Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canada ready for smoking curbs in cars, cancer group says

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 12:49 AM EST 17/01/08

Poll indicates that most – even among smokers – would support ban on smoking in cars carrying children ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Anyone that smokes around their children in any circumstance should have child protective services take their children away.
  2. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Rain,

    Even outside?
  3. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Why aren't they banned anyways? If it's so bad then ban the product. Still trying to figure that one out in my head.
  4. lynn H from Canada writes: I am not so sure that this is a good thing. I don't smoke and I agree that it is harmful for kids but.......I think this is going too far. I don't like the precedent that it sets because it opens the door to allow more government control of individuals. If government thinks that smoking is this bad then they should just ban the sale of the product altogether.
  5. G. L from Somewhere, Canada writes: While I support the idea that people should not be allowed to smoke in cars containing children. I question whether we need a new law. Couldn't this fall under existing "child endangerment" laws. Outside smoking should not be an issue.
  6. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: I agree, take the children away. Foster care beats living with these kind of animals any day.
  7. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: J M from Realityville, Canada writes: I agree, take the children away. Foster care beats living with these kind of animals any day.

    So I'm an animal now am I?
  8. Kelly Juhasz from Toronto, Canada writes: Canadians are also ready to support laws to have smoke-free multi-unit dwellings - apartments and condos. Over 80% of Canadians have been ready for a long-time.

    I think this is a serious issue that needs much more media and public
    attention. Multi-unit dwelling owners need to know that there is
    market demand for smoke-free environments and that they will not
    loose money - they will, I believe, win - healthy tenants, cleaner environments, less maintenance. Athough there is no contest - health versus market choice - it seems that it is one of the strongest ways to position the issues - it is a win-win all around.
  9. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: lynn H: the government already controls us in all sorts of ways. This is about protecting the most vulnerable in our society, who often can't speak for themselves.

    I find it hard to imagine any parent these days who would light up in the confined space of a car with children on board, but I guess some people just can't exercise self-control - ergo, the state has to step in.
  10. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:

    If we can get a ban on f&rting in elevators we'll be all set.
  11. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Kim,

    Who would you suggest will enforce such a law? I view this the same way as the seat belt law; good idea but almost impossible to enforce. Why is it we continue to hear of, mostly, young people killed in car accidents when they are ejected from a car because they were not wearing seat belts? Don't they know it's against the law?

    Education, not laws, gives the best results.
  12. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: Rain Couver from Canada writes: Anyone that smokes around their children in any circumstance should have child protective services take their children away.

    So with you line of thinking it guess it is appropriate to have any parent who works for an industry the poisions our air, water, land and food to have CAS take their children away.
  13. Laura Labelle from Ladysmith, Canada writes: God forbid the government just stop selling a product that kills people. It's a no brainer not to smoke near kids, but obviously some of the posters here have no brains with the suggested ' just take the kids away' comments.
  14. Black Jerry from Canada writes: Save me government! I need you in every facet of my life. AND every facet of everyone else's life.

    Smoking sucks. But you people suck more. I wish your parents would have hotboxed White Owls on you.
  15. dave ross from Canada writes: I think that anyone driving a car should be fined for endangering all life forms. Anyone using plastic products should be similarly penalized. Likewise any power source other than water, sind or solar must be banned.

    Is everyone happy now?
  16. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Silent Majority: I agree that education is preferable to law enforcement, but, as I pointed out, some people refuse to exercise self-control even if they are educated about an issue.

    I think most laws are, to a greater or lesser degree, difficult to enforce; that is not a reason to not have laws. The seatbelt law is enforced; people are ticketed for not using them.

    If this ban was national, then any police force - municipal, provincial, or federal (the RCMP) - could enforce it.
  17. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: I would challenge The Canadian Cancer Society to have the courage of its convictions, and get to the root of the matter by calling for a ban on small children in cars period.

