Bangor makes it illegal to smoke in cars w/kids present

Off-topic
1

So what do y’all think about this new law? I think is pretty a$$holish to smoke in your car with kids present, as the second-hand smoke is pretty thick, but should this be a law?

link

text:
BANGOR, Maine - The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.

When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.

People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.

“Let’s step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight,” she said.

The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.

An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.

Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is “incontrovertible” that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.

“Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can’t protect themselves,” he said.

But the ordinance also had its critics.

Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There’s already too much government intervention in people’s lives, she said.

Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a “feel-good option” that was not intended to protect children but rather to “moralize” against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.

2

A $50 fine is not significant to deter anyone, and further those that do smoke with children in the car I would guess are more likely to not listen, in the long run, if pulled over. Educating them is probably better done with other methods than to make them angry at the officer and legislators.

3

I’m surprised I haven’t heard about this… and I go to school in Orono, about .5 minutes from Bangor…

If Bangor can pass this, can they make UMaine a smoke free campus? I’d really enjoy that; it’s disgusting how many people smoke on campus.

4

I really don’t understand this war on tobacco.
Isn’t it like burning witches?

I think there are much more serious issues that should be addressed and this hunt on smokers is only busywork and doesn’t actually help anyone in the long run, but makes things worse.

Why is it so disgusting? Do they come and puff in your face?

5

Pretty much. Usually people smoke on the benches… so if you want to sit down, forget about it. Most benches are right next to the sidewalks, and when there’s snow, you have no choice but to walk by. I’m not a big fan of second hand smoke.

6

I think it should be illegal to smoke in your car altogether. Smoking and driving is more dangerous than talking on your cell phone and driving… someone who drops a lit cigarette in their lap is likely to swerve all over the road trying to avoid burning themselves / their car / etc… the dangers to smokers’ children are more than just exposure to second-hand smoke, they’re also exposed to getting in a wreck on account of their parents’ carelessness.

Fixed. Stupidity should be painful, and highly visible. It’d make it easier to avoid the stupid.

7

Every win in the war on tobacco extends the lifespan of smokers… giving families more time to spend together, as opposed to mourning the loss of relatives to cancer. It puts less burden on healthcare providers who must take care of those who suffer from smoking-related illnesses. It lowers the cost of health insurance when providers don’t have to pay out so much for smoking-related illnesses. It beautifies parks, beaches, sidewalks and other places that are constantly littered with cigarette butts and packages. It sweetens the air around restaurants, bars and other public places where people are often found smoking. It protects those in the service industry who have to work around smokers and are often clouded in second-hand smoke. It protects children from having to breathe the second-hand smoke of their parents, relatives and/or caretakers. …and the list goes on.

…so you still think there’s no benefits to the war on tobacco?

8

Well said! I’ll have to remeber this for later.

9

I was on the usual train journey on Monday morning. There was a sign on the window opposite me.

It said that putting your feet on the seats was antisocial and there was a maximum fine of £100 (I quickly took my feet off the seat as there was allegedly cctv in the carriage). The bottom half of the sign was a non smoking sign with a maximum fine of £50. So you could be fined £100 of possibly getting a bit of mud on somebody’s skirt but would only be fined half of that for indulging in a habit that might hasten your own death & other peoples’. Outrageous!

10

if you really want to protect the children, make a law that you cant drive up to a grease pit window, grab a box full of sugars, nitrates and transfats…then give it to the kids and call it lunch!

11

Oh, come on. That’s just the pre-lunch.

12

+1
That’s a real problem!

13

NATIONAL Smoke harms pets
13 December 2005
The Florida Times-Union
Copyright © 2005 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

New York City is getting serious about stopping people from smoking, going so far as to warn pet owners who smoke about the risks for dear old Fido.

In fact, the city even released a health advisory for pets.

“Even cats and dogs whose owners smoke have higher rates of cancer,” the Health Department release said.

The publicity is part of a larger campaign of Mayor Michael Bloomberg for “smoke-free homes.” So far, the mayor has imposed smoking bans in bars, restaurants and in many other public places, the New York Post reported.

But Bloomberg is playing on people’s consciences when it comes to their pets.

And his spin might not be too far from the truth.

The Journal of Epidemiology published a report claiming that dogs in smoking households have a 60 percent greater risk of lung cancer. A Tufts University study found that cats whose owners smoked were three times as likely to develop lymphoma.

In fact, both articles suggest that the pets don’t just inhale the smoke, but when the tobacco particles get trapped in their fur, cats and dogs ingest it when they groom themselves.

Most people will do more for their pets than sometimes their own children. Though it might seem funny to many that Bloomberg would target pets to get people to stop smoking, he might just get a few to consider it.

14

If you really want to protect your children - don’t have any.

15

Thus resulting in less healthcare jobs… and us telling people what they can and can’t do.

Beautifies means it was dirty to begin with. You mean that it doesn’t get as dirty, but the smokers will go elsewhere and then make that area dirty instead.

At the expense of lost business. Let the restaurants choose where the smoking zones are on their own property.

Have to work? I thought slavery was abolished… Do they not have a choice of where they work, what industry they are in, etc.

Legislating against the “effect” does little to correct the “cause”. What it does instead is take away the freedoms of people.

16

The healthcare industry is among (if not the most) the fastest growing industries in the US. People get old and old people need care. This is not a problem.

Right. How dare we tell people where they can and can’t drive a car. With freedom comes responsibility, and when people become irresponsible, “we” have to step in before things get worse.

This is a double-edged sword. Some people may avoid businesses that are too “smoky”. Furthermore, how are restaurants to enforce their smoking zones? They can’t tell people on the street not to smoke in front of their building. A police officer can.

Forgive me for lack of citations / statistics, but IIRC waiting tables is amongst the top paying jobs for unskilled laborers… as is bartending and stripping. All activities that take place in (potentially) smoke-filled environments. Considering how low minimum wage is these days, unskilled people don’t have many choices of occupation should they want to pay rent and bills.

Taking away the freedoms of smokers, or the freedoms of those who wish to breathe clean air?

17

If someone wants to be a slave to a poison filled stick, they can be my guest. But stay the hell away from me when you smoke it.

18

They avoid them and that is their right, just like smokers will avoid businesses that don’t allow them to smoke there. Shouldn’t the business be able to choose which client they want to cater to?

Around here, they ask if you want to sit in the smoking or non-smoking section and that’s where they seat you. It’s quite a novel concept to tailer to the customer, don’t you think?

They could put up no smoking signs outside their doors and enforce their policy by asking people to leave their private property if they are not following their rules. If they refuse to leave, then yes, you should get police assistance. Now on the “street”, the business and the public would have some rights, but the business should be able to choose what the policy in close proximity of their door is. The city should tailor to all people, not just one side.

Good, they are getting paid a premium to work under those conditions. They still have a choice though to choose what’s best for them.

If it’s minimum wage and lack of employment choices, then the government has bigger problems that need more attention than to try to discriminate against people without solving the real problem of why people are smoking to begin with.

To legislate bans instead of allowing a business to tailor to the needs of their business will cause a decline in business, and thus, a decline in salary and/or employment for the very workers you claimed were helped.

Both. Each have their rights and any government policy should be set up to best meet the needs of both sides. You also have the freedom of the business to do what’s best for their business on their private property.

19

The Baby Boomers are getting older and they need health care, the health care industry is not going anywhere

Sorry, but I dont give a damn about the “freedoms” of other people when my health is at stake. Shouldn’t I also be “free” to choose whether i want people blowing in my face.

20

Scottish pubs lose through smokeban, says study
CAMERON SIMPSON
519 words
6 January 2007
The Herald
Final
3
English
© 2007, Newsquest Media Group
THE smoking ban in Scotland has seen a 10-per cent decrease in sales and a 14-per cent fall in customers in public houses, according to a new academic study published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.

Its three authors, who work at University College and the Institute for Fiscal Studies in London, said previous findings on the effect of smoking bans on the hospitality sector had mainly focused on the US.

The report says: “These studies have mostly found no negative economic effects of such legislation on the hospitality sector in the long run. However, differences in the social use of public houses in Great Britain in comparison with the US may lead to different findings.”

The study used “a quasiexperimental research design” that compared the sales and number of customers in public houses in Scotland before and after the smoking ban was introduced with establishments across the borderwhere no ban was imposed.

The authors collected data on 2724 pubs - 1590 in Scotland and 1134 in Northern England.

In conclusion, they say the ban, introduced on March 26 last year, has seen a 10-per cent decrease in sales and a 14-per cent fall in customers in pubs.
"Our study suggests that the Scottish smoking ban had a negative economic impact on public houses . . . due in part to a drop in the number of customers.

“The short-term impact of the ban did not lead to more customers coming into pubs due to the smoke-free atmosphere, and presumably did not lead smokers to spend more money on drink or food instead of smoking.”

The academic study adds weight to the stance taken by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA).

Paul Waterson, SLTA chief executive, said his organisation was now starting to see evidence that the legislation, which prohibits smoking in enclosed public places, was “really bad for the trade, as bad as it can possibly be”.
He said: “The figures from the drinks suppliers are showing growth in drink sales in Scotland’s pubs is running at less than half that in England. Smokers are spending less time in pubs since the ban took effect.”

Mr Waterson said that, before the introduction of the ban, anti-smoking groups had argued that pubs would not lose out, as non-smokers would be keen to enjoy a drink in a smoke-free environment.

"We thought that was nonsense at the time and it is still nonsense, " he said.
However, Andy Kerr, Health Minister, is not for turning, arguing that the ban is “about saving lives” - not business.

“If there are lives saved, families who are together for longer, less people dying with lung cancer, then so be it. This was not about the pub trade, this was about society, public health and big changes we had to make.”

In his Christmas message, First Minister Jack McConnell said March 26, 2006, the day the ban was introduced, “will be remembered as the day Scotland began to lose its ‘sick man of Europe’ tag”.