California Banning Smoking in Car with a Minor

[RGianelli]

Originally Posted by GotaCohiba

[SIZE="6"]OMG a REPUBLICAN in CALIFORNIA what has the world come to?[/SIZE]

There are plenty of us REP's in SC

Yeah..there are a few of us still here in California...

[mansonicman]

Thank God another Republican

[GotaCohiba-cl]

Originally Posted by mansonicman

Thank God another Republican

[SIZE="7"]AMEN[/SIZE]hoohoo:

[mansonicman]

Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap, We allrady have to many damm free programs. The children in our country are the most well taken care of children in the world. Even those without parents are taken care of better than most. Don't get me wrong i am not negating our childrens health care, i am simply stating they are the most well taken care of children in the world.

Respectfully,

[Skystorm82]

Originally Posted by mansonicman

Thank God another Republican

Make that 3!!!

[mansonicman]

Well what i want to do is a HERF on the Capital and get some much needed attention to our hobby. this is something i really want to plan
" A HERF ON THE CAPITAL"

[marccote]

Originally Posted by mansonicman

Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap, We allrady have to many damm free programs. The children in our country are the most well taken care of children in the world. Even those without parents are taken care of better than most. Don't get me wrong i am not negating our childrens health care, i am simply stating they are the most well taken care of children in the world.

Respectfully,

That would be Canada who has the best of health care for children, here is a littl info for you that think our children are well taken care of,

Among the 21 most affluent nations, the United States has the highest percentage of poor children. In fact, our rate is twice that of the country next in line.

http://heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm



Furthermore, the September 1996 welfare reform bill cut $60 billion in aid to poor families within a period of six years. It is estimated that this will throw one million more children into poverty. Sadly, even though we are the richest industrialized nation, we are the stingiest with aid to our own children.

[mansonicman]

Still with all that crap, we still have the healthiest population on the planet

[havanitascigars-cl]

Originally Posted by marccote

Sorry I would have to agree, smoking in the car with children is got to be one of the lowest things a parent could do to a child, including smoking in a house with them present, children have enough to worry about growing up in this world then their parents choking the shit out of them with smoke.

Father of 4 and I smoke outside the house and not in the car with the kids only smoke in my own truck which the kids do not ride in at all.

Not a single study proves SHS is harmful by any standard that is used for other drugs. In fact, the studies on children raised in homes of smokers actually shows a protective effect as children from such homes have a lower incidence of lung disease than those raised in the general population. Read my post on SHS here:

http://www.cigarlive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7238

These are the pure facts of research on SHS. Fact is, the results of the study used to lobby for smoking regulations was doctored to fix a preconceived opinion. If you choose to not smoke around your children, then that is your decision... similar to choosing to eat fatty foods or drink alcohol around them.

[havanitascigars-cl]

Originally Posted by marccote

I listened to a gaving drunk at the RTDa about the bill and they had no idea what the bill meant other than to raise taxes on cigars, SCHIP is a must in this countyr, even Cuba has a helath program for underpriveleged children granted it si not much but it is something. Sometimes we cant see the benefits through all the smoke, No pun intended.

The failure of the bill did not end SCHIP. It is still funded and available as it have been. What the failure of the bill did do was not allow it to be expanded beyond the current coverage. It does nto allow a family of 4 with an income of $80,000 per year to recieve coverage as the new upper limit.

One note to consider: The tobacco tax funding required under the SCHIP bill would require 22 million new smokers per year. If these new smokers did not materialize, then the program would not be funded by tobacco taxes and would have to receive funding from other sources. So how serious is the government about protecting people when the laws enacted to deter smoking actually require more people to start smoking?

[marccote]

Originally Posted by havanitascigars

Not a single study proves SHS is harmful by any standard that is used for other drugs. In fact, the studies on children raised in homes of smokers actually shows a protective effect as children from such homes have a lower incidence of lung disease than those raised in the general population. Read my post on SHS here:

http://www.cigarlive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7238

These are the pure facts of research on SHS. Fact is, the results of the study used to lobby for smoking regulations was doctored to fix a preconceived opinion. If you choose to not smoke around your children, then that is your decision... similar to choosing to eat fatty foods or drink alcohol around them.

I find it hard to beleive that formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide are better for you than not.

"Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."
California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.

here are 15 different sources that would tend to differ with your 1 opinon,, 9 out of 10 idiots can't all be wrong

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
June 2007

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7
Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet.8
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13
New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14
The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15
For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).


Sources:


1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
2. Ibid.
3. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...ctsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program.
6. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(: 680-686.
7. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238.
8. American Lung Association. State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI). Available at: http://slati.lungusa.org/StateLegislateAction.asp Accessed on 6/18/07.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003
14. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004
15. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...ctsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06

[marccote]

Originally Posted by havanitascigars

The failure of the bill did not end SCHIP. It is still funded and available as it have been. What the failure of the bill did do was not allow it to be expanded beyond the current coverage. It does nto allow a family of 4 with an income of $80,000 per year to recieve coverage as the new upper limit.

One note to consider: The tobacco tax funding required under the SCHIP bill would require 22 million new smokers per year. If these new smokers did not materialize, then the program would not be funded by tobacco taxes and would have to receive funding from other sources. So how serious is the government about protecting people when the laws enacted to deter smoking actually require more people to start smoking?

Good point, I have a family of 4 and income fo $68,000 per year and we still paid out $14,000 in health care this year already and that is not counting insurance costs, I think what SCHIP and other's are trying to instill on us is that health care is getting out of hand both the financial end of it and the fact it takes between 15 and 90 days to see a specialist sometimes, and problems such as that, I know I have a child with Aspergers and the other has chronic middle ear problems (no he is not exposed to second hand smoke) they beleive it is a combination of the quality of the air in which we live (Phoenix) and the climate, dry and hot, then cold and dry. We also tend to have mold spores that are more dangerous, such as the ones that cause Valley Fever, which I have. I personally would like to see government get involved with health care but there are a lot of politiicians who depend on their political finances from pharmacutical companies, you know the one sthat make a pill that will cure your problem, but have side effects such as headache, nausea, and about 10 others worse than the problem itself. I don't ever think anybody is smart enough in politics to ever stand up for what we really need instead of following the money train. Found out yeaterday one of the primary providers for my son no longer takes insurance, I had the same problem when I found somebody who could help with my sciatica, still waiting for that. Too many loopholes in insurance nowadays and most people don't realize or ignore the fact, that doctors don't really want to help you till they are rest assured they are going to get paid. Our government could help the health industry but they keep finding reason not to, such as we spent too much on saving freedom for Iraq. What I think this country needs is to start taking care of itself and the only way that is going to happen is if we get the right policies acted on by the right people in the next elections. Don't aks me any furhter than that but my wife works with one fo the biggest medical insurance firms in the country and I hear all the horror stories, health care does need to improve , somehow, will cigar taxes fix it probably not but I am sure they can find some money wagons somewhere, they always do when it comes election time. I hate to get started on politics, it runs in the family though. Teh democratic way, everybody can be right, but only till we vote.
So go smoke a San Cristobal Maestro and I feel better doing it when I don't have to even question am I harmign anyone.

[havanitascigars-cl]

The facts in my posting on SHS come from the EPA report itself. Their conclusions that SHS is harmful were only obtained after they changed the criteria of the statistical relevance.

The sources you delineated all used the EPA study and findings to support their theses. There are not even 15 sources in your line up. Several are the same report. In effect, I am using the same research you are in order to support my argument, but I am looking at the research methodology and finding the flaws in the logic. You cannot announce the results of research before the research is conducted. Also, you cannot change the variables to differ from scientific/medical standards because the results did not fit your pre-announced conclusion. Also, the EPA study threw out any research that did not support their claim. That is faulty research and logic.

The EPA report you quote repeatedly in your sources was even vacated in court as being fraudulent.

There are several products with higher instances of cancer than SHS, but the EPA has not put Class A carcinogen status on them. Why not?

Your point of absenteeism among former smokers declining is not an argument of the problem of SHS. It is an argument to quit smoking. Also, productivity is a tricky thing to measure. General Electric claims productivity has increased for their corporation due to mechanization and outsourcing.

Please follow the link provided and read the posting I put up again. This is all clearly explained.

[Shelby07]

The biggest health problem for our children by far in this country is their diet and lack of exercise. So, let's keep them smoke free while we drive their fat little asses to school where they get gov't subsidized McDonald happy meals and drive them to Burger King after school for some more.

...rediculous!

[mansonicman]

Sir i agree completely, it could not have been put any better?