Peter_24601

June 15, 2008

Next: Current Survey (June ’08 Edition)

Ontario passes more anti-smoking laws

Wow, I really didn’t think the any government (provincal or federal) had a minerals to give this one a try. It was attemped once by a Liberal backbencher early but was defeated soundly. Not only is this law back, it’s been passed through by three provinces (Ontario now the most recent and the biggest) to ban smoking in any car that has any children under the age of 16.

What this means is if you’re driving with the kids, don’t light up unless you want get a ticket and a hefty fine if caught. How helfty you ask? How does $250 bucks sound? And that’s per kid present in the vehicle in the car when caught! So if you only have one kid in the car, that’s a $250 ticket… but if you’re driving a van for example that has six kids and you get busted, that’s a $1600 ticket! From what I’m hearing as well, there is talk that you could lose a point on your driving record as well if you get caught.

I’m sure there is going to be some opposition to this bill, but I think it’s quite brave on the part of those putting forth the bill. This is to protect children who can’t stop second hand smoke that is damaging their health, and I applaud anyone who tries to make their lives that much better by stopping how much of that crap they have to inhale… especially in a confined space like a car.

So what do you think? Concerned citizens or abuse of power?

Peter

Ontario passes ban on smoking in cars with kids under 16

TORONTO – Ontario became the latest province to ban adults from smoking in cars where children are present Monday after a government-backed bill passed in the legislature with support from all parties.

The province already bans smoking in workplaces and public areas, such as bars and restaurants. The new ban will also protect kids under the age of 16 who are being exposed to dangerous levels of second-hand smoke, said Health Promotion Minister Margarett Best.

“This is about protection of our most vulnerable citizens – children who do not have a voice,” Best told the legislature.

Premier Dalton McGuinty once dismissed a province-wide ban as a slippery slope that infringed too much on people’s rights, but changed his tune in March and threw his government’s support behind the private members’ bill.

Offenders will also face much lighter fines than originally envisioned by Liberal backbencher David Orazietti, who championed the ban. Drivers and passengers who don’t butt out in vehicles carrying children won’t be fined more than $250 for each offence, rather than being penalized up to $1,000.

Nova Scotia and British Columbia have already outlawed the practice, which critics liken to child abuse. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are also considering a similar ban.

Police will be expected to enforce the law once it takes effect, but the province is counting on most people abiding by the law, said Best.

Ontario Provincial Police have said the ban won’t make their job more onerous, as they are already inspecting for seatbelts and child car seats.

The province says kids are exposed to up to 27 times the toxins when they’re in enclosed spaces like a car, which can worsen asthma and lead to other respiratory illnesses.

Mychoice.ca, a smokers’ rights group financed in part by the tobacco industry, has raised concerns that the ban will eventually extend to private homes, but McGuinty said that’s not under consideration.

Taken from MSN.ca

Knuckle Sammich

June 16, 2008

Ha, did you read about the cigarette tax hike in NY? Between 6 and 10bucks for a pack there now. Here in california, they’re thinking up a bill/law, whatever to ban smoking in apartments.

williamthebloody

Abuse of power. And I’m not just saying that because I smoke (then again, I don’t drive so that evens things out). It’s ridiculous and it’s going to prove to be nigh on impossible to actually enforce.

Tak

Abuse of power. Not that people should smoke around kids. The government just shouldn’t be that personal.

Fabulous Jarred

I’m not sure the two are mutually exclusive. On the one hand, I’m all for protecting the health and welfare of children. But on the other hand, I’m a bit nervous when I wonder who might end up defining what qualifies as “protecting the health and welfare of children.”

gold dust woman

I’m going to go with abuse of power. When I was a child, people smoked in the car with me and I HATED it. I don’t smoke around kids, period. But I think laws like these are a waste of time and resources.

allmah

Yes. Finally!

ryn: That makes sense, but I still disagree with the law. For the same reason Mychoice.ca mentioned at the end of the article. And just because it’s not under consideration now doesn’t mean it won’t be.

thesunnyabyss

I’ve been saying for years that it’s just a matter of time before they just outlaw smoking altogether, as an somewhat recent ex smoker, (1 year, 1 month today in fact) and a parent, I think it really is better for the kids for it not to happen, unfortunately when I smoked I smoked wherever I could, I felt entitled, interesting entry

ileana

June 17, 2008

So what’s next? OVERWEIGHT parents that eat too much around their kids and teach them the same obsessive eating patterns? Or maybe UNEMPLOYED Fathers that refuse to work?

popeyechicken

Good law. People can do what they want to their own lungs but no one should be subjected to this toxic filth aganist their will.

I leana: Food is not inherently toxic. Not working is not inherently toxic. A Big Mac has some nutritional value, even if you shouldnt eat one every day. Even most bad foods have good aspects about them, which means theyre not a big deal in small doses. Smoking can kill you AND has no redeeming value to it in any dose. Thats the difference.

Brain_Tomahawk

Ah yes I remember this bill. Good, I’m glad.

Mrs. Tiny Duckie

A car is personally property. At what point do we draw the line? The government tries to regulate what we eat, what we drink, what we smoke, where we smoke, where we drink, what days we can drink on, etc. I’m sure some people won’t be happy until the government has our entire life planned out for us from the moment we’re conceived. I’m sick of the save the children crap…

I know plenty of people who had parents that smoked and they turned out just fine – and most of them aren’t smokers. Save the children. Right. It’s more like “let me push my own beliefs and my own sense of what is right and wrong down your throat. If I say it’s for the children, you can’t disagree unless you hate children and think they should all die.”

Tiny: I see the point you’re making but the government has been passing countless laws and regulations concerning cars for ages such as how fast you can drive, don’t drink, wear your seatbelt, etc. This is just one more in a long, long list… to possibly prevent some kids from developing asthma or worse from something they can’t control in a closed environment. I think it’s worth making the step for but that’s just me but I do see your point.

June 18, 2008

RYN: I agree that children shouldn’t be forced to be around second hand smoke, but what is the next step? People who smoke aren’t allowed to have children? They have to register as smokers and can’t live within 500 feet of a school, bus stop, church or other place children gather? I think a better step would have been to, first, offer some incentive to people who will do it willingly.

lady dmaj

June 29, 2008

I can see both point of view, honestly. At what point do you draw the line at government regulation? For me, I think govt’s should be hands-off on smokers that are on their own property and are not smoking in a manner forcing others to breathe the fumes they are giving off. But I’m totally with “No smoking in public places”, and on the car law. If they start regulating households, though….