Comments about ‘My view: The bill barring smoking in cars with kids is overreaching’

I can remember many a trip in a smoky car as a kid. It's a wretched, oxygen deprived, soul sucking environment with your nose pressed against the crack of the door trying to get whatever non polluted air might sneak in. But I hate government over reaching, and certainly this is it. Besides, how is something like this going to be enforced, anyway. My freedom, as the article notes, is inextricably tied to that of others, so let's all be free, and hope smoking parents wise up.

I Think that a persons religion is what they do religiously. Some people believe that prayers are carried up to haven in smoke. Free agency, freedom of religion, liberty has to be protected. Evil will only triumph when good men do nothing. When there is too many laws that no one can know the laws. That is a lawless people.

This bill will only open up the debate of whether it is okay to do drugs on private property or not. It overreaches in a very bad way and will possibly lead to a court case that would possibly restrict property rights or make drug use an acceptable activity on private property. SHAME ON THE LEGISLATURE!

‘My view: The bill barring smoking in cars with kids is overreaching’

----

Tell this to the kids who suffer health problems because of second hand smoke.

The state tells parents that they cannot abuse or neglect their children, even in their own home. Poisoning your children with cigarette smoke certainly is abuse.

"We all know that exposure to smoke is bad for children."

If anyone can be bothered to look at the science though, they would see that the opposite is infact, true.
One of the biggest studies ever, carried out by the World Health Organisation, (which they tried to hide) found no significant risk between second hand smoke (SHS) and lung cancer. The only result of any significance was that children exposed to SHS had a REDUCED risk. (1998 Bofetta et al)

...and not just a reduced risk of lung cancer.

A 2001 study of two generations of Swedish residents concluded: In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9).

The anti-smoking industry is built on junk science, scaremongering, propaganda and lies. Believe the scientists...not the media!

One question for the poster from England who says: "The anti-smoking industry is built on junk science, scaremongering, propaganda and lies. Believe the scientists...not the media!"

Which tobacco company do you work for?

On the other hand, while I would love to see children protected from smoke, I find it very ironic that this bill comes from the very party that is constantly ragging about "government interference" in peoples' lives.

Just more GOP hypocrisy.

Parents have stewardship for their children; the government does not. Making the government the parent will not strengthen a family nor will it protect the kids. Once government gets its foot in the door, it will never stop.

I'm against smoking, but I believe that each of us is responsible to God for our actions, not to government. When children are sent into our homes, we have the duty to protect them from all harm and from all danger. Smoking is dangerous to everyone, including innocent children, but government was not instituted to take the place nor shoulder the responsibility of parents.

I'm surprised that Utah legislators think that they have the right to replace parents. Surely they understand that if they make themselves stewards over our children, that they also make themselves responsible for the conduct of those children. Is that what they want? Do they want to answer to our creator for people outside their own family?

"...A 2001 study of two generations of Swedish residents concluded: In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9)...".

So..., we should encourage mothers and fathers to smoke at least 30 or more cigarettes a day to have even lower odds of children suffering a laundry list of symptoms...

Sounds like a screen-write for an SNL skit...

Defenseless children deserve protection. That's why we have car seats and soon to be anti-smoking laws.

Nothing is more powerful than a lie whose time has come. Thus wrote the great Sidney Zion (in 1998) about the infamous EPA report on ETS, after it was shown to be a fraud in Fedral court. Of course the anti-tobacco zelots wern't going to take that lying down, so they had it overturned on a technicallity. Never mind that they never challenged the facts. The EPA monitors outdoor air quality, not indoor. Anyone that ever looked at their 'research' methonds would laugh out loud. So how about OSHA that is tasked with monitoring indoor air quality. Well it turned out that those 'thousands of compounds' are actually 16 that are considered worth monitoring by OSHA, and are so diverse that according to their own research, it would take a minimum of 1600 cigarettes per hour in their test room 9' x 9' x 20' unventilated, before they would require simple ventilation. This country has real problems,so quit tilting at windmills!