    A great number of children in Canada every year are killed during journeys in private passenger vehicles -- not 40 years hence of second-hand smoke, but on the spot, their young lives wiped out by lax legislation. Putting young children in cars kills them. Why isn't The Canadian Cancer Society getting to the real root of the problem by calling for a wider ban?
  18. Blair Langmuir from Realityville, Canada writes: I remember as a child the smell of my parents' cigs was gross, but the first wiff of "sidestream" smoke from the cigarette, when outside or in the car, was heavenly.

    If this survey honestly shows just how safe we want to make our kids, then why isn't mandatory crash helmets on kids in cars the first issue? Start where the numbers will be biggest. Head injuries in crashes, even when wearing seatbelts, is a far greater danger than 2nd hand smoke. This is about smugly holding the moral high ground, not about the best interests of the children. Politicians work from the principle that the more a measure intrudes on people's lives, the more they can make it sound like solid leadership (especially when its really followership).

    No, I don't smoke. Yes, I have children whose safety I value.
  19. Black Jerry from Canada writes: I wonder how many of you clowns who think banning smoking in cars with children are rabid pro-choice types? This isn't about helping children for you. It's about imposing your will on people.
  20. lynn H from Canada writes: I hear what your saying Kim. But the government already has all the power it needs to ban harmful products (like pesticides, food additives) under existing laws. Smoking could easily be added to this. I am not pro smoking I am just suspicious of the need for new laws. Laws which expand the states power under the guise of "for the sake of the children". Smoking today but what else tomorrow. New laws and regulations have a bad habit of progressing into more infringement of the rights of the individual. Infringements that become increasingly less reasonable than originally envisioned.
  21. ERR The mooninite from Canada writes: And what law comes next. Obviously we ban smoking in people's own homes if children live there. Shall we also ban alcohol from homes with children, or are you in favor of adults drinking around their helpless children. Child obesity is a huge problem, lets make a law telling people they can never feed their children junk food. When i don't see another pot hole in the roads or another 10 hour waiting line at the hospital then I'll invite the government to tell me how to live my life more than it already does.
  22. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Black Jerry from Canada writes: Save me government! I need you in every facet of my life. AND every facet of everyone else's life.

    Smoking sucks. But you people suck more. I wish your parents would have hotboxed White Owls on you.

    That's kinda my thinking too. Thank you for putting it so.
  23. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Kim,

    You are correct, "some people will fail to exercise self control". That's the point. The vast majority of smokers do not smoke in their cars when children are on board. This law would go after the minority that are not going to change their ways so what is achieved?

    As far as the seat belt law I would suggest a very small number of people who do not wear them are ticketed and people continue to willingly refuse to wear them. My point; you cannot legislate intelligence.
  24. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Randal Oulton: Grow up. The issue here is the danger of second-hand tobacco smoke, not car crash fatalities.

    Black Jerry: Why don't you take your fanatically libertarian self away to live off the grid in some cave in the northern bush country; that way you will no longer be so inconvenienced by living in society.
  25. Eric S from Toronto, Canada writes: Smokers should ONLY be allowed to smoke in their cars with all the windows up, or in their own houses. Smoking in all public places (that includes outside) should be banned.
  26. Silent Majority from Canada writes: ERR,

    Exactly. I think societies priorities are all screwed up.
  27. Blair Langmuir from Realityville, Canada writes: Stories like this one always bring out comments calling for a ban on the sale, possession & use of evil, deadly tobacco products. Is this based on the huge 'success' of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's or on the decisive victories of the 'war on drugs'??

    Maybe you just like to see gangsters and bikers get very rich and corrupt our justice system?
  28. Black Jerry from Canada writes: Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Black Jerry: Why don't you take your fanatically libertarian self away to live off the grid in some cave in the northern bush country; that way you will no longer be so inconvenienced by living in society.

