MDs call for ban on smoking in car with kids
maya @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:25 am
$1:
MDs call for ban on smoking in car with kids
CANADIAN PRESS
The dangers of second-hand smoke are so great there should be a ban on lighting up in cars carrying children, Ontario doctors said today, bringing an immediate outcry from critics who labelled it another attack on personal freedoms.
The Ontario Medical Association said children's exposure to smoke must be curtailed, arguing that their delicate respiratory systems make them especially susceptible to pulmonary disease and cancer.
In a report released this morning, the association said cars were up to 23 times more toxic than smokers' homes and some homes were as bad as bars.
"I don't apologize for being pretty intense," Dr. Ted Boadway, the association's executive director of health policy, said in explaining his plea to crack down on cigarettes.
"It is the No. 1 preventable cause of disease and damage to our population and it is something that (causes) disease and damage doctors see morning, afternoon and all night long, every day."
The proposal immediately raised the ire of some smokers who feared such a policy would tread on individual rights and be impossible to enforce.
"Where is the line?" Gord Smith, a 55-year-old father of three adult children, said as he took a cigarette break in downtown Toronto.
"Is this the start of a whole series of government interventions in our private lives? We as individuals have to take responsibility."
Aside from banning lit cigarettes from day-cares and the family car, the association wants smoking restricted in foster homes and considered as a factor in child custody decisions.
It also wants Ontario's drug benefit plan to cover nicotine replacement therapies and to make parents and caregivers more aware of the dangers second-hand smoke poses to children.
The province, however, has its own plan to combat smoking provincewide.
"I think it's a helpful contribution to the debate, obviously, to be reminding people about the dangers of second-hand smoke, (but) it will not be an element of our upcoming legislation," Health Minister George Smitherman said.
Instead, the forthcoming legislation will impose a "100 per cent ban" on smoking in public and work places, Smitherman said.
"It's the responsibility of parents to act responsibly," he said.
"We depend upon them in many, many ways to do that. The legislation we bring forward will be consistent with our campaign commitment."
The province is expected to reveal its anti-tobacco strategy in the next few weeks.
Several municipalities, including Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa, already have strict smoking bylaws in place.
Boadway said the government is dismissing a ban on smoking in cars because this is the first time it has been proposed and has never been considered by legislators.
"My experience is that today's `no' is tomorrow's legislation," he said.
Boadway said he doesn't think such a law would be difficult to enforce and just having it on the books would influence people's behaviour.
"Once people understand the seriousness of the problem, people respond," said Boadway.
"People will be responsive to that, just as they were responsive to seat-belt protection."
Nancy Daigneault of the smokers' rights group mychoice.ca called the plan a giant intrusion in private lives.
"The vast majority of smokers out there understand the need to protect non-smokers, which includes their children," said Daigneault, whose group is funded by the tobacco industry.
"The best, rational, approach to an issue of this nature is education."
One 40-year-old mother of five children suggested the policy would be an insult to her parenting skills.
"That's a parent responsibility," said Sue Chiblow, whose children range in age from 10 to 22. "It's just like, what do you feed your kids? You have an obese kid, you have diabetes, it's the same thing. Are they going to start banning potato chips?"
Some Ontario childrens' aids societies already restrict smoking in foster homes in Kingston, Ont., and Toronto, the association noted.
New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have all approved anti-smoking laws.
British Columbia and Prince Edward Island allow smoking in specially ventilated rooms in restaurants and bars, as does Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's premier wants smoking rooms eliminated by 2008.
CANADIAN PRESS
The dangers of second-hand smoke are so great there should be a ban on lighting up in cars carrying children, Ontario doctors said today, bringing an immediate outcry from critics who labelled it another attack on personal freedoms.
The Ontario Medical Association said children's exposure to smoke must be curtailed, arguing that their delicate respiratory systems make them especially susceptible to pulmonary disease and cancer.
In a report released this morning, the association said cars were up to 23 times more toxic than smokers' homes and some homes were as bad as bars.
