Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Airing out the car won't remove smoking hazards

PATRICK WHITE

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:36 PM EDT 27/03/08

Rolling down windows and flipping on fans doesn't help protect car passengers from hazardous levels of second-hand smoke, says study ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Brent Wilkins from Canada writes: If I smoke in the car. Which I rarely do. I roll down all windows, open the sunroof and hang my hand out of the window. I'm pretty sure that this mitigates almost all of the smoke.
  2. Knowledge is True Opinion from Canada writes: Arminda Mota is clearly an idoit.
    Her points are tired and not relevant. You are not force feeding junk food to your kids and if you are absolutely you should stop. It's abuse.

    By smoking in the car you are clearly forcing something unwanted and harmful on your children. It should be abuse plan and simple.

    This country is free, but that freedom is limited. You can't knowingly hurt someone else and infringe on their rights and freedoms.
  3. Nickstar One from Canada writes: ".....under five different ventilation scenarios....." Dollars to donuts, none of these scenarios(purposely designed to confirm Cunningham's et al., SHS fraud agenda) included the scenario of an open sunroof/moonroof in conjunction with open windows and the "hurricane force winds" naturally occurring when a vehicle is in motion. Comparing cars/vans to bars via a biased formula is disingenous and fraudulent. A bar cannot possibly have the prohibitionists preferred "hurricane force winds" ventilation system. On the other hand, a vehicle in motion does. Simple observation, free of this type of clearly biased "junk science" study, clearly demonstrates that cigarette smoke goes out even a partially open window, directly outside and is not magically drawn to hover menacingly over a back seat. This is just another "biased ban farce" to promote Cunningham's and pals WHO-mandated prohibitionist agenda. The sheer arrogance of this dolt and his ilk who think that they have a monoploy on truth and veracity when, in fact, mandated and biased fraud is all that they can claim with any legitimacy. "Tobacco control is out of control" and the obvious victim is always truth and honesty. You will never see a vehicle with billowing clouds of cigarette smoke as depicted in prohibitionist advertising. A sure and clear signal that truth and reality is anathema to any card-carrying, tobacco control prohibitionist.
  4. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: I think it is true that with the anti smoking crowd the first victim is truth.

    It is manipulated to fit the adgenda.
  5. Pepper Gee from Toronto, Canada writes: Here's another hazard created by smoking in your car. I ride a motorcycle and don't have a full face mask - I wear goggles. I was riding behind a car two years ago and someone tossed a butt out the window and it flew right into the side of my helmet, lodging - lit end - between my cheek and the padding on the inside of the helmet. I nearly crashed and had to get over two lanes of highway traffic and on to the side of the road, stop the bike and get the helmet off... I had a terrible burn on my face and now a terrible scar.
  6. Knowledge is True Opinion from Canada writes: Is it the "Truth" that is the issue or the fact that you can't except that this behaviour is killing your kids. Plan and simply your selfish act is harming your children. Get over yourselves and look at this big picture. Rights and Freedoms or your kids health.

    I think using smokey bars is an appropriate benchmark. Smokey in bars is now banned and the study found that smoking in cars is worse.

    It's ridiculous to say the scenerios didn't include open moon roof & sun roof, etc. If you read the article without your rage glasses on you would have seen that they tried to simulate likely behaviour. Ie, driving with the windows shut in the winter.

    And lastly just because things are open in windy doesn't mean the air is replaced with clean air. Take the back of a pickup truck for example. the wind travellinig over of the roof creates a vortex with the air in the back. That same air circulates around. While the air /wind created by the movement goes over top. The tail gate down to save drag is a myth. It actually creates more drag.

