I sent the following letter to our state senator regarding this bill:I am the director of the North Ogden Intermountain Instacare, a practicing
family physician. I am well aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke exposure
to children. However, I urge you to VOTE AGAINST HB 13. Everyone
agrees on the health risks of smoking. This bill is not about the health
risk--it is about whether we can rightfully legislate healthy behavior. If we
can legislate against smoking in private vehicles, what prevents us from
legislating against trampolines, football, junk food, or use of sugary drinks,
all known to be harmful to kids? We allow vaccine exemptions, which cause
collective harm in the form of outbreaks of infectious disease--can we begin to
prosecute parents who refuse vaccination? There are a multitude of issues that
may use HB 13 as a precedent in eroding personal freedom. I urge you
to allow us to use education, persuasion, and every other method to try to stop
childhood tobacco exposure, without resorting to use of governmental
coercion. Voting against HB 13 is not a vote in favor of
tobacco use--it is a vote for limited government and personal responsbility.
It is dangerous to force drivers, especially those with kids aboard, to go Cold
Turkey. Withdrawal causes distraction, decreased alertness, irritation (road
rage?) and sleepiness. Civil rights are endangered by this added excuse
for police, with "probable cause", to stop and search those with
something else in their mouths.Young people must carry ID to prove they
are old enough to survive Environmental Tobacco Smoke. If the law is based on
"tobacco" language, note that any number of brands may contain zero
tobacco, and that plain tobacco itself does not seem to have been studied yet to
justify bans. "Studies" routinely fail to qualify “tobacco”.
Could be fake tobacco or pesticide-contaminated tobacco for all we know.Has even one child been diagnosed as harmed by "ETS" to justify the
law? If there was, we’d surely have a "Billy's (or
Becky’s…) Law".Why do legislators permit child-damaging
industrial chemicals in cigarettes, and without any specific warning? Money
reasons, perhaps? Officials blame and prosecute the victims but ignore
and protect the perpetrators of a multi-decade crime of mass poisoning and mass
experimentation without informed consent. Search up "Fauxbacco"
More small government....
Harsher punishment for those who willingly poison children. Age should be 18 and
enforcement made easier and sure with mandatory penalties.Grew up with
smoke and have never, ever gone back to visit those parents who poisoned me for
the sake of their addiction. Their cigarettes were more important than the
health of all of us kids.