i agree with the law, smoke is just not healthy for kids, or anyone. even though some peoples may have smoked when they were younger, and they survived, doesnt mean there arent going to be side effects. you cant tell me that a kid who'* parents smoked is just as healthy as a kid who'* parents didnt smoke.

My daughter is just fine. No asthma, rarely gets sick, has no problems what-so-ever.

But anyway, I'm done on this subject, it just gets me mad.

I support the idea 100%

If it saves one kid from asthma due to second hand smoke, and the resulting impact on health care costs, its worth it.

I didn't think anyone in their right mind would willingly expose their children to the cornucopia of chemicals that is found in cigarette smoke..but they do, so, I guess the government has to tell him whats right and wrong

I'm all for the freedom of choice, but seriously, for the kids, don't smoke in the car.

I will be another to agree with the law. My parents were smokers (mom isn't anymore, but dad still does) and I have breathing problems. I was diagnosed with COPD at the age of 16 and I have Asthma. Both my sisters live with my mom, and it is plain and clear that they breathe better than me. Coincidence? I think not. I think the smoking thing should be as much as a law as wearing a seat belt is. I also agreed with the Ohio law where you can no longer smoke in restaurants and bars. Sales have actually went UP, not down, and no negative things have happened from it. Regardless I agree with it, our county is bringing a similar law up on the next ballot, and I am certainly voting yes to stop smoking in cars with children under 19/18.

19 is such an odd number. Isnt legal age 18?

I could go either way on this one.

That was my thought too, but here the provinces have the ability to set legal age independantly of the rest of the country. For example, there has been talk about Alberta raising the drinking age from 18 to 19. It would only apply here though.

The issue isn't that the government wants to take rights away from citizens, they are just trying to protect the rights of others. By enforcing this law they are protecting the rights of the children. After all, it is your choice to smoke but their choice as to whether or not they are subjected to it. The same for restaurants. I understand it is your right to do what you want to your body, which is smoking in this case. However, I should not be forced to breathe that sh** if I don't want to. We all know that smoking/non-smoking sections don't work. You sit in a designated non-smoking section that is in the same room, possibly even right next to smokers. Luckily in Illinois many of the restaurants are banning smoking altogether. Why do smokers complain about that? Why can't they wait until they go outside in 20 mins? Is a cigarette really needed with your hamburger?!
Grant

I agree with that new new law. As far as I'm concerned, smoking in the car with kids in there is nothing short of child abuse.

I'm one of the lucky ones that had smoking parents. All 4 of us kids have athsma, my younger sister died of smoking related lung issues, and she never smoked.

Judging by the law suit craze in the U.*.A. it wouldn't surprise me if people didn't start sueing their parents because of second hand smoke related health problems.



(the above rant is my personal opinion and not ment to incite riots)

Smoking stinks and poses proven health risks. It is a waste of money and health. Anyone that would subject children to such abuse should be thrown under the jail.

I think it is the right move. It is too bad that it takes passing a law to keep people from harming their children'* health.

Arkansas outlawed smoking here a couple of years ago. No smoking in restaurants or in businesses that employ 5 or more persons, whether they are accessible to the general public or not. No smoking in public buildings or within 50 feet of the entrance to a public building. The only "loophole" in our smoking restriction law is that anyplace that is age restricted to 21 and up can allow smoking. The legal drinking age here is 21.

wouldn't that be very hard to enforce? you would have to spot people smoking, and then judge whether or not the people in the car are under 19 (easy with kids, but people a bit older i think would be pretty safe) cops shouldn't be wasting time pulling people over for smoking only to find out the passengers were over 19. how would they prove it anyways, if they dont have ID on them? take them down do the station?

lame IMO. i agree it may be bad around young kids, but kids who are 18? they can make their own choices, give me a break.