  7. M L from Canada writes: Fine for those who wish to smoke. That's their choice. Great. However, if you have your children in the car don't light up. I've sat in the back of the car when friends or whoever was smoking. Nice. Keep in mind folks that the children probably don't want to be breathing that stuff in either. Does anyone remember when people were allowed to smoke on buses? It made me sick. Headaches, raw throat, nauseous. No one is trying to take away your precious fix. Smoke away. You don't have the right and do have the responsibility to keep your children's wellbeing as the first priority. What kind of example are these parents teaching their kids? Just don't be surprised when your kids come home and light up. Wait... that would be convenient for those parents wouldn't it? They wouldn't have to actually get up off their as$es and leave the room or house. Tough. Enjoy your smoke-by yourself. Don't think that's convenient? Too bad. It's not convenient for the rest of us... most especially children who can't stand up for themselves.
  8. michael hoepfner from Canada writes:

    Why are cigarettes still legal?
  9. m Perrin from calgary, Canada writes: I find it amusing, in a sad way , how anyone can defend smoking in their cars in the company of children. Unable to control their own addiction momentarily, they pin their rage against the anti-smoking agenda of "junk science",blah blah blah. Grow up so your kids can too!
  10. David K from Guelph, Canada writes: Smoking is a filthy habit.
  11. stand up mimi from Canada writes: There should be some serious fines for people tossing lit cigarettes out of car windows. I can't believe so many clowns still do this, but Pepper Gee isn't the only motorcyclist that has been burned or endangered by them. Even in the middle of a hot, tinder dry summer people do this.

    As for the smoke - actually I would prefer people leave their car windows up when they're smoking (as long as there are no kids in the car, of course). Butting them out the window just sends the smoke into MY car.
  12. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: Why do smokers seem to have a right to toss their butts anywhere? Out the window of a car blindly whenever they're finished, the world is their ashtray.
  13. Swingline 2 from Canada writes: The article doesn't say whether or how fast the cars were moving, which would change the outcome considerably.

    M Perrin: It isn't so much about "defending" the right to smoke around children, like anyone is so determined to make someone else cough; it's more that the state doesn't have the legitimate right to tell anyone not to. Study after study comes out measuring what happens around a burning cigarette, but have you seen a single estimate of how common it is to smoke in a car with kids and what the consequences are? There aren't any.

    Parents decide every day what risks to expose their children to. There are far more pre-diabetic obese kids than asthmatics, but no one would dare monitor someone's shopping cart or shut down McDonald's. Most smoker parents I've met are extremely conscientious about keeping their kids away from it, which leads me to suspect that the "problem" isn't quite rampant enough to justify a law. It's just that we can see parent kid cigarette, so we want to ban it because it's identifiable without having to think very hard.

    This is a moral debate, not a health debate. If McGuinty wants to "send a message" to smokers, he can erect a statue instead.

    (No, I don't smoke and I don't have children.)
  14. CD W from Canada writes: Does not everyone just stink like the park wino when someone has been smoking in the car?
  15. dave ross from Canada writes: I wonder where you can get those cigarettes that burn for 20 minutes? Perhaps the researchers are mistakenly using cigars.

    I still remember when it was proven on Fernwood Tonight that polyester leisure suits caused cancer. They proved it by making lab mice wear leisure suits non-stop for days.
  16. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    The "hazards" posed by second-hand smoke are greatly exaggerated.
  17. Nickstar One from Canada writes: ".....Why do smokers seem to have a right to toss their butts anywhere?....."
    Why are SHS fraudsters so surprised? You create the problem with your asinine Health Unit "ashtray police" forcing millions "outside"
    with bullying, abusive, and coercive Smoker Bans denying any rudimentary right to reasonable shelter and then whine and complain about cigarette butts? You treat your animals better than this. Therefore, you can count each and every cigarette butt as a concrete and visible protest to your bullying, abusive, imposition of quasi-prohibition in the seriously mistaken belief that Smoker Bans actually work. Frankly, it's surprising you can see the cigarette butts at all through all those prohibtionist-invented "clouds of blue smoke" developing and hovering(with your version of menace) over and around entrances, parking lots, and now -- back seats.
  18. Jason D from TO Expat, United States writes: I think we should ban smoking everywhere; in cars, in homes, at the park, on the street.

    Then, I think we should make cigarrettes illegal, and incarcerate those who are in possession or attempting to purchase cigarrettes.

    Then, we should incarcerate cigarrette manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, transporters, retailers, etc.

    Then, we should destroy all media where cigarrettes are and were used or referenced.

    Then, we should pass legislation where merely saying the word, or referencing the idea of a "cigarrette" is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment.

    Then everyone in society will be protected and healthy. Mind you, this witch hunt will have eroded our civil liberties, but there will be no cigarrettes.
  19. albert rose from Canada writes: Nickstar, you can put out your cigarette on your thick, sloping forehead and put it in you pocket. Then, discard it later. Just like civlized folks do.

    In general, smokers are inconsiderate litterbugs. They have as a group earned the contempt of the majority.

    Learn to live with it. I suggest you quit your nasty addiction anyway, then you won't have to whine about where to put your butts and other perceived injustices.
  20. thomas laprade from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Two reasons for smoking bans and neither of them are about health.

    Quarantine/isolate the smoker

    De-normalize smoking

    That's it in a nut shell
  21. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "....They have as a group earned the contempt of the majority...."
    Don't flatter yourself. The vast majority feels no contempt whatsoever, it is the rabid, power and control, "tobacco control out of control" addicts who have cornered the market on contempt as exemplified by name-calling, bullying, and abuse. Welcome to the contempt club, your membership is in good standing.
  22. Michael J. McFadden from Philadelphia, United States writes: The bias of the study can be seen in so many little individual hints. The reasearchers "never expected" that smoking in a car with rolled up windows would be smokier than in a great big bar with ten or twenty air changes per hour? They're aghast at the levels found in a "plume" of smoke and try to generalize that to what people are breathing after dilution? Five years ago the antismoking lobby tried to get smoking banned in cars with the excuse that it caused accidents due to driver distraction. Unfortunately, once they put money into researching it they discovered that of a dozen or so possible accidents causes it turned out smoking was just about dead last on the list. So they needed to come up with a new strategy and fell back on the old tried and true favorite of "Saving The Children" because they knew that as soon as you wave "A Threat To Children" in the air everyone's thought processes turn off and our biologically hard-wired instinct to protect children kicks in. In normal circumstances with normal smokers and normal children, no one is giong to be hurt by someone smoking in a car: despite what Antismokers say, smokers are not idiots: 90% will roll a window down or crack two windows to get a cross stream even in the coldest of weather if they're smoking and have a nonsmoker or child in the car with them. And comparing a few minutes or seconds of "pollution readings" with the 24 hour EPA standards is propagandistic in intent and ridiculous in concept. The "study" is clearly just an exercise in social engineering designed to promote the goals of "denormalizing" smokers and "interrupting" the smoking habit so as to encourage quitting. Using and abusing our love of children for political goals is despicable: the study's authors should be ashamed, and the Globe and Mail should be ashamed for reporting what amounts to little more than a press release by an advocacy group. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
  23. David K from Guelph, Canada writes: The problem with smoking is that it rarely happens in isolation. If, despite all the evidence produced through the years, someone wants to smoke then fine, let them. The sticky bit happens when others become unwillingly involved sucking in the fumes produced by a smoker. We all have to breathe and although the air quality in some cities is as bad as smoking 20 a day there is no moral justification for making it worse for another person just because you happen to be an addict. I can say this because I was a smoker with the first 15 years of my life as a passive smoker and the following 15 as an active smoker. Finally the penny dropped when I saw my cat look up at a cloud of smoke I had just exhaled and realized she had no choice but to breathe that air. I quit that same day. So, if inhaling fine particulates and known carcinogens gives you a buzz, go for it. Just don't force anyone else to join you unwillingly.
  24. albert rose from Canada writes: Nickstar, I'm not flattering myself. Most folks agree with what I said, they just keep their mouths shut. The will of the majority is manifested in smoking bans.

    You, on the other hand, are deluding yourself if you think all of this has come about because of a tiny, irrational minority. Most people think tobacco smoke stinks. Your views do not reflect reality.
  25. albert rose from Canada writes: And one more think, Nickstar: your musings here are to me, contemptible. They clearly convey the bizarre sense of entitlement that many smokers have to pollute the air that others breathe and litter the ground that others walk on. If this is what you say and do, you are indeed worthy of contempt.
  26. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from Canada writes: Seig Heil, Fascists.

    "beating the drums" --- Nazi Germany, 1933.
  27. Stan L from Canada writes: Ahh yess, another evil smokers smoking in cars article.......and before I start, yes Albert Rose, I am evil, should burn and etc.... point taken blah blah blah.. What I can't find in all of this propaganda (and yes this is hardly a study as much as it is progaganda) is the actual facts that support the notion that this is actually happening to the degree that we need a law or is happening in such increasing numbers as to warrant such a dangerous and intrusive law into our lives (not to mention the cost, administration and etc.....) I can provide a ton of data to support the idea that smoking is decreasing dramtically year over year, and I can produce evidence that smokers' behaviour has been changed due to current measures already in place (ie: smokers smoking outside the home now even with no children living in the home etc.....) But what I can't find is the data that says that despite the dramatic decreases in smoking, smoking with children in cars is on the rise......in fact all the data supports the notion that this is definitely on the way out.........if this is such an issue, where is the basic data that supports the creation of a law....isn't there any kind of responsibility on the part of the government to prove there is an issue or is this the new world order.....legislate everything that is remotely incovenient or distasteful whether it is actually happening or not regardless of whether it serves the greater good or not.......... If the government is dying to spend money, then why don't they spend the money subsidizing stop smoking aids......I notice that a lot of company drug plans don't cover them, might be more effective and more helpful than the stigma of a law to prevent people from doing what they don't do now. OR as an alternative, why don't we ban phones in cars? I would be willing to bet that that happens at a greater frequency and is the cause of greater damamge ie: crashes, fender benders....just a thought.
  28. albert rose from Canada writes: I'm sorry Stan, did you bleat something again? Try condensing that down to 20 words or less, or nobody will read it.
  29. CD W from Canada writes: so true
  30. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "....your musings here are to me, contemptible.... you are indeed worthy of contempt." Just like the escalating extremism exhibited by a tiny, irrational, repetitively vociferous, minority ensconsed in and leading "tobacco control" (with virtually unlimited funding from taxes extorted from smokers), your self-admitted contempt for others speaks volumes. Not to mention the grotesque presumption to speak for the majority because as you arrogantly presume "they keep their mouths shut". Remember this: those crying "child abuse" are in the forefront of promoting bullying and abuse toward millions of their fellow citizens, including their children. Got to love the hypocritical intricacies of "hatred having free reign", as defined by the forced and enforced denormalization agenda making full use of demonization and discrimination every step of the way. To reiterate, those "cigarette butts everywhere" (that drive you to apoplectic fits of hateful rage) were put there because of your asinine fixation on Smoker Bans to "take it outside" of ENCLOSED PUBLIC PLACES. Again, welcome to the contempt club, your membership is in good standing. Take your place right behind Rob Cunningham of Canadian Cancer Society Lottery Corporation and the Heart and Stroke Lottery Corporation. Nothing charitable or honest about these Corporations and the sheep who regurgitate their nonsense and follow them around.
  31. David K from Guelph, Canada writes: Nickstar et al, May I suggest that if you are so incensed by the government's alleged misuse of the taxes that you and other smokers provide them with that you simply rebel and quit smoking. That'll teach them!
  32. On Edge from Canada writes: OK, instead of this embarrassing hypocondriacal crusade, which now takes children hostage, just ban the sale of cigarettes. Put your money where your mouth is, I dare you.
  33. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: How about if you drive 100 kph with no windshield? Ok just the chassis and one seat and the kids run behind? Just tell me what you want because I just have to please you.
  34. m Perrin from Calgary, Canada writes: Nickstar: Are you still ranting? We get it... you own a thesaurus, you're still an idiot. Go to bed, but make sure that smoke is out before you do, us non smokers still care about you, loser!
  35. Ann W from Canada writes: Did anyone bother to check the qualification's of the researchers? Their field of expertise is psychology and epidemiology. This as sad as an Epidemiologist doing an economic studies on smoking bans.

    Project Team:
    Taryn Sendzik, BA1 (Student Investigator)

    Geoffrey T. Fong, received his BA in psychology from Stanford University and his PhD in social psychology from the University of Michigan.

    In addition to my research interests in social psychology and public health, I have expertise in conducting research studies relevant to trademark law in the United States. I have served as an expert witness in Federal trademark cases in which I have conducted trademark surveys to address questions of likelihood of confusion, secondary meaning, and genericness. I have represented a broad range of companies, including Volkswagen of America, Genessee Brewing Company, and Schick.