    ___________
    I'm fanatically smart. You're fanatically pre-disposed to invite the government into every facet of your life because you and people like you are too bloody stupid to conduct your own affairs without choking to death. You want everything banned for everyone and you want the government to control it all. Unless it gets in the way of you filling your pasty body with illegal drugs and getting a handful of abortions every year. You're a social experimenter. The scum that grows on scum.

    How are you going to enforce your magical cigarette ban? You going to have the police pull over cars with child seats? Are there going to be RIDE programs to target smokers?

    What's next Dr. Idiot? A ban on drinking at backyard BQ's with kids? A ban on floor wax? Stairs? Swing stes? Rainy days?

    If you have living kids I pity them.
  29. Not right or left from NB, Canada writes: Blair Langmuir from Realityville, Canada writes: "Stories like this one always bring out comments calling for a ban on the sale, possession & use of evil, deadly tobacco products. Is this based on the huge 'success' of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's or on the decisive victories of the 'war on drugs'??

    Maybe you just like to see gangsters and bikers get very rich and corrupt our justice system?"

    Exactly, if you banned tobacco than organized crime would have another product to make large sums of money from. I agree with the law of not smoking in the car with children but I don't support banning any substance. A person should be allowed to do any substance they want as long as it doesn't harm the rights of another person.
  30. Counterspinner tells the truth from Canada writes: All this regulation sounds like big brother to me. Who is going to enforce this social programming? What is next - banning smoking in houses where children are - who will enforce that? If smoking is that dangerous, why not ban it alltogether? If you want to ban something, ban pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol, which causes fetal alcohol syndrome.
  31. Just Sayin' from Canada writes: As a part time smoker (I smoke on vacation, when camping and at wedding and funerals but don't touch them otherwise), I fully support the basic foundation of this ban. Why would anyone want to smoke in the car when there are kids there? But I also wonder about the potential for enforcing this law. Are the police going to stop people seen smoking in cars where there might be a child (often you can't tell if there is a kid in the car seat)? If we have the manpower and resources to do this then why aren't we using it to arrest drivers talking on cell phones? Are there better things we could be doing with the tax dollars being allocated to our police forces? It seems like a pretty inefficient and cost prohibitive way to potentially protect the health of children who are under the supervision of adults who clearly don't have the best interests of the children in mind. Shouldn't this fall into the purview of child services and not the police?
  32. Stan L from Canada writes: Frankly, I think the whole 'poll' is a HUGE boondoggle to simply provide an outlet to continue to discuss the issue and to further demonize smokers and smoking. I have been a smoker, and would NEVER smoke with a non-smoker in the car much less a child....I have never seen this happen or know of anyone who has smoked with their kids in the car either. Does it happen at all? Yes, likely...but enough to justify the money and time required to enact a law or ban? Likely not
  33. Terry Terry from Brantford, Canada writes: What about a convertible?
  34. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Every law requires new funding or a redirection of existing funding in order to be enforced. I do not see this proposed law as passing the cost/ benefit test when there are so many other "priorities" in need of additional funding.
  35. Bill M from Canada writes: Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Why aren't they banned anyways? If it's so bad then ban the product. Still trying to figure that one out in my head.

    Simple Paul. Revenue. The governments collect a lot more in taxes than what they put out for the alleged cost to society of smoking. I did a little research on these costs a few years ago, and one of them is that if a person dies prematurely from smoking, one of the costs to society is the amount of money said person would have earned in their lifetime becomes a cost to society because they won't be around to spend it. Another stat was that anyone who died of anything remotely similar to what are classified as smoking related diseases, and has smoked at any time in the 30 years prior to their death, the death was caused by smoking. Helps justify the exorbitant taxes charged.
  36. f c from Canada writes: Holy "Big Brother" Batman, quick ....hide all the candy and penthouse before they get banned too!
  37. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Bill M from Canada writes: Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Why aren't they banned anyways? If it's so bad then ban the product. Still trying to figure that one out in my head. Simple Paul. Revenue. The governments collect a lot more in taxes than what they put out for the alleged cost to society of smoking. I did a little research on these costs a few years ago, and one of them is that if a person dies prematurely from smoking, one of the costs to society is the amount of money said person would have earned in their lifetime becomes a cost to society because they won't be around to spend it. Another stat was that anyone who died of anything remotely similar to what are classified as smoking related diseases, and has smoked at any time in the 30 years prior to their death, the death was caused by smoking. Helps justify the exorbitant taxes charged. Well there it is, follow the money. All I hear is about how much smokers cost us. It's always the money, i had a feeling that the government takes in more than it puts out regarding smoking. Otherwise it would be banned in a heart beat. On this issue, Black Jerry has hit the hammer on the head I think.
  38. Patrick Star from Toronto, Canada writes: I would also like to see a ban on smoking next to the entrances of public buildings.
  39. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Silent Majority: What would be achieved is that the police would have the power to sanction that minority that continue to smoke with children on board. Then those people might be "educated" to change their ways. I don't think any law pretends to catch all transgressors all the time.

    lynn H: It's a tricky balancing act trying to determine when the state goes too far in controlling people's lives. Many think the U.S. government went way overboard with the U.S.A. Patriot Act, and I think they're probably right. But this proposed law is not making cigarettes illegal, or banning adults from smoking, except in cars carrying children. Is that really so draconian? It's about protecting children from one specific threat - second-hand tobacco smoke concentrated in a very confined space.
  40. Ethel Barr from Toronto, Canada writes: I would never support this ban - I don't smoke, but the government already dabbles it's fingers in the personal lives of Canadians enough already. There's already far too many laws, and education does a far better job of remedying problems than the politician's best friend - the feel-good do-nothing ban.

    If cigarettes are so harmful, stop selling them already. For once I'd like to see a politician who only talks out of one side of his mouth.
  41. Seb D from Ottawa, Canada writes: Laws against murder are also difficult (and expensive) to enforce. Think of all the time, effort, and money that went into catching and prosecuting Robert Pickton. Should we not bother with those also???

    As for the cost/benefit of anti-smoking laws, well, reduced healthcare costs due to cancer and asthma come to mind. All good and well if the 30% of smokers get cancer and asthma, but not so good if they give cancer and asthma to another 30% of the population who don't smoke.
  42. Ethel Barr from Toronto, Canada writes: ERR, that's hilarious. True enough, the government can't even competently manage the laws and services they already have. Maybe they should work on improving the already broken systems before trying to build more.
  43. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: It's about protecting children from one specific threat:

    The pollution that spews from our factories, cars, chemicals, pesticides, are not specific threats to children.

    Stick in you head back in sand.
  44. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: Personally I'd rather see police put to better use than to have them running around checking for smokers with kids in the car.

    Everyone crying for a law to enforce this makes me think of the Simpsons and Reverand Lovejoy's wife, "~sobbing, tears streaming~ won't someone think of the children". Knee-jerk over reaction.

    I'm not suggesting we not protect our children but given the amount of time it takes second hand smoke to cause cancer or other severe health issue (figures I've seen are all involving at least 20 years of heavy exposure) it's extremely unlikely if not impossible for a child to get some severe health issue from periodic second hand smoke exposure in cars.

    Maybe you could make a case for this if there were a lot of chain smoking courriers who bring their kid with them to work all day/night but I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone who fits that bill.

    IMO, it's just not necessary to pass a law on this.

    Those suggesting removal of kids by child protection services are of course insane and as such, should have their kids removed by child services.
  45. Silent Majority from Canada writes: I propose we establish a smokers registry (for both king size and regular smokes). Should cost about 2 million dollars. This would enable the police to determine whether or not a particular car potentially has cigarettes in it. People with unregistered smokes or smokes that are improperly stored (in the locked glove box) could be charged and have their smoking license suspended or even revoked. Those found to be smoking in their cars when children are present would be charged with attempted murder and would receive a minimum sentence of 5 years in jail.
  46. Martin Fedgrass from Canada writes: This is insane!

