illegal; why shouldn't the other one also be illegal?

|3.9.07 @ 12:24PM|#

I hate people.

Putting human beings in cages is no joke. Why is it so easy for some people to suggest more trivial reasons to do it?

|3.9.07 @ 12:24PM|#

This law is a big seller to most folks because the average person, by and large, overestimates the actual risks of secondhand smoke. If I thought that second hand smoke was as bad as it's generally perceived, I'd be voting for this dumb law too.

|3.9.07 @ 12:26PM|#

Forcing kids to inhale your second hand smoke is akin to forcing them to drink alcohol.

No. It isn't.

You might want to check your rectum; I think your head may be lodged in there.

|3.9.07 @ 12:26PM|#

it's for the children...it's for the children...it's for the children...it's for the children...it's for the children...DAMMIT, ARE YOU LISTENING YET?...it's for the children...it's for the children...it's for the children...

|3.9.07 @ 12:30PM|#

At what point does the birth rate start to plummet because the legal liability of having kids is just to great?

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 12:31PM|#

Warty,

Try to refrain from the insults here. My point is, it's illegal for minors to drink as it's illegal for minors to smoke. An adult buying alcohol for minors, or cigarettes for minors, is committing a crime. Following the same logic, smoking in a car with kids that have no control over the smoke that they are inhaling should also be considered a crime.

Other than spewing insults, give me a valid reason why I might be wrong.

|3.9.07 @ 12:33PM|#

jimmydageek,

I think religious indoctrinatition is abuse and endangers children. Let's lock up those Jesus lovers!

On a serious note- there are many chemicals which will cause health problems after long term exposure. Occasionally inhaling cigarette smoke is not going to cause measruable harm.

|3.9.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Jimmydageek: Wrong. The drunk driver is endangering the life of the child. The cig smoker may or may not be endangering the health of a 50 year old who used to be the child in that back seat.

|3.9.07 @ 12:35PM|#

In one case, death or injury could come suddenly. In the other, the child may develop a liking for cigarettes, take up smoking as a young adult, and slowly be subjected to death or injury.

And...? You really don't see a difference between these?

You haven't just discovered a slippery slope. You have flattened the whole world.

By the way, to question your premise at its root, one could just as easily say that parents who smoke in the car are doing their kids a favor since secondhand smoke is so incredibly unpleasant.

|3.9.07 @ 12:36PM|#

Women who have sex and give birth to children are only ensuring their death. Jail them now!!!

|3.9.07 @ 12:36PM|#

If the state of Illinois genuinely feels smoking is that harmful, they should make smoking tobacco illegal and stop the sale and taxation of tobacco in the state. period.

can I get an amen?

|3.9.07 @ 12:39PM|#

Don't give them any ideas, brother brotherben.

A concerned parent|3.9.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Yet another way to put it: Forcing kids to inhale your second hand smoke is akin to forcing them to drink alcohol. One is obviously illegal; why shouldn't the other one also be illegal?

My kid is already forced to breathe your car exhaust. YOU are the one who should be thrown in jail.

|3.9.07 @ 12:43PM|#

No one has ever figured out the exact mechanism of how tobacco causes cancer. For years the industry denied the connection and proposed the "X" factor to explain the statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Of course, there is no "x" factor. The statisical correlation between smoking and lung cancer is undenable and can only be explained by some heretofore unexplained causality. Why do we know that smoking causes cancer? Because few non-smokers get lung cancer and something like one third of all smokers do. If second hand smoke is such a danger, how is it that there is such a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer? Wouldn't the danger posed by second hand smoke cause many more non-smokers to get lung cancer and make the smoking lung cancer correlation much harder to see?

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 12:45PM|#

MikeP, I agree, it is a very slippery slope, flat-world-thing and all. I'm just throwing this out there. But, I do think that it's endangering the kids in the back seat. You have to consider that these are still developing little bodies here. Their immune system is not fully up to speed, their tolerances for the things we adults consider normal have not yet developed, and ,ultimately, they have no control over being exposed to the chemicals from the smoke. These are still fragile little boogers.

|3.9.07 @ 12:47PM|#

jimmydageek,

I'm with you, man. Inhaling smoke is obviously harmful. Do it sometime. Yes, there's worse things to subject your children to, yes, but having a law against smoking with children in the car is not a bad idea. I think jailtime and a $1,500 fine is excessive, but I wouldn't mind seeing a modest fine for it.

|3.9.07 @ 12:47PM|#

"Their immune system is not fully up to speed, their tolerances for the things we adults consider normal have not yet developed, and ,ultimately, they have no control over being exposed to the chemicals from the smoke. These are still fragile little boogers."

What a load of horseshit that is. If that were true there would be no such thing as the human species. How exactly do children survive in the slums of Calcutta or being drug around on a papus by Navite Americans in the pre-settlement days? Yeah, those societies had big infant mortality rate, but most of those deaths happened before the age of two. After you made it past two, you were pretty likely to live. I think kids can survive the rages of second hand smoke, whatever they are.

|3.9.07 @ 12:47PM|#

I think I could get behind dumb ideas from politicians more easily if every "breaking the public trust" infraction was punishable by death and only by death.

|3.9.07 @ 12:49PM|#

My dad smoked in the car when I was young. I can't imagine the state sweeping in to take him away from our family because of if.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 12:49PM|#

A concerned parent,

Fuck off, I'm one of those folks who eschewed cars in favor of pedaling my bike almost everywhere I go. It's good exercise and very calming.

|3.9.07 @ 12:50PM|#

an Illinois where parents are routinely jailed for misdemeanors such as feeding their kids fast food, failing to apply sunscreen, and letting them rollerblade or ski without helmets.

i'm having a hard time envisioning an illinois where people are skiing period.

i have not seriously looked at the data to make a conclusion about the effects of second hand smoke. i know it makes my wife nauseous and my clothes smell like death. either way, this seems like a typical reaction where the correction produces more harm than the offense.

my only problem with smoking in cars is when the cigs are sent out the window. take responsibility for your habit and keep the butts in the car!

|3.9.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Jimmy the geek, youre basing your ideas on your feelings, not on provable truth.