    Dr. Hyland holds a PhD in Epidemiology and a MA in Statistics from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Hyland directs the Survey Research and data Acquisition Resource at Roswell Park. He has over 120 peer reviewed publications, is the PI on numerous grants and contracts, is a Senior Editor for the journal Tobacco Control, and leads the Roswell Park secondhand smoke research program, which was awarded the 2007 Global Smokefree Partnership Award for research excellence.

    Mark Travers is currently a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University at Buffalo. Mark graduated from Johns Hopkins University with a BS in Biomedical Engineering and from the University at Buffalo with an MS in epidemiology. He is currently a research affiliate at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York in the Department of Health Behavior.
  36. Kevin Mulvina from Canada writes: Amanda Motto works for a group organized by the same advertising agency who repaired Dalton's poor public image to a point he would be palatable enough to elect. They claim to speak for smokers, so they have the only say in the smokers defense despite the fact they ultimately put forward a baby steps approach which is easily drowned out.

    Anti smoker advocates and the Tobacco industry have a common goal, which unfortunately for smokers would be moving the blames and the burdens of smoking away from the industry, placing it on the consumers shoulders instead. Second hand smoke is a demon created to manage diseases by those organizations and government bodies; who simply find a lot more future and profits in maintaining disease levels.

    If we look at the tobacco settlements in the states or the act of taxing an addiction as well, the punishing effects aimed at industries are passed on with a markup to consumers. In the States the 350 Billion dollar settlement turned into a 700 billion dollar markup on cigarettes over the next 25 years a figure phased in gradually will never slim the number of smokers, however it will guarantee almost a trillion dollars of unearned income will be split among all the partners in the years to come.

    Dalton opened a website which is aimed at those "poor defenseless children" he is pining for, with a name like stupid.ca, what did he hope to accomplish? The word rubber stamps hatred. Which at the moment is the Liberal stock in trade. WE don't need more divisions in community to live better, what we need is to find better qualified leadership and charities who legitimately seek cures and solutions which don't require hatred and exclusions of real people.

    Global warming is fashioned after the anti smoker campaign. With it's sights on the trillions which will be earned by those industries standing in line begging to be punished, in the same way McGuilty punishes the Tobacco industry.
  37. Lemmy Nothor from Exiled in Barcelona, Spain writes: Cars are dangerous, and pollute the environment. If you really care about clean air, let's start by banning cars, and it will automatically take care of smoking in cars.

    Whatever happened to "Smoking" Joe Frazier ? Poor fellow can't go anywhere public anymore. It says No Smoking everywhere .
  38. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Such indignation, but it's ok for druggies to scatter needles around the play ground. Why don't the doo gooders spread joy to all the addicts innstead of harrasing the ones using a legal product? Or would it be politically incorrect to critisize illegal activity. Presumably the only groups in society that don't have rights are those involved in legal practices smoking, driving, etc.
  39. Frank J A de Swart from Mississauga, Canada writes: I'm sorry but has anyone seen the smog over the Toronto skyline in the summer? Sucked in the carbon monoxide from the city streets? Smoking is unhealthy but cars pollute even more. Sounds like a lack of common sense and a lot of petty silliness from the anti-smoking lobby.
    If the people pushing this law (that borders on fascist) would at least mention that a car's tailpipe is just as deadly as a cigarette and fight for cleaner cars as well then at least they'd have a balanced argument.
    But hey, we love our cars, eh?
  40. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: The anti smoking agenda comes from the Nazi Germany. Do those who are the anti-smokers follow those who polluted the air, the cars, the industries, who about the water or about the land? How much of your food is covered with pesticides? How about flouride in the water? How about the increasing levels of pharma drugs in the water supply? How about the many, many chemicals used in daily life? Do the children have a choice about these things?
  41. I only comment when it really ticks me off from Canada writes: I have never smoked in my car with my children. I maintained this "personal policy" way back before it was a hot topic of debate. I don't smoke in my car when I drive with anyone unless everyone else smokes.

    I can live with no smoking at work, restaurants, bars etc. Just leave me alone. To me booze has destroyed more families and lives that smoking.

