Smokers to be fined for smoking in cars with children

Mark Latimour · #1 07-29-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by news.com.au

Driver smoking ban in cars carrying kids

DRIVERS will be banned from smoking in cars carrying children under the age of 16 or face $250 on-the-spot fines under new tobacco laws, making NSW one of the toughest anti-smoking regimes in the world.

NSW will also become the first state in Australia, and one of only three jurisdictions in the world, to force tobacco products in supermarkets and retail outlets under the counter and out of sight, with a statewide ban on the display of cigarettes.

Smokers will also be banned from buying cigarettes using shopper loyalty programs or earning fly-buy points when buying them.

Cabinet late yesterday passed planned amendments to the Public Health Act to force cigarettes off the shelves despite reports earlier this week that the plan was going to fall through.

The new laws, to be announced today by Premier Morris Iemma, will be introduced in the spring session when Parliament returns.

Opposition to the Bill is unlikely.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...96-421,00.html

A sensible law. IMO. As an ex-smoker I was always unhappy with parents / adults smoking in cars with children present.

jomahu · #2 07-29-2008, 10:04 AM

that's why it's awesome to not have kids.

bassteban · #3 07-29-2008, 10:05 AM

Agreed. But let's not make it a habit.

FL Knifemaker · #4 07-29-2008, 10:23 AM

Smokers should be fined for smoking anywhere other than outside, away from civilization. Me and my ceegars included

Mazatleco17 · #5 07-29-2008, 10:27 AM

I have never been a smoker, I hate it, BUT they laws against smoking are getting out of hand, slowly but surely they're alienating smokers.

Toasted · #6 07-29-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazatleco17

Slowly but surely they're alienating smokers.

Good.

fretlessspence · #7 07-29-2008, 10:29 AM

nanny state. Have to make billions so I can buy my own island. I don't smoke but this is just another example of the government breaching the seal and entering our homes and cars. Won't be long now folks. Go ahead and keep forfeiting your rights. Soon you will have none.

bassteban · #8 07-29-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazatleco17

I have never been a smoker, I hate it, BUT they laws against smoking are getting out of hand, slowly but surely they're alienating smokers.

Yeah. Fining people for poisoning helpless children- that's out of hand.

Atoz · #9 07-29-2008, 10:32 AM

I like where this thread is going.

GregC · #10 07-29-2008, 10:32 AM

I see the wailing and gnashing of teeth at a perfectly sensible law (protecting children

) has already begun.

jkritchey · #11 07-29-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretlessspence

nanny state. Have to make billions so I can buy my own island. I don't smoke but this is just another example of the government breaching the seal and entering our homes and cars. Won't be long now folks. Go ahead and keep forfeiting your rights. Soon you will have none.

Do the kids have any rights?

BassChuck · #12 07-29-2008, 10:34 AM

Seems reasonable to me. Since the effects of second hand smoke are now clearly understood, there needs to be protection extended to those who may not be able to protect themselves.

bassteban · #13 07-29-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkritchey

Do the kids have any rights?

They have the right to quit whining & breathe my smoke if I tell them to.

jazzy grille · #14 07-29-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...96-421,00.html

A sensible law. IMO. As an ex-smoker I was always unhappy with parents / adults smoking in cars with children present.

Agreed.

I am a smoker, and I just can't understand how people can do that.... My friends mother used to do it, with the windows UP.

Jeremy Crockett · #15 07-29-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atoz

I like where this thread is going.

You say that... but you don't really mean it.

Mazatleco17 · #16 07-29-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassteban

Yeah. Fining people for poisoning helpless children- that's out of hand.

That wasn't my point, that's why I said "the lawS" I'm not particularly against this one but it seems that government is just looking for ways to just wipe out smokers, everything is being overly controlled.
and children overly protected.

neurotictim · #17 07-29-2008, 10:51 AM

I'm all for protecting the innocent little childrens, but I'm definitely concerned about what kind of precedent this sets.

What happens when the guv'ment decides that it's illegal to drink at home around your children? I mean, the exposure to alcohol at an early age has been proven to have an effect on alcohol consumption later in life, and child abuse is certainly aggravated by alcohol...

...Or maybe playing loud music in your house or car with children present - permanent hearing loss is no joke...

...What about blocking violent or sexual channels (including stuff like Fox and CNN) from your cable if you have children? Millions of people are convinced that today's violence stems from the degradation of TV...

I'm not saying it should happen, but I can see people manipulating the protective paternal/maternal instinct to satisfy their own ends, and this appears to be another step in achieving whatever that is.

bassteban · #18 07-29-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazatleco17

That wasn't my point, that's why I said "the lawS" I'm not particularly against this one but it seems that government is just looking for ways to just wipe out smokers, everything is being overly controlled.

Well, any response in this thread might just be taken as specific to the thread's original topic.

Crazy, I know...

bradjonesbass · #19 07-29-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassChuck

Seems reasonable to me. Since the effects of second hand smoke are now clearly understood, there needs to be protection extended to those who may not be able to protect themselves.

You sure about that? Ever read the UCLA study? It shows basically no statistical difference between lung cancer of non-smoking spouses of smokers, and non-smoking spouses of non-smokers. These were couples that had been married for 25 years or more.

bradjonesbass · #20 07-29-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neurotictim

I'm all for protecting the innocent little childrens, but I'm definitely concerned about what kind of precedent this sets.

What happens when the guv'ment decides that it's illegal to drink at home around your children? I mean, the exposure to alcohol at an early age has been proven to have an effect on alcohol consumption later in life, and child abuse is certainly aggravated by alcohol...

...Or maybe playing loud music in your house or car with children present - permanent hearing loss is no joke...

...What about blocking violent or sexual channels (including stuff like Fox and CNN) from your cable if you have children? Millions of people are convinced that today's violence stems from the degradation of TV...

I'm not saying it should happen, but I can see people manipulating the protective paternal/maternal instinct to satisfy their own ends, and this appears to be another step in achieving whatever that is.

plus about a million!