If You're Going to Speed, Don't Smoke
Jacob Sullum | October 12, 2007, 11:19am
California has joined the growing list of jurisdictions that prohibit smoking in vehicles carrying children, which is now an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Perhaps embarrassed at following Arkansas' lead in this area, California's legislators outdid the Natural State's by covering all passengers under 18. The Arkansas ban, by contrast, applies only to cars with passengers who are under 6 and weigh less than 60 pounds, the same passengers who are required to ride in child safety seats. That arbitrary-seeming scope actually makes some sense, since the evidence that secondhand smoke impairs children's health (by making them more prone to earaches and lower respiratory infections) relates to very small kids, not to older children and teenagers. And the Arkansas ban may actually be tougher, on balance, because police can pull people over for violating it. Under the new California law, police can cite smokers only after pulling them over for other reasons. Then again, California's ban opens up the possibility of stopping a 17-year-old for speeding, then ticketing his 18-year-old friend for endangering the driver by smoking in the backseat.
As I've said before, while smoking in a car with children in it may be inconsiderate or unwise, the level of risk it poses is not serious enough to justify state intervention. The same goes for smoking at home, where children of smokers get most of their secondhand smoke exposure. Yet I have little doubt that car smoking bans will soon be as ubiquitous as restaurant smoking bans, and it seems only a matter of time before parents who smoke at home are treated as child abusers.
[via The Rest of the Story]
anna | October 17, 2007, 12:17pm | #
Mike, I think you may be in denial.
In response to:
"SHS has never been proven to cause any illness, unless your idea of proof is biased statistical analyses purchased by the anti-smoker zealots and their allies."
The Surgeon General came out with an extensive report on the effects of secondhand smoke last year, and said there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, I would suggest you read it. Also, there are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes, 250 which are proven to be carcinogenic. In addition, the resources listed are based on proven scientific evidence, not just someone's opinion. I think allowing the science to speak for itself is much more credible than the opinion of someone with no evidence to back it up.
In response to:
"By the way, your rights are exactly the same as any smoker's. Neither party is a protected class under the law. You have no more right to "clean" air than I do to smokey air and vice versa."
The American Disabilities Act actually does protect the right of people with breathing disabilities to breathe clean air.
In response to:
"This whole "problem" is solved with nothing more than an open window, which most smokers do whether anyone else is in the car or not."
Cigarette smoke does not just "dissipate" into the air outside, whether you are holding it out the window or just standing outside. PM2.5 is a toxic pollutant produced by cigarettes, wood-burning stoves, diesel engines and other forms of combustion. It contains benzo(a)pyrene, a carcinogen, and many other toxic chemicals that can penetrate deep inside the lungs.
The current EPA ambient air standard for PM2.5 is 35µg/m³ of air averaged over 24 hours. Levels that exceed that are considered unhealthy.
A recent study by Stanford researchers found that if an individual were exposed to multiple cigarettes over several hours in an outdoor setting, it would be possible to get a daily average of 35µg/m³ or more, exceeding the EPA standard, potential exposure could equal that of a smoky bar.
I do feel it is an individual's right to choose to smoke, but that does not mean it is okay to hurt someone else in the process.