    Try that one for debate all you non smokers who most likely drink. I am sure most of you have stories of family alcoholics somewhere in your closets.
  42. Jeff W from Calgary, Canada writes: Overweight and fat people beware. YOU are next in the sights of the tobacco crusaders. Once they have tobacco outlawed they will need a new cause. Your fat and not eating right. You eating habits are making your children fat. Laws will be introduced for the safety of the children as you are a drain on the health system and society.
  43. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Closing the windows to your house will not eliminate the health threat posed by smog either.
  44. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Non-smokers are allowed to spew tonnes of toxins into the air because tail pipe exhaust is so healthy for everyone. Exhaust fumes are so healthy and prevelent in Toronto I read that one of the Olympic coaches questions how healthy it is to train in Toronto in the summer time - he feels the smog is probably detrimental to his athlete's health. So, if only 20% of the population are smokers it means that 80% of smog caused by automobiles is caused by non-smokers. But I don't drive. And many of my 'hippy' friends smoke but don't drive. Hmmm, that means there might be a disproportional amount of non-smokers that drive and spew horrible toxins into the atmosphere which is causing epidemic proportions of child asthma in the city of Toronto. I'm pretty sure it's not my cigerette smoke that's causing the sky to be brown in the summer time in Toronto. And I know my cigerette smoke isn't putting the greasy black particulate matter in the air. And smoking is at an all time low in Canada and yet, cases of lung cancer are still on the rise. Maybe it's time to look at the blue/gray smoke coming out of your tail pipe and wonder, as I do, is smoking really the hazard to be worrying about now that smokers have been exiled to hide outside?
  45. J S from Canada writes: There's also another huge danger to our kids on roadways - cell phones. I can't tell you how many times I've come extremely close to being t-boned at an intersection while some person is talking on a cell phone running a stale yellow light! As a passenger, it's very frightening to watch someone having a conversation about to plow into you. And to top it off - my friend usually gets the finger for honking the horn. Sure, I'll accept the ban of smoking in cars, but let's ban cell phones too!!! I'd like a cell signal blocker installed in every vehicle as standard SAFETY equipment. If you want to use your phone, stop and use the phone.
  46. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: "Knowledge is True Opinion from Canada writes: ...And lastly just because things are open in windy doesn't mean the air is replaced with clean air. Take the back of a pickup truck for example. the wind travellinig over of the roof creates a vortex with the air in the back. That same air circulates around. While the air /wind created by the movement goes over top. The tail gate down to save drag is a myth. It actually creates more drag."

    And the whole time you're driving the cars in front of you, behind you and all around you are spewing tonnes of toxins into the air which you and your kids are breathing.
  47. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "....How about if you drive 100 kph with no windshield?....."
    Presto, instant "Hurricane Force Wind" ventilation! Guru, James Repace and Associates(former MA of the EPA), would be beaming and proud. Problem is, in spite of this CMA/OMA approved, ultra-superior mode of ventilation, you have a back seat "vortex" problem trapping SHS at head level in the back seat and there's "no way on god's green earth" that you can get rid of it. You see, "there is no safe level", the Smoker Ban mantra.
  48. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: "albert rose from Canada writes: And one more think, Nickstar: your musings here are to me, contemptible. They clearly convey the bizarre sense of entitlement that many smokers have to pollute the air that others breathe and litter the ground that others walk on. If this is what you say and do, you are indeed worthy of contempt."

    I take it you don't drive yourself, othewise, your comment about the sense of entitlement to pollute the air that others breathe is quite hypocritical. I'll stop smoking when the QEW, DVP and 400 series highways are all closed or only have only non-polluting vehicles on them. Air pollution (aka smog) is the leading cause of child asthma in the city of Toronto.
  49. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "....I have never smoked in my car with my children. I maintained this "personal policy" way back before it was a hot topic of debate..."
    Correct and so do the overwhelming majority of smokers but that just isn't good enough for the "denormalizers". Their preference and "modus operandi" mimics the tactics of a mustachioed, power and control megalomanic, who blew his brains out in a bunker over a half century ago. Incidentally, it is documented that this cowardly, self-inflicted, well-deserved demise was celebrated by "lighting up" everywhere, including enclosed public spaces.
  50. B Johnson from Halifax, Canada writes: J. S. from Toronto. I couldn't agree with every one of your points more. You nailed it right on! KUDOS to you. As for cell phone blockers your idea is pure genius. I'd take it one step further. ANY DRIVER involved in an accident while their cellphone is engaged should have their insurance policies privileges deemed null and void. I was T-boned by a cellphone jockey and it cost me dearly in damages to my person, my car, mental anguish, and loss of income. I'm suing. The man on the phone who T-boned me was talking to his wife on the phone. He had just left the house not 3 minutes before hitting me.
  51. paul degen from Canada writes: Where are the stats on how many children died due to their parents smoking in the car. Mine smoked all the time in the car. I won all sorts of awards for track and field growing up. And guess what? I enjoy having smoke myself once in a while and am in great shape.
    I wonder how many of these rabid antismokers are chronic potheads or closet smokers themselves I've met alot of them at parties. I find that once people relax and chill with a few drinks they see a smoke really isn't the Chernobyl they are brainwashed to believe. Remember it's only a tube of paper with some leaves smoldering. Relax!
    Moderation is the key.
  52. larry price from Port Loring ON, Canada writes: The Minnow of Tobacco & the Shark of Chemicals