You are no better than a christian imposing their feelings on others, and may be considerably worse since christianity has 2000 years of philosophy behind it and your feelings are only based on your biases and inflated ego.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 12:59PM|#

According to this site

"Breathing in other peoples smoke, known as passive smoking can cause breathing difficulties, asthma and cancer. More than 17,000 children under the age of 5 are admitted to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking. Children are more susceptible to the effects of passive smoking and children who live in a household where both parents smoke, are receiving a nicotine equivalent of smoking 80 cigarettes a day."

And, I'm sure there are many more doctors and many more studies that back up this claim; I'm just too lazy to look up the info.

You really don't think that second hand smoke has any effect whatsoever on children? Really? All you non-smokers, take a pack of cigs, lock yourself in your car with your windows closed, light up all the cigs and sit there for an hour or so, and tell me if that doesn't fuck up your breathing. As for the smokers currently on here, I think you are the ones being biased. I used to smoke, too. I am looking at this from a (what I think is logical) logical perspective. I cannot stand here and adamantly say that second hand smoke has no ill effects on children.

Nephilium|3.9.07 @ 12:59PM|#

jimmydageek: Actually, it is perfectly legal for minors to drink. If the alcohol is provided by the parents, or is for religious reasons.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:00PM|#

Realist,

Do you have children? If you do, would you mind if I borrowed them for a few hours while I locked them up in a box full of smoke from a pack of unfiltered Camels??

|3.9.07 @ 1:00PM|#

I'm with you, man. Inhaling smoke is obviously harmful. Do it sometime.

Eating snails is obviously harmful. They are so slimy. And when they go down your throat...well, you just wanna retch. Icky bad snails.

|3.9.07 @ 1:01PM|#

Do you have children? If you do, would you mind if I borrowed them for a few hours while I locked them up in a box full of smoke from a pack of unfiltered Camels??

As long as you promise to wash their clothes when you're done. It leaves such an awful smell.

|3.9.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Amen, Brother Ben. Enough with this creeping, hand-wringing stigmatization of cigarettes - just make them illegal! (Ducks for cover from a barrage of ashtrays...)

|3.9.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Do you have children? If you do, would you mind if I borrowed them for a few hours while I locked them up in a box full of smoke from a pack of unfiltered Camels??

I have children, and I wouldn't let you do that to them.

Now, do you have children? If so, do you mind if I threw you in jail for a month and kept you away from them because I thought you were raising them wrong?

Christopher Monnier|3.9.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Parents using de facto force to keep their kids in a smoke-filled car is bad, but government using de jure force to keep kids separated from their parents is FAR worse.

This severity of this activity (smoking with kids in the car) falls below the reasonable threshold for a law. Sure, it's bad, but any punishment is almost certain to be worse, if not because of the scale of the punishment than because of the costs associated with enforcing it.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Cab,

I don't have children. I don't think this is an issue about raising children. This issue is about subjecting children to health risks. There is a difference.

|3.9.07 @ 1:07PM|#

"More than 17,000 children under the age of 5 are admitted to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking"

Where did they come up with that number? How do you know that? Just because a kid has breathing problems and parents smoke doesn't mean there is causality. If this were happening where kids would break into coughing fits and have to go to the emergency room because someone smoked around them and it were happening 17,000 times a year in the UK alone, it would be a really big deal and you would know about it. That statistic is just crap.

"Children are more susceptible to the effects of passive smoking and children who live in a household where both parents smoke, are receiving a nicotine equivalent of smoking 80 cigarettes a day."

Where is the science to back that up? Further, if that were true, why wasn't there outragous levels of juvilinile lung cancer 50 years ago when nearly every parent smoked? Either nicotine doesn't cause lung cancer or that statistic is crap. I am guessing the latter.

"Breathing in other peoples smoke, known as passive smoking can cause breathing difficulties, asthma and cancer."

Walking around in the rain can cause you to be hit by lightening. What does "can" mean? What is the real lilyhood that second hand smoke will cause those things? Without that information, that sentence is just meaningless drivel.

|3.9.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Fuck off, I'm one of those folks who eschewed cars in favor of pedaling my bike almost everywhere I go. It's good exercise and very calming.

I imagine the delivered in the tone of a hypnotherapist.

|3.9.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Incidentally, isn't there another reason why smoking while driving shouldn't be allowed? For the same reason that talking on a cell phone while driving shouldn't be allowed - it detracts from the driver's ability to drive. I'm actually not sure to what extent this is the case with smoking (it just seems logical, since it's a lot easier to drive with two free hands), but as far as cell phones go, I have often observed cars moving erratically in front of me, only to then notice that the driver is yakking away on a cell phone.

|3.9.07 @ 1:11PM|#

the = that

I am having typboard prombles today.

|3.9.07 @ 1:11PM|#

dageek,

My dad "subjecting me to those health risks." Would you have taken him away from me if you could?

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:12PM|#

Maybe I didn't clarify one thing: I agree that jailing parents in this case is extreme. However, I do think that they should be punished to some extent. A fine would suffice, or community service hours, or something to make them think twice about lighting up in the car with kids. Now, for the inevitable question, should this progress into the home? lol...should we open up that box of worms??

|3.9.07 @ 1:12PM|#

JimmyGeek,

Yes, I have children, and I'm bringing them up to look at data to understand and control their world, not to use pseudo religious feelings.

I'm sure you don't remember, but the sheer number of people who smoked EVERYWHERE in the 60s when I was a kid should have caused cancer in the entire US population if second hand smoke really was related to cancer.

I wouldn't let my children go anywhere with you, because you'd probably enroll them in a goofy cult or trade them for magic beans or something equally ignorant.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:13PM|#

highnumber, you like that?? LOL...

|3.9.07 @ 1:13PM|#

'subjected' - I can't tyype eeder

Christopher Monnier|3.9.07 @ 1:14PM|#

> for the inevitable question, should this progress into the home? lol...should we open up that box of worms??

Parents should be killed immediately after the birth of their second child and children should be raised by sterile robots.

|3.9.07 @ 1:15PM|#

jimmydageek

Do you have children? If you do, would you mind if I borrowed them for a few hours while I locked them up in a box full of smoke from a pack of unfiltered Camels??

The question is not what I will allow you to do to my children. The question is what I will allow you to do to your own children.
Answer: Pretty much anything you want. Heck, abort them for all I care.

|3.9.07 @ 1:15PM|#

For the same reason that talking on a cell phone while driving shouldn't be allowed - it detracts from the driver's ability to drive.

We should also ban radios in cars. And mandate a cone of silence over each seat. Finally, the car shouldn't start until you have both hands on the wheel, breath into a tube, and pass an automated vision test.

|3.9.07 @ 1:16PM|#

jimmydageek,
Does your bike have one of those plastic seats for a child behind you? Do you fart while little johhny is breathing behind you? I see more cutting edge legislature in your future.


Oh! and maybe they should look into the childs share of the responsibility here for insisting on breathing. If you make the little dirty bastages ride in the back of the pickup,(legal in Alabama btw) they dont get the second hand smoke, or beer spilled on em.

|3.9.07 @ 1:17PM|#

At what point does the birth rate start to plummet because the legal liability of having kids is just to great?

I'm gonna go with 'never.'

|3.9.07 @ 1:17PM|#

"A fine would suffice, or community service hours, or something to make them think twice about lighting up in the car with kids."

Juvinille diabetes is a much bigger problem and risk to children than passive smoke in general, letalone in cars. Would you propose the same kind of punishment for parents who feed their children poor diets? If not why not?

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Realist,

I don't see how this discussion relates to "pseudo religious feelings." In my opinion, God probably doesn't give a fuck if you smoke or not. Religion is not the issue.

What kind of goofy cult or magic beans are you talking about here? Again, religion is not the issue.

Did I claim anywhere in my previous posts that it's "unGodly" to smoke? wtf??

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:20PM|#

I have no kids. Therefore, do not subject them to the wind that I break on my bike. :)

|3.9.07 @ 1:20PM|#

I dont think smoking is itself a distraction to driving. I will allow that a driver should have to pull to the shoulder while rolling a fatty.

|3.9.07 @ 1:22PM|#

jimmydagreek,

Obviously, it is not a good thing to regularly smoke in a car with kids with the windows rolled up. Whether or not that actually causes more damage to them than giving them whatever kind of food they want or letting them watch late-night cable television every night of their life is uncertain. It shouldn't be against the law to be a rotten parent. For example, it's horrible to leave your kids and never contact them while you make support payments, but it shouldn't be illegal.

Also, I think your alcohol analogy is flawed because we know precisely what alcohol does to the body and the damage it causes. The same is not true for second hand smoke. There are many organizations, like the one you linked to, which claim otherwise, but they lack solid studies to support their claims, which get wilder and wilder (brief exposure is the same as smoking, etc.).

Also, increasing the chance that a child smokes as an adult is a non-issue, it seems to me. When a person reaches adulthood, they have the freedom to stop smoking. Any adult who says they can't stop smoking because of how they were raised as children is either being disingenuous or has deeper mental-health issues.

I do have a kid and I don't mind him being in smoky environments (his aunts' houses, for example). I was raised by two heavy smokers and my lungs have always been great and I don't and never will smoke.

But I do make him wear a helmet when he rides his scooter. Go figure!

|3.9.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Jimmy,

If you honestly believe that smoking in cars is a threat to children worth government action, you are just as superstitious as an Appalachian snake handler. The complete over reaction inability of the supporters of this law to look at science, reason and proportion makes it a religious issue.

|3.9.07 @ 1:23PM|#

I will allow that a driver should have to pull to the shoulder while rolling a fatty.

That's what pipes are for.

A concerned parent|3.9.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Fuck off, I'm one of those folks who eschewed cars in favor of pedaling my bike almost everywhere I go. It's good exercise and very calming.

Oh yeah? Well I live in a solar-powered house with geothermal heating. If you are using carbon-based energy for your home, then fuck off.

|3.9.07 @ 1:26PM|#

jimmydageek
I have no kids. Therefore, do not subject them to the wind that I break on my bike. :)

It appears you feel that you do not need to have kids in order to raise them. It seems you want to raise (via laws) other peoples kids as you see fit.
It is much easy to do that than raise your own I guess and you get the high and mighty feeling of doing the right thing as well.

|3.9.07 @ 1:26PM|#

It does seem a little bit ironic to choose driving in a car as the time to slap parents for exposing their kids to dangerous fumes.

An unconcerned parent|3.9.07 @ 1:28PM|#

I smoke to calm myself down so that I don't beat the shit out of my kid for being one giant pain in the ass.

|3.9.07 @ 1:29PM|#

perhaps jimmydageek should review some science before he swallows such tripe from the anti-tobacco industry.

"And, I'm sure there are many more doctors and many more studies that back up this claim; I'm just too lazy to look up the info.

Don't be lazy, learn here http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
Another shocker, smoking does not cause lung cancer http://www.data-yard.net/10c/siepmann1.htm .
Though I have been researching the subject for 10 years, it does not take too much time for any layman to uncover the frauds of the anti-tobacco business.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:30PM|#

A concerned parent,

I live in an apartment and, therefore, pass my liability onto the actual owners of the apartment complex; it's not my fault they didn't go solar. So, fuck off, again...

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Where did they come up with that number? How do you know that? Just because a kid has breathing problems and parents smoke doesn't mean there is causality. If this were happening where kids would break into coughing fits and have to go to the emergency room because someone smoked around them and it were happening 17,000 times a year in the UK alone, it would be a really big deal and you would know about it. That statistic is just crap.


Well, John, jimmydageek isn't concerned about children's mental health since he is totally in favor of filling kids heads with bullshit.

|3.9.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Appalachian snake handlers arent superstitious as much as they are giving God a triple-dog dare. God, like the rest of us, find a triple dog dare impossible to resist. The book tells us God has mercy on fools and children. It says nothing of fucking morons

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:33PM|#

I agree, Neil. Why "in a car"? Right?

As for my not having kids, the missus and I do plan on having kids within the next year or two.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 1:35PM|#

For the same reason that talking on a cell phone while driving shouldn't be allowed - it detracts from the driver's ability to drive.

I think we should ban everyone else from driving while I'm driving. You fuckers are dangerous!!

Chinese farmer|3.9.07 @ 1:37PM|#

At what point does the birth rate start to plummet because the legal liability of having kids is just to great?

I'm gonna go with "fifty years ago".

|3.9.07 @ 1:37PM|#

jimmydageek
As for my not having kids, the missus and I do plan on having kids within the next year or two.

When you have kids I will mail you a list of things I will not allow you to do around them as I know they are bad for them.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:41PM|#

I don't understand the logic. Maybe I'm dumb, I'll give you that. But, if smoking is bad for the health, how can second hand smoke not be bad for the health? For you smokers, if second hand smoke is not bad for the health, why even bother with the filter? Just light up a cig, puff a couple times without breathing, and sit back and enjoy the second hand smoke. Fuck it, it's not bad for you, right??

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:41PM|#

"without breathing" should have been "without inhaling"

A concerned parent|3.9.07 @ 1:41PM|#

I live in an apartment and, therefore, pass my liability onto the actual owners of the apartment complex; it's not my fault they didn't go solar. So, fuck off, again...

Go find a "green" apartment complex to live in. Or fuck off.

|3.9.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Anyone else ever wonder why the proponents of a this kind of insanity are always rich white people? For all of their faults, I never see Jesse Jackson or Al Sharp ton out extolling the need to save the children from their smoking parents. Why is it that a certain bread of know it all upper middle class white people can be such a menace when given any authority?

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Show me a "green" apartment and I might. Otherwise, fuck off.

|3.9.07 @ 1:43PM|#

I got no problem with this new law. . . just as soon as every child with a BMI over 30 is taken away from his parents, sent to a government fat farm for a trim down, and once svelte, returned home and the whole family is fitted with monitoring devices that are set to alarm within 50 yards of any fast food joint.

G*ddamn nanny staters.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 1:45PM|#

if smoking is bad for the health

That's the problem, ya douchebag. Smoking ISN'T bad for the health when done in moderation. Smoking 2 packs a day for 20 years is bad for the health. 1 pack a week is essentially insignificant to one's health, qnd could even be beneficial (like alcohol) especially if it's calming effect reduces one's blood pressure. Maybe you should smoke once in a while.

|3.9.07 @ 1:47PM|#

The parents shouldn't be smoking in a car with kids for one simple reason: it's impolite. Of course, no one is expect to be civil these days--we're all just to do whatever in the hell we want, regardless of how it affects other people. It's a shame that the world has gotten to the point where some parents have to be threatened with jail to force them to treat their kids with some courtesy and respect.

|3.9.07 @ 1:47PM|#

Brothers Jesse and Al dont enter the "parental responsibility" argument for obvious reasons. 1) no money in it
2)...

A concerned parent|3.9.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Show me a "green" apartment and I might. Otherwise, fuck off.

Took a whole 15 seconds. Now fuck off.

http://www.blairapartments.com/page.cfm?name=New+Apartments

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Russ,

How many smokers do you know that smoke 1 pack a week?? LOL...wtf....

Really...I don't know of a single one. At least not the people that I have met throughout my life.

And, I used to smoke, about 1 pack a week...pft.

An unconcerned parent|3.9.07 @ 1:50PM|#

some parents have to be threatened with jail to force them to treat their kids with some courtesy and respect.

It's my car. When my kids get their own cars, they can have their own rules for what their passengers do in them.

jdg|3.9.07 @ 1:50PM|#

You want me to move to Maryland? Really now, fuck off.

|3.9.07 @ 1:50PM|#

dageek,

Unlike others, I think second hand smoke is bad for you. I just think snatching parents from kids is worse.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 1:51PM|#

How many smokers do you know that smoke 1 pack a week??

My brother. Smokes about 5 or 6 cigarettes a day on workdays. He works 3 or 4 days most weeks. Makes about 100K annually.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:53PM|#

I agree, CAB, snatching parents form kids is worse. I did try to clarify that in a previous post. I just think that there should be some sort of penalty for parents subjecting their kids to their second hand smoke.

acp|3.9.07 @ 1:56PM|#

You want me to move to Maryland? Really now, fuck off.

No, I'd like you to go to Hell.

Michigan.

Now fuck off.

Bagger|3.9.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Of course the next logical step is to ban smoking in households with children. Why wouldn't it be?

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 1:57PM|#

I just think that there should be some sort of penalty for parents subjecting their kids to their second hand smoke.

Where do you think that penalty is going to come from? Probably straight out of the kid's college fund.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 1:57PM|#

Russ,

I'm glad that your bro makes 100K annually, I really am, good for him...although, what relevance that has on this discussion is lost on me.

Now, is that what he tells you? Have you actually observed a full day of his, including mornings and evenings? How do you know for a fact that it's only 5 or 6 per workday, and none on non-workdays? Even if this was completely accurate, I would venture to say that your bro is not the normal smoker.

jdg|3.9.07 @ 1:58PM|#

I've actually lived in Michigan; up by Grand Rapids. Been there, done that, go fish. Now, fuck off.

This is kind of fun.

|3.9.07 @ 2:00PM|#

An unconcerned parent:
> It's my car. When my kids get their own cars,
> they can have their own rules for what their
> passengers do in them.

You're exactly the type of problem I'm talking about. "It's my car," therefore you think you have a right to treat anyone in it in any way you want. This is thoughtless and impolite, and libertarianism at its worst.

|3.9.07 @ 2:01PM|#

I don't understand the logic. Maybe I'm dumb, I'll give you that. But, if smoking is bad for the health, how can second hand smoke not be bad for the health?