    I certainly don't smoke and don't condone it but legislating it in your private vehicle??? This is absolute insanity..........

    If smoking is so stinking bad for you then just ban tobacco!!!

    Governmental encroachment into our private affairs is reprehensible. Why should we pay the price of further deterioration of our freedoms just because the lawmakers do not have the balls to remove cigarettes from society altogether. They are making this our problem and it is not...it is THEIR problem!
  47. Mark From BC from Canada writes: Children should be taken away from parents that smoke. An orphanage or a residential school is a far safer place than being around an adult who poisons them.
  48. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Seb,

    You are a fool to think a law like this would do anything to protect children from their irresponsible parent(s). You can not legislate intelligence. Comparing this to murder is laughable.
  49. lynn H from Canada writes: Like I said, Kim, of course this sounds reasonable. Unfortunately the expansion of the law may not be. Someone already made the example. Can the state then ban women from drinking during pregnancy because it causes FAS, a irreversible and untreatable form of brain damage?
  50. Peter Lefaivre from Edmonton, Canada writes: What next, a law banning parents from feeding their kids fast food from MacDonalds, Wendy's etc.
    These do gooders are no better than other groups thru history who have trampled the choices of other minorities in the name of the righteous.
    Soon people will be told how to live from cradle to grave by the special interest groups and their government lackeys.
    Wait til they decide to tax the hell out of fast food and alcohol in the interests of peoples health. Then in order to eradicate disease, inferior intellect or substandard appearance, they will determine who can have children and who can't based on family DNA.
    Then they'll start cloning only the 'best' people.
    There is no end to it in this Orwellian society we are giving traction to with these archaic laws.
  51. Travis Sellar from Canada writes: Wow. Some of you people are certifiable nut jobs. I love the comments section. Makes up for the funnies not being even remotely funny anymore.
  52. Uncle Fester from Bay and Bloor, Canada writes: this slow death of tobacco by a thousand cuts is just plain stupid, make the sale and use of tobacco products illegal, punishable by fine only. Do the same with weed and be done with it. Sure there will be a black market, but who cares? If the government is concerned with tax revenues I am sure the upcoming carbon taxes will more than make up for it.
  53. Terry Terry from Brantford, Canada writes: "... honest officer, they're midgets!"
  54. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: How about banning dangling things from the rear view mirror?
  55. Blair Langmuir from Realityville, Canada writes: I'm with you, Travis Sellar (about the posts and the comics). Unfortunately most of the writers don't mean to be funny. I always hope they are too busy posting to come out of their parent's basement to vote on election days : )
  56. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Martin Fedgrass from Canada writes: Governmental encroachment into our private affairs is reprehensible. Why should we pay the price of further deterioration of our freedoms just because the lawmakers do not have the balls to remove cigarettes from society altogether. I was just discussing this with some co workers at break. I came to the same conclusion as you, pretty well the same wording. This government doesn't have the balls to ban smoking completely. Some leaders, can't even make a decision. Stay the hell out of my life government, you are in too far already.
  57. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Everyone makes a big issue about how drug addicts and alcoholics should not be parents because of the direct threat of physical abuse and neglect. Children are taken away from their parents for these reasons.

    Allowing children in an environment that promotes emphysema, asthma and cancer through second hand smoke is potentially worse especially because of a parent's vice. Why would it be extreme to take children away from smoking parents?
  58. Black Jerry from Canada writes: Mark From BC from Canada writes: Children should be taken away from parents that smoke. An orphanage or a residential school is a far safer place than being around an adult who poisons them.

