Would you pass the packet round and invite the kids to light up?

[lindisfarne]

If you act to make people safer, you get accused of introducing the nanny state. If you let people make their own decisions, you get accused of neglect.

It is admittedly slightly easier when children are involved - we are naturally risk-averse with our own children and by extension with other people's - this is legitimate nanny territory. But there is more we can do to protect children.

For one thing, we should make it illegal to smoke in cars when children are in the vehicle. On the assumption that you wouldn't pass the packet round and invite the kids to light up, why make them breathe tobacco smoke at all?

You can't inflict this on your colleagues at work any more. Why should we treat our children's health as a lower priority than our employees?
...

Second-hand smoke has been found to be strongly linked to chest infections in children, asthma, ear problems and sudden infant death syndrome, or cot death. (=SIDS)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8079357.stm
=======
Second-Hand Smoking Can Lead to Nicotine Addiction in Children
http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/secondhand-smoking-can-lead-to-nicotine-addiction-in-children.aspx?googleid=248530

[The Traveler]

1. Given effect of nicotine withdrawl on driving performance

The likely result of this is that many children will not survive long enough to be affected by second hand smoke.

What a great idea! Well, not, but it will make certain folk feel righteous and powerful, at least.


Trav

[lindisfarne]

2. Perhaps a parent should either responsibly pull over & get out, or invest in a nicotine patch &

some nicotine gum for those long drives?

(Amazing how some things really aren't "either/or" decisions, after all.)

Or is it worth a child's health to not be inconvenienced? (Hint: raises our health care costs, too, as the child's lungs (and respiratory health) otherwise would have been healthier).

[The Traveler]

5. You are too eager

to sit in judgment over others, and to intrude on their lives. It is a vice more harmful than smoking, friend, and found on both sides of the political aisle.

Is smoking a good thing? Of course not. But there are other behaviors equally or more harmful to those around us ... shall we ban them also? (E.g. my doctor has recently urged me to stop using a cell phone, having become convinced by recent studies that as agents of cancer they are worse than even tobacco. This man is a rampant anti-smoker.) And what about fast foods? And what about the health risks ... on a planetary scale ... to future generations produced by driving at all? Or turning on a light bulb? Or doing anything that demands combustion of fossil fuels?

We debate a marginal topic, while greater issues loom before us and threaten our future generations. I waste my time in responding to you. Partly, because in a narrow view you are correct. Partly, because your narrow correctness ignores the more important fact: Mine is the right to be wrong. You see, the greater issue here is one of personal liberty. Just how deeply into my life am I willing to allow the state to intrude? Clearly, you advocate a fairly deep level of intrusion. I object. Indeed, I insist you back off. Politically, that means if the Democratic Party insists on micromanaging human conduct at this level, I will break with it, I suspect a great many other people will as well.

But, hey, carry on if it makes you feel all gnarly.

Trav

[lindisfarne]

6. The potential cancer risk of using a cell phone only endangers you, unless your

child's head is right next to it.

The issue with a child is they don't have the freedom (sometimes knowledge as well) that an adult has to say: Sorry, I won't allow you to endanger my life.

You the parent are responsible for making good choices. Do you feed your child the equivalent of 3 Big Macs a day? If yes, then you are endangering your child there, too.

Your child is also probably sick to his or her stomach, so you're not only endangering his or her health, you're also causing the child to feel rotten when you're around, puffing away.

Comparing to more massive problems really accomplishes nothing.
Addressing smoking in the car with children present has one of the simplest solutions out there. And not doing it can dramatically improve a child's life.

Defending this sort of thing is ridiculous.

[salvorhardin]

9. Your doctor is a moron about physics then

0) Cell phone radiation is strictly regulated in the U.S. to a maximum Specific Absorption Rate of 1.6 Watts per kilogram. Some of the newer phones have a measured SAR of as low as 0.194 Watts per kilogram.
1) Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation
2) The inverse-square law insures that the effective radiation is so minimal as to be non-consequential
3) Bone and water are quite opaque to microwave radiation, and you have, hopefully, a good thickness of skull and Cerebro-Spinal Fluid between your cell phone and your brain further attenuating the signal to near-nothingness
4) There are no peer reviewed studies showing any causal link between cell phone use and increased risks of cancer
5) There are a couple of decent studies that do show an increased risk for certain extremely rare types of cancer (such as acoustic glioma) but even a doubling of such tiny numbers means that the risks are still minuscule
6) Any concerns about the sheer number of cell phones in use increasing cancer risks is bogus because of 2)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020356-1.html?tag=rb_content;rb_mtx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/03well.html

The risks of breathing in second hand smoke, especially in confined spaces such as cars, are so much greater than the chances of developing cancer from even very high cell phone usage as to make any comparison laughable. That being said, I wouldn't be in favor of addressing this issue through the law. We know from drug and alcohol prohibition that criminalizing drug/alcohol usage doesn't really accomplish anything except to make criminals out of people. Education is the best tool we have here.

[provis99]

3. since marijuana has been shown to reduce the risk of cancer,

would you encourage your kids to smoke pot?
http://marijuanacannabis.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/anti-drug-researcher-says-legalize-marijuana/

there is also not a single scientific study that says second hand smoke causes any of the things you mention. It does not even link to lung cancer. http://www.data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf

on the other hand, it is a good idea not to expose children to the chemical fumes in and around the car itself. Ie. keep children completely away from the cars you are so worried should be cigarette free.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm

[Mythsaje]

4. A few years ago they were talking about banning smoking in cars with kids...

The cops said, "don't bother. We won't enforce it."

I really think minding one's neighbors business has become an all season sport.

[lindisfarne]

7. Not too long ago, we used to think that about child abuse. Exposing children to cigarette smoke IS a

form of abuse. The solution is simple. Not a burden whatsoever.

[Mythsaje]

10. Oh, bullshit.

Fucking friendly fascist bullshit.

[endarkenment]

8. Is there a limit on government intrusion into our lives?

[Mythsaje]

11. No...because there's always some yammering ass who thinks it's a good idea. n/t