"I don't apologize for being pretty intense," Dr. Ted Boadway, the association's executive director of health policy, said in explaining his plea to crack down on cigarettes.
"It is the No. 1 preventable cause of disease and damage to our population and it is something that (causes) disease and damage doctors see morning, afternoon and all night long, every day."
The proposal immediately raised the ire of some smokers who feared such a policy would tread on individual rights and be impossible to enforce.
"Where is the line?" Gord Smith, a 55-year-old father of three adult children, said as he took a cigarette break in downtown Toronto.
"Is this the start of a whole series of government interventions in our private lives? We as individuals have to take responsibility."
Aside from banning lit cigarettes from day-cares and the family car, the association wants smoking restricted in foster homes and considered as a factor in child custody decisions.
It also wants Ontario's drug benefit plan to cover nicotine replacement therapies and to make parents and caregivers more aware of the dangers second-hand smoke poses to children.
The province, however, has its own plan to combat smoking provincewide.
"I think it's a helpful contribution to the debate, obviously, to be reminding people about the dangers of second-hand smoke, (but) it will not be an element of our upcoming legislation," Health Minister George Smitherman said.
Instead, the forthcoming legislation will impose a "100 per cent ban" on smoking in public and work places, Smitherman said.
"It's the responsibility of parents to act responsibly," he said.
"We depend upon them in many, many ways to do that. The legislation we bring forward will be consistent with our campaign commitment."
The province is expected to reveal its anti-tobacco strategy in the next few weeks.
Several municipalities, including Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa, already have strict smoking bylaws in place.
Boadway said the government is dismissing a ban on smoking in cars because this is the first time it has been proposed and has never been considered by legislators.
"My experience is that today's `no' is tomorrow's legislation," he said.
Boadway said he doesn't think such a law would be difficult to enforce and just having it on the books would influence people's behaviour.
"Once people understand the seriousness of the problem, people respond," said Boadway.
"People will be responsive to that, just as they were responsive to seat-belt protection."
Nancy Daigneault of the smokers' rights group mychoice.ca called the plan a giant intrusion in private lives.
"The vast majority of smokers out there understand the need to protect non-smokers, which includes their children," said Daigneault, whose group is funded by the tobacco industry.
"The best, rational, approach to an issue of this nature is education."
One 40-year-old mother of five children suggested the policy would be an insult to her parenting skills.
"That's a parent responsibility," said Sue Chiblow, whose children range in age from 10 to 22. "It's just like, what do you feed your kids? You have an obese kid, you have diabetes, it's the same thing. Are they going to start banning potato chips?"
Some Ontario childrens' aids societies already restrict smoking in foster homes in Kingston, Ont., and Toronto, the association noted.
New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have all approved anti-smoking laws.
British Columbia and Prince Edward Island allow smoking in specially ventilated rooms in restaurants and bars, as does Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's premier wants smoking rooms eliminated by 2008.
Narissa @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:11 am
I'm not the least bit surprised, I don't think anyone else really would be either. Once there is a successful ban on smoking in all public [and private] places, they will likely move on to other irritants like perfume, a total ban on peanut butter shouldn't be too far behind - after all it's proven to be fatal to some. There's always something to bitch about, right!
Ralph @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:15 am
ANYTHING FOR THE CHILDREN!
Now there is something I will get behind.
Stop smoking in cars
stop drinking in cars
stop cell phones in cars
Just a few more we could od without
Rev_Blair @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:23 am
This is going entirely too far and completely ignores the fact that people my age grew up in a blue haze of tobacco smoke without all of the ill-effects that today's kids suffer. Why not have a look at air pollution in general, especially the off-gassing of toxins from virtually every man-made fabric and building material?
They choose to demonise one very small part of the problem and ignore the rest. Sorry, that's not acceptable. Want to ban smoking around children in privately owned property? Then that property should be certified absolutely toxin free. No plywood or OSB, no laminates, no plastics, only biologically-based cleaners...then we can worry about second-hand smoke.