You're not dumb. The idea of 2nd hand smoke being so dangerous seems intuitive, which is why so many people go for banning smoking in bars, cars, etc. And there is some danger in 2nd hand smoke, it's just that the risks are much more attenuated compared to 1st hand smoking. Yet the "intuitive" link is why people are willing to regulate 2nd hand smoke when they wouldn't regulate other items which are proven to have more serious healtn risks.

Sorry I don't have time to google up the research, but the basic idea is that the smoker's lungs act as a filter of the dangerous stuff, the 2nd hand smoker doesn't get it.

An unconcerned parent|3.9.07 @ 2:02PM|#

I just think that there should be some sort of penalty for parents subjecting their kids to their second hand smoke.

Go ahead. Take my kid away. You can deal with the 3-foot antichrist. You'd be doing me a favor.

Trust me, jimmydageek. When you have kids, you'll go back to your smoking habit and you'll wonder how you could ever have been so goddamned self-righteous.

Bagger|3.9.07 @ 2:02PM|#

There should be laws against impoliteness.

|3.9.07 @ 2:04PM|#

Jimmy,

Were you born this retarded, or just like to troll??

|3.9.07 @ 2:06PM|#

"It's my car," therefore you think you have a right to treat anyone in it in any way you want. This is thoughtless and impolite, and libertarianism at its worst."

Its called freedom you fucking jackass. What do you mean "you think you have a right to treat anyone in it in any way you want"? You say that like it is a bad thing. Of course he does an anyone in his car has a right to leave.

An unconcerned parent|3.9.07 @ 2:08PM|#

This is thoughtless and impolite, and libertarianism at its worst.

Tthe worst thing about libertarianism is thoughtlessness and impoliteness? Then sign me up! Beats the hatred and violence, not to mention the bullshit, coming from Democrats and Republicans.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 2:10PM|#

but the basic idea is that the smoker's lungs act as a filter of the dangerous stuff, the 2nd hand smoker doesn't get it.

That makes absolutely no sense. When a smoker exhales his smoke, he's getting second-hand smoke, too.

Rhywun|3.9.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Have you ever gone to an after-work function and spotted twice as many people smoking as you thought were smokers? THOSE are the people who smoke a pack a week (or less). They're quite numerous.

children who live in a household where both parents smoke, are receiving a nicotine equivalent of smoking 80 cigarettes a day

Wow. Where does one even begin with bullshit "statistics" like this? I grew up with a smoking parent. You'd think I would have experienced nicotine withdrawal when I left home, but alas, no.

|3.9.07 @ 2:10PM|#

John wrote:
> Its called freedom you fucking jackass. What > do you mean "you think you have a right
> to treat anyone in it in any way you want"?
> You say that like it is a bad thing. Of
> course he does an
> anyone in his car has a right to leave.

John, you're also part of the problem. Freedom does not mean incivility, it does not mean you shouldn't respect people--especially your children. Particularily your children. Respect and politeness are decreasing commodities in your me-first world, and this topic, and your reaction, are a prime example.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Not the sheepole,

Trolling is partially defined as not adding anything to the conversation other than spewing insults such as your "Were you born this retarded" comment.

I'm giving my opinion on the subject and trying to debate it as best I can. Whether or not I'm incorrect or misinformed is another issue.

If you have nothing noteworthy to add, then you, too, should...


fuck off...

|3.9.07 @ 2:12PM|#

John, and your children to not have the ability to leave your car, so their right is meaningless. This is what being a child means.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 2:13PM|#

Respect and politeness are decreasing commodities

I get my respect and politeness on the balck market.

|3.9.07 @ 2:13PM|#

And John, your name-calling -- just another example of your incivility and inability to participate in a debate with ad hominem comments. Very telling....

|3.9.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Jeff I only resort to name calling in cases where it is grossly deserved. If freedom means anything, it is the freedom to be obnoxious. You don't like people who smoke, don't hang around them. You think it is obnoxious to smoke around children, I don't. You don't get to make the rules in my car and I don't make them in your car. It is a simple sollution. It is called freedom and automomy. Most people can't handle it.

"That makes absolutely no sense. When a smoker exhales his smoke, he's getting second-hand smoke, too."

Russ,

See my point above. If second hand smoke is such a threat, why is the correlation between smoking and lung cancer so strong? The second hand smoke fanatics never bother to explain that one.

|3.9.07 @ 2:21PM|#

John wrote:
> You think it is obnoxious to smoke around
> children, I don't.

That isn't the issue. The question is what do your children think. You should no more smoke around your children than you would smoke in a workplace--because it is disrespectful to others in the car/room who are subject to your smoke. But in your Me-first world, issues like respect and courtesy don't matter--all that matters is your "freedom." This is what is making America a courser, less pleasant, less civil place to live.

|3.9.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Jeff,

Isn't it disrespectful for you to demand that smokers not smoke for your benifit? You are right, we used to live in a much more civil world where people let one another alone and didn't demand everyone else change their behavior to suit their tastes. Now, thanks to selfish fanatics like you, we live in a much less free much less civil world.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 2:24PM|#

what relevance that has on this discussion is lost on me.

Seem to be a recurring theme with you. You also fail to see the relevance of letting people make their own choices on rather tame bad habits, too.

Exposing a child to noxious fumes 24 hours a day, seven days a week is probably bad. Exposing children to noxious fumes, such as car exhaust, even when you're merely taking the kid for a walk in the stroller for 20 minutes, is making a volcano out of an ant hill. Over-the-top punishments for miniscule trespasses is certainly not a lesson I'd like my children to learn. I'd kind of like my child to learn to forgive people for such things. Apparently you feel otherwise.

|3.9.07 @ 2:28PM|#

Most impolite thread ever?
Highly uncivil!

|3.9.07 @ 2:29PM|#

"But in your Me-first world, issues like respect and courtesy don't matter--all that matters is your "freedom."

When you walk by a smoker, the thought that "gee I wish he wouldn't do that, but it is a free country and I ought to respect his choices" never enters your mind. All that enters your mind is how dare anyone offend your sensibilities. Because you and your sensibilities and your beliefs about your health, no matter how irrational, are what is important. Yeah, I am the selfish one.

I.Self.Divine.|3.9.07 @ 2:30PM|#

How many smokers do you know that smoke 1 pack a week?? LOL...wtf....

I smoke one pack a week. 2 cigarettes every day. 1 after work. 1 during the smoke break they give me during the college classes I take at night. I tend to smoke a little more on the weekends, but never more than a pack a week.

|3.9.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Geek, I try to keep my smoking down to three or four cigs a day. Any more than that and you don't get a rush out of it, which is a shameless waste of good, healthy tobacco.

Unconcerned parent, not beating the shit out of your children isn't doing them any good. Try quitting tobacco for a day or two and use the energy to give the brats a serious attitude adjustment.

|3.9.07 @ 2:32PM|#

You should no more smoke around your children than you would smoke in a workplace--because it is disrespectful to others in the car/room who are subject to your smoke.

I don't fart in the office either. But at home, whoa baby!

|3.9.07 @ 2:32PM|#

This is what is making America a courser, less pleasant, less civil place to live.

Zero-tolerance is what makes the society courser and less civil.

An unconcerned parent|3.9.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Try quitting tobacco for a day or two and use the energy to give the brats a serious attitude adjustment.

I can't do that! The state will come after me!

|3.9.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Mr. dageek,
Sir you have offended me in the highest possible way. I seem to be the only one here you havent told to "fuck off" I feel slighted and worse than that I feel ignored.
In your defense, I have seen more "logic" from you on this than snarky comments.

|3.9.07 @ 2:35PM|#

John wrote:
> When you walk by a smoker, the thought
> that "gee I wish he wouldn't do that, but
> it is a free country and I ought to
> respect his choices" never enters your mind.

You don't know me at all. In fact, it does enter my head, and in fact, I don't make an issue of it. But we are talking here about thoughtlessly subjecting children to polluted air in a closed environment in which they have little to no choice. You think your "freedom" supercedes any and all consideration of others. This is impolite and discourteous no matter where it occurs. Instead of thinking about how your actions might affect others, you just plow ahead with your "freedom." This is exactly the problem.

|3.9.07 @ 2:36PM|#

"Try quitting tobacco for a day or two and use the energy to give the brats a serious attitude adjustment.

I can't do that! The state will come after me!"

Only if you are dumb enough to leave marks or do it in front of any witnesses.

I. Self. Divine.|3.9.07 @ 2:36PM|#

My dad smoked while I was growing up. Sometimes in the car. We had a really easy way to fix it though. He rolled down his window, and miraculously the smoke all drifted out.

Bagger|3.9.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Just having kids in your car is dangerous. Hundreds of children a year are killed in car wrecks. And since they have no choice but to be in the car with you, we need laws to prevent this.

|3.9.07 @ 2:44PM|#

"This is impolite and discourteous no matter where it occurs. Instead of thinking about how your actions might affect others, you just plow ahead with your "freedom."

You are either an idiot, a troll or both. The question is not what you or I think the right and most polite thing to do is, the question is your or my or worse yet the state's right to enforce a particular way of behavior on someone else. I frankly do not find smoking in front of children much of an offense. The science on second hand smoke is very unsettled. Parents have a right to make their own judgements without busybody knownothings like you telling them how to live their lives.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 2:45PM|#

This is impolite and discourteous no matter where it occurs.

What bullshit.

I work with a guy who smokes. On the occasions when we drive to lunch in his car, he'll usually have a cigarette. It would be rather impolite for me to tell him not to smoke in his own car. If I don't like it, I can always take my own car.

THAT is what politeness is. Not "you must always think of my sensitivites"; that is narcissism.

jimmydageek|3.9.07 @ 2:46PM|#

brotherben,

My apologies, sir. If you wish, you may fuck off as well :)

But thanks for at least acknowledging that I'm not trolling.

|3.9.07 @ 2:48PM|#

First…Not every crime committed means jail or kids being taken away so the argument this law would remove kids from parents is just ridiculous. A nice fine would get a parent to think of the consequences.

Second…Some people are too stupid to do what is best for them or their offspring and when they cannot be persuaded by such reasoning as common sense, laws need to be made to protect the innocent or ignorant. Seat belt laws and child restraint seats in cars are perfect examples and still some people refuse to wear seatbelts and should they be fined? DAMB right…when their higher cost accidents make my insurance, both auto and medical, increase because they fail to follow common sense and even break the law.

Third…My mother smoked in the car and I can remember vomiting after a few trips because of the smoke. This was in the late 60's and early 70's and even though I knew the smoke was the cause…I wouldn't dare disrespect my mother and ask her to stop. She was ignorant to the damage it causes and a law, including the possibility of a fine, may have made her more aware.

Ignorance should not be used as a call to freedom. It would be nice to see laws which penalize ignorance and arrogance when the offending actions are harmful to innocent children.

rolling my eyes|3.9.07 @ 2:54PM|#

A nice fine would get a parent to think of the consequences.

Every person who ever smelled smoke has already thought of the health consequences. People may be stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid.

|3.9.07 @ 2:54PM|#

"Second…Some people are too stupid to do what is best for them or their offspring and when they cannot be persuaded by such reasoning as common sense, laws need to be made to protect the innocent or ignorant."

If there is a better example of nanny state thinking out there I can't think of one. Yeah, some people just are not the enlightened beings that you are skip and it is up to you with the government's help to show them the way. As if there isn't a limitless supply of "common sense" laws and forms of government coercion to be had to ensure that we no longer have the freedom to do things that our superiors like you deem stupid.

Excuse me while I go throw up.

|3.9.07 @ 2:54PM|#

John wrote:
> You are either an idiot, a troll or both.

Still unable to engage in polite discourse, huh?

> I frankly do not find smoking in front of
> children much of an offense.

As I already wrote, the question isn't about what you think--it's about what the recipient thinks. In this case, the child. Have you ever even asked them?

Face it, the vast majority of people in this country now find second-hand smoke to be unaccepable pollution, regardless of its health effects. It is obvious why they think this, to anyone who has spent 10 minutes in a smoke-filled room. Times change (as does knowledge), and this isn't 1950 anymore. The courteous, thoughtfuul thing to do is to avoid inflicting your smoke on others. That includes, especially, your children. But you think it's too great an imposition for you to exhibit some thoughtfulness towards others.

|3.9.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Russ wrote:
> I work with a guy who smokes. On the
> occasions when we drive to lunch in his
> car, he'll usually have a cigarette. It
> would be rather impolite for me to tell
> him not to smoke in his own car. If I don't
> like it, I can always take my own car.

This is your choice and your right. But children do not have a similar choice.

|3.9.07 @ 2:57PM|#

"Face it, the vast majority of people in this country now find second-hand smoke to be unaccepable pollution, regardless of its health effects. It is obvious why they think this, to anyone who has spent 10 minutes in a smoke-filled room. Times change (as does knowledge), and this isn't 1950 anymore. The courteous, thoughtfuul thing to do is to avoid inflicting your smoke on others. That includes, especially, your children. But you think it's too great an imposition for you to exhibit some thoughtfulness towards others."

Since the vast majority of people believe something no one is allowed to dissent, and doing so is uncivil. Any behavior you find insensitive you feel you have the right to fine and perhaps jail people for doing. Do you have any idea what a disgusting and immoral way of thinking that is?

|3.9.07 @ 3:00PM|#

"But children do not have a similar choice."

No children don't have a choice, but parents do. Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, within a very broad range. Basiclly short of outright abuse and neglect, parents have the right to make the decisions they see fit. Smoking in a car does not cross that line. You have no right to tell people how to raise their children. That is what you are doing. You are so narcisistic and smug that you think that you not only are correct but so correct you should be able to use the coercive power of the government to ensure that people live as you deem proper. You are just a horrible person.

|3.9.07 @ 3:02PM|#

John wrote:
> Since the vast majority of people believe
> something no one is allowed to dissent,
> and doing so is uncivil. Any behavior you find > insensitive you feel you have the right to fine > and perhaps jail people for doing.

Hold on--I have not advocated for either fines or jailtime. I have argued for courtesy, respect, and thoughtfulesss.

|3.9.07 @ 3:03PM|#

"Hold on--I have not advocated for either fines or jailtime. I have argued for courtesy, respect, and thoughtfulesss."

Who cares then? That is not the issue of the thread. The issue is this law. The law is objectionable. That is completly separate from whether the behavior is objectionable.

|3.9.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Face it, the vast majority of people in this country now find second-hand smoke to be unaccepable pollution, regardless of its health effects

A fast majority of the people in this country can't find Iraq on a world map. Sh!t, they can't even find Africa.

|3.9.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Topics can and do change over the course of a hundred comments....

|3.9.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Some people obviously feel that it does cross that line John.
John Couey felt the line was in a spot that most consider unacceptable.
I dont disagree with the no smoking with kids rule but taking custody is way out of line.

The point being that we all have a different idea of where the imaginary "line of acceptable behaviour" is.

Russ 2000|3.9.07 @ 3:21PM|#

Hold on--I have not advocated for either fines or jailtime. I have argued for courtesy, respect, and thoughtfulesss.

And no one here has argued against it. I have argued for tolerance and forgiveness.

By the way, I remember being a child and asking my dad to smoke so I could watch him blow smoke rings. That was cool! But perhaps I was being thoughtless. I'm sure my dad forgave me.

D.A. Ridgely|3.9.07 @ 3:26PM|#

I used to worry about smoking while hauling the kids around in the family car, but since we got that cargo rack installed on the roof they get plenty of fresh air and I don't have to hear any whining about the smoke, either.

|3.9.07 @ 3:53PM|#

Not every crime committed means jail or kids being taken away so the argument this law would remove kids from parents is just ridiculous.

Did you miss the part where this is punished with a month in jail?

Not to mention, child protective services could hardly view behavior that is illegal because it endangers a child as anything other than child abuse. And you know what they do with kids whose parents abuse them?

So yeah, this law is all about jailing people and taking their kids.

|3.9.07 @ 4:11PM|#

"No children don't have a choice, but parents do. Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, within a very broad range. Basiclly short of outright abuse and neglect, parents have the right to make the decisions they see fit. Smoking in a car does not cross that line. You have no right to tell people how to raise their children. That is what you are doing. You are so narcisistic and smug that you think that you not only are correct but so correct you should be able to use the coercive power of the government to ensure that people live as you deem proper. You are just a horrible person."

Inhabitants of vitrified residences should refrain from propelling stones.

Just because you don't view smoking in the car as abuse doesn't mean it's not, and it cerainly doesn't mean that anyone who thinks it is abuse is a horrible person.

I feel sorry for your children.

ed|3.9.07 @ 4:36PM|#

Poor kids. Their parents are so busy smoking they evidently have neglected to instruct them how to roll down a window.

|3.9.07 @ 4:44PM|#

Andy
And I feel sorry for a world where people like you use the "it's all for the children" defense to justify every government intrusion into our lives. You know places like New York City, San Fransisco and DC.
Let's repeat, 30 years ago everyone smoked all the time all the place and nobody got lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke. #0 years later when a minority is smoking and in far fewer places we should now take parents away from their children because they are smoking in a car. Doesn't this sound like bullshit science and as just an excuse to stop every smoker in every car just to check if they have children in there.
So Andy, please take your stones and put them up your vitrified residence.

|3.9.07 @ 4:47PM|#

Oh and Jeff:
Please join Andy as he puts his stones up his vitrified whatever. Because you are a self rightuos idiot.

violent_k|3.9.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Boland said he picked 8 as the cut-off age because children that age and younger must be in car seats. That would give police an easy way to spot potential violations, rather setting some other age limit and forcing police to guess whether passengers are older or younger.

Seems to me that this would make some people less likely to use car seats. That can't be good for the kids.

mmkay|3.9.07 @ 5:10PM|#

Seems to me that this would make some people less likely to use car seats. That can't be good for the kids.

Heh. When a cop pulls you over for not having your young'un in a car seat, you just say: He's 17 years old! My smoking has stunted his growth.

|3.9.07 @ 5:44PM|#

"You have to consider that these are still developing little bodies here. Their immune system is not fully up to speed, their tolerances for the things we adults consider normal have not yet developed, and ,ultimately, they have no control over being exposed to the chemicals from the smoke. These are still fragile little boogers."

Skipping over all the intervening comments, he helpfully queried, "And did it ever occur to you that exposure to harmful things is the means by which those fragile little bodies' immune systems develop their defenses? Fanatical efforts to "protect" small children are counterproductive."

|3.9.07 @ 9:08PM|#

I can only wish they had a law against "smoking with a child in your car" when I was a kid!

In 1972, I was an 8 yr old in a car enduring a 1 hr + Christmas commute in below zero temps with 5 adults, 4 of whom were smoking.

I made the mistake of 'complaining'...

So, I have been reminded of this same story every frickin time I have lit a cigarette in front of any one of those five adults for the last 25 goddamn years!

Despite my (l)ibertarianism, even I might support a little 'jail time' for these offenders...

|3.10.07 @ 1:58AM|#

whose kids are they, the parents or the states?

hke|3.10.07 @ 3:31AM|#

I think the state of Illinois should make a stronger statement. Since active smoking and second hand smoke are tremendously harmful, they shouldn't take any money from it. That would send a real message that they were able to give up their own addiction to the tax dollars and may inspire others to give up their own addictions.

|3.10.07 @ 3:43AM|#

hke,
Wow! Non-regular commenter swoops in to win. Unprecedented. Sure to make the record books.

|3.10.07 @ 10:34AM|#

Whoa, Nelly! Let's back up here. We're worried about children exposed to the dangers of second hand smoke in a CAR.

We should all know that a single trip to the corner grocery in a car is statistically far more dangerous than a liftime of second hand smoke.

Any adult who has ever forced a child into a death machine like the family mini van should be shot for endangering the cute little boogers.

|3.10.07 @ 11:14AM|#

hke and highnumber,
actually, that suggestion was made yesterday @ 12:36 pm by that raving genius known by the pseudonym of brotherben. if indeed that is a winning comment, I feel strongly that broben oughta win!


can I get an amen?

|3.10.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Not a smoker, never have been. that said, these so called remedies to the danger of a a whiff of tobacco sometimes make me wish that I was. Where does it stop? Neighbors are suing neighbors over a bit of smoke crossing the back fence. My parents were smokers. Five children now in their 40's, no smokers. My parents smoked in the car, and in the house. It didn't seem to ruin our lives. Gosh, maybe they crack a window or something. Smoking is a vile habit. Our willingness to criminalize every human foible may be why we lock up a larger percentage of our population than any other nation on earth.

|3.10.07 @ 2:37PM|#

It should be illegal but that doesn't mean that parents should be locked up. Why is prison always the punishment?

|3.10.07 @ 3:25PM|#

brotherben & ben'sbrother,

No. You suggested that they stop the sale of tobacco. hke simply suggested that they stop taxing it. Judges' ruling: hke's win still stands, but brotherben may get an amen.

Amen!

|3.10.07 @ 3:26PM|#

highnumber's score is deducted 50 points for a misplaced modifier. See "simply" in his previous post.

|3.10.07 @ 6:06PM|#

I have it on very good authority that brotherben's intent was that the state should not tax tobacco. It's a slam dunk.

Robert|3.11.07 @ 2:15PM|#

"Why is prison always the punishment?"

Just divorcing it from the smoking issue, I agree that if only punishment is being sought, confinement seems awfully uncreative. Seems to have come about for historical reasons, with punishment being only one of the motivations for confinement.

|3.12.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Don't smoke and never have. However things like this I disapprove of. Nanny state encrouchment has been idiotic for awhile. The state seems to think it should do all the raising of kids. I work in law enforcement, we get complaints on kids all the time for being kids.

I remember the things I did as a kid and now see people calling the police for similar actions. Not that they are legal. But because they thing they have to protect the child from their own parent or themselves.

If this person thinks that he has to save the child from second hand smoke. How about the much larger number of children that are killed in accidents each year. Does he plan on making it illegal to have the child in the car? If he was truely concerned for their safety this would save more lives than what he proposed. Or just ban cars. No more DWI's or fatal accidents.

Liberty? Seems politicians and their nanny staters thing that it an on outdated concept. Along with personal responsibility.

TrishComicMom|3.15.07 @ 12:02AM|#

I was taken my from my teenage mother in the 60s (her crime? "too young" and "unmarried") and given to adopters, one of whom smoked like a stack. These folks were social-worker approved. So far, I'm okay. If my adopters had been arrested for smoking when I was a baby, would I have been given back to my mom? Nope.

I now have three children of my own; having given birth I can say that the last thing I want in my house, my pants, or my children's lives, is the government.

|3.15.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Not so bad smoking in a car, open the window and the wind ventilates it just fine. Smoking is legal, Kids will survive. Get the government out of our lives.For those who think its ok to fine or jail someone for smoking with a kid in the car cause it MIGHT hurt them. Why dont you go after the DSS who routinly puts kids in jepordy by placing them in unfit homes. There were over 4000 cases of injuries and deaths in Massachusetts last year! How about the millions that die from lack of clean water or simple medications? Wait till they come after what you like! Your Guns, Your Dougnuts, How about Coffee loaded with Caffine. GReasy Hamburgers ormeat in general. Then of course theres Booze, one of the main killers of people in this country. Instead of stopping smoking in bars why not stop serving alcohol instead. Then nobody wouldbe there to complain.....