Act 13 forbids smoking in vehicles with kids under 6

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

HARRISON -- A new act prohibits people from smoking in a motor vehicle if it is carrying children under six years old as passengers.

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, according to a news release. Even brief exposure can be harmful to a child, and that's why Act 13 has been put into place, the release said.

According to Act 13, smoking is now prohibited in all motor vehicles carrying a child less then six years of age and weighing less than 60 pounds. The child should be restrained by a child passenger safety seat in accordance with the law as well.

Violating Act 13 law is a primary offense.

A vehicle can be pulled over and the driver cited for this infraction alone.

Any first offender that proves they have entered a smoking cessation program may have his/her fine voided.

View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Kids in Cars. The real Story

    Comments to the article and to the CBC Ombudsman;

    "In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health organization

    presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing

    social attitudes.

    " would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that

    active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and

    any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST.."

    I am extremely disappointed with the obvious decline of credibility and journalistic integrity at the CBC of late. The obvious promotion of the new bandwagon craze to stick it to anyone who smokes, whenever and where ever we can, will permanently place the CBC at the level of the National Inquirer and the infamous reputation of the British scandal rags we love to laugh at.

    BTW the smokers being stigmatized and stereotyped here, and in a host of stories you produce, are most significantly; the elderly, Racial minorities and always the poorest in our communities. That I consider a shameful and reprehensible act on your part.

    My comments and observations are in respect to the all too often seen tendency of publishing, whatever comes off the news wires, without even a precursory investigation of the source or validity of what you will report.

    Today I read an article which reported Doctors are supporting a ban in cars where children are present. The backup to the piece at first glance seemed to indicate a child would be in dire need of protection from hazards of tobacco smoke in high levels inside a vehicle.

    The research cited was a name I had never heard of so I thought I would check them out. The group is actually a subset of the American CDC who are responsible for a number of major blunders over the years in connection with fear mongering and exaggerations to a large degree embarrassing themselves and the American government in a number of damage controlled fiascoes.

    I took another look at what was being reported in your article and noticed some finely crafted authorship; the 35 ug/m3 was actually particulate not cigarette smoke at all, but of total particulate. The report cited demonstrated no effort to separate the particulate and identify what originated from a cigarette and what was pre-existing in the ambient air. Further the implied health risk did not mention the norm or the allowable levels so I had to help you out again, a quick search demonstrates from more reliable sources the average air quality annual measurements in outdoor air in 1997 was 36.5 ug/m3 and the strictest control regulations are now at 60ug/m3 annual average.

    Further there was no discussion of the volumes children actually inhale, of the total volume available. A child's lung capacity @ 6 inhalations a minute of 1/2 liter inhalations, would take 5.6 hours in the car at the stated levels to inhale only 35ug of the total particulate reported, which hardly increases the health risk of that child to any degree. [ug = one Millionth of a gram; One gram = approximately 1 cubic millimeter of water]

    What is being proposed by "protecting children" in cars, is an air quality standard inside a car which is far lower than the unavoidable average particulate levels measured outside the vehicle.

    Which makes the CBC and anyone else promoting this legislation appear to be; as the CDC has done on many occasions, the dupes who listened to them once again and the scapegoats who will carry the embarrassment when the truth comes to light.

    This article amounts to no less than emotional blackmail, utilizing the "protection of children" to sell smoking patches and higher taxation of an addiction incredibly.

    The CBC is promoting the punishment of a medical dependency, and lists beside every incident other promotions of that lack of good judgment, as though it were something to be proud of?

    I guess it just goes to prove you can't believe anything you hear today and the CBC is no different from the rest. Propaganda and irresponsible fear mongering, will take it's toll. I for one will never again speak in favor of preserving a national broadcaster. We are just paying to subsidize another big business mouthpiece protecting them, by "protecting" us from ourselves.

    Just to educate the Editors and their staff;

    -- Posted by harleyrider1978 on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 10:32 PM
  • More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor's cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    "Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: "We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.

    "These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever."

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them."

    This is a Swedish study.

    "Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children." 11422156

    In conclusion let's have a balanced debate and not characterise smokers as race akin to the devil.

    There have been 34 studies into lung cancer and exposure to cigarette smoke as a child. 3 suggest a raised risk, nearly four times as many 11 suggest PROTECTION with 20 suggesting no raised or reduced risk. The most famous is the World Health Organization 1998 study which concluded:

    "Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64--0.96)."

    "Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk."

    This actually suggests as the upper limit is

    -- Posted by harleyrider1978 on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 10:33 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: