Deseret News | Smoking in cars may face limit

Reader comments
Smoking in cars may face limit

Robert | 4:07 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

As a former smoker and a continuing believer in individual rights I couldn't be more appalled at this story. It seems that even so-called conservative Republicans will go along with any such hare-brained ideas such as anti-smoking in private places as long as its "for the children". This stupid set of ideas is just another way of limiting freedom.

The politican who will take away smokers rights will soon take away rights from people who use perfume or forgot to take a bath. They also stink and should not be allowed to be around children.

When one segment of the population loses rights we all do. If you vote for or support one of these clowns who take away the rights of others, what will you say when they take away your rights? You will probably have lots to say, but no one will come to keep your rights and freedoms from being taken away because then you will be in the minority. Our democratic system government works because the majority of people are right the majority of the time. If we don't protect the rights of the minority we will become a down-trodden minority ourselves.

Bob G | 5:31 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

The EPA's defenition has not panned out or been proven yet and leaves many unanswered studies and questions. Smoking and second hand somke is not a problem with peoples health. Our legislators should be taking a close hard look at the food in our stores if they are concerned about health issues. Our food is killing and harming more people than smoking ever did. There are so many carcenogenic chemicles in our meat and grains yet no one dares confront the issue. We are fed hormones and chemical preservaties by the tons yet it is being ignored. By law these chemical companies are protected from being exposed with all the atrocities they are doing to us yet all we can blame is a smoker who bothers no one. We blame the smoker and tax them to death when the deaths of the american people are being accomplished in the food and drinks they consume. The auto exhaust with its oxides put in the air are not being attacked or taxed a serious toxitic problem than a smoking neighbor. The public needs the real facts about their health problems, not a scape goat attack blaiming smoking.

Reality | 5:43 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Since so many of the police smell like a tobacco plantation, I wonder how many of them will enforce this law?

Comments continue below

Jim | 6:37 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

This really is sad! I'm sure Sen. Scott McCoy can find something better to do with his time. Who will inforce such a stupid law? Who will pay for it? I'm almost positive that law enforcement has better things to do than enforce such a law.

Jim | 6:42 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

This is really sad! I would hope that Sen. Scott McCoy would have better things to do. Who will enforce such a law? Maybe Sen. McCoy doesn't have anything better to do, but I'm sure law enforcement does.

Why Not This Law? | 6:52 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I don't understand why people are against this. All laws are government regulating behavior. If government can't regulate behavior, there can be no stop signs. No laws against abusing kids, no laws against theft. No laws against nothin. People should have enough common sense not to smoke in a car with kids, yet we see it all the time. For people with enough common sense, this new law if passed will have no effect. The only bad thing about this law is that it stops at 5, why not 19, the age that it becomes legal to start smoking?

Anonymous | 7:22 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

don't think this goes far enough.....why just children under age 5 years? The ban should include any minor children 12 years old and younger.....they need as much protection as the little ones.

Anonymous | 7:49 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

A word of caution to the zealots out there. Do not let the governmant in your house or car. Once a crack is opened, the governmoent will find ways to open it further and be come more intrusive in you life. The nanny/wealfare/socialist stat is waiting to expand and the loon do gooders are opening the flood gates.

Taylor | 8:56 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

This is exactly what C.S. Lewis was talking about when he said: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Anonymous | 9:00 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Yes, I'm sure it's all a government plot to gradually take away all of our rights. It has nothing to do with the health and welfare of children. Go tell it to Harry Reid.

Thomas Jefferson | 9:14 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

First, I don't smoke and I do think it's bad for people but I appose this further government intervention. Same arguments could apply to smoking in the home. Are we prepared to cite adults who smoke in their home with children present? Freedom means some people will make poor choices that have adverse affects on others, even children. I follow the principle that if I am not willing to confront my neighbor about a certain practice then I have no right asking the police to do it. The police, and nosey neighbors, have far more important things to do with their time.

What's next? | 9:22 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Do we have the police go out into the neighborhoods and fine folks for not turning on their porch lights at night?...It's been proven to deter crime you know and we're all about protecting families. How about throwing mom in jail for giving twinkies to their kids...the kids can't very well eat well and avoid a lifetime of obesity problems if those rotten parents force them into an unhealthy environment. How about we lock up all those creeps who pass out free candy on Halloween.

