The movement to ticket drivers who smoke in cars with children on board is gathering force. Physicians at the Canadian Medical Association's (CMA) annual general meeting called for a nationwide ban on the practice. "The risk of second-hand smoke is quite clear to everyone in this room," Ottawa doctor Atul Kapur proclaimed. "There are few areas where children are still exposed; however, one of them is vehicles." According to Canada.com, only one unnamed doc was brave enough to oppose the resolution, saying the CMA should strive to educate parents rather than alienating them "by pulling them over on Highway 401." Given the increasing number of jurisdictions enacting legislation to outlaw the practice, such common sense didn't– and doesn't– stand a chance.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Let’s just get it over with, and remove the testicles of each and every male in Canada. Not to worry, your set will be securely held within a special lock box that Canadian “authorities” (overseen by the CMA), will guard and release to their owners when necessary. Which in Canada. is never.
Sigh…
Only in Canada. Soon we will be pulled over if we evidence any kind of self-will that goes against the prescribed correctness of our overactive and overprotective political elites.
I mean, we’ve got rampant drug use, a failing health care system, a desperate need for new schools, fat kids playing video games without parental supervision because mommy and daddy both need to work to pay sky-high taxes but the big idea du jour to protect and nurture our kids is to find those blood-crezed visigoths who dare smoke in the presence of their children!
Yep, that’ll make me sleep better tonight!
This is a slippery slope towards legislating lifestyle. The CMA will start with a controversial subject, as with smoking, to launch a continued campaign.
They will than attack other “risky” lifestyle behavior in order to cut costs for a federally provided health care system.
People who do not agree with the CMA will then be attacked in the media as being shills for “Big Business.” Then the cycle continues in the name of public safety.
Eventually, parents will be held criminally responsible for endangering their kids by “risky behavior,” while ignoring emphasis on education and parental responsibility.
The state will have more control over raising your children than you will.
A few years ago we got year round R.I.D.E. programs.Reduce Impaired Driving Everwhere 7 police cars 8 cops and a mobile Breathalizer.Combined with some of the toughest drinking driving laws in the world.Guess what? it worked.No beefs here.
So let expand on it now they check for seat belts and unsafe cars.Nothing like taking a cab home and getting shit for not wearing your seat belt.To add insult to injury your car wich you wisely left parked at the bar gets vandalized.
So now when they check your ashtray for roaches,if they see a childseat with cig butts,your busted.
Yeah, right. All this “slippery slope” stuff. As a kid, I distinctly remember hating car rides, because my two chimney-smoking parents would turn the car into a blue haze of second-hand smoke that I bet was *oh so good* for my health.
Ban smoking in workplaces, so people like wait-staff don’t have to be subjected to second-hand smoke? Widely accepted. Do the same to protect children and now the commenters above seem to want to suggest that this is a travesty of overprotection.
While we’re at it, if we have issues with child safety laws, perhaps we can make it legal to give your children a beer with their dinner, too? Or how about feeding them *other* poisons and carcinogens, lets start a “right to the lifestyle of poison” petition while we’re at it, hm?
“Legislating lifestyle?”. Rubbish. I mean seriously, does someone believe they should have the *right* to hotbox their children in a car? And if not, then what the hell are you complaining about? This does happen, it’s wrong, obviously the mountains of information out there haven’t helped people learn not to do this, and yet, even though everyone knows it’s wrong, let’s harp on the evil government for creating a further deterrent in the hopes of curbing the behaviour?
I mean jeez, I know smoking is an addiction, but when you start railing on the government for wanting to fine you for poisoning your children, I think it’s time for an intervention!
There’s less intrusive ways of doing this than to waste a policeman’s time ticketing smokers when they could be going after drunk and reckless drivers. A public education campaign can go a long way. But I guess that’ll never happen because public service announcements don’t generate revenue like this ticketing campaign will.
In other counties (Greece) there is no legal drinking age. It is fine to give your kids a beer with a meal.
We do not need to legislate personal responsablility.
Orenwolf,
I agree 100%. As a kid growing up I hate any car ride that lasted more than 5 minutes because my mother and father couldn’t stop smoking in the car.
Long story short, my mom stopped smoking, my dad has lung cancer that was proven to be from smoking and I have sinus problems from the second hand smoke.
I’m all for it.
I’m not usually for limiting people’s rights but there’s so much evidence that smoking kills that it’s assanine to allow it continue. Why do you think tax on tobacco keeps continuing to rise and laws are being passed stating where one can smoke? They’re working on making it as expensive and inconvenient as possible to smoke since prohibition does not work.
Public education campaign? About smoking? Right. Who knew that second hand smoke is actually harmful?
I too had parents that smoked in the car, the house, and every damn where else. Both died of cancer. Call it what it is; child abuse, and ban it.
I don’t see how anyone could oppose this legislation.
orenwolf: “While we’re at it, if we have issues with child safety laws, perhaps we can make it legal to give your children a beer with their dinner, too?” That’s exactly the type of choice I (would) like to see made with personal rational free will, not the velvet jackboot of government bureaucracy.
orian: The strongest available argument against prohibition is its consistent and spectacular failure to control the will of lawful citizens by branding them criminals. The comedy of errors that is the drug war is a clear enough demonstration. Tax keeps rising on tobacco because it is one of few tax hikes that is easy to sell politically, especially when the majority of the constituency doesn’t smoke (which is most places), and because it is a somewhat price-inelastic good, so raising its price has a small impact on total sales and raises large amounts of revenue.
I think everyone agrees the intent of the law is fine. It’s just legislating people behavior rarely works. Educating parents and a little guilt would go a long way, and I don’t mean the half-assed ad campains they keep trying.
