Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ontario bans smoking in cars with kids under 16

MARIA BABBAGE

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 10:52 AM EDT 17/06/08

All parties back government bill to protect children from second-hand smoke ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: "Mychoice.ca, a smokers' rights group financed in part by the tobacco industry, has raised concerns that the ban will eventually extend to private homes, but Mr. McGuinty said that's not under consideration."

    ...and we all know what McGuinty's word is worth.
  2. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes: Globe and Mail

    Ontario rejects car-smoking ban
    Can't impose common sense, minister says
    JAMES CHRISTIE

    February 2, 2007

    The Ontario government has no plans to create legislation banning smoking in cars carrying children, despite a medical report that hazardous second-hand smoke is concentrated in the closed environment.

    "We're not going to go down that road at this point," said Jim Watson, Minister of Health Promotion.

    Mr. Watson said parents "should know the dangers of second-hand smoke trapped in cars. We're not about to legislate a ban.

    -----------------------------------
    Another political feel good useless piece of legislation. More lies and move invasion of privacy. Thank you Lieberals.
  3. Stan L from Canada writes: from the article..."Mychoice.ca, a smokers rights group financed in part by the tobacco industry, has raised concerns that the ban will eventually extend to private homes, but Mr. McGuinty said that's not under consideration."

    Interesting to note that McGuinty at one time said he would not consider endorsing a ban in cars at all citing his concern over privacy issues....but I guess when you need a quick boost to the popularity numbers with a straw dog, this is what you get.

    One thing I still haven't received an answer about from my MPP or the Government, is the statistics that show that smoking in cars with kids is on the rise or is at a level that would warrant the introduction of a new law.....one would think that the only reason you would introduce a law like this is becuase the numbers support it....right? BUT the government has bragged that in Ontario smoking has decreased by 30% overall.....so if smoking is reduced overall by 30% and only 16% of the Canadian population even smoked in the first place, THEN when you only include the smokers who even smoked in their cars with children present...just how many people is this law targetting anyway......?
  4. Gary Casey from Canada writes: Good for you, McGuinty!
  5. Paul S from Niagara Region, Canada writes: Can they do this?

    It's not that I think it's a bad idea - but how the government ban you from doing something legal in your own property?

    I can definatley see this being overturned if it goes to court. (and you just know that there are plenty of people who will challenge this)
  6. Professional30smthg in TO from Canada writes: Why don't they just finish the job and make tabacco a banned substance? After all, it's bad for you, and we need Dalton to save us from ourselves.

    While they're at it, they should ban alcohol, sugar, salt, cellphones, laser pointers, gasoline, tomatoes, cold medicine, snowmobiles, bad haircuts and flipflops. Then we can all pause at 10am every day, look to the east, and All Hail our Dear Leader.
  7. Stan L from Canada writes: Paul S from Niagara Region, Canada writes:
    I can definatley see this being overturned if it goes to court. (and you just know that there are plenty of people who will challenge this)

    It's unlikely anyone will challenge this becuase it's unlikely anyone will get caught....because basically, I am not sure this is anything smokers do in any great numbers so the odds are that they won't be pulled over.....The fact is that with all the new laws and such, even if smokers haven't quit, they have certainly adjusted their behaviours...ie: many don't smoke in their homes, many not in their cars etc......so who is actually doing this?
  8. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: It should be 19 not 16 otherwise we might as well change the law and let 16 year old buy tabaco.
  9. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: Congratulation to Dalton and the Ontario Liberals. You guys rock. Please make the next step the banning of all tobacco products and the penalty somewhere between life in prison and death.
  10. Rheanna L from Canada writes: Stan L from Canada writes: "...many don't smoke in their homes, many not in their cars etc......so who is actually doing this? "

    I know quite a few people who smoke in the car with their kids. They roll down a window and think that makes it OK.
  11. Terry Frangos from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: I'd like to see them enforce the seatbelt law first. I've seen many a kid not buckled up be it with a smoking or non smoking parent.
  12. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: It's about time. I always cringe whenever I see people smoking in cars with closed windows and toddlers strapped in the smokehouse.

    McGuinty changed his mind and made the right choice in the end. All three parties support this legislation. The rights of the children will outweigh the rights of the adults.
  13. Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: This is such an stupid piece of legislation. Although I find smoking to be disgusting you cannot legislate common sense. Should parents be smoking in such enclosed and close proximity to thier children? No they shouldn't. Also attitudes towards smoking have changed in the last many years. As such most parents aren't smoking around thier children. That being said unless smoking is declaired illegal this law wont stand up to a charter challenge. What is next banning smoking in homes that are bought and paid for by the proprietor?
  14. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: ...in fact I would support a total ban on smoking. The law would be grandfathered, so that existing smokers would be issued a lifelong license to buy smokes, but no new licenses would be issued. Very simple solution to a difficult problem. I'm tired of paying for these people's health problems.
  15. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Mike: you cannot legislate common sense
    -------------------------
    Why not? Some parents insist on exposing their young children to toxic chemicals. Why should the rights of the children not outweigh the rights of the adults?
  16. D M from Canada writes: Rheanna L from Canada writes: Stan L from Canada writes: "...many don't smoke in their homes, many not in their cars etc......so who is actually doing this? "

    I know quite a few people who smoke in the car with their kids. They roll down a window and think that makes it OK. "

    Yep my parents do this all the time. I asked them not to do it with my daughter there in the car but they both got angry and went on a tirade that it was their car, in a free country and they could do what they pleased.(They had a point there but still...) So my daughter doesn't ride with them anymore.

    Though this legislation crosses some privacy lines and is really unenforceable, some people need it because they just don't think before they act. I'm really not sure where I stand on it.
  17. Peter Douglas from Canada writes: This guy is really simple.....let's not go after the drug dealers or the sex offenders.....I am a non-smoker...but....this is now an assault on individual rights.....
  18. Jen Dobson from Canada writes: All 3 parties supported this bill, so you can't blame this on the Libs or anyone else.

    I think it's a good law and it just makes sense.

    There is no fear of a charter challenge since vehicles are already governed by the highway traffic act, for which I assume this would be added to.

    I don't know why the article didn't mention Alberta - they are said to also be considering adding this law soon.
  19. Ed the Sock from Canada writes: Now, you see, I think Bob Smitherman is an idiot.

    I wouldn't dream of banning him from this forum.....

    .....but he is an idiot.

    I wonder how dangerous second hand Smitherman is?
  20. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: So now police officers will be kept busy trying to enforce this? lol! How about banning cell phones while driving? My granddaughter and I have come close to getting hit on several occassions by drivers who were on cell phones. Handheld cell phones leave only one hand on the wheel and therefore less control over the vehicle - not to mention the fact that people are often paying more attention to the phone conversation than their driving. I have actually seen people with coffee in one hand and a cell in the other! How many accidents are caused by drivers using cell phones? This is a danger to everyone on the road - including pedestrians.
  21. Stu Gazo from Canada writes: Any "parent" that smokes in a car with their kids in it should be in jail anyway. They should also issue fines for smokers tossing their butts out the window. Disgusting, inconsiderate people.
  22. Evan Young from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Actually we can (and should) legislate common sense...

    It's simply not possible for people to gather the required information to make effective individual decisions about many issues (seat-belts, smoking, food additives, vaccines et. al.). We as a society have decided that the government has a role to play in protecting us as adults and an even greater role in protecting our children in issues like this.

    In this case it has taken massive amounts of research and observation and decades of time to decide that nicotine addiction was not only 'bad for you' it is lethal (the exception is that you survived, the norm is death).

    This ban protects children and is just one more step in making the consumption of nicotine on par with sticking a needle up your arm - (as it should be). Very soon getting your nicotine fix will be something you shamefully sneak away to do in a back alley away from public view. It's called denormalizing, so it's correct to stop calling it smoking and call it nicotine addiction because that's what it is. (This is very similar to no-longer saying 'sun-burn' and saying 'radiation burn', because that's what that is, and should be treated as such).

    Is this a perfect solution - no, as governments struggle to find and act on the correct data in some kind of timely way. In the end we are (and our kids will be) better off.
  23. Ed the Sock from Canada writes: Evan Young from Winnipeg: thank you mommy.

    Tuck me in now and tell me a bedtime story? Tell me the scary one about how selfish people used to do exactly what they wanted before the government stepped in....
  24. Comments are Closed from Toronto, Canada writes: Nice to know McGuinty considers this a priority over banning drivers trying to kill me while talking on cell phones.
  25. Stan L from Canada writes: Rheanna L from Canada writes: Stan L from Canada writes: "...many don't smoke in their homes, many not in their cars etc......so who is actually doing this? " I know quite a few people who smoke in the car with their kids. They roll down a window and think that makes it OK. Everyone seems to know someone who does this and yet the numbers do not bear this out.......In Ontario as of 2006 there were a total of 1,093,949 smokers between the ages of 24-65.....now by the time you exclude the smokers who do not drive/own a car, do not have children, do not have children under 16, do not smoke in the car by choice.....the number actually gets pretty small for a province of this size.......I think this is a case where you can't go by the 'anecdotal' evidence......becuase it was only a generation ago that going out for a 'fresh air' ride with Mom and Dad was not considered a bad thing.....our memories seem to be stronger than the evidence at hand.....NOT to mention the fact that if in only a few years smokers have decreased by 30% in the province as claimed by McGuinty, then one would presume that the incidence of smoking in cars is also dropping.......leaving you to wonder why you would introduce a law for a behaviour that is eradicating itself as society changes around it.
  26. Stan L from Canada writes: Jen Dobson from Canada writes: All 3 parties supported this bill, so you can't blame this on the Libs or anyone else.

    I think it's a good law and it just makes sense.

