[Brenda]

Montrealaise Montrealaise:

Brenda Brenda:

Says who? How many people really do smoke in their cars with kids nowadays?

How many will convince you that this law is warranted?

Brenda Brenda:

Why should the government butt in again? Big Brother is watching you again. Why? Don't we have any rights anymore? Does everything have to be regulated?

Brenda, you are the champion of driving smokers with children everywhere!

Did I mention I don't smoke?

[wildrosegirl]

WDHIII WDHIII:

And while youre "educating" them kids are exposed to it?

Yeah to most people that wouldnt be acceptable. Hell remove the seatbelt and drinking and driving laws to and EDUCATE them on that too.

Sometimes the Govt HAS to step in and IMHO this is one of them.

Okay, fine.

While you're getting this law passed, you'd better start on the one to get fast food banned. Once you've eliminated all of the smoking issues (being that only 18% of the population smokes), you'll have to legislate the 60% of the population that's obese from exposing their children to fat and cholesterol that will haunt their arteries for the rest of their lives.

Watching mom and dad stuff a Big Mac and super sized fries in their face, in front of the TV is not setting a healthy example either.

[RUEZ]

The end result of this law is, if you are a good parent you either stop your car and get out to have a smoke or wait until your kids are out of the car. No problem. If you are so stupid that you actually get caught by a police officer while smoking with your kids in the car, you get a fine. No problem. It's a win win.

[RUEZ]

proudcanukchick proudcanukchick:

Okay, fine.

While you're getting this law passed, you'd better start on the one to get fast food banned. Once you've eliminated all of the smoking issues (being that only 18% of the population smokes), you'll have to legislate the 60% of the population that's obese from exposing their children to fat and cholesterol that will haunt their arteries for the rest of their lives.

Watching mom and dad stuff a Big Mac and super sized fries in their face, in front of the TV is not setting a healthy example either.

Those laws are coming. I'm curious, will you be against those laws as well if they are passed?

[Montrealaise]

Brenda Brenda:

Did I mention I don't smoke?

You did, you did... I'm curious, do you have kids?

On another note,

Let's take a poll, has anyone seen kids in a car with an adult smoking in the last month?

I saw one on Friday, Dec. 21st. Last day of work before the holidays, that's why I remember the specific date.

[sasquatch2]

Montrealaise

$1:

My point is this is purely a safety/health issue. I don't see it as a law restricting freedom.

If is a safety/health issue it must have some valid basis.....which is sadly lacking

$1:

In 1998, the World Health Organization concluded flatly there there is no link between second hand smoke and cancer, and that in fact, second hand smoke could actually have a protective effect against cancer.

"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992

"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998
International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338

Hence it is an urban myth with the same validity as the notion that having a firearm in the house makes you 4X more likely to be murdered.

[Brenda]

Montrealaise Montrealaise:

Brenda Brenda:

Did I mention I don't smoke?

You did, you did... I'm curious, do you have kids?

On another note,

Let's take a poll, has anyone seen kids in a car with an adult smoking in the last month?

I saw one on Friday, Dec. 21st. Last day of work before the holidays, that's why I remember the specific date.

Yes, 2

And no, I haven't seen anyone smoking in the car with kids last month. I did however see a woman take a child in a strawler for a strawl, while she was smoking.

[Montrealaise]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Hence it is an urban myth with the same validity as the notion that having a firearm in the house makes you 4X more likely to be murdered.

Brought to you by the Scientists of the Tobacco Industry, perhaps?

[Montrealaise]

Brenda Brenda:

And no, I haven't seen anyone smoking in the car with kids last month. I did however see a woman take a child in a strawler for a strawl, while she was smoking.

I see that as well, unfortunately.

[sasquatch2]

Montrealaise

$1:

Brought to you by the Scientists of the Tobacco Industry, perhaps?

That is as juvenile as the BIG OIL funding AGW denial smear. I have put the orgs in bold to claify your politicaized fuzification.

$1:

In 1998, the World Health Organization concluded flatly there there is no link between second hand smoke and cancer, and that in fact, second hand smoke could actually have a protective effect against cancer.

"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992

"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998
International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338

[Brenda]

I have seen lunches kids take to school here in Canada. If I compare them to lunches kids in Holland take to school, Canada has a lot of stuff to ban in schools to keep their kids healthy and in good shape weightwise.

Schools can start by ban the microwaves to heat up pizza or pasta for lunch and start by telling parents to give their kids fruit for lunch, and have them eat breakfast. Or maybe the government should do that? Or maybe, just maybe, the parents should get off their lazy asses and find some healthy food for their kids to bring for luch, and skip the microwaved hotdogs...

[Montrealaise]

[quote="sasquatch2"]

That is as juvenile as the BIG OIL funding AGW denial smear. I have put the orgs in bold to claify your politicaized fuzification.

I can play that game too:

NIEHS, a component of the National Institutes of Health
"Childhood Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke Has Long-Lasting Effects: "This research adds to a growing body of evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke early in life has health consequences that can last a lifetime," said Dr. David Schwartz, Director of the NIEHS. "In addition to finding ways to reduce the exposure of children to tobacco smoke and other environmental pollutants, we also need to look for ways to reduce the disease burden.""

National Cancer Institute:
"Tobacco use, including cigarette smoking, dramatically increases not only one’s own risk of developing cancer but also endangers the health of others. Exposure to secondhand smoke, (also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)), significantly increases a non-smoker’s risk of developing lung and other cancers in addition to other health problems like decreased respiratory function and other respiratory diseases, eye and nasal irritation, heart disease and stroke. Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 38,000 deaths among non-smokers each year, which includes 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 deaths due to heart disease, and is responsible for lower respiratory tract infections in an estimated 300,000 children each year.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a comprehensive analysis of many respiratory studies on the health effects of ETS, concluded that ETS caused lung cancer in adult non-smokers and serious respiratory problems in children. Based on the health hazards of ETS, EPA has classified second-hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen (known to cause cancer in humans).

You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking".

[sasquatch2]

$1:

National Cancer Institute:
"Tobacco use, including cigarette smoking, dramatically increases not only one’s own risk of developing cancer but also endangers the health of others. Exposure to secondhand smoke, (also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)), significantly increases a non-smoker’s risk of developing lung and other cancers in addition to other health problems like decreased respiratory function and other respiratory diseases, eye and nasal irritation, heart disease and stroke. Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 38,000 deaths among non-smokers each year, which includes 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 deaths due to heart disease, and is responsible for lower respiratory tract infections in an estimated 300,000 children each year.

Propaganda and science compared...........

$1:

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992

$1:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a comprehensive analysis of many respiratory studies on the health effects of ETS, concluded that ETS caused lung cancer in adult non-smokers and serious respiratory problems in children. Based on the health hazards of ETS, EPA has classified second-hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen (known to cause cancer in humans).

What you should do is to access the actual studies and data involved. Good luck! Much like the studies the American Cancer Society cited these are unobtainable and logically can be assumed to have never happened.

These are merely baseless opinions by the elites of these two organizations which are instinctively accepted as fact based......not the fabricated propaganda that they are.

This parallels the AGW "science" and "scientists" even the "consensus" which disappears when scrutinized.

Inconvenient truths.