    ____________
    I'll bet you have no children that survived. Or will survive the daily beatings in school.
  59. jack doober from brantford, Canada writes: What if the youths in the car are smoking and the driver is not..
  60. lynn H from Canada writes: Kim read Rain Couver's post. See what I mean. Even the most well intentioned "reasonable" new law causes people to contemplate the expansion of government control in new directions that are unreasonable.
  61. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Rain Couver from Canada writes: Allowing children in an environment that promotes emphysema, asthma and cancer......
    So any parent living in downtown TO would have their children taken away? Nice yellow cloud over the city there.
  62. Marian Atkinson from St. John's, Canada writes: We haven't had smoking allowed in workplaces for so many years now, I can't remember when it was banned. A couple of years ago, smoking was banned in clubs, pubs and many years before that it was banned in restaurants. All that is just fine with me. HOWEVER, stay out of MY house! stay out of MY car. And stay out of MY personal business. Most homes today are smoke-free -- see all the people smoking on their decks, driveways etc.? Many people I know also have smoke-free cars -- not because they have to, but they don't want their cars to smell. Those holier-than-thou non-smokers need to give it a break and leave people's personal space alone.
  63. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Rain,

    Take children away from smoker parents? What? What about children of parents with bad eating habits? What about children of parents with bad exercise habits? I guess those children should be taken away also, right?
  64. B.C. Expat from Ottawa, NCR, Canada writes: A full ban isn't really worthwhile, I don't think, but for the usual 'government interference' comments (at least 'nanny state' hasn't come up, finally), keep in mind that the government's job is to resolve collective action problems like externalities, of which this is a case. Your freedom hurt others with no recourse to stop you, hence why a law is being considered. If you had a problem with every government measure that limited your personal freedom to prevent you from harming others, you would have to live in the woods with no human contact, because that's what almost all of them are about. When externalities are not regulated, every facet of life becomes a race to the bottom.
  65. Stockpiling ammo and food from Canada writes:
    And perhaps we could have armed cheakpoints to police it,,,
    "papers please"

    Hitler was very anti smoking also.

    (No I do not smoke , can't stand it actually , but I do like freedom)
  66. Blair Langmuir from Realityville, Canada writes: Steak knives, when are we going to ban steak knives in homes that contain children??

    "Will no one think of the children?"
  67. Bill M from Canada writes: And people that have bread in their homes should lose their children as well. Babies have been known to choke on bread. Or bathtubs. Children can drown in them.
  68. lynn H from Canada writes: Well BC, I suppose if you want to live in a country in which you are just a subject that is ruled by a lord and master government or the tyranny of the majority and special interest groups. I think that Canadians are free citizens and the government is our employees. As such they should minimize their impact on our day to day lives. Frankly I would rather the police and legal system put more resources into rigorously pursuing and punishing real criminals like pedophiles,murders,etc. than smoking parents.
  69. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...it's about time!!!...and while they're at it...do something about cell phones too....
  70. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Okay, let's freeze the laws as they are, from now until our sun goes supernova and swallows the earth. No new laws, ever, because, after all, any new law will be a serious infringement on our right to do whatever we want.

    Yep, let's not have the law keep up with changes in technology or new discoveries about the harm products can cause. Because, no doubt about it, any new law is clearly going to result in us all being rounded up by the state secret police and herded into gulags.
  71. Blair Langmuir from Realityville, Canada writes: Kim Philby, you have reduced it to the absurd, as have your opponents. A balance is required when contemplating new laws and this one (like banning evil plastic bags) is not balanced.

    I stick to my original point that dangers have to be weighed against each other. Why pass a law that will be hard to enfore or else intrude heavily in our freedoms when the pay-off is dubious? Mandatory crash helmets in cars would rack up measureable numbers in a few brief months but I still don't seriously propose it. And the crash helmets are clearly too late for those who propose taking kids from their parents just for smoking in cars.
  72. Jason Somers from toronto, writes: Will all those who believe that children should be taken away from their parents for 'smoking' around them please stand up.

    All those standing up are Nazi's. Yes, you are. I hope you like the world you create.
  73. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: Jason Somers from toronto, writes: Will all those who believe that children should be taken away from their parents for 'smoking' around them please stand up.

    All those standing up are Nazi's. Yes, you are. I hope you like the world you create.

