You know, I just can't get too worked up about this bill. I do think it's blatantly unconstitutional as applied to parents, who have the right to manage these types of minute risks to their children as they see fit. But I really don't think the idea is enforcement, it's just another stupid "message" bill.

I do disagree with the following: "'The residue of smoke remains on the hair, the skin, clothing and is extremely harmful,' Jones said." Really? Any studies to back that up? I call BS. This debate will become a lot less offensive to me when the anti-smokers stop supporting their arguments with facts they just make up!

Also, I take issue with the use of the word "crackdown" in the headline. Making something (secondarily) illegal is hardly a crackdown--crackdown implies enforcement, not mere illegality. This bill is the exact opposite of effective enforcement, and is therefore not a crackdown at all. D-News, please don't let the English language suffer collateral damage from your jihad against smokers.

Smokers usually crack open a window to (1) flick ashes, and (2) allow for fresh air to flow in.

Big brother continues to try to make inroads on curbing the freedoms of American citizens. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

The bill's sponsor and supporters aught to be brought up on charges for violating the US Constitution (or at the very least, the spirit of the freedoms guaranteed therein).

This bill represents common sense, good medicine and solid science. Kids can't look after themselves. They depend on adults to protect their health. Smoking in such a tight, confined area causes the air quality to deteriorate to unacceptable levels.

Maybe would should hire an additional 100 police officers to inforce heinous crime.