Published: Sunday, Feb. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
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
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
"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!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments