By on August 15, 2007

ban-smoke-car.jpgThe New York Sun reports that Queens City Council member and the head of their environmental protection committee (who knew?) is about to introduce legislation to ban smoking in cars carrying minors. If James "James" Genaro gets his way, Queen's finest will soon be fining child-schlepping smokestacks between $200 to $400 for their first such offense, $500 to $1k for the second violation and between $1k and $2k for a third violation (provided all tickets are issued within a year of each other, and I have no idea why there's a range of fines). The move comes on the heels of a citywide ban on smoking in restaurants and clubs and similar vehicular anti-puffing legislation enacted in Rockland County. As for the right to privacy objection, Genaro was taciturn: "You can't subject kids to 43 carcinogens and 250 poisonous chemicals and claim privacy. Get over it. Their right to privacy doesn't extend so far as to poisoning kids."

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

15 Comments on “Queens to Ban Smoking in Cars...”


  • avatar
    quasimondo

    If he was really worried about the kids he would fix their broken public school system. A subpar education that leaves them unprepared for tomorrow’s world will do more damage to more kids than those 43 carcinogens and 250 chemicals kids may be exposed to.

  • avatar
    Megan Benoit

    What’s next? Police raids on homes to make sure no smoking is going on around minors? Banning the resale of ‘smoker’ cars? Where does it end?

  • avatar
    N85523

    Indeed, where does it end. The more of this we sit back and accept, the bigger the shock is going to be when we look around one day and say, “Where did it all go?”

  • avatar
    Idaho_Spud

    I was pulled up at the 3-lane ATM recently, pulling out a large amount of cash to refill my fuel tanks. A jackass pulled up next to me with his stereo going so loud that it was completely overriding any noise my my diesel truck made.

    His stereo was vibrating my entire vehicle and thumping in my chest. I looked over, to see a child strapped into the rear seat. I think we can make a case for child abuse. An adult in custody of a child does not have the right to permanently damage their hearing (or lungs).

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    Once again, individuals who produce nothing, dictating to those who actually make the country work.

  • avatar
    dean

    My mom smoked in the car and in the house with my sister and I around. We’re fine.

    I’d like to write more, but I’m already late for my appointment with the lung cancer specialist.

    Kidding aside, I think shame is a far better deterrent than more laws. You should see the looks people get when they smoke in the car with their children. If they don’t get it now, they never will.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    I find it ironic that those who support legislation like this also vehemently appose legislation aimed at taking unlicensed, uninsured drivers off the road or listening to overseas cell phone conversations.

  • avatar

    “Their right to privacy doesn’t extend so far as to poisoning kids.”

    This is exactly the sort of thing we should not pay the government to decide. I don’t smoke and I don’t think other people should smoke, but I think they can make that decision for themselves.

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    I have to say this is a tough one for me. People should have the freedom to do as they choose even if that means killing themselves slowly, who am I to decide other peoples fates. But the kid can’t choose they are just forced to suck up the smoke and deal with the health issues later, not just cancer.

    I agree with Dean above fining people isn’t going to make them change, teaching people to be responsible parents might. Why is educating people rather then legislating them such a hard thing to do in this country.

  • avatar
    TomAnderson

    “Why is educating people rather then legislating them such a hard thing to do in this country?”

    Because such token gestures by lawmakers are usually enough to get them reelected/elected to higher office, and that’s all they (99.999% of politicians) really care about.

  • avatar
    hal

    I have heard ghastly stories of parents who allow their kids to watch TV, eat hamburgers and drink soda.
    Social workers should be posted at every McDonalds so they can arrest abusive parents who attempt to give their kids coronary heart disease.

  • avatar
    kansei

    I want to stab any person who smokes in a car that I’m stuck behind on the highway or in traffic. I ride with all the windows open all the time (unless it’s raining) and it makes me feel quite ill to drive behind someone who is smoking (almost as bad as driving behind all the idiot new yorkers (I’m @ school in NY, don’t live here permanently) who think it’s _ok_ to drive without cats.

  • avatar
    rpn453

    Let parents make their own decisions about their childrens’ welfare.

    kansei, are you saying you can actually see the smog forming in front of you, or are you actually talking about engines that aren’t running well?

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    I would have no problem with this law. In fact, I would have no problem with approaching a fellow who is blasting loud music in his car with a kid in tow.

    Then again, I’m not the world’s nicest man.

  • avatar
    ldbricker

    Since they are obviously too selfish to do what’s right for the children they must be mandated to do so. It’s too bad they can’t put birth control into cigarettes so smokers couldn’t reproduce. There is a definite difference between rights and privileges. Not being allowed to be STUPID in the presence of minors has nothing to do with one’s rights although some will argue that stupidity is a right.


    “Their right to privacy doesn’t extend so far as to poisoning kids.”

    This is exactly the sort of thing we should not pay the government to decide. I don’t smoke and I don’t think other people should smoke, but I think they can make that decision for themselves.” ”

    The problem with that thinking is they aren’t deciding for themselves, they are deciding for the child(ren) who can’t decide and must suffer with it.

    Idiots who smoke around others and think it’s ok if the room is divided with a smoking section should have to sit in a bathtub of water in the no pissing zone while several others piss in the pissing zone at the other side of the tub. There’s no difference with the flow of air and the flow of liquid in the tub. Only idiots think there is and that it’s ok to have a “smoking section” when there’s nothing but a few feet of space between the two.

    Children should NEVER have to be subjected to smokers but that will never happen. This is one step in the right direction. Period.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
  • theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
  • A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
  • Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
  • Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber