Smoking in cars bill advances with opposition building

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Parmenion England, 00
    Feb. 28, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    Nilsson, Robert
    Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology. Senior Toxicologist, Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate. Professor Robert Nilsson has written several highly critical articles about the anti-smoking industry claims that passive smoking (ETS) causes heart disease and lung cancer. He calls the risk of heart disease unsupported and highly hypothetical - and the risk of lung cancer negligible.
    - The one-sided preoccupation with ETS as a causative factor of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the multifactorial etiology of these tumors.
    In the book What Risk? Professor Nilsson puts children's risk of passive smoking in this perspective:
    - Looked at another way, a child’s intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    @Parmenion - You are going to quote Hitler and Kampf on this topic. Really?

    @Older Greg - Ignorance doesn't make a comment correct. The air polution is bad outside, I agree. But second hand smoke in a car is going to trump the air quaility.

    @ DN Subsciber2 - What about my rights and the childs rights?

    Personal opinion. If you want to smoke, knock yourself out, no problem. However, if you do want to smoke, do it someplace where nobody else has to be affected by it. If you ask me, smoking should not be allowed in cars period. I can sit at a stop light and a car two cars away someone will be smoking and I have to endure the smell of it. How does this not infringe on my rights as a non-smoker? Smoke all you want people, just keep your nasty habit in your bubble. If not, I may develop my nasty habit of spitting and spit on your shoe or shirt. I am sorry, did I offend you with that? Well so did your smoke. But don't be offended it is just what I do and it happen to land on you.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    Free agency should be protected by the people that is elected and swore to do so.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    Sure, find away to take away cigarettes but not guns!

    "guns don't kill people... people kill people"

    "cigarettes don't kill people .... people... oh wait, they do kill people"

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 7:11 p.m.

    I hate cigarette smoke and think smokers are idiots.

    However, we have a dismal record of trying to legislate common sense, and worse, this infringes on personal choice and parental rights.

    Yes, freedom of choice includes the right to make bad choices. Look, no one gets upset while we allow people to vote for liberals who do far more to harm out children's future than mere exposure to second hand smoke. Or people to chose abortion, which kills a child. Why just ban smoking in cars when there are worse dangers?

    If people want to ban smoking entirely, then just come out and propose a bill and vote on it. Don't try to implement it by stealth tactics, or incrementally. But, if they stopped smoking entirely, that would eliminate the revenue from the cigarette taxes that pay for a lot of health care programs. Talk about hypocritical!

    This bill needs to be defeated in the name of freedom, not because anyone thinks kids should be stuck in smoke filled cars.

  • Parmenion England, 00
    Feb. 27, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    I wonder if there is any constitutional right to be a moron?
    It's a rhetorical question, but let's get to the facts...

    The idea that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke turns the laws of science on its head. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. All substances are toxic at high enough levels just as they are harmless, even beneficial, at lower levels.

    Most of us understand that coffee contains benzene, water contains arsenic and that televisions pump out radiation but we don't let it worry us since the levels of these highly carcinogenic toxins are too low to pose a threat to our health. Apparently only one substance disobeys this law of toxicology: secondhand smoke.

    "As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
    Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    If government shouldn't tell (dumb) parents not to engulf their children in cigarette smoke, then I'm curious,

    What if anything should governemnt do?

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    I grew up with parents who smoked in the car, all the time. At the time, people didn't know about the dangers of second hand smoke, and the tobacco companies were hiding the fact that cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, etc. I never knew why I always got nauseated in the car. I got "carsick", and sometimes vomited as a result. Now we know better.

    Unfortunately, some parents still do this in the car. It is child abuse, pure and simple. It is as destructive to the child as handing the child a bottle of beer to drink in the car. We would prosecute parents who do that, no problem. My parents shouldn't have been prosecuted because we didn't know what second hand smoke did at that time. Parents who do this now should be prosecuted as well.

    Yes, we should try to fix the outside air as well, but believe me - even on the worst days it isn't as bad as being locked in a car with a smoking parent on a cold day with the windows closed, for a 3 hour car ride.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    Worried about the poor kids lungs? Take care of the outside air problem that is much more pervasive first.