    Of course they supported it.....who is going to oppose it? seriously? this law is tantamount to a logical fallcy up there with 'do you still beat your wife?' It is a quick vote grab, feel good legisltation long on rhetoric, short on value or substance.
  27. Hung Long from Hong Kong writes: Put the kids in the trunk. Tell them it's an adventure, like flying economy.
  28. Leopold Stotch from Toronto, Canada writes: Ed the Sock, your response to Evan Young is extrememly childish for a person who calls someone else an idiot. If you truly feel that the goverment is overstepping its bounds by choosing to protect the health of children over the rights of a smoker, then one would have to question your value system.
  29. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: I thought 'adult' started at 18 now in Ontario, not 16.
    Maybe there are many 'adult'"s"es in Canada.
  30. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: A positive move. Smoking is disgusting and stupid and costs us all money. Our children are at risk of falling victim because they can pick up this habit while they're away from the house. Smoking must be systematically irradiated, and this is another step in the right direction.
    The anti Dalton zealots can stick it where the sun don't shine, we're sick of your negative bs rhetoric.
  31. Vern McWho from Canada writes: Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: So now police officers will be kept busy trying to enforce this? lol! How about banning cell phones while driving? My granddaughter and I have come close to getting hit on several occassions by drivers who were on cell phones. Handheld cell phones leave only one hand on the wheel and therefore less control over the vehicle - not to mention the fact that people are often paying more attention to the phone conversation than their driving. I have actually seen people with coffee in one hand and a cell in the other! How many accidents are caused by drivers using cell phones? This is a danger to everyone on the road - including pedestrians.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So why not ban coffee while driving then? What about radios, handheld GPS and Big Macs?

    I`m not a McGuinty fan, but as one of the previuos posters stated, all 3 parties supported it... its really just common sense and if anyone thinks its okay for an adult to smoke in a car with a child then you really are pretty thick. This is about protecting the vulnerable from stupid adults and has nothing to do with nanny states and taking away your rights (again if you think you have the right to kill your child, you have no business being a parent in the first place!).
  32. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: The state has the right to enter your home if you are abusing your children, right? If the state knew, and didn't intervene, we'd be all over them angry as hell as the CAS has found out time and again. We expect intervention on behalf of the vulnerable.

    What we know of second hand smoke is enough to suggest that forcing it on children is a form of abuse. Next, cellphone driving - ban.

    And who cares what the Liberals said before. Tories - gay marriage, Income trusts?! Hello! Ontario NDP - Sunday shopping/auto insurance etc? They all do it, not just the Liberals.

    What matters is today, and doing the right thing. And not exposing children to second hand smoke in cars is a good first step.
  33. John Connor from Around Town, Canada writes: Why is everyone surprised at this? Dalton promised no new taxes, and we know how good his word is. After all, Dalton said he wouldn't consider such a ban, and now we have one. He promised no funding to religious schools, and the Catholic faith still has theirs. What can one expect from a habitual liar?

    This is the singlemost useless and unenforceable piece of legislation to date, and I hope someone has the stones to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Because the next target is your home. And it will be targetted. This crap must come to an end, or you can dig out your armbands, and strap them on for the Dalton gang.
  34. Ed the Sock from Canada writes: Leopold Stotch from Toronto, Canada writes: "Ed the Sock, your response to Evan Young is extrememly childish...."

    What was your first clue? That I asked for a bedtime story?

    PS you can question my 'value system' till the cows come home.......and then............will you tell me a bedtime story, mommy?
  35. Randy D from Canada writes: Smokers are villified while safe injection sites are provided for junkies. There are no words to describe the lunacy that has replaced common sense or common decency in our society.
  36. Stan L from Canada writes: Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes:
    What matters is today, and doing the right thing. And not exposing children to second hand smoke in cars is a good first step.

    Agreed, even as a smoker I would not ever endorse smoking in a car with a child.......so, just a formality here, who is actually doing this? Becuase I certainly hope that the government isn't running around passing feel good legislation that costs money, time and holds up a already overburdened court system.....for a crime that isn't increasng or happening in the numbers to warrant such an expense of the public purse.......if we are passing useless and intrusive laws then I want a law that mandates everyone to say Good Morning to each other on the way to work.....
  37. Vern McWho from Canada writes: Ed the Sock from Canada writes: Leopold Stotch from Toronto, Canada writes: "Ed the Sock, your response to Evan Young is extrememly childish...."

    What was your first clue? That I asked for a bedtime story?

    PS you can question my 'value system' till the cows come home.......and then............will you tell me a bedtime story, mommy?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C-mon, tell the truth, this whole `bed-time story, mommy`thing gets you excited doesn`t it Ed...
  38. Richard Rogers from Canada writes: I'll tell you who should be fined: anyone who names his kid Leopold.
  39. Fast Eddie from lakeshore, Canada writes: There are people out there that will do everything possible to keep smoking in their car with children present including tinting their windows to prevent the police from seeing them. A jerk is a jerk ia a jerk.
  40. John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: Another Bullsh* law by another Bullsh* government. My privately owned motor vehicle is just that, mine. Someday this law will be challenged in a Higher Court and the government will lose and as somebody pointed out what is next, will they ban smoking in the home? Time for the righteious zealots to come down of the cross and let us live our lives by our choice, not yours.
  41. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Well thank god that problem was dealt with. It was by far the most pressing problem facing society today.
  42. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Randy D from Canada writes: Smokers are villified while safe injection sites are provided for junkies. There are no words to describe the lunacy that has replaced common sense or common decency in our society

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The clowns are truly running this circus.

    ===========================================
    Stan L from Canada writes: Jen Dobson from Canada writes: All 3 parties supported this bill, so you can't blame this on the Libs or anyone else.

    I think it's a good law and it just makes sense.

    Of course they supported it.....who is going to oppose it? seriously? this law is tantamount to a logical fallcy up there with 'do you still beat your wife?' It is a quick vote grab, feel good legisltation long on rhetoric, short on value or substance.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It's one of those issues where, if you oppose it, you are labelled as a CHILD HATER who wants to KILL BABIES!!

    Twisted logic from twisted minds.
  43. Vern McWho from Canada writes: John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: Another Bullsh law by another Bullsh government. My privately owned motor vehicle is just that, mine. Someday this law will be challenged in a Higher Court and the government will lose and as somebody pointed out what is next, will they ban smoking in the home? Time for the righteious zealots to come down of the cross and let us live our lives by our choice, not yours.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So you feel it`s your right to kill your child... amazing. And what has any of this got to do with religion.. I didn`t really think of myself as coming down off the cross... particularly as an atheist. I kinda figured it was just common sense.
  44. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Well thank god that problem was dealt with. It was by far the most pressing problem facing society today.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    PHEW!! That was a close one, but the kiddies are safe at last!
  45. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: ...in fact I would support a total ban on smoking. The law would be grandfathered, so that existing smokers would be issued a lifelong license to buy smokes, but no new licenses would be issued. Very simple solution to a difficult problem. I'm tired of paying for these people's health problems.

    >> Oh yes, so simple. Alcohol was banned for a while last century. That worked out well too. Yes, complex situations need simple laws. So what happens when a non-licensed smoker is busted and convicted? One year? Two? More? Indeed, a 2-3 year stint in a jail will stop smoking. And Bob, what about drivers exceeding the speed limit? How about five years? More? Please, we need your guidance on how to perfect society.
  46. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Right after this law is enacted, as per Smitherman, common sense will be the next thing. No common sense, you get five years with no parole. Now that is common sense.
  47. Robert Loblaw from Canada, Canada writes: Joseph Whistle - You obviously don't get it. Smoking is a legal pastime until legislated otherwise. Smoking in a car with children in it is selfish and stupid. Passing legislation to outlaw this action is however just another piece of feel good nanny state BS that will serve no useful purpose. Parents who smoke around their children can and will do so in the home anyway, so why just the car? Why, Joseph, because Dalton likes to keep feeding the idiots who voted for him with little scraps of nothing legislation, while real issues are ignored. He finds it easy to assuage the mini minds of his supporters with BS like this law. Meanwhile a whole community (Caledonia) is under siege, coal fired electricity plants continue to spew toxins into the air, and Ontario's manufacturing base is eroding. If you are happy living in a province of denial governed by an incompetent liar who hasn't addressed any of the significant issues that impact on its inhabitants, but instead bans plastic bags in liquor stores, continue supporting McGuinty and his tool time partner Miller. And as far as negative bs rhetoric goes, if you provide your contact data I'm sure that several posters would be pleased to "stick it where the sun don't shine". That however would undoubtedly please you immensely.
  48. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Here's one for the Smitherman's of this world:

    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

    C.S. Lewis
  49. andy c from Canada writes: i'm a non smoker but this is getting a bit nuts. if parents want to endanger the health of there own children then let them under the condition that if the kid grows up with health problems they are allowed to sue there parents.
  50. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Here's one for Dullton McLiar (although, with the state of politics in Canada today, it could apply to many on either side of the divide)

    "Government is a necessary evil, and like all evil it should be kept in a state of weakness, otherwise it will become a vehicle for small men to aspire beyond their capabilities and their grasp."

    (Aristotle)
  51. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Waste of money, impossible to enforce and addresses a virtually non-existent problem.

    The only thing conclusive about exposure to second hand smoke testing is that it takes many years of heavy, heavy exposure to potentially wind up with a serious health issue. Car rides during your childhood wouldn't qualify as long term heavy exposure unless your parent happens to be a long haul truck driver who takes you everywhere with them.

    This is a really pointless, make the militant anti-smoking maniacs happy kind of law.
  52. Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow smoking in a car kills your child, where do you people come up with this. What about the pollution from your car killing all of us. I, like many others, grew up with smoking in the car, the home, everywhere. Last time I checked my parents didn't murder me.
  53. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow smoking in a car kills your child, where do you people come up with this. What about the pollution from your car killing all of us. I, like many others, grew up with smoking in the car, the home, everywhere. Last time I checked my parents didn't murder me.
    -------------------------
    Another second-hand smoke denier. Next you'll be telling us that smoking is safe. You work for the tobacco industry?
  54. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: I wish you promoters of tobacco use would defend the rights of young children as diligently as you do the rights of unborn ones. Second hand smoke kills. Umpteen studies have proven it. This is why it's banned from public places. Get it through your thick heads that children need to be protected from their idiotic smoking parents. Why would a parent do this to their child?
  55. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Robert Loblaw: your typical right wing (physical) threats don't intimidate me. Smoking is going to get phased out of existence, slowly and surely. Keep hiding behind statements like how it's legal, keep enjoying your puff while the rest of us will do everything possible to slowly creep up to you and take it away. Butt out, or become a criminal, I don't care. Nanny state, pfff, noone buys that crap any more, because most want this crap gone, completely.
    Plastic bag reductions, pesticide ban, other environmental measure, these are good things, things you couldn't care less about if it were all up to you. You'd let a free market sort things out for itself, it's all logical to you. Never mind deteriorating society into a mess of anarchy.
    ugh.
  56. Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Well most of us are still here. You don't think pollution causes lung cancer? I think there are a combination of factors so why not focus on that one, the bigger one.
  57. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: I wish you promoters of tobacco use would defend the rights of young children as diligently as you do the rights of unborn ones. Second hand smoke kills. Umpteen studies have proven it. This is why it's banned from public places. Get it through your thick heads that children need to be protected from their idiotic smoking parents. Why would a parent do this to their child?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Are you being wilfully obtuse, or do you really just not 'get' it?

    IE: It's a solution to a problem that does not exist, an answer to a question no-one's asking, a feel-good exercise to distract the sheeple.

    (AND Smitherman gives us the classic "If you don't support this legislation it's 'cause you HATE CHILDREN and want to see them harmed!!!")
  58. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: I wish you promoters of tobacco use would defend the rights of young children as diligently as you do the rights of unborn ones. Second hand smoke kills. Umpteen studies have proven it. This is why it's banned from public places. Get it through your thick heads that children need to be protected from their idiotic smoking parents. Why would a parent do this to their child?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Why stop there Bobby?

    The next step is to ban parents from raising their own kids entirely. There will be big communal government run facilities where they will be raise and educated by the state.

    For their own good, of course.
  59. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Steve, if you don't support this legislation it's 'cause you HATE CHILDREN and want to see them harmed!!!
  60. Hugh Draper from Vancouver, Canada writes:
    Huffing and puffing and regulating and tying up police resources.

    While we're at it, I wish they would crack down on parents who feed their children fast-food and talk on their cell phones while driving them around. Ooh, and what if they don't wash behind their ears.
  61. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: The government can take the fines from these criminal parents and subsidize safe injection sites for drug users. Brilliant revenue neutral tax scheme, Ontario drools.
  62. Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: What about obesity? Should parents be fined for feeding thier kids junk food? While I agree with this law in spirit it just irks me that they are doing this. I mean seriously what if the scenerio I just wrote came to be? Feeding your kids junk food is also bad for thier health. Very bad actually right up there with second hand smoke? So what if the gov wanted to look in your grocery bag and fine you if it didn't like what it saw there?
  63. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Bob, are you an ex-smoker or just a Mrs. Lovejoy hysteric?

    "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!" - Lovejoy
  64. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: Always look forward to a good rant from Joey Whistle.

    Pfff. I love that....
  65. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: Nassar Ben Houdja: too funny. Good suggestion.
  66. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Steve Just Steve, : The next step is to ban parents from raising their own kids entirely.

    -------------------------
    Well Steve, we actually do that already. It's called the children's aid society. Have they taken your kids away yet?
  67. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Steve, if you don't support this legislation it's 'cause you HATE CHILDREN and want to see them harmed!!!

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL !!
  68. G M from Canada writes: "They should also issue fines for smokers tossing their butts out the window."

    The next time you walk down the street, look for cigarette butts. They're everywhere. If most smokers could smoke without littering (I've only ever known two smokers that did), then I would support "smoker's rights" a lot more than I do.

    As for this legislation -- I give it one thumbs up and one thumbs down...
  69. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Hugh Draper from Vancouver, Canada writes: Huffing and puffing and regulating and tying up police resources.

    --------------------
    Heck didn't our feds just allocate more money for cops? Might as well get them to do something useful for a change.
  70. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Steve Just Steve, : The next step is to ban parents from raising their own kids entirely.

    -------------------------
    Well Steve, we actually do that already. It's called the children's aid society. Have they taken your kids away yet?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    All that intelligence AND a comedian too? You must be a hit with the ladies...
  71. Stan L from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman.......get your point. Prove to me that it is happening at all in Ontario and I will support your position. That second hand smoke is dangerous is not the issue.....the issue is are people actually doing this or doing this in such numbers as to warrant the expense on the public purse versus the intrusion and precidence this sets into action.......just one government stat please.....
  72. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: What about obesity? Should parents be fined for feeding thier kids junk food?

    ------------------------
    No but they go to jail if they feed them alcohol or otherwise abuse them. Junk food doesn't quite fit into that but did you notice school boards are getting rid of their pop machines and deep friers? It's all about a society that protects its most vulnerable.
  73. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Bob, are you an ex-smoker or just a Mrs. Lovejoy hysteric?

    --------------------
    ...just an ex-smoker from 20 years ago. Best thing I ever did (quitting). Saved me a sh!tload of money. Thanks for asking.
  74. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: I heard recently that second-hand Smitherman is really bad for you.

    Any chance the government will do something about it?
  75. Robert Loblaw from Canada, Canada writes: Joseph Whistle - Sorry you felt threatened Joe, but that wasn't the intent. I thought I made you an offer you couldn't refuse. As far as the rest of your post goes, you have no idea what you are talking about. What happens in a society where the govt. imposes regualtions that control every aspect of our life? Go to the WORLD section of today's G & M and read about how the Iranian govt. has shut down a number of clothes stores and hairdressers because the product they provide is inconsistent with the govts. Islamic dress code. There are lots of behaviours that I don't practice or agree with but have no problem with other people who do practice them. Think, Joey, if the govt. of Canada or Ontario were different, and one or the other made homosexuality illegal, and this were supported by the majority of the electorate. They hang homosexuals in Iran Joseph. The leap is not as large as you would think, but the notion that the right side of ther political spectrum has to speak out to support the rights and freedoms that benefit the left, who would in turn give them away without a second thought, is scary. You are so sickeningly partisan that you automatically think that any left wing initiative is a good one. Make sure you wipe that McGuinty coloured brown stain off your nose before you go outside - its unbecoming.
  76. Stan L from Canada writes: G M from Canada writes: "They should also issue fines for smokers tossing their butts out the window."

    The next time you walk down the street, look for cigarette butts. They're everywhere. If most smokers could smoke without littering (I've only ever known two smokers that did), then I would support "smoker's rights" a lot more than I do.

    G M - consider that most smokers don' t like throwing butts into the garbage (most have done that before thinking they are out and then before you know it.....) and consider that almost all ashtrays have been removed from the public.....the few that still remain are usually full up with some 'healthier than thou' proving a point by putting apple cores and coffee cups in them. In Toronto the garbage cans had ashtrays afixed to them...in fact we spent a ton of money to get new garbage cans with ashtrays only to have them all replaced with new cans without ashtrays. The increase in butts you see is directly proportional to the removal of the public ashtray......not an excuse for the litter mind you, but an explanation.
  77. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Stan L from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman.......get your point. Prove to me that it is happening at all in Ontario and I will support your position. That second hand smoke is dangerous is not the issue.....the issue is are people actually doing this or doing this in such numbers as to warrant the expense on the public purse versus the intrusion and precidence this sets into action.......just one government stat please.....
    ------------------------
    I'm sorry, I don't have that Stan, not sure they keep stats on that. Maybe CSIS would know??? :-)

    But I do see it quite often myself so I know it's happening, and it breaks my heart to see those kids breathing in that crap.

    Guys I guess you know where I stand. I think I'll leave the floor to others now. Cheers.
  78. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: Is this really public health issue no. 1? From what I have seen, some of the most dubious science from the anti-tobacco lobby deals with second hand smoke. How many boomers grew up in households with a smoker? How many of us were given a bottle with one hand while a butt what is in the other? Do we now get to sue? When are all the dire health effects going to showup? What about all of our ancestors who lived in smoke filled homes and caves? Did all that second smoke stunt our evolution as a species?
  79. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: "Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Bob, are you an ex-smoker or just a Mrs. Lovejoy hysteric?

    --------------------
    ...just an ex-smoker from 20 years ago. Best thing I ever did (quitting). Saved me a sh!tload of money. Thanks for asking. "

    I guess we all knew the answer to this one didn't we?

    Ex-smokers are always the most fanatic anti-smokers you can find and the most irrational.
  80. Kirk . from Ajax, Canada writes: Transparent political posturing is so boring. So I will be fined for smoking in the car with a 15 year old but once I get home I can drink myself half blind then have a cigar party in the baby's room with no problem, as long as my sober wife is in the house to change the diapers. Unless I light a joint, then not only will I go to jail but I won't be able to cross borders either.

    If I drive over 50 kph while smoking with a baby in the car they take my car but only give me a fine for harming the baby. Fascinating. Didn't some guy in Bountiful marry a fifteen year old?
  81. Bob Loblaw from Ottawa, Canada writes: To me, this is a good thing. Think about it, it's not really fair for kids to have to deal with second hand smoke and form addictions and possible ailments before they fully develop just because we want a cigarette. We have a choice (i.e. smoke elsewhere) but they do not. I am a smoker myself, btw.
  82. Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Bob Loblaw - I am a smoker and I would not drive and smoke with my Kids in the car either but I still don't support the government legally making that decision. The other thing is if Police are enforcing this it takes away even more resources from tackling the amount of serious crime.
  83. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Robert Waddell : Ex-smokers are always the most fanatic anti-smokers you can find and the most irrational.
    ------------------------
    Maybe you should try quitting. Smokers don't realise how foul smelling smokers really are. A woman is only beautiful until she lights a smoke, then we are suddenly revulsed.
  84. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: "Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: What about obesity? Should parents be fined for feeding thier kids junk food?

    ------------------------
    No but they go to jail if they feed them alcohol or otherwise abuse them. Junk food doesn't quite fit into that but did you notice school boards are getting rid of their pop machines and deep friers? It's all about a society that protects its most vulnerable. "

    Many studies have confirmed that obesity is a bigger drain on health care than smoking.

    Obesity is destructive to a person's sense of self-worth/image and results in many health issues that require long-term, possibly lifetime care.