    I live in the country where the air is gradually becoming more polluted. On a recent trip to Toronto, I could see a gray cloud on the horizon in an otherwise clear, blue sky. Smog! When I reached downtown Toronto I had trouble breathing; the air stunk. I saw smokers on the sidewalk outside a bar. I wonder, when the people are living in a chemical soup, how the anti-smoking group can determine where the line is, between the chemical soup and smoking, in their lung cancer statistics?

    Further, we have chemicals in our homes and at our workplace (especially industrial work places!), all marked with cautionary labels, many of which we smear over surfaces that we and our children touch!

    I wish the anti-smoking group would stop stomping on the minnow of tobacco and attack the shark of chemicals.
  53. thomas laprade from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: There is a new study out by 'Gooder and Better' that states it is impossible to measure with any accuracy the comparison between a smoky bar and the inside of a car.
  54. thomas laprade from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: If the antis can't win by truth , reason and common sense, the always revert to intimidation
  55. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: {{{ I find it amusing, in a sad way , how anyone can defend smoking in their cars in the company of children. }}}..... That's why it's called "addiction" and the users are "addicts." The addiction trumps any possible concern for the health of their own children. Such is life. ...... On the plus side, I know smokers who would never smoke so that their children or anyone else would be subjected to the leftovers. Give creidt where it's due.
  56. Stan L from Canada writes: David Gibson, the fact is that most and I mean a large portion of most, smokers will not argue that smoking in an enclosed area of any kind with children or even adults who are not smokers is something they don't agree with or even do for that matter. The government itself boasts about the reductions in smoking and the national average is only 16% of ALL Canadians smoke. The whole idea of introducing a law that bans smoking in cars with kids reminds me of a common logical fallacy arguement. In this type of question/problem someone asks a question or in this case proposes a law that presupposes something that has not been proven. An example of this is the question "Are you still beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past......see what I mean? The fact is that this 'study' and I will call it that....loosely donesn't answer the pertinent question which is really.....are people in Ontario actually doing this to the degree or in increasing numbers as to warrant a law? Why not just create the law anyway you might ask? Well for a few reasons. First, it stigmatizes smokers with a bad behaviour that they don't actually do, Second laws are costly to impliment both in time and administration....who will the cops proritize on the road speeders or smokers? Third, there is the question of civil liberties and privacy in personal property. What I am surprised with is the fact that people are fooled by a boondoggle of a law designed to score easy points for a premier from an easy target.....regardless of the cost.
  57. H B from Canada writes: Speaking as a smoker, I can't believe that anyone doesn't think smoking in a car is harmful to their kids. I used to smoke when alone in my last car, with the windows full down and fan on so that it wouldn't stink for my wife, who was strong enough to quit a few years ago, and son. Somehow, the car still managed to stink of cigarettes for several days when I'd occasionally have one in the car. I don't smoke in the car at all anymore. If the car smells, it means those particles are hanging around, which means my kid is breathing them.

    Go ahead, smokers, and light up in the car, mitigating as much as possible the amount of smoke lingering in the cabin. Then go ask a non-smoker to see if they can tell that you'd lit up. Then tell me that smoking with a kid in the back isn't exposing them to the stuff.
  58. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: PepperGee: do you wear a full face helmet now, or did you not learn from your "lesson"
  59. Stan L from Canada writes: from the article....."Taryn Sendzik and Geoffrey Fong, were astounded by their own findings, contained in a report by the provincial Ministry of Health's Ontario Tobacco Research Unit."