Narissa @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:38 am
$1:
They choose to demonise one very small part of the problem and ignore the rest. Sorry, that's not acceptable. Want to ban smoking around children in privately owned property? Then that property should be certified absolutely toxin free. No plywood or OSB, no laminates, no plastics, only biologically-based cleaners...then we can worry about second-hand smoke.
Very well put, I mean the chemicals I use to clean my home have far more toxic fumes than cigarette smoke does, I'm sure.
Now I DO agree that we should shelter our children from smoke - but that's a decision for a parent to make.
Drugs, alcohol and cellphones impair a drivers ability to operate a vehicle - Smoking does not. If we begin losing these rights to make the right choice on our own we will slowly find ourselves losing the right to make any decisions on our own - I'm telling you they will keep coming up with more and more things to eliminate.
maya @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:51 am
$1:
This is going entirely too far and completely ignores the fact that people my age grew up in a blue haze of tobacco smoke without all of the ill-effects that today's kids suffer. Why not have a look at air pollution in general, especially the off-gassing of toxins from virtually every man-made fabric and building material?
NO kidding... Let's ban smoking in PRIVATE areas and take the kids out for a walk down the street and they can be bombarded by the emissions from exhaust pipes within mere feet ( and sometimes only inches)of their faces.
Anyone ever had to sit in traffic with a diesel powered truck belching its choking exhaust directly into your car...
I do keep my windows open for air to continuously circulate because I do smoke...
But I think its a lot less harmful than some of the crap out there..
I grew up with the blue haze of tobacco too... and I do know that we didn't suffer the asthma, allergies, and other issues our kids face today.
hmmm, and btw -
$1:
Drugs, alcohol and cellphones impair a drivers ability to operate a vehicle - Smoking does not.
Smoking does so in way- I know don't flick mine out the window...they are put in the ashtray...and most people I know look away from the road momentarily to put their smokes out.
But in argument of that.. they should ban radios from cars too, because people also look away to change the station or cd or whatever your listening to...
Just my opinion. but they have to be careful when they start stuff like think because this is something that could go on and get so petty that nothing will get done...
U know what I am for... a cell phone diabler for vehicles...THAT is what they should have....
Ralph @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:41 am
Ya your right lets not use any safety measures around children
So what if they get into the cleaning fluids it never hurt the REV
Why take precautions with the little ankle biters health at all use led paint
hell make led pacifiers and get it over with.
Lets continue to pollute these little money suckers
Christ why not let them drive the car and sit back and have a good smoke and a beer while your at it, make a few cell phone calls as well.
Take down those fences around pools they are annoying.
Child proof caps screw that, ever try to open one of those things when your drunk and sitting in the passengers seat of a car while you have the cell phone tucked under your shoulder?
damed near imposable I tell ya.
maya @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:57 am
Ralph Ralph:
Ya your right lets not use any safety measures around children
So what if they get into the cleaning fluids it never hurt the REV
Why take precautions with the little ankle biters health at all use led paint
hell make led pacifiers and get it over with.
Lets continue to pollute these little money suckers
Christ why not let them drive the car and sit back and have a good smoke and a beer while your at it, make a few cell phone calls as well.
Take down those fences around pools they are annoying.
Child proof caps screw that, ever try to open one of those things when your drunk and sitting in the passengers seat of a car while you have the cell phone tucked under your shoulder?
damed near imposable I tell ya.
So what if they get into the cleaning fluids it never hurt the REV
Why take precautions with the little ankle biters health at all use led paint
hell make led pacifiers and get it over with.
Lets continue to pollute these little money suckers
Christ why not let them drive the car and sit back and have a good smoke and a beer while your at it, make a few cell phone calls as well.
Take down those fences around pools they are annoying.
Child proof caps screw that, ever try to open one of those things when your drunk and sitting in the passengers seat of a car while you have the cell phone tucked under your shoulder?
damed near imposable I tell ya.
rofl..
don't get me wrong... I love my kids, but come on. When you become a parent it is your responsibility to raise and protect them, and teach them right from wrong...