    Given these facts, how does obesity not meet the criteria in your crusade to protect the most vulnerable? Please hurry and get the government to fix this problem by having them pass a law that will prosecute parents with fat kids.
  85. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Kirk . from Ajax, Canada writes: Transparent political posturing is so boring. So I will be fined for smoking in the car with a 15 year old but once I get home I can drink myself half blind then have a cigar party in the baby's room with no problem,...

    ------------------------------
    Second hand smoke conentration is up to 11 times more in a car than in a normal setting. Think of it: confined space, no fresh air when windows closed in winter, one or two adults puffing away...
  86. J M from Canada writes: I am in favour of not having smokers kill their children, but why does this have to be legislated so that people will act? Are we a nation of bed-wetters that cannot control ourselves?
  87. Vern McPherson from writes:
    Lotsa dimwits here.

    All parties supported the piece.

    "a government-backed bill passed in the legislature with support from all parties."

    larfer the super duper dimwit blames Dalton at the outset. What does that tell you ???

    Ont is the third province to do this. 2 more are on the verge of doing it.

    Why are the yahoos still complaining about seatbelts and gay people ruining the family ?????

    Get a life yahoos. These days we know better and, therefore, we should DO better ........
  88. M M from West Coast, Canada writes: As a society we have got the point where we have to legislate common sense. That is so sad as well as being an impossible task. But good to waste tax dollars on this - after all there are no other pressing needs that should be addressed by the Ontario government. Am I being too sarcastic? I wouldn't want some human rights commission coming down on me for not being politically correct and using sarcasim as a writing style.
  89. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Many studies have confirmed that obesity is a bigger drain on health care than smoking.
    ----------------------
    Smoking is becoming less of a strain on health care because of drastic reductions in the number of smokers. This doesn't make it any less dangerous. The effects of breathing in second hand smoke can be permanent, causing breathing disorders in children lasting their entire lifetimes. Obesity on the other hand can be solved in adulthood. But I agree that parents who malnourish their kids are delinquent in their duties. Same goes for parents who don't get their kids to exercise. But we have to draw the line somewhere. If you trust doctors, then you'll believe them when the CMA lists second hand smoke as the biggest precursor to serious breathing problems in kids, problems that are often irreversible.
  90. Stan L from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: .......Second hand smoke conentration is up to 11 times more in a car than in a normal setting. Think of it: confined space, no fresh air when windows closed in winter, one or two adults puffing away...

    Bob, once again the issue is not second hand smoke....don't you think when the government passes new legislation that you are at least owed one stat to prove that all of the time and expense you are pushing on the public purse is based on facts.......I'll save you the trouble and not ask the question again, McGuinty has not provided one single shred of evidence to prove that this is happening in any kind of significant number, or is increasing......next he will tell us that becuase of HIS legislation smoking in cars has been reduced by xx% and the sheeple who get trapped by this logical fallcy of legislation lap it up like cream all the while forgetting that they never knew how many people actually did it in the first place......
  91. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Good point about seatbelts Vern. I remember the outcry back then! Same calls of nanny state...
  92. Honesty is the best Policy from Canada writes:
    Smoking is history.

    Face up to it.
  93. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: I don't know Stan, maybe there are stats. Why don't you stand on a corner and count them? Don't you ever see it? I see it all the time.

    If we didn't have seatbelt laws, half the kids would be jumping around the back seat, and the other half would be tied in, IF it wasn't the law, but just good judgement. That's not good enough. By passing a seatbelt law, ALL kids are now strapped in and the mortality rate has dropped dramatically. I'm sure a lot of parents (and kids) are happy we passed that law. Same thing with the smoking law although the benefit will be harder to appreciate.
  94. Vern McPherson from writes:
    All parties support the legislaton but the yahoodimwitmisfits blame McGuinty ??????

    WOW !!!!!!
  95. Stan L from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman....there are stats, THAT's my point, all the stats show that smoking is decreasing in ever increaisng numbers year over year.....Dalton himself brags that in his time in office smoking has decreased over 30% in Ontario and claims that 300 hundred people in Ontario die from second hand smoke.....how many of those 300 are children? I don't know the province doesn't supply THOSE numbers.....get it there is NO proof that this is happening to justify the expense or the instrusion.....Seatbelts are different becuase there WERE stats to prove how using them was effective, how many people were injured without them and how many accideents could have been prevented by using them.....and the numbers were FAR more significant that the ones for a habit that is slowly devolving out of society on its own.....like I said a logical fallacy for the sheeple.....and apparently it doens't take much to sway some voters.....a few bag bans here and few meaningless nanny state laws there and bam you don't have to actually DO anything.......
  96. Terry Terry from Brantford, Canada writes: Bring back rumble seats!
  97. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Stan, it's the diehard smokers that will smoke until their last breath and they're the ones most likely to subject their kids to it because it's their god-given right. Well, it's time to take that right away because these people are harming their kids. If rates continue to drop well then there isn't any problem it there? There'll be nothing left to enforce. But until then, all three parties have agreed that it's best to send the message that it's no longer an acceptable practice.

    And it won't add any cost because cops are already checking for seatbelts and car seats. So what's the problem?
  98. Puzzled One from Vancouver, Canada writes: For those of you who claim this is about individual rights... This legislation is about a child's rights, who has no say in when and where her parents smoke, yet their smoking irrevocably harms her.

    I am in my late thirties and have severe asthma. Unmedicated, I cannot climb a flight of stairs. My parents smoked, but not heavily. My life, and now my children's lives (my children have inherited my asthma),have been affected by second hand smoke.

    Second hand smoke is not benign and the health of non-smokers must be protected.
  99. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: "Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Many studies have confirmed that obesity is a bigger drain on health care than smoking.
    ----------------------
    Smoking is becoming less of a strain on health care because of drastic reductions in the number of smokers. "

    Wrong Bob.

    The study was done on a 1-1 basis.

    eg. Costs of one obese person through lifetime vs costs of one smoker thorugh lifetime.
  100. Dan Thomas from Canada writes: I am very pleased with this new legislation. Lets start pushing to have the penalty increased. I'd also like to see a few people made examples of.
  101. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Vern McPherson from writes:
    All parties support the legislaton but the yahoodimwitmisfits blame McGuinty ??????

    WOW !!!!!!

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Hey Vern,
    Nobody wants to hear your rude, sneering insults.
    Do us all a favour and slither back under your rock you nasty, venemous little toad.
  102. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Dan Thomas from Canada writes: I am very pleased with this new legislation. Lets start pushing to have the penalty increased. I'd also like to see a few people made examples of.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Damn straight!
    In fact, we should start rounding people who we believe MIGHT smoke in the car with their kiddies just to be safe.

    (BTW - I smoked a pack a day for over 30 years. Quit ten years ago. Can't abide the foul things now.)
  103. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Robert Waddell : Costs of one obese person through lifetime vs costs of one smoker thorugh lifetime.
    ----------------------------------
    So what's your point Robert? That we should ban trans-fats as well? Some cities and states already do, with more to come, no doubt. Not sure what your point is.
  104. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: It really boggles the mind that tobacco is a legal product to sell, buy and consume. Gutless governments.
  105. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Smittyman and the gang of socialist engineers ranting here perfectly exemplifies why this type of legislation is wrong and will fail.

    Zealotry is not sufficient a reason to punish a habit.

    And the sad/gross/horrible part of this is same story is that this gang of fools will parade around yapping endlessly about how providing injection sites for junkies is in the best interest of society. Ha. It does no one any good but the zealots who villify smokers and raise junkies up as mere victims.

    So it is OK to be addicted to junk/crack/meth/alcohol but not smoking. Amazing trick of moral relativism. And they also cheer on the jihadi's.
  106. Stan L from Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Stan, it's the diehard smokers that will smoke until their last breath and they're the ones most likely to subject their kids to it because it's their god-given right....... Bob again you are just guessing, smokers have drastically changed their behaviours already and without proof, you can't say that what you are saying is true.....and what is the problem passing legislation that solves a problem we don't have? Well, it takes time and money out of the system to further appease a zealous few while demonizing others, spending our tax dollars on a non-existent problem is no way to run a government particularily one with the financial issues this one has.......again Dalton says 300 people die from second hand smoking related deaths....so even if we are to assume that a whopping 10% of these are children (the reality is probably more like 1%) that would still be LESS childhood deaths than those caused by say drowning each year, or car accidents, or any number of things which claim the lives of children that adults could prevent......it's a waste of taxpayers dollars, an intusion onto the slippery slope of privacy issues and a way to demonize a minority of people for an easy vote as opposed to doing something genuinely constructive and helpful for the province.....THAT's my problem.
  107. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: The first Cop who hands out a "smoking in the car with kids" ticket, will be the laughing stock of their precinct.
  108. Jen Dobson from Canada writes: "So it is OK to be addicted to junk/crack/meth/alcohol but not smoking. Amazing trick of moral relativism. And they also cheer on the jihadi's"

    Umm... I'm pretty sure the people defending the right to smoke are also defending the injection sites.

    I'm also not clear on the paralell. You can't bring your kid to the injection site, so how is it the same?

    Anyways I'm not sure who those making this comment are aiming it at. It isn't the "left" who wants this smoking ban. Similarly, alot of conservatives support the safe injection sites too. Really both issues are party neutral. So who are you blaming exactly? Please elaborate.
  109. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: Thirdhand smoke is much deadlier than secondhand smoke, so why aren't they banning that?
  110. TKO from Ontario from Canada writes: This is great news for the health of our little ones. Finally the government is doing something right. One of my earliest childhood memories is of driving the car on my fathers lap. It was in Europe, I was 5 or 6 years old. I would hold the steering wheel and my dad would shift gears, accelerate and break. It was awesome, except for when my dad would accidentally burn my hands with the cigarette he was holding. It hurt alot but I never cried or complained just to show how strong I was. My dad died of a massive heart attack at just 51 years of age; he wasn't fat either. I miss him alot and wish he lived a long time because he'd be an awesome grandfather today. We didn't wear seat belts either, the car didn't have any. I'm glad those are mandatory because they do save lives. Cheers to you and your children’s health.
  111. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Can a ban on smoking in your own home be far behind? Surely smoking in a home where there are children present is just as harmful as smoking in a car?