Jim MkII | 9:25 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

What was that one that went...

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me.....
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Watch out smokers.... you might be 'me'.

Robo | 9:44 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Your rights end where mine begin. I have a right NOT to smoke, so do your children. I grew up in a house where my dad smoked. I had respiratory problems as a child because of it. He died of mesothelioma, cancer of the lungs caused by smoking and aggravated by exposure to asbestos. I was deprived of probably 10 years of life experience with him because of it. Smoking doesn't cause health problems? Give me a break! Doesn't bother anyone? Give me another break! You want to engage in a filthy habit that is detrimental to your health, have at it, but don't impose it on others. Have a great day.

Brigham | 9:47 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I think we all know what's next... no drinking within sight of a minor.

Not on My Dime | 10:31 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Some of the posters inferred, or flat out said, that smoking hasn't been proven to hurt people. That is ridiculous! Smoking causes cancer, hypertension, heart disease and strokes.

Some are worried that government is intruding in people's lives. I say it is time for the free ride of smokers to end. Large corporations, Scotts comes to mind, are no longer hiring smokers because their healthcare costs are so high. Those corporations have the right idea. Smoke if you want. I really don't care, but don't expect to have access to Medicare, Medicaid or even third party insurance, unless you are in a smokers only risk pool. That risk pool's premiums would be out of sight by the way.

That is the ultimate form of responsibility. If you choose to smoke, you are removed from the risk pool. That means lower insurance rates for all and smokers paying for the consequences of their actions.

Waldo | 10:32 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I am in full support of this law. If society can't use the rule of law to protect children, then we are warped in what we value. I hope this law passes and that we provide protection for innocent victims of exposure to toxic chemicals; that is really what this bill is all about and lets not lose sight of that.

The health of young children should come before someone's selfish behavior.

Anonymous | 10:38 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I am a smoker and I think if fellow smokers don't use their brain and are smoking with kids in the car they should definitely be fined. Don't force your children to breathe in the smoke just because you smoke.

dcc | 10:59 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Dear Not on My Dime,

Junk food causes obesity, heart disease, cancer. By your logic the government has the right to control what you put in your mouth.

Not in my house!

Dick | 11:00 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Isn't the conservative line usually something to the effect of "parents know what is best for their children. We need government out of our lives and they need to let us be the parents, not them."

I guess that line doesn't work in this case.

The American Way | 11:22 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

We have a long history in this country of letting some people endanger the innocent.

We freely allow people pollute the air next to us with proven disease-causing smoke. They don't care that WE SHARE THE AIR.

We even have a political history of funding the source. Thankfully we are now, to some degree, restricting their right to infect their own children, and the rest of us.

We freely allow people consume substances that reduce their intelligence and judgment, then leave their own homes to do stupid things to innocent people.

Freedom isn't free. The price is responsibility.
The government and medical science should educate us, rather than just make laws.

Med Student | 11:24 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

dcc - even water will kill you if you get too much of it. Junk food is fine if you do it in moderation, and if you exercise, etc.

Nicotine and cigarettes are incredibly addictive and "moderation" is nearly impossible to achieve - how many people who smoke manage only a couple of cigarettes a week?

I actually do agree with Not on My Dime in that smokers are a HUGE burden on the health care system and society in general. That being said, you do actually make a good argument that those who are obese because of their own lack of self-discipline are also taxing all of us. You just can't legislate that one as clearly as cigarettes.

So let's pass this one law that does help stop a horrid practice.

Upset | 11:45 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

It seems more and more that the people we send to the legislature have lost what we used to call "Common Sense." What will come next. More and more they are intruding on our freedom. Maybe it is time we vote these people out. At the next election I am voting against anyone now in office.

Mainer | 11:52 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

In the city of Bangor, Maine, an adult smoking in a car with anyone under the age of 18 is FINED...

It's about time Utah implement such a law!!!!

Adults have the freedom of lighting up. BUT a child in a vechile with a smoker has no freedom to QUIT BREATHING !!!