How far is too far with laws... ? This is more police state and control than anything else, because for whatever reason some parents today can't seem to figure this out.
example - I raised all 3 boys with walkers ( anyone remember those, I thought they were terrific) and used simple common sense to do so with not ONE incident...( like if there is stairs around block them off, duh!)...and they have been banned not too long ago... why because there have been too many accidents with them ( kids falling down the stairs and things)... and inadvertantly what this law has done is condon stupid parenting...
And seriously... I think there are far more important issues than this... I just don't think they have the people in place to achieve the right answers...
Ralph @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:15 pm
I know I remember Jolly jumpers that had nothing but a C clamp that gave way at the most unfortunate times. BB guns. Sling shots lawn darts.
I grew up using a old mattress in the back of my old mans station wagon.
On the country road he use to let us sit on the roof and drive .
He let me drive the car sitting on his lap at 5 years old.
We did a lot of stuff that I really don't know how we survived.
Was it fun... HELL YA! and dangerous.
But when it comes to locking children up in a space where a fart from the old man can almost kill you
and you light up a cigarette I don't think you can argue that that is bad for the childs health.
Have you ever been a car when someone lights up a cigar or pipe.
If it is dangerous enough to ban in a restaurant than it follows that is is dangerous enough to ban around children in a car.
Rev_Blair @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:32 pm
Is it dangerous enough to ban in restaurants though?
The point is that it is only a small part of what is causing the health problems. We live in a chemical soup, but nobody want to address that because it might cost some big political contributers some money.
That kid isn't a whole better off breathing the air without smoke in the car because the carpet, the seats, the dash, and every other material are leaching toxins into the air. When the kid gets home, everything in the house is also emitting poisons. Same at school, same at the mall. Hell, the kids new synthetic clothes are giving off minute amounts of poison all of the time. If they go out to play on the lawn, chances are that it's been treated with chemicals.
Since we know that when smoking was much more prevalent kids did not have as many health problems, shouldn't we be addressing the plethora of other causes at least as seriously as we address one contributing factor?
Ralph @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:44 pm
But it is at the very least a start.
A world with cars van that be too far behind?
Twila @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:17 pm
$1:
I raised all 3 boys with walkers ( anyone remember those, I thought they were terrific) and used simple common sense to do so with not ONE incident...( like if there is stairs around block them off, duh!)...and they have been banned not too long ago... why because there have been too many accidents with them ( kids falling down the stairs and things)... and inadvertantly what this law has done is condon stupid parenting...
AMEN!!!!!
My daughter LOVED her walker. I LOVED her walker too. She could follow me around while I did house chores.
We have far too many STUPID parents out there already. Lets not breed more!
I don't smoke in my car while my daughter is in it. I don't need a law for that. I don't smoke in my house either. Because my daughter and my pets don't smoke.
I think we need to bring back Nature's law. We need something to thin out the stupid people. Yeah I know that's harsh. But honestly, do we need more stupid people? Don't you think we have enough?
Rev_Blair @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:28 pm
$1:
But it is at the very least a start.
A world with cars van that be too far behind?
A world with cars van that be too far behind?
It isn't a start though, it's a diversion. We'll fight over this for a few years and nothing else will get properly studied or addressed. Hey, mothers in the high arctic have PCBs in their breast milk, but that's okay because the levels aren't any higher than in the industrialised south. The wells in the mid-western US had arsenic levels that were above acceptable limits, so they raised the acceptable limits.
Let's keep people from smoking in their own cars and homes though...that's much more important because individuals don't have rights, only corporations do.
Twila @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:33 pm
$1:
Hey, mothers in the high arctic have PCBs in their breast milk
Mothers here in BC and in Washington had PBDE's in their breast milk (otherwise known as flame retardant)
Chinook (spring) salmon had PBDE"S also.
Rev_Blair @ Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:05 pm
Those have shown up in the north too, Twila. The thing is that they don't have a local source of them anywhere close to large enough to account for the levels they are seeing.
We'll ban smoking up there (and down here) long before we do anything about chemical contaminants though.