Representative again hopes bill will snuff out smoking in cars with children

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bruce D. Larsen ,
    Feb. 28, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    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.

  • jonik Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:03 p.m.

    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" for references.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:22 a.m.

    More small government....

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    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.