    Well said Jason, are you an engineer by any chance? unrelated.
  74. lynn H from Canada writes: Kim, in this case they do not need new laws. They just need to openly declare cigarettes a harmful and banned product under their existing power like they have done with some pesticides and other consumer products. I gather you realize the danger of this new type of law because of the FAS/pregnancy argument and that is why have avoided answering it.
  75. woof woof from Canada writes: Why not just ban cigarettes entirely? Next we could ban water, air, and maybe other humans too.
  76. lynn H from Canada writes: For the record, I am not a big proponent of bans but even less of this new type of law.
  77. Stockpiling ammo and food from Canada writes:
    Ok, Ok , armed cheakpoits , a little to much , I agree,,,Hmmm

    I have it ! , we could just go the East German Stazi route, ,, Paid informants among the general population,, tattle tailing to the police,,,
    late night knock on the door ,,presto, problem solved.
  78. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from Canada writes: Fascists! Fascists! Seig Heil Fascists!
  79. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: More time towards adjusting child restraints and less time towards smoking. Hear, here.
    Way down the road, car music might have Diana Krall content minimums, maybe at least 2 per hour.
    Every day in every way...better and better.
  80. Stockpiling ammo and food from Canada writes:
    Opps ,,,checkpoint (typing on the fly)
  81. Pearl Martin from Toronto, Canada writes: One question NO ONE in favor of such bans has answered:

    *** SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT **** THERE BE LAWS AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN SMOKING OR DRINKING????

    Come on, have the courage of your convictions, at least ADDRESS this!!!!
  82. Stockpiling ammo and food from Canada writes:
    ** SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT *** THERE BE LAWS AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN SMOKING OR DRINKING????

    Were waiting,,,tap tap, tap,tap
  83. Blair Langmuir from Realityville, Canada writes: Since no one wants to answer Pearl Martin, I will step forward with the perfect safety plan for our dear little ones:

    The day any woman is confirmed to be pregnant she must be whisked away to a gov't run gestation centre where cigarettes, alcohol, dust bunnies and sharp pointed sticks are banned. No one may visit a pregnant woman without a complete body search for dangerous thingies. The mom-to-be must live at the gestation centre until delivered of her little dear. IF she has passed all gov't tests for moms-to-be she will be allowed to return home with here little dear.
  84. K S from Recipro City, Canada writes: Uncle Fester from Bay and Bloor, Canada writes: "this slow death of tobacco by a thousand cuts is just plain stupid." I see what you're getting at, Fester, but have to disagree with you on the idea of banning tobacco outright. Considering what happened when alcohol was banned outright, I think this may be a better approach. Cigarette addiction rates have declined. People are not taking up smoking like they were in the past, and many people are quitting. By and large the public appetite for cigarettes is waning. Proponents of smoking can cry all they like, I'm not demonizing them and neither does the "public" they accuse. It's just a disgusting habit, like picking ones nose or spitting on the floor, and people who take it up really shouldn't be so very surprised at the disgust part. That's exactly the way it should be treated. All the nicotine/chemical feel good feelings in the world can't make up for the illness, the bad smell, and the truly bad impressions you create. I know people who have tried to quit but haven't yet and sincerely feel for them, but I have to wonder about the displayed stupidity of those who don't want to quit. I can have no more hate for them than for the knobs that insist wearing a seatbelt is an affront to their personal freedom. They're not evil people, just stupid. As for the ban on smoking in cars, it's a nice idea but good luck to those hoping it will be enforced.
  85. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Kim,

    No one is saying "no new laws" but I am saying no to useless laws. This proposed law would be a waste of money because there would be very little to no benefit. Does anyone really know how many people smoke in their cars when children are present? I suggest the number is very small and so this is a non issue.
  86. Seb D from Ottawa, Canada writes: Silent majority: You are quite correct that intelligence can't be legislated. For the same reason, murder still happens, even though it's against the law.