If a parent doesn’t care to change at that point there are more deep seated parenting issues than second hand smoke. Bad parents will still be bad parents after they get a ticket!
But at least they’ll be less likely to smoke in cars with their kids.
The point against this kind of legislation is simple: you need to spend money (as in tax dollars) to legislate it, enforce it and prosecute it. Is this a good use of limited tax dollars? Is there a better way to promote child welfare? The police can’t fully enforce speed limits and seat belts let alone smoking in cars!
NoneMoreBlack,
I know at least 7 people personally that have quit smoking due to the increase in taxes. They couldn’t justify it in 5 cases and the other 2 simply couldn’t afford to do it anymore.
That tells me that it does work, at least on a small scale.
And I agree – it is very easy to tax it and make increase revenues.
The point against this kind of legislation is simple: you need to spend money (as in tax dollars) to legislate it, enforce it and prosecute it. Is this a good use of limited tax dollars? Is there a better way to promote child welfare? The police can’t fully enforce speed limits and seat belts let alone smoking in cars!
Well, I consider it better spending of tax dollars compared to more TV campaigns and the like – at least this has the potential to offer revenue to offset the cost.
But here’s the thing – put one OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) officer on the road today, and anyone he drives near will slow down. Without him even ticketing a soul. If a few people get dinged for smoking in cars, then people will worry about smoking the same way they worry about speeding. Some people will still do it, of course, but some will also choose *not* to do it, for fear of being fined.
Now, if they could tie this all together so that being fined for smoking in your car with children also automatically set your status to “smoker” with your insurance compan(y/ies), *and* in the car’s history.. well.. :)
But here’s the thing – put one OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) officer on the road today, and anyone he drives near will slow down. Without him even ticketing a soul. If a few people get dinged for smoking in cars, then people will worry about smoking the same way they worry about speeding. Some people will still do it, of course, but some will also choose *not* to do it, for fear of being fined.
Judging by my last trips down the QEW and 401 where the average speed was between 120-140 km/h, I don’t think the threat of getting caught for speeding was much of a deterrent.
And if smoking in the car is considered both a health hazard and a driving hazard, let’s talk about anything that might distract you from the driving task at hand (cell phones, stereos, chatty passengers, etc).
In fact, this whole notion of personal transportation is quite disturbing. Cars have been proven as incredibly dangerous killing machines. Several thousand of us, not to mention innocent passengers and other drivers are wiped off the map annually. Plus, cars are smelly, dirty and pollute the air. Besides, people have too much freedom to move from place to place and as the number of cars and drivers increase they are a growing menace to our society’s welfare!
My friends… something MUST be done!
First we need to fine all the big car manufacturers for producing such obviously dangerous items. We need to recoup the money as car crash victims put incredible strain on our health care facilities. Next we should ban advertising cars because that might influence people to take up driving. Then we should limit the potency of vehicles to make them as harmless as possible. After that, we should ban cars from the roads and highways as they pose a second-hand emissions hazard to public health (especially those SUV’s and diesels). People who are addicted to driving should only be allowed to do it in proscribed “addict zones” like race tracks. Cars should also have big signs on them that read WARNING: Vehicles can cause untimely death AT ANY MOMENT!
Yes, the world will be much safer for us and our children when cars and drivers are removed from society. Nice, safe government run public transporation will be much better. People can go where the goverment wants, when the government wants them to.
Of course, this is just silly, who would ever believe we would give up our right to make our own choices?
Well, I do think CSJohnston just hit that one out of the ballpark….
Ontario has already made inroads for this legislation. The 2006 Smoke-free Ontario Act prohibited smoking in all public spaces and workplaces, including company vehicles. Since the Act has been passed, the Anti-smoking Nazis have pointed out some amendments to the Act that they think are appropriate. Most notably, extending the smoking ban to all vehicles because they use a public conveyance. As well, apartment buildings because children can conceivably reside in the building concurrently though in different units than a smoker; or can reside in a unit formerly occupied by a smoker. There is even a note that smoking ought to be banned for private homes because it is a “workplace” when people arrive to do work at the premise; and you attend a public place or workplace when you exit the house, and your smoking will be on your clothes.
I view the smoking ban in private vehicles occupied by children to be Step 1 in making everything except an outdoor space 10 km from the nearest person a “smoke free” zone.
Look, yelling “personal responsibility” does no good as long as (a) the majority of people don’t vote; and (b) the minority of people that DO vote, vote for someone who wants to impose their paternalistic notions on you. The answer is to get involved and to elect people who insist on constitutionally limited government pledged to ensure your freedoms, including smoking in a car.
Look, yelling “personal responsibility” does no good as long as (a) the majority of people don’t vote; and (b) the minority of people that DO vote, vote for someone who wants to impose their paternalistic notions on you. The answer is to get involved and to elect people who insist on constitutionally limited government pledged to ensure your freedoms, including smoking in a car.
Hear, hear! Unfortunately, all a pro-gov lefty political opponent has to say these days in Canada is “that sounds like something Hitler… I mean George W. Bush would say!” then the knee-jerk, frightened forest creature known as the urban Canadian voter would shrink back from such a comparison. Next, the CBC would be on it proclaiming such sentiment as flying in the face of “traditional Canadian values” and trot out Jack Layton, Maude Barlow, David Suzuki and Buzz Hargrove to reinforce their position. This would be followed by the mewlings of great Canadian achievements like: “UN Peacekeeping”, “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, “Tommy Douglas”, etc.
Then, the silent majority of Canadians would quietly grumble, hit the chesterfield for Hockey Night in Canada and await the inevitable counterpoint from Don during Coach’s Corner. They would feel good about the state of Canadian Democracy and grab another Canadian from the fridge.
Am I missing anything?