    Cigarettes are still legal ... you're just not allowed to smoke them anywhere.
  112. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Stan L from Canada writes: ...it's a waste of taxpayers dollars, an intusion onto the slippery slope of privacy issues and a way to demonize a minority of people for an easy vote as opposed to doing something genuinely constructive and helpful for the province.....
    ---------------------------
    Well Stan, you're certainly welcome to your opinion. I don't see it as an intrusion if it saves lives. And no one is demonizing anyone. It's our responsibility as a society to step in when individuals do harm to the vulnerable, that's all. If you're opposed to that concept than I don't have an answer for you. Similar laws already exist in Europe, in two other provinces and soon to come in two more provinces and a bunch of states. Why is it that the law-and-order crowd want to throw addicts in jail (who are harming no one but themselves), but they won't sanction someone who is knowingly harming a child?
  113. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: The first Cop who hands out a "smoking in the car with kids" ticket, will be the laughing stock of their precinct.

    ----------------------
    Are you against child restraint seats as well?
  114. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: "So what's your point Robert? That we should ban trans-fats as well? Some cities and states already do, with more to come, no doubt. Not sure what your point is. " Bob, my point is that the anti-smoking crusade is fizzling out (smokers numbers are declining) and as you're so concerned with protecting the children I thought you might need another crusade. Just kidding (a bit). My point is that you've brought up health care costs of smokers as one of the important issues. Someone else then brought up that obesity is more expensive. You retorted that having an obese child doesn't fit the abuse criteria but I disagree. Fattening your child up until he can't excercise, constantly has health issues, low self-esteem, etc. is at least equally (if not more) destructive to a child as second hand smoke and it costs more in the long run health care wise. You state that second hand smoke damage is irreversable but obesity is. Wrong on both counts. Not all second hand smoke damage is irreversable, (if it was smokers wouldn't quit to improve their health) and not all problems caused by obesity can be fixed simply by going on a diet and losing the weight. It's because you're an ex-smoker that you're so vehement in your defence of the children in the car/smoker legislation scenario while suggesting obesity doesn't fall into the same category. Slightly hypocritical don't you think? Stop using the "in order to protect the children" statement to tie you on to your moral high horse and just say you're a militant ex-smoker who won't be happy until all temptation is forever removed from your world.
  115. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Can a ban on smoking in your own home be far behind? Surely smoking in a home where there are children present is just as harmful as smoking in a car?

    ---------------------------
    Not really: "Government officials cite studies which show that kids are exposed to up to 27 times the toxins when they're in enclosed spaces like a car, which can worsen asthma and lead to other respiratory illnesses."
  116. Moving Faster from G'ville, Canada writes: What about banning the production of toxic chemicals that are in air that EVERYONE breathes? And that kills more than 3000 people per year? Oh, I forgot, it's fine to do that, if the company can offer a polititan a seat on the board when they're out of office (does anyone remember when the last government was that made a decision that wasn't geared to getting themselves re-elected?) Or maybe it's because that is the more difficult problem to solve, but either way, it's another useless law. If smoking is so bad, why not ban cigars, cigarettes, tobacco ???? There's no one left in Ontario making them anymore, so there's no jobs to lose (anymore) .
  117. Robert Loblaw from Canada, Canada writes: Jen Dobson - It's not an issue of the right to smoke or not smoke, Jen. The issue is the government telling people that they can't perform an otherwise illegal act in a private environment.

    It's an issue of the govt. attempting to legislate common sense, but more than anything else, its an issue of the govt. introducing legilation that won't be enforced, in an effort to appear to be doing something, when is is in fact doing nothing. It doesn't matter that all 3 parties supported the bill.

    Those that buy the notion that this govt. has done anything (apart from increasing taxes - read health premium) since originally elected are brain dead.
  118. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Robert, I think you're being a bit over dramatic about my motivations. While being an ex-smoker, I have always been sympathetic to smokers and their plight to stop. My wife never stopped when I did, and unfortunately she is no longer of this world. She died of lung cancer two years ago. But I'm not an over-zealous anti-smoker as you would make me out to be, despite having gone through this loss.

    Your point about obesity is well taken. I read a few months ago of a parent who lost custody of her child in the US specifically because her child was obese and the mother wasn't taking any steps to reduce the child's input. So we have to ask ourselves as a society, how far do we go in balancing privacy rights, with the rights of the more vulnerable? Your view is different from mine, but I respect your opinion and thank you for the debate.
  119. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: I've read you comments, Smiterman, and I'd have to say that it looks like you have a psychological problem. Anyone who becomes as fanatical as you do over the behaviour of others has got unresolved personal issues.

    Most responsible parents are already refraining from smoking in their cars while young children are present, I'm sure.

    I wish the gov't would pull the rug out from beneath the anti-smoking fanatics and lobby groups, by just outlawing smoking altogether.

    BTW, your idea about "licensing" people who want to smoke is completely out to lunch.
  120. Jen Dobson from Canada writes: I understand your point perfect Robert, and I am in fact torn. If this law said you can't smoke in your car period - I'd be the first one calling my MP and fuming. But when you add "with kids under 16 in the car" to it - suddenly I think it is valid. But I do worry about the slope and I do not hate smokers, in fact I'm generally always defending the right to smoke here from the right-wing zealots who always want to ban everything and take away everyone's freedoms. However I would point out - that I don't understand your last few sentances. You say "to appear to be doing something"... who exactly are they appearing to be doing something to? I don't recall a big campaign from people to have something like this introduced. And it would take very minimal effort to pass this bill, so it's not like resources are being wasted on this. So what do you mean exactly? Also I'd say recovering from the massive debt left by Flaherty and the conservatives, and getting Ontario back on track counts as "doing something". So I disagree with your notion that this government did nothing. They sure as heck have done way more then the conservatives ever did. So whatever you say about McGuinty, you must realize any negatively must be multipled by 10 and directed at the conservatives who came before him, since he's done so much better then them.
  121. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Concluding that people who don't agree with this legislation, "hate children" and "want to kill them," is completely illogical, Mr. Smitherman. It just goes to show that your reasoning is wrong.
  122. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: I've read you comments, Smiterman, and I'd have to say that it looks like you have a psychological problem. Anyone who becomes as fanatical as you do over the behaviour of others has got unresolved personal issues.
    ---------------------------
    While I can assure you that I have no psychological problems, I nonetheless thank you for reading all my posts.

    The reference to licencing people to smoke was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but would provide a way of banning smoking to non-smokers (i.e. preventing any new smokers) while extending the right to existing smokers until their death. I thought is was quite ingenious myself.

    Unfortunately I have to excuse myself from this forum, with thanks for all your comments.
  123. Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Oh my gosh Dan it was a joke. I was responding to Steve's 2:54 post! LOL
  124. karra redux from from: good things growowow - in Ontareee-owe. . . ., Canada writes: 'Slippery slope' indeed eh wot McDoilly - the only slippery slope is your ever-growing nose. . . .
  125. Ray Crawford from Toronto, Canada writes: Has anybody clued into the relationship between the decline of smoking and the rise of obesity. Look at photographs from the 1970's and notice how slim people were, although many of them had cigarettes in their mouths. I smoke cigars - about 5 a day- and my weight believe it or not is below normal. I'll never have to use the medical system to "fix" obesity-related diseases such as diabetes. Uncle Dalton just loves to pass these laws that tell people how to live their lives. Next--- a law prohibiting all-night fast food drive-ins.
  126. Tilting @ Windmills from Marbella, Spain writes: People have the right to harm or kill themselves, but not others. Next.
  127. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: ..........Obesity and junk food will be next. Let's keep them occuppied on smoking for as long as possible. We may eventually have them legislating our calorie intake, for our own good of course.

    Seriously though, most (alot that I know) parents already don't smoke with their kids in the car and even smoke outside when they are home. Parents in general are responsible and don't need big brother enforcing these kinds of things.
  128. Borys Nijinski from Canada writes: We all seem to understand and for the mosgt part agree that exposure to second hand smoke is not a good idea. The sad thing is we have to enact legislation to protect children from exposure to second hand smoke inside cars because some parents are too stupid to see the risk in which they put their kids.
  129. John Smith from Canada writes: Why didn't the McGuinty government simply the problem and ban cars since the research evidence on the effects of vehicle emissions on children is equally damning as second hand cigarette smoke? Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.
  130. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: Vern McPherson from writes:
    "Lotsa dimwits here."

    Caught ya looking in the mirror, eh dimwit.
  131. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: John Smith........That would solve alot of problems de jour. Don't repeat it, it might get traction.
  132. Hung Long from Hong Kong writes: If the government was truly interested in protecting children, it would prohibit alcohol and drug abuse by pregnant women.

    But that won't happen because it is politically incorrect.
  133. Mitzi Maggie from Oakville, Canada writes: Ain't it grand! It will be okay for a cop to stop a car with a person in it who "looks" like he or she is not 16 or older, but we don't have photo radar because it invades the driver's privacy. Curious indeed and little more than another dose of liberal fascism. Next stop - warrantless searches of private homes to see if there is smoking going on when the kids are home! I don't know how it will work in other parts of Ontario, but in Oakville, Halton's best cannot even come to grips with the increasing number of drivers who have "forgotten" what a STOP sign means and believe that a yellow light is a mere suggestion.
  134. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: My people are dumb, really dumb. They go after the smokers but the major polluters can do whatever they want.
  135. glenn laine from Canada writes: You speak to most reasonable people and what they want is the government out of their life and wallets. This is a well meaning but poorly thought out legislation. It's my opinion that one should concern themselves about their own behavior not others. If you really believe in this legislation how can you accept parents that are on welfare?
  136. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Robert Loblaw: you have the wrong idea about the Liberals. The Liberals are more about freedom than you think. In fact, it's the Conservatives that'll create far more problems. Liberals let gays live free lives, accepted, Conservatives don't accept them. Tons of churchy people vote Conservatives simply and utterly because their church tells them to, and one of the main arguments is gay marriage. Weird, but true. So, to see a freeer more open society where we discuss things and make positive changes, we need a Liberal government, not a Conservative one. Harper for instance is about secrecy and doing things behind closed doors. No press allowed. No discussions. You never see him come out and discuss things. The Conservatives are just very bad for Canada and that's that.
  137. The Globing Male from Beantown, United States writes: The I'm constantly amazed at how easily and quickly Canadians give up their individual liberties. You truly are a p-whipped people, even your men-folk.
    So glad I've left there forever.
  138. John Connor from Canada writes: Joseph Whistle, do you work at being a complete bonehead, or were you simply dropped as a child? Liberal governments have been an absolute disaster for this country ever since Trudeau the Red introduced deficit financing in the 70's

    Check your history books fella, there are worse things in life than Conservtive governments. Mainly the Liberal and New Democratic tax and spendthrifts. Ask Vern, and Toronto's own village idot , Mayor Miller.
  139. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Someone earlier asked why doesn't the government simply ban tobacco, since it's bad for you?

    Well there's one very important reason for not banning tobacco, which also leads to two other equally important reasons!

    But first the important reason, it's the perfect scapegoat for all the cancers people have. If tobacco were banned today the medical profession & governments know for a fact that in 25 years cancer rates will be as high if not higher than they are today. For the simple fact smoking causes only a very small percentage of the cancers people are afflicted with. The Chinese have smoked for thousands of years, yet it wasn't until the industrial revolution that cancers began appearing in the Chinese people, like they have everywhere else.

    The other two reasons for not banning tobacco
    -The anti-smoking lobby would be out of work, almost all their funding comes from the taxpayers pockets!
    -Governments rely heavily on the taxes from tobacco, do you really want your tax rate to rise to offset the lose of tobacco taxes!
  140. Dan Thomas from Canada writes: Yeah globing male, Americans never rolled over for the government either did they? Pot, kettle, black?? Maybe??
  141. Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election from Toronto, Canada writes: Nobody should be smoking inside cars with children. There is no excuse for smoking inside cars with children.
  142. jack vanacker from langton, Canada writes: i say...good job Mr McGuinty...lets have no smoking in our cars with children under age of 16 so when we open our windows they can breathe only the fumes from the vehicles and our pollution from our factories into their healthy lungs and we can still blame smoking for their problems
  143. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: The Globing Male from Beantown, United States writes: The I'm constantly amazed at how easily and quickly Canadians give up their individual liberties. You truly are a p-whipped people, even your men-folk. So glad I've left there forever.

    To where, America? You forgot to add that for the punchline.
  144. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: John Connor from Canada writes: Joseph Whistle, do you work at being a complete bonehead, or were you simply dropped as a child? Liberal governments have been an absolute disaster for this country ever since Trudeau the Red introduced deficit financing in the 70's

    Check your history books fella, there are worse things in life than Conservtive governments. Mainly the Liberal and New Democratic tax and spendthrifts. Ask Vern, and Toronto's own village idot , Mayor Miller.

    Idot? What's an idot? I guess it's like a Conservtive. What's the word? Thunderbird.
  145. Borys Nijinski from Canada writes: Many have commented negatively on the ban by making reference to vehicular exhaust...it has been shown that the way gasoline engines work today results in cleaner air out of the exhaust pipe than what went in. Exhaust from today's gasoline automobile engine consists of CO2, water and a very tiny amount of unburned hydrocarbons, very little carbon monoxide and very few oxides of nitrogen. So tell me how it is that car exhausts compare to cigarette fumes?
  146. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Now this pisses me off to no end. My favourite past time is lighting up a 10 inch stogie in my Suzuki Swift, with windows shut, and my 8 week old quadruplets in the back seat. God damn government ruins everything.
  147. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: I hate cigarettes, think heavy smokers smell disgustingly and did not smoke one cigarette throughout my life. No one can smoke in my car.
    And I hate state invasion to private lives, think providing yet another reason to the police to stare at inside the cars to check if anyone is acting inappropriately, and did not ever give a damn to whoever else is smoking in his own car with his own minors. This is something like banning suicide.
    Just tell me the essential difference between the article about what the "morality" police of Iran are doing about "improper" clothing and this one. The other is wrong and this one is right? Both are "better society" engineering methodologies.
    And I do not understand how producing cigarettes in giant factories is considered as "legal production" and consuming what is legally produced can be banned in people's private lives. One ban will be sufficient: outlawing cigarette production.
  148. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: Oops! Correction:
    think providing yet another reason to the police to stare at inside the cars to check if anyone is acting inappropriately is disgusting
  149. Older'n Dirt from Belleville, Canada writes: Just another civil liberty being altered by those who know what is best for everyone. Personally, I couldn't give a rat's A** about smoking, cell phone use in cars etc but I can't remember any time in my life that there has been such a concerted effort to legislate everyday choices that heretofore have been the right of individuals to make. No doubt that there are those that make bad choices in life but you can't ban stupidity. Every ban is another lost liberty and freedom of choice that diminishes not only those affected but all. Give a kid a bike but he can't ride it as he can't afford the legislated helmet! Bareheaded riding of motorcycles is banned, unnless you are a Sikh in BC. Guess they are safer and smarter than the rest of us. The next ban will be on something that you take for granted but it will be too late. Question: "how do you become a totalitarian state?" Answer...one ban at a time. The cheering section for the banners should start compiling their lists of what to ban next and assign priorities so it can be done efficiently like pre-WW2 German leaders did. >>>>>>on Another vane,Ever had fresh milk or home churned butter from the farm like I grew up on, no? and you won't as it is banned from sale to the public as someone decided that you can't enjoy it. How about real eggs fresh from the farm? not likely, you get the 2-3 week old ones at the supermarket. If you live in Vancouver, you and your church group cannot serve sandiches to the poor as the food was not prepared in a Govt approved food servicde facility. Obviously this ban is good for the poor street people as the bureaucrats can rest easier knowing that although the folks are starving, they are only going to eat approved food stuffs and if they die it won't be their fault. Guess this is creative banning at its best. For those wanting to take away personal choices through bans that don't affect you, get ready for the next ban, it will likely affect you and your chosen lifestyle.
  150. John Smith from Canada writes: yeah right Borys Nijinski, cars are good for our air. More cars mean better health for all. It is to laugh. I guess you side with Ronald Reagan on "killer trees" too. The research that contradicts you opinion is massive, but these report nicely summarize much of it.

    http://www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/exhaust06.pdf

    http://www.mothersforcleanaircolorado.org/5099Evidenceofhealtheffectsfromhighwaypollution.pdf
  151. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Robert Loblaw: you have the wrong idea about the Liberals. The Liberals are more about freedom than you think. In fact, it's the Conservatives that'll create far more problems. Liberals let gays live free lives, accepted, Conservatives don't accept them. Tons of churchy people vote Conservatives simply and utterly because their church tells them to, and one of the main arguments is gay marriage. Weird, but true. So, to see a freeer more open society where we discuss things and make positive changes, we need a Liberal government, not a Conservative one. Harper for instance is about secrecy and doing things behind closed doors. No press allowed. No discussions. You never see him come out and discuss things. The Conservatives are just very bad for Canada and that's that.

    _

    So then why is it that LIAR and Miller are the ones proposing BANS on everything? Not only that, but in many cases they are idiotic never enforcable bans! See a cop, lower your cigarette...Gee thats hard! Are they going to equip cops with nicotine breathalyzers now?

    It's dumb and unenforcable. That's that.
  152. John Smith from Canada writes: Boris, here is one you should like. Note the study conclusion: "The total concentration of C2-C8 hydrocarbons was found to be similar in a smoky room and in a car in urban traffic."

    ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT VOLATILE HYDROCARBONS FROM TOBACCO SMOKE AND FROM VEHICLE EMISSIONS
    Gunnar Barreford and Göran Petersson*
    Department of Chemical Environmental Science, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96
    Gothenburg (Sweden)

    ABSTRACT
    "Quantitative proportions of C2-C8 alkenes, alkynes, alkanes and arenes were determined for indoor smoky air and for air inside a private car. Samples were taken on adsorbent cartridges and analyzed by gas chromatography on an aluminum oxide column. The proportions of more than twenty reported alkenes, alkadienes and alkynes were demonstrated to be very similar in a smoky room and in sidestream cigarette smoke. Isoprene, ethene and propene are major components. Urban air polluted by petrol-fuelled vehicles differs mainly by having much lower proportions of isoprene and much higher proportions of petrol alkanes and alkylbenzenes. The total concentration of C2-C8 hydrocarbons was found to be similar in a smoky room and in a car in urban traffic."
  153. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: And if some person's understanding of child rearing comprises smoking during his/her own child's presence in a car, this ban will only protect the kid from 1 harm out of 1.000 harms his/her parents can do. Smoking or burning papers in a kid's room while the kid is asleep, are very harmful activities too. Perhaps the police should visit each and every house for this purpose every night.
  154. John Smith from Canada writes: Oh Boris you might want to offer your knowledge and services to the American Heart Association, they don't seem to realize cars mean cleaner air. They have identified air pollution INCLUDING VEHICLE EMISSIONS as a major heart health threat.

    "Long-term exposure to air pollution from a nearby freeway or heavily trafficked streets is associated with a hardening of the arteries that could raise the risk of heart disease and stroke, reported in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association."
  155. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: Bob Smitherman from Canada writes: Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Can a ban on smoking in your own home be far behind? Surely smoking in a home where there are children present is just as harmful as smoking in a car?

    ---------------------------
    Not really: "Government officials cite studies which show that kids are exposed to up to 27 times the toxins when they're in enclosed spaces like a car, which can worsen asthma and lead to other respiratory illnesses."

    _ _ _ _ _

    Whatever, Bob. At the rate this is going I say 10 years max (9 until they vehemently deny it, then another year to flip-flop) until they make it illegal to smoke in your own house. First it will be if you have kids, then it will be if you have a dog, a cat or a gerbil...Who is going to stand up for the poor defenseless pets if not the Liberals? HUH?

    By the way, you can't pull out Gov't studies only for the BANS you like. Never saw you pulling out Health Canada's claims that pesticides were safe when LIAR imposed the ban on pesticides, now did we?
  156. Older'n Dirt from Belleville, Canada writes: PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Robert Loblaw: you have the wrong idea about the Liberals. The Liberals are more about freedom than you think. In fact, it's the Conservatives that'll create far more problems. Liberals let gays live free lives, accepted, >>>>??????????? Liberal freedoms are more myth than substance. If they approve of Gays, why don't they support polygamy? If they support the Charter, why don't they support it for aboriginals? If they support equality, how can they support a BC Judge giving freedom to Sikh's to ride a motorcycle without helmet but deny every other citizen in the country? Why force kids to buy an approved helmet before he/she can ride their bike? What if the kid is poor and can't afford a helmet? Guess the bike gets put away. Funny my generatio got by very well without the helmets but we likely had smarter parents than the current liberal influenced lot! Liberals banned the direct sale of milk and butter from farms cause they thought it would be good for us not to have that choice. They decided to ban farm fresh eggs from store shelves so we can get the 3 week old ones instead? The list is quite endless if you care to look at the infringements on peoples right to make choices. Alternatively, the conservatives have banned next to nothing while in power. They have been trying to ban stupidity but the liberals are fighting hard against it. Go figure! Do you feel as stupid as your post makes you out?
  157. Harbinger from Out West from Prince George, Canada writes: Smoking in convertibles with their tops down exempt from this law? We were so poor, I had to inhale third hand smoke while young.
  158. Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: I think we should herd the smokers together in small rooms and let them smoke their minimal brains out. They obviously have very little intelligence left.

    As for this law, I am in my car a lot for work and the number of people smoking with children in the vehicle is appalling. What I've noticed is that very few smokers are considerate of how others feel about the disgusting habit. It's dirty, stinks and it invades a large space.

    Give it up smokers, the world is against you and rightly so!
  159. Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: I have a solution for everyone! Use your heads and quit smoking. If you haven't figured out that lighting something on fire and putting it in your mouth doesn't make sense, someone needs some higher education. It's been proven that a higher percentage of smokers come from low income families and have lower education levels. To the rest of us, it's very basic.
  160. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: After reading stories like this followed by the comments I find I need to laugh because I should be dead right now. I grew up with two parents that smoked in the house and in the car all the time. Also, smoking was allowed everywhere - grocery stores, arenas, air planes, etc.! I also rode my bike without a helmet, was allowed to play in the woods with friends with no parental supervision, had a string on my coat hood so I could close it, and many many other things that will kill today's kids according to the powers that be and a lot of the general public. I'm sure there are a lot of us out there that fit the description. All too often these days common sense parenting is being legislated. I think enough is enough. Sometimes kids need to be kids - and yes, this includes breaking your arm falling out of a tree, skinning your knee because you tried to jump three garbage cans on your bike, and sometimes, dealing with unreasonable parents. But children these days are aren't hardy like we were in the past and parents need legislative help to figure out how to raise their glass ultra breakable children. It's sad really.
  161. Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: JS from Toronto, I don't think the world would miss you.
  162. Johnn Baraka from Victoria, Canada writes: This law should be mandated across the country. In fact smoking should be banned right across the country. I am so tired of many smokers not respecting the rights of non-smokers. The stench on you smokers is just so disgusting it makes me cringe.
  163. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: "Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: JS from Toronto, I don't think the world would miss you."

    Don't tell me Carl - you needed to buy a book to figure out how to feed you child, didn't you.
  164. Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: Shows how much you know JS, men can't feed babies if it's done properly.
  165. Sean L. from Torontostadt, kapital of Kanadalandsich, Canada writes: What kind of Nazi country is this?

    How can anyone consider this a good law. This is an outrageous attack on property rights, as well as individual rights. The state can not ban your personal behavior on your private property - the last I heard, tobacco was a legal product, for sale in Canada for use in the activity of smoking. And the last I heard, the courts consider the inside of your car private property. What's next - they can't smoke in their own homes if they have children? Then what - maybe no-one is allowed to own peanut butter? Then perhaps we need travel permits to go to Oakville? By the way how are those free speech rights show trials going over at the BC HRC? Can I offer you a tasering with your entry visa?

    Just because we all agree that smoking is a hideously unhealthy and unattractive habit, and we can express our opposition to this behavior quite verbally, and even go so far as to shun smokers socially - as long as tobacco is a legally sold product in this country, we can not regulate an adults use of this product within their own private property.

    Anyone who disagrees, might as well just wear a swastica armband - because you are a fascist.
  166. hossein hajiagha from Vancouver senior Island, Canada writes: and in BC drugs and smoking get free for kids under ...kindergartens
    you want sex go in vancouver 13 or 14
    $20 pay for drugs
    life can not be better as best place for living?
  167. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: I have to laugh at the dark humor posted here.
    The police are tackling crime folks, unfortunately the lawyers are getting the criminals out faster than the cops can put them in.
    Remember, the police want an easy day too, they are invested in having the perps in jail.
    The lawyers want to make money, they are invested in having the perps on the streets to re-offend.
    Who do you think is wining?
  168. Mr. Andrew Toth from Oliver, BC, Canada writes: A smart move, in my opinion.
  169. Dr. Strangelove from Edmonton, Canada writes: Unfortunately, we here in Alberta have a "government" (I use the term VERY loosely) that bows to every well-funded lobby group, especially if that lobby group contributes to the party coffers. So, our "government" will likely tackle this issue "head on" just as vigorously as they have with all of the concerns about Big Oil and pollution/climate change out here.

    As Bruce Springsteen says, "Money Talks." --- and ethics and morals walk.

    .
  170. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: I'm simply not buying the Conservative rhetoric. Conservatives to me means closing of hospitals, creating the perfect climate for privatized health care by purposely draining the system, removing support systems, closing schools, privatizing roads (eg. 407 toll road where most pay over $200 a month), privatizing energy (watch your electric bill triple - eg. California), anti women, closed behind door discussion, dictatorship.
    Woof, enough enough. It's time Harper is booted out out out.
  171. Dr. Strangelove from Edmonton, Canada writes: This just in .... the Alberta Government has announced that they have formed a committee that will meet daily to bring forward recommendations regarding smoking in vehicles where there are children under 16 present. The committee is expected to publish its findings in 2060. During the intervening time, all MLAs on the committee (100% of the PCs, 0% of the Opposition) will be paid an extra $200 per hour for every committee meeting which, as defined by those same MLAs, will add to their "severance package" calculations.

    .
  172. Older'n Dirt from Belleville, Canada writes: Johnn Baraka from Victoria, Canada writes: This law should be mandated across the country. In fact smoking should be banned right across the country. I am so tired of many smokers not respecting the rights of non-smokers. The stench on you smokers is just so disgusting it makes me cringe. >>>>>>>>> The only stench worse than smoke is that emanating from righteous socialist idiots that think LEGISLATING COMMON SENSE THROUGH THEIR SELECTIVE BAN DU JOUR IS LESS DISGUSTING THAN SECOND HAND SMOKE. Did you ever sit beside one of them suckers in a crowded room? enough to make a grown person gag. Righteousness oozes out of every pore. Most are overweight slobs with BO problems that will be found huddled around the free food and Aqua Pure stuffed to overfull with Tim Horton fat pills. Then again, maybe it's the overpowering stench of their perfumes and lotions that they seem to want to pour over themselves to distract from their righteousness. So....ban smoking, then ban fat people and things that make them that way, ban all perfumes as it gives a lot of us bad headaches, Ban all poly based clothes as it's made with petrochems (poor will have no clothes but what the heck.) Ban small cars as more people are hurt in them when involved in accidents than in big cars. Ban knives as people in Toronto seem to prefer them to guns for their weekly killing sprees. Ban ethnic foods that use a lot of spices that foul the air as it is quite unsettling to breath. Then ban the idiots that think banning anything is a good way to protect people from themselves. In closing, some smokers may be uncaring and stupid. I can understad writers such as you then making the great leap that all smokers deserve your disdain. I know some anti smoking socialist zealots that are fat and stinky, by the same standard uou use for smokers, all of you are alike! Tell me it ain't so!
  173. Bruce Rideout from the ghetto coast, Canada writes: "mommy"
    "MOMMY"
    "MuMMMMMMMMAAAAY"
    "yes dear"
    "Can I have another cigarrette?"
    "Oh, allright", "Just wait till we get past this police checkpoint'
  174. D L from Canada writes: Not that I am a smoker.... Smoking is legal and this law is invasion an invasion of privacy. The gov't talking out of both sides of its both - can't make smoking illegal probably get too much tax dollars from it, but can only make quasi legal so as to look good. What's next, if one flatulates in their car are you exposing your kids to noxious gas?!
  175. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: >> Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: I'm simply not buying the Conservative rhetoric. Conservatives to me means closing of hospitals,

    Totally agree. Remember in Ontario how they robbed Ontarians of eyecare, and used the money to fund General Motors instead?
  176. Peter Adams from london, Canada writes: Sounds like most of you making comments have never smoked; I quit 22yrs ago, and I tell you it was a struggle. Hardest thing I ever did in my life. I feel for all smokers because deep down inside they all want to quit, but just cant. Its an insiduous habit. But I have friends and relations who still smoke; they are nice people; and they all go outside to smoke, even at their own houses. They are nice people, really, even though they are smokers! Well you know, I like a drink now and then; most of the price of booze is tax. Same as cigarettes, actually its even worse for cigarettes. If everyone quit smoking I think Dalton might add this tax on to my booze price and I cant have that. So as long as cigarettes remain economically elastic, then I wont have to worry and Dalton and all the rest of the tax grabbers can keep on grabbing. But if everyone quit, well......... Actually, perhaps we should ban smoking, and add the taxes on to the price of gasoline, whats a few more bucks a litre going to matter to drivers. Pretty soon Dalton and all his liberal cronies will be telling us how to eat at the supper table, what is proper and what is not; then the police can check us all on that. Just think of the extra tax revenue from all those fines too! Hey they could use that money to pay our doctors enough so I can find one in Ontario that might consider me as a patient. Right now, if I get sick I have to walk into one on Ontario's dirty little walk-in clinics. Have you been in one of them lately? Dalton, please stay out of my life and pocket book; do something about the things that are really important; a lot of people will be out of work next year, they wont be able to afford a car, nor cigarettes. PS. Oh I forgot, at $2.50 a litre for gas, the kids wont be in cars anymore anyway, wont need to worry about smoking laws...but that's not really Dalton's fault...Thats another issue..how come Americans pay less at their pumps than us for our gas???.....
  177. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: I have a solution for everyone! Use your heads and quit smoking. If you haven't figured out that lighting something on fire and putting it in your mouth doesn't make sense, someone needs some higher education. It's been proven that a higher percentage of smokers come from low income families and have lower education levels. To the rest of us, it's very basic.
    Posted 16/06/08 at 10:29 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    ==========================================
    Now this is a very biased opinion. What would know about those that are low income? What do you think just because you have an education that makes you smarter or is it that you are so full of yourself, that you cannot see that all people are people. Some people may not have the same opportunities. I know may low income people who do not smoke and many who are educated who do, so your thesis is a little dry there boy. If you hae children, I pity them for having a parent is so closed minded, a person who lacks empathy and who judges a book by thei cover. You sir are a legend in your own mind, not in anybody elses.
  178. James MacDonald from Edmonton, Canada writes: I am sick and tired of inhaling cigarette smoke at hospitals. I pick-up and deliver blood products to various hospitals in the Edmonton area and at every hospital entrance there is an arm of smokers blocking the entrance. All newborns first breath of fresh air is filled with cigarette smoke. That is just disgusting.
  179. jack vanacker from langton, Canada writes: donnot worry just tell them that they are smokes from the smokes at the rsserves then opp wouldnt give you a fine there allouded to sell to children ask harper and mc guinty
  180. Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: The US EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) has gone through extensive studies and testing and proven that children from low income, low education households are much more likely to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (second hand smoke). This is due largely in part to the lack of education of the smokers.