THEY NEED TO CONSIDER 18 YEARS OF AGE INSTEAD OF 5

Child of a smoker | 11:58 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I grew up in a householder with two parents that smoked. It is a dirty addiction,that ruins your health and the health of those around you. My grandfather also smoked and, for those of you who don't think that second hand smoke matters, my grandmother died at the age of 56 of lung cancer. She never smoked a day in her life, and did not have a history of cancer in her family. After my grandmother died my parents both stopped smoking, cold turkey. Never, ever smoked again and, almost 30 years later are still alive. The point of my story is that noone can force you to not smoke around your kids or stop smoking. To be sucessful at giving up such a strong addiction, you have to want to make a change for yourself. A ticket and $45 dollar fine, by the way that will be waived if you agree to a stop smoking program. People will only stop smoking if the consequence is extreme. Unfortunately the cost is much higher than any law maker could impose. It is usually at the cost of someone's life or health. The smokers or their family.

sesshu610 | 11:59 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Next comes the law that doesn't allow you to Smoke in a car at all. Next comes the home...then comes outside your home. This battle is better fought if we outlaw nicotine all together. Smoking is bad, chew is very unsitely especially when it is on the ground or in cups laying around. Modifying or restricting behavior isn't the answer...It is either an all or not situation. Either ban the substance entirely or allow it's use and allow people to make judgements about what they do with their lives. Freedom isn't free...it comes with tolerating others and dealing with things that they are allowed to do. By passing this law I agree that it allows the legislature to pass more laws that reach into our cars and homes and into the way we raise our children. If this law passes and the courts affirm it, it gives the right to the legilaturre to fine us for feeding our kids candy or not getting them immunized or whatever they see is right and appropriate for you to raise youur children.

Anonymous | 11:59 a.m. Jan. 23, 2008

The poor children do not have a choice when they are forced to breathe in selfish adults/parents smoke. They also DO NOT have the choice for their hair and clothes to stink and be shunned by the other kids at school by how they smell. If parents are going to endanger their children's heath someone has to step in. Its the same as having be in seat belts and car seats!

To Mainer | 12:12 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

While your at it, lets just make an ever exhaustive list of all the things adults can possibly do that may in fact be harmful to children and then pass the law. Good luck completing that list any time soon and then keeping the law you propose updated with the next do-gooders' new and expanded list of "harmful to children" ideas that should be law.

Dentist | 12:26 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

The big issue is that the US government allows tobacco to be produced and sold. Tobacco is a totally destructive product on so many levels!

It is filthy! It is a selfish habit! Few people are aware of how dreadful the effects are in the mouth.

Personally I don't want more legislation either but smoking is so insidious. So in this case anything we can to to help protect and inform the public on the dangers of tobacco, I am in favor of.

Spencer | 12:35 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Geeesh. I need a smoke.

anonymous | 12:39 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I can see the point of view of having a smoke in the car when you want. What I disagree with it is that it endangers everyone who is on the road. Taking the time to find the cigarette and light it is another distraction. then having to take your hand away from the steering wheel is another distraction. Utah has the worst drivers in the country, i have lived in 26 of them i should know, this is just another thing adding to the accidents. I don't care that parents don't want their kids to have a fighting chance in this world is their choice, but when it comes to my family's and my safety is when I DO, so i support banning smoking in cars. Kill yourselves with cancer just don't risk me with a car accident because of your stupidity!!!!!!

Robert | 12:44 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

If people want to smoke thats their problem. Not the smartest thing considering all the health problems it causes. But to smoke in a car with a child, its just plain wrong. Ruin your own health if you don't care about your body, but don't ruin a childs health because your selfish.
I for one am sick of walking down the street of following a car with a smoker, and inhaling the smoke. Why should we be punished for another persons choice.

Jordan T. | 12:57 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

God, I'm so glad I don't smoke. Smoking lost its cool ages ago. Why people still smoke is beyond me.

That said, while I'm staying all warm and nice inside a Salt Lake club, I see these losers outside smoking.

THE TIME TO QUIT SMOKING IS NOW!!

Alaska | 1:01 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Anyone ever been on a cruise ship with a balcony, and had smokers all around exercising their rights?

I pretty sure the smokers on their balconies would be offended if I filled my balcony with fresh manure each day and I tossed some of it onto their balconies throughout the day.

I agree anyone under 18 should be protected from the outright poisonous effects of tobacco smoke!

Anonymous | 1:01 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

"Breathing in pollutants of a red alert day is equal to smoking five cigarettes, McCoy said."