    No, I'm not comparing smokers to murderers. I just question why many people think that we shouldn't legislate certain behaviours because they think the law will be difficult to apply.

    Also, while you may think that such a law would open the door to laws against parents feeding their kids junk, there is a difference. There is no such thing as second hand obesity.
  87. Bill M from Canada writes: Why not just ban life. After all, it is the leading cause of death. Eliminate life, and there will be no more deaths.
  88. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: they should ban smoking outside at the entrance to buildings
  89. C J from Montreal Expat in Bangkok, Thailand writes: This culture of taking basic human rights away from people is why I left Canada in the first place. Can't smoke anywhere anymore. Laws are becoming more and more absurd. It may not be the right thing to do to smoke around children but please leave the law out of it. These are basic human rights for pete's sake.
  90. Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Laws against pregnant women drinking? Why not arrest people for eating fast food. Where does the line stop? You should ban smoking outside someone posted. Is there a good witch or book burning y'all are going to this weekend? Maybe a stoning?
  91. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: Ahem!

    NOT SMOKING with TEENAGERS in the car!

    ha hahha haahh ha hah ahaahhaaaahhhhaa haaah whew!
  92. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Buddy,

    Resistance is futile, we are the self righteous and you will be assimilated.
  93. C J from Montreal Expat in Bangkok, Thailand writes: It's time for the Silent Majority to wake-up and set these liberal Hillary Clinton-loving wackos straight. We have bridges collapsing in Montreal and ferries sinking in B.C. Isn't it time we put money where it is needed.
  94. Mike Sumners from Anytown, Canada writes: "The Canadian Cancer Society says Canadians are ready to support laws banning smoking in cars carrying young people." - Nice of them to tell us what we're ready for and when we're ready for it; I don't smoke, but I don't like being told what to do either.
  95. C J from Montreal Expat in Bangkok, Thailand writes: By the way, my friend just pointed out that out here in Bangkok even non-smokers are smokers because the air is so polluted. Maybe the Canadian Cancer Society has a solution.
  96. Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Wouldn't it make more sense for the police to focus on the gang banging crack dealers before going after smokers? I guess not if the Canadian Cancer Society doesn't care about Crack.
  97. John Przybytek from Ottawa, writes: I wish people smoking in cars with anybody inside would butt out.

    At the same time I wish the Canadian Cancer Society or anyone else promoting nanny laws would also butt out.

    Since the Canadian Cancer Society political militancy has started, I have been encouraging everyone to stop any financial support of this organization until they return to their roots. Nannyism is serious offense in a free society. The actions of these Nazi's is unforgivable.
  98. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: they should ban smoking outside at the entrance to buildings

    why? is it because it's a danger? or an annoyance?
  99. John Rowell from Nelson, B.C., Canada writes: While I agree that we should not smoke around children (although the effects of second-hand smoke have been overblown), my car is my property and I'll damn well smoke in it if I like. I'm sick of these health Nazis telling me what I can and can't do with my own property.
  100. r s from Canada writes: Why not just ban the sale of cigarettes? Are they not the root cause of this and many health issues? Its comical that the gov makes money of of what kills persons. Yet they have to make laws that allow a continuance of the hazard as long as they still get there taxes.

    We have enough cookie cutter made laws in Canada now. We don't need any more.

    Ban the weed and stop creating reasons for cops to pull persons over and violate our little freedom we have left.......
  101. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: they should ban smoking outside at the entrance to buildings

    why? is it because it's a danger? or an annoyance?
    ================

    It's because the building lobby fills up with the smell of smoke, to which some are allergic and many non-smokers don't appreciate having their clothes smell of smoke. There are Ontario municipalities where smoking is not permitted with 75 meters of entrances, but not enough.
  102. lynn H from Canada writes: Can you imagine, the police could have a smoke-alyzers. A separate fine for an open cigarette pack in the presence of a minor violation. Mandatory re-education courses for those caught, modeled along DUI classes.
    • Posted 16/01/08 at 3:55 PM EST |