    At least that's what the study says.
  181. Carl Sterritt from Canada writes: Cigarettes are a not a legal product. They are a controlled substance. The government has every right to further control the use of a controlled substance. It would seem that the reality is starting to set in for you smokers that society is turning against you.

    Percentage of people with a University Education who smoke in Canada - 14%

    Percentage of people with less than a high school education in Canada who smoke - 28%

    Percentage of people in Canada who are unemployed and smoke - 47%

    - Statcan.ca

    You're in the minority every way you look at it. Join the democratic majority before it's too late.
  182. Gord Lewis from Canada writes: Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: . . . "Some people may not have the same opportunities."

    Ever think that maybe these people would have more opportunities if they were not blowing $6 (?) on a pack every day? I have noticed while standing in line at the corner store that buying lottery tickets seem to go along with the cigarets. So that seems to support the low education/intelligence/income aspect of the statistics.

    The next frontier is smoking outside buildings. It seems the war on smoking won't be finished in my lifetime, but I am determined that the b@*t@rds won't kill me or my kids. The only attitude we must take is that smoking is nothing less than assault with a dangerous weapon, and then take action accordingly.
  183. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: Gord Lewis from Canada: I wonder do you put as much zeal into battles where the air, water and land is polluted? Anyways, do to all the pollution, chemicals and so on, your chldren are already at high risk. But go ahead, keep attacking individual rights, as you lack the guts to fight the really big fights.
  184. Pepper Gee from Toronto, Canada writes: Wish this had happened years ago. I remember being in the back seat of my father's car while he and Mom lit up (with sulpher matches) and puffed away with the windows only slightly down. The smell of that car, even when they weren't smoking made me throw up - they thought it was motion sickness.... nope! And then they tried to cover up with spearmint gum... I still can't smell spearmint without getting sick. To think that I started smoking at the age of one.... well, that's right, isn't it? Second hand smoke and all that. Glad I quit in my 30's!
  185. elainehr - from Canada writes: "Government officials cite studies which show that kids are exposed to up to 27 times the toxins when they're in enclosed spaces like a car, which can worsen asthma and lead to other respiratory illnesses."

    Do you know that kids are exposed to more chemicals in a home where no one smokes. Have your curtains dry cleaned, more chemicals.
    Carpets new, chemicals. Just this last week, you have a plastic shower curtain, more chemicals.
    Just driving - plenty of chemicals from your own car. Go outside especially on a smog day - how many chemicals are there?

    I think parents should not smoke with kids in the car because it is the right thing to do and not because there is a law. McGuinty is just concentrating on the little things because the bigger ones are much more difficult to fight.
    Reduce the amount of vehicles on our roads in Ontario.
  186. Nickstar One from Canada writes: Using the government's own logic(or more likely the complete lack of it) based on completely disingenuous, bordering on the completely fraudulent "no safe level" nonsense, children under 16 years old should be banned from vehicles entirely.
    Megatonnes of carcinogenic vehicle exhaust far outweigh trace milligrams of "no safe level".
  187. John Smith from Canada writes: Carl Sterritt, tobacco is not a controlled substance under Canadian legislation. There is definately a socio-economic gradient in smoking behaviors and patterns. If you want to rely on statistics research, you will also find much of this behaviour is probably a poor locus of control response to unfair social conditions and stress (i.e. induced by higer SES crapping on lower SES?). So should we not introduce better legislation to curtail the arrogance and abuse of higher SES population as they are harmful to population health. There is a SES gradient in use of large vehicle emitting vehicles that are harmful to health and environment. Not to mention driving every weekend to cottage country, destroying the rural environment and further adding harmful emissions with their water toys. Why isn't the government legislating against this harmful behaviour? So for some here, maybe they resent the fact a government takes an easy target to intrude on private behaviour and ignores health issues of equal, if not greater, magnitude (because they don't want to disturb higher SES groups?) I would in fact be in support of the legislation if this was a government committed to fairness. Right now, this looks like a case of a government picking on some poor disenfranchised people yet again - with the ironic result of replacing one negative health impact with another (and yeah, there is research to support this claim too). Make sure you tell the whole story when you throw your stats around.
  188. elainehr - from Canada writes: According to the surgeon general's report of 2006, page 532, the number of heart disease deaths caused by secondhand smoke in the workplace is estimated at 1,710 per year. According to the EPA, about 20,000 people, possibly 45,000, are killed annually by radon. They say radon is everywhere, and like the surgeon general says, there is no safe level of exposure to it.
  189. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: Why stop in cars? Let's ban smoking in homes and anyplace within 50 feet of children. Ban smoking in condos and apartment buildings too. Who cares about the rights of the people?
  190. John Connor from Canada writes: Since the province is bent and bound to legislate common sense, I propose the following ban:

    Stupid leftist idealogues should be banned forever from public office. Starting with the current provincial government.
  191. Gord Lewis from Canada writes: Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: "Gord Lewis from Canada: I wonder do you put as much zeal into battles where the air, water and land is polluted? Anyways, do to all the pollution, chemicals and so on, your chldren are already at high risk. But go ahead, keep attacking individual rights, as you lack the guts to fight the really big fights."
    __________________________________________

    Keep talking, Social Justice, you are supporting the low intelligence/education correlation. Clearly I must be in favour of all forms of air, water and land pollution, all because I am so eager to curtail your hard-won individual rights and freedoms! Wrap your brain around this: we are talking about the individual rights of your children and mine. Because without this kind of progressive legislation they don't have a voice. (Perhaps a century ago you would have protested mandatory primary education as infringing on your 'rights'?)
  192. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "....Wish this had happened years ago. I remember being in the back seat of my father's car while he and Mom lit up (with sulphur matches) and puffed away with the windows only slightly down. The smell of that car, even when they weren't smoking made me throw up - they thought it was motion sickness...."
    Bad news, it was "motion sickness". Kids to this day still get "motion sickness" in completely non-smoking vehicles. Just like children die of SIDS, get earaches, asthma, etc., in completely non-smoking families. You can be sick and die without it always being conveniently tied ad nauseum to 'tobacco-related' disingenuous drivel.
    Direct smoking and the extremist fabrication that is SHS are, in actuality, two different things entirely despite the Smoker Ban propaganda being spewed by the fanatics in WHO-directed Tobacco Control.
    Vehicle ventilation has vastly improved since the days of "sulphur matches". Case in point, sunroof/moonroof and rear vent windows, neither of which the 'authoritative studies' or the government idiots passing this law seriously took into account, knock the stuffing out of any anecdotal reminiscences of the long ago past.
  193. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: Oy, McGuinty. There are some deck-chairs in Caledonia that need re-arranging.

    How about bending your iron will to that little problem? Or are smokers an easy target?
  194. E Stuhl from NYC, United States writes: The next time I visit Ontario I'll be sure to drive my 1967 Cadillac Eldorado with no catelytic converter, and spew toxins from the tailpipes like nobody's business. Then I'll park it in a bloody reserved handicap fire zone for expectant mothers & leave it idling for hours while I shop in some popular low-cost store whose HR policies put you Canadians out of work because of their cheap products imported from China. Nice job Mr. Store Greeter - what was that? You worked at GM in Oshawa before this? For the Caddy, I'll be sure to have it decked out with polar bear skin seats, and have baby seal eyes for headlights. Then I'm going to smoke Cuban cigars you import from the Commies while a half dozen children aren't seatbelted in the back seat. I'll make sure that they're 1st Nation children - since you Canucks have already apologized for mistreating them in the past - so I won't have to worry about getting blockaded by their parents for a little harmless second hand smoke. Then I'm going illegally download "free" music on my Iphone while I drive around the greater Toronto area, and clean my unregistered hand gun (purchased at my local sports store with only a library card ID) at the same time before cutting into the front of the drive-thru line at the "Tim Horton's" and demand that the half-wit server give the lone Inuit kid in back a free Timbit b/c he's upset about global warming or some such nonsense. Yeah, you're hurting for tourist dollars, and this smoker is a-comin' to visit! Let's hear some good ol' Canadienne hospitality, eh? E.S.
  195. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "...Though this legislation crosses some privacy lines and is really unenforceable..."
    They know it's logistically and thus effectively "unenforceable". As a simple example, how can you tell someone is smoking at 400 series highway speeds when hidden from view by 'deep tinted' windows and the "enclosed space" in effect no longer enclosed with sunroof wide open.
    They are relying heavily on "voluntary compliance". Trouble is, no one will "voluntarily comply" to effectively be placed in the closet just like packages of cigarettes at your local "inconvenience stores".
    Some privacy lines? No, all privacy lines are now fair game for power and control adherents of such "totalitarian progressive" legislation.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top