This quote from the article says it all. It means that anytime a child (or adult?) breathes outside during a red burn day that we should fine our politicians for allowing us to breathe in the equivalent of five cigarettes because they can't clean up the air along the Wasatch front. Hypocrites.

Get Real | 1:18 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

The people who are against this are the same ones that predicted the end of our civil liberties when kids couldn't ride in the back of pickup trucks anymore. Don't even get them started on seat belts and car seats.....those evil commie devices.

Hey Rebert | 1:20 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Smoking is still legal and if your reasoning holds then there should be laws that not only allow police to come into the home and fine smokers but there should be laws that ban it altogether. As long as there aren't outright bans then there should not be bans inside the home and yes that includes inside the car.

Catherine | 2:20 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

It's too bad that those smokers who smoke around children are either too stupid to realize what they are doing and/or they are too selfish to care. Go ahead and smoke like a chimney and slowly kill yourself if that is what you choose to do. But don't do it around children. There would be no need for such laws if smokers were intelligent enough to figure that out on their own.

Oh, and by the way, it's not the smell of smokers or the smell of the smoke that is the problem. The carcinogenic properties of smoking and second-hand smoke are the problem.

Hypocrites | 2:49 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I guarantee that all of you in favor of this bill aren't doing anything to improve the Earth. You probably all drive gas guzzling SUV's, toss your ding dong wrappers on the ground, and let your already unhealthy kids cough all over the healthy children. I would much rather my kids see someone smoking, than a fat kid eating. At least smoking can be explained. Fat people have no excuse. Lets pass a law that if you are over 25% BMI, you are not allowed in public. I don't want my children thinking it's ok to be overweight. That being said, I do not smoke with my kids in the car, nor would I intend to. But I see plenty of people eating when they drive, and that worries me more than seeing someone smoke. Stones and glass houses chubby.

Jeff | 3:00 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Wow, I know that this legislation sounds desperately needed. Can I ask where is true hard evidence of why is it needed; not the emotional ranting of people? Exactly how many children have been proven to contract lung disease or other smoking related maladies in the cars of their drivers? How many? Prove to me the legislation is needed then I will listen otherwise it is just feel good talk and political pandering.

After all those who smoke in cars with children most likely are addicts. Do you think a ticket is going to stop them? Show me the hard real data that we need even more intrusion by our government into our personal lives.

What are the limits people? I can make an argument that if you have more that a few speeding tickets your a menace and dangerous to society. The examples of the insanity can go on and on.

Count all the question marks in my comment, now multiply it ten fold and those is the reasons we donï¿½t need this legislation. Look out their coming into your homes next.

P.S. I dont smoke!

Splitting Hairs | 3:27 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

What about all of the car exhaust the kids have to suck down while on the road?

Eddie T | 5:09 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I don't want to come across as supporting this legislation. I see merits in both arguments, and if I lean anywhere, it's with the smokers. I personally don't smoke, with the exception of the occasional cigar, and I would never smoke around a child, but my default reaction is to tell the government to but out.

I did want to point out that this a secondary offense, which means they can't pull you over for it, but can cite you for it if they already have you pulled over. So the "don't cops have better things to do?" argument doesn't really work unless you think they ought not be worrying about speeding. People seem to be missing that.

sic kids | 7:31 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

I agree with all the comments about not needing more legislation in our lives, but as one who provides anesthesia to people everyday, I have seen the effects of smoking on the health of people, especially children. They are at an increased risk for respiratory problems. These children have more irritable airways which can, and a lot of times do, become a threat to their life. As an adult, I can tell the passengers of my car not to smoke, or if I am in their car I can ask them not to. If they still insist on smoking, I have other options to get where I need to be, a child does not. If this law stops even one parent or caregiver from smoking around a child then great.

Go ahead... | 9:34 p.m. Jan. 23, 2008

Let's just let the government run ALL aspects of our lives. I'm tired of holding myself responsible for my actions. Would you guys do it for me so I can live an irresponsible life without having to worry about doing anything wrong because the government is going to fix it all for me?

jenparker | 1:09 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Dear Dentist:
Do you also complain about school buses and such that are spewing out the filth that even we smokers breathe day in and day out? I'll bet not. I'm sure that if you truly are a dentist, you are making a fortune on smokers' teeth!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.