N.S. bylaw will ban smoking in cars with kids

[Praxius]

MMMooooo Hooo HAW HAW HAW.... and you thought your smoking laws were cracked:

N.S. bylaw will ban smoking in cars with kids

Wolfville, N.S., is known for being quiet and picturesque, but soon it might also be known for having one of the toughest anti-smoking bylaws in North America. The small town is set to become the first municipality in Canada to ban smoking in vehicles when a child is present. Town councillors will vote on the proposed bylaw on Monday. "The support from the town, I would suggest, is extremely strong," Mayor Bob Stead told CBC Newsworld on Sunday. "We were the first municipal unit in the province to go smoke-free in indoor public places, so this is essentially a follow-up to what we did several years ago on that issue." Stead said there was widespread support for the ban at a public meeting held Nov. 5. Critics have argued that a bylaw further restricting what people can do in their own vehicles is intrusive, but Stead said council thinks it's "very important" to provide an environment in which children under 18 can be protected and safe from health risks. He said education, not enforcement, will be the primary focus of the proposed bylaw. It won't be enforced until it takes effect next June. In the meantime, the town will try to educate people on the dangers of second-hand smoke in vehicles. Wolfville has a population of about 3,600. Stead said if people really want to light up while transporting children, there's nothing to stop them from leaving town. "They can probably do that by driving a couple of kilometres."

I've been saying I live in one of the toughest proviences in Canada when it comes to smoking by-laws.... now I guess we're up a pedistal now with this law coming into play.

Whether or nother other towns/cities in the Provience attempt this, remains to be seen.

So do you agree with this law? It's only when there is a minor in the vehicle when you are driving, as they can not fine you if you smoke in the car with anybody over the age of 18.

Some may think this is infringing on privacy and property, etc... but remember, a vehicle is not a dwelling, AKA your house..... so the same privacy laws do not apply.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, yet another blatant infringement on individual rights in the name of "protecting people from themselves".

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Osborn Well, yet another blatant infringement on individual rights in the name of "protecting people from themselves".

To be fair, the rationale seems to be protecting children from their parents, rather than the parents from themselves. Since kids can't make an informed decision regarding the dangers of second hand smoke, I don't think this law is anywhere near as bad as the public smoking bans, tobacco tax hikes etc.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kids are the responsibility of parents.

When I can sue the government for failing to protect my kids, let me know, I may change my mind.

This is an attempt to shift "responsibility" from the individual, to the government.

While I have no issue with people wanting to protect kids from unnecessary pollution, I don't view this as "the role of government" to come between a parent and child.

A parent has every right to raise a child as they see fit, and if the child doesn't like the way they are being raised, they can act on that both legally and personally through communication with their parents.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Osborn Kids are the responsibility of parents.

But should kids be entirely at the mercy of their parents? If their parents decide to starve them or torture them, is it still no one else's business?

[Osborn F Enready]

Bacon said: But should kids be entirely at the mercy of their parents?

No, of course not. They have rights, but those rights are limited.

If smoking caused direct harm, and the evidence to show 2nd hand smoke was the cause of immediate harm I might view this differently.

As it is today, I have yet to see solid, controlled testing evidence of the majority of the claims about 2nd hand smoke.

Bacon said: If their parents decide to starve them or torture them, is it still no one else's business?

Obviously I don't think so, and have voiced that many times.

Adults have rights, children have rights, but less rights than an adult.

Torture and starvation cause immediate and obvious results of damage. Second hand smoke CANNOT say the same unless in unrealistic quantity.

Now, I may support a law that says parents who smoke are required to provide fresh air to their kids while they perform their act of smoking in the vehicle, and that could easily be facillitated by the market of ideas and products that currently exist (for cold weather) and in warm weather, simply rolling down the window would suffice.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Kids are the responsibility of parents. When I can sue the government for failing to protect my kids, let me know, I may change my mind. This is an attempt to shift "responsibility" from the individual, to the government. While I have no issue with people wanting to protect kids from unnecessary pollution, I don't view this as "the role of government" to come between a parent and child. A parent has every right to raise a child as they see fit, and if the child doesn't like the way they are being raised, they can act on that both legally and personally through communication with their parents.

As mentioned in the article, the majority in the town seem to approve this by-law, therefore they are deciding the level of "Oppressed Rights" imposed on them.

If the majority didn't approve of this, I imagine there would have been some notable protests at town hall, and many representatives would have probably have voted it down.

This didn't happen, therefore it passed.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: As mentioned in the article, the majority in the town seem to approve this by-law, therefore they are deciding the level of "Oppressed Rights" imposed on them.

I would love to see you show that logically explained.

Are the kids voting? (the oppressed)

Prax said: If the majority didn't approve of this, I imagine there would have been some notable protests at town hall, and many representatives would have probably have voted it down.

No majority or minority has the right to remove the rights of others.

I doubt parents would be inclined to argue for a right to pollute their kids, but that doesn't mean "passing a law" is the right method of address for the problem, does it?

[Praxius]

Stupid ass Explorer crashed when I had this post done... ffs:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would love to see you show that logically explained. Are the kids voting? (the oppressed)

The oppressed in my view would be those complaining about not being able to smoke in their cars with their kids.... while the kids would be the ones this law will help "Protect" from.

No majority or minority has the right to remove the rights of others.

Then how would you describe the actions being taken by your current government attempting to redefine what "Privacy" is? This to me directly relates to personal rights, as this is an attempt to modify what they claim is privacy, so they can cover their asses from infringing on current rights you all have.

This here is a restriction on an action, which I don't personally believe infringes on anybody's known rights, as they are still able to smoke, but just limited.

I doubt parents would be inclined to argue for a right to pollute their kids, but that doesn't mean "passing a law" is the right method of address for the problem, does it?

Not nessicarily, but until a better solution comes along, this will do for the majority it would seem.

And besides, just because this by-law is passed, doesn't mean it is written in stone and can not be fought later down the road, or even a better idea comes along.

But also, I can't remember if these details were in the above, but the by-law will not come into effect until June, and until then it will all just be education and warnings. When June comes around, first time offenders get a written warning, and after that they face a $50 fine..... which to me is pretty light, considdering you can get a $337.50 minimum fine for littering here.

The problem I see with your idea of allowing windows to be open, is that it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, as who determines how many windows to be open? How far should the windows be open? Was a window open when they were pulled over while smoking? To me it just makes general sense to leave it as this.... if a kids in there, expect issues.... if not, no worries.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Osborn If smoking caused direct harm, and the evidence to show 2nd hand smoke was the cause of immediate harm I might view this differently. As it is today, I have yet to see solid, controlled testing evidence of the majority of the claims about 2nd hand smoke.

To be honest I'm not entirely convinced of the dangers of second hand smoke myself. I was defending the ideology behind the law; rather than the evidence itself.

[Osborn F Enready]

I can understand wanting to protect children from undue health problems.
That only makes sense.

I think however it is rarely a law that provides "good habits", and it seems that is what "people" that are behind it want to happen.

I would think they could get more out of classes on parental responsibility, and individual responsibility.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I can understand wanting to protect children from undue health problems. That only makes sense. I think however it is rarely a law that provides "good habits", and it seems that is what "people" that are behind it want to happen. I would think they could get more out of classes on parental responsibility, and individual responsibility.

If the parents choose to ignore their responsibility then there should be some protection for the child.

I think the age should be lowered, perhaps under 14. Children that young can't avoid being in the car with a parent as much.

This is different than inside a public building, as you can choose not to go inside, yet a 6 month old can't decide not to sit in the car with mom while she chain smokes.

[Suburbanite]

The problem is that we live in a fear culture. This is going too far. I keep getting stopped by people retard laws. The other night, I went out for a few beers after a movie. I got two beers into it, and it was 2am and we were kicked out. So, naturally, I wanted more beer. I went to a gas station to buy some, and the guy says he can't sell it to me after 2am! What is it about 3am that makes drunk people more dangerous than drunks at 1am?

[another day]

I'd usually side with osborn on this one but I'm on the fence... Still not sure. Like others have stated, I haven't been brainwashed like most people into believing the possible myth that second hand smoke is dangerous in any meaningful way. But what prax mentioned about child torture/starvation applies if it is. The rights of a child are limited yes, as far as voting, property ownership etc, but they shouldn't be when it comes to hurt being inflicted intentionally upon them.

Parents should have more damn sense of course. I can't believe any person would smoke in a car with the windows up, even by themselves. Even with a non-smoker. But a child? Come on.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Praxius ...first time offenders get a written warning, and after that they face a $50 fine...

And what will government do with that money? Put it in some kind of medical fund for the kid? Doubt it. It's just an easy way to juice money out of people. Since you'd be in a car during that incident, it goes on your driving record. No doubt, that will increase your insurance in some way.

[Osborn F Enready]

That is a big part of my point Compugasm, and I appreciate you pointing that out.

This law will only do more to injure peoples ability to earn, to live unfettered, and won't result in more protection of children, but probably WILL result in more arrests of parents leaving children in the lurch with one or no parent to support them.

(at least, that is my opinion.)

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That is a big part of my point Compugasm, and I appreciate you pointing that out. This law will only do more to injure peoples ability to earn, to live unfettered, and won't result in more protection of children, but probably WILL result in more arrests of parents leaving children in the lurch with one or no parent to support them. (at least, that is my opinion.)

I don't see how holding off smoking for 5 - 10 mins in your car until you got to your destination is going to screw with people's lives.

As to give you guys a big picture of what the area of Wolfville is like.... basically you can drive right through and past the whole town through the main st. in about 5 mins.... so it's not like people are going to be locked in their cars without being able to smoke for hours on end....

How many of us as kids grew up sitting in the back seat with our parents unloading smoke through the car and when you asked if you could wind down the window you were told "If you don't like it, you can get out and walk?"

Just me huh? *shrugs*

Update:

Cancer agency applauds move by N.S. town bylaw surrounding smoking in cars

A bid by a small Nova Scotia town to ban smoking in vehicles carrying children is being applauded by the Canadian Cancer Society, which dismissed criticism that the law is too intrusive by citing the evolution of anti-smoking laws across the country. The town council of Wolfville, about a hour's drive north of Halifax, was to make history Monday as all seven councillors said they would lend their support to the bylaw - the first of its kind in Canada. Meg McCallum, a spokeswoman for the cancer agency, said the bylaw is part of a societal shift that began years ago when similar bans were placed on airplanes followed by workplaces, restaurants and bars across much of Canada...... ......Wolfville Mayor Bob Stead has insisted the law is not about "hunting for people who are violating the bylaw," but raising awareness. "For the most part, it's a matter of bringing to people's attention the health risks that are associated with smoking in cars, particularly for children," he said in a recent interview. The town plans to launch an educational campaign this week to warn residents about the new bylaw and draw attention to the harm caused by second-hand smoke in vehicles. But the bylaw will not be just a token for the anti-smoking movement, the mayor said. First-time offenders can expect an warning, but a subsequent offence will result in a fine of about $50. "If we come across it, we will react appropriately," he said, adding that the RCMP will help enforce the bylaw.....

Which means don't smoke with your kids in the car or expect to get tasered

......On the other side of the debate, McCallum acknowledged the law could prompt concerns about the infringement of civil liberties - as did seatbelt legislation many years ago. "(People asked) 'Isn't this a violation of my right? Shouldn't I be able to do what I want in my own vehicle?'," she said. "Yet that legislation is now long-standing, and there are very few individuals who would question putting on a seatbelt in a car." As of late last week, the town had received nine letters and e-mails in support of the new bylaw and four opposed - two from Ontario and two from Nova Scotia, each one arguing that the bylaw would be too intrusive....... .....Lucas Wide, a spokesman for Nova Scotia's Health Promotion Department, said town council in Wolfville has the right to enact the bylaw, but the province has no plans to do the same. "We're going to monitor the situation and see how it develops," he said "We're certainly not even at that point yet where we're looking or have begun discussions with the Department of Justice ... as to how it could potentially work." Laws banning smoking in vehicles with children are already in place in parts of the United States and Australia, according to the Canadian Cancer Society.

So Wolfville wasn't the first to come up with this plan, just the first in Canada.

....The concentration of second-hand smoke, which has been linked to asthma, sudden infant death syndrome and cancers, is higher in a vehicle than in a larger space such as a bar or restaurant, the cancer agency says. And forget about rolling down a window for ventilation. "It just pushes more of the smoke back into the backseat," said McCallum. "(Children's) respiratory systems are less developed and their respiratory rates are higher, so they're breathing quicker and taking in more of the toxins."

Um.... they're wrong in that aspect.... you wind the window down and it get's sucked out the crack, hince Heat rises, and if the air is colder, it goes out that way.... hell you can even see it.

And besides, rolling the window down for fresh air is still better then keeping it all locked in, geez.

As it goes for where the money in fines go, last I heard it goes towards programs in relation to helping others quit smoking, I'm not completely sure, as I haven't checked recently.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: I don't see how holding off smoking for 5 - 10 mins in your car until you got to your destination is going to screw with people's lives.

Its not WHAT is being ordered, its the fact that its BEING ORDERED by threat of force.

What in this case warrants the use of force?

Prax said: As to give you guys a big picture of what the area of Wolfville is like.... basically you can drive right through and past the whole town through the main st. in about 5 mins.... so it's not like people are going to be locked in their cars without being able to smoke for hours on end....

All well and good..... doesn't change the fact that it is abuse of force to intervene into peoples private lives.

Prax said: How many of us as kids grew up sitting in the back seat with our parents unloading smoke through the car and when you asked if you could wind down the window you were told "If you don't like it, you can get out and walk?"

Me. I know the situation well. I am not saying kids don't have rights they can act on to remedy this in INDIVIDUAL cases, but to set a law and punish the entire populace is the wrong answer.

Prax said: Just me huh? *shrugs*

No, not at all.

My father has smoked since age 9, and my mother smoked for a period after my brothers and I were all born, but quit by the time I was a teen.

My granpa on dads side smoked cigars, but never in the house or around the "ladies" of the family.

My moms mom smoked cigarettes like a starving person eats food. Chain smoker.

I lived a bit in both worlds, but mainly the world of smokers.

My eldest brother smoked for a very short time as an adult and quit with little effort.

My middle brother smokes, as do I.

I have quit twice, because I wanted to. I started back smoking because I wanted to.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Its not WHAT is being ordered, its the fact that its BEING ORDERED by threat of force. What in this case warrants the use of force?

A rational quetsion, to be sure.

Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Its not WHAT is being ordered, its the fact that its BEING ORDERED by threat of force. What in this case warrants the use of force?

In the recent report I just posted today they explain this is not going to be a law of force but in education.... if it was force, I would have set the fine much higher and more penalties myself.

All well and good..... doesn't change the fact that it is abuse of force to intervene into peoples private lives.

There is nothing private about a vehicle.... it is not a place of dwelling. And they made it clear that they will not introduce any new bills which relate to housing/dwelling..... your home is still your home.

Me. I know the situation well. I am not saying kids don't have rights they can act on to remedy this in INDIVIDUAL cases, but to set a law and punish the entire populace is the wrong answer.

It's not punishing the entire populace. You're looking a bit too far into this.

Heck even I'm a smoker and I don't have a problem with this.