    When publishing and putting into pratise anything associated by the Ministry (whatever Ministry) doesn't the government have some kind of obligation to our tax payers dollars to
    a) enusre the people doing the work are actually qualified in the field of study to which they are researching and
    b) not biased by special interest group affilifations?
  60. stan bink from Tee Dot, Canada writes: Jeez... I'm having a smoke reading this... which is calming me down just listening to all the nicotine nazi's in here.... Thank god for cigarettes!
  61. Stephen McPherson from Bradford, Canada writes: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste. " - Anonymous

    Drivers throughout North America shouldn't be behind the wheel:

    1. North American's are notoriously over-tired due to not getting enough sleep, impairing their cognitive and physical reaction times;

    2. North American's try to compensate for the lack of sleep by over stimulating themsleves on caffein- witness the long and growing lines at Tim Horton's, StarBuck's, Dunkin' Donuts and other popular dispensaries;

    3. North American's are in general too stupid to drive, as witnessed by the dross commentary served up by the illiterati of our fine, dim witted country.

    To paraphrase Barack Obama's wife - I am embarassed to live in this country.
  62. Nickstar One from Canada writes: ".....I don't smoke in the car at all anymore. If the car smells, it means those particles are hanging around, which means my kid is breathing them....."
    A firm believer in the stealthy, silent and deadly killer , THS-Third Hand Smoke, no less. Hazmat suits anyone? Why not go for the gusto and try for FHS--Fourth Hand Smoke? Chances are, you are also a firm believer in the old saw, "if you can smell it, it's in your blood". What makes you think that because you can smell something(an olfactory sense), "particles" will magically jump out and throttle the life out of you?
  63. thomas laprade from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: A sparrow breaths faster than a baby.
    Does that mean the sparrow takes in more pollutants than a baby??
  64. J V M from Canada writes: If most smokers wouldn't smoke in a car with kids in it anyways, why all the fuss? So there is now a law against doing something you wouldn't do anyways...isn't there something more significant for the libertarians to freak out about?
  65. J V M from Canada writes: P.S. Thomas Laprade - your sparrow question brings to mind the use of a canary in a coal mine to tell if there was poisonous gas. (Yes, the canary will die before a person does.)
  66. Lemmy Nothor from Exiled in Barcelona, Spain writes: Get ski racks, and tie the kids on it. Then and only then can you light up with no risks to the kids. Besides, they will love riding this way....
  67. Stan L from Canada writes: J V M from Canada writes: If most smokers wouldn't smoke in a car with kids in it anyways, why all the fuss? So there is now a law against doing something you wouldn't do anyways...isn't there something more significant for the libertarians to freak out about?

    First, it stigmatizes smokers with a bad behaviour that they don't actually do, Second laws are costly to impliment both in time and administration....who will the cops proritize on the road speeders or smokers, how will the courts manage, how many extra police do we need to hire (becuase surely you can't impliment laws that you have no intention of prosecuting right?)? Third, there is the question of civil liberties and privacy in personal property which is a whole slippery slope of a debate unto itself. What I am surprised with is the fact that people are fooled by a boondoggle of a law designed to score easy points for a premier from an easy target.....regardless of the cost.
  68. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: "What makes you think that because you can smell something(an olfactory sense), "particles" will magically jump out and throttle the life out of you?" For what it's worth, that's simple biology. The way you 'smell' something is by particles flying into your nose where they are detected by sensors... that's exactly what smell is.
  69. J V M from Canada writes: Stan L, I see some of your points, though I'm sure they won't bother hiring any extra police for this. I agree it's just a way to score easy points, but I don't think it'll cost that much money. As far as civil liberties people are worrying about the wrong thing, though.

    I'm much more concerned about larger civil liberties violations, as exemplified in the Google/Patriot Act problem (see G & M article here: http://tinyurl.com/25ccxg), or how our government's new Bill C-10, or a host of other more serious problems.
  70. J V M from Canada writes: P.S. The word "how" got in penultimate line of that last post by mistake...
  71. Rim rimz from Toronto, Canada writes:
    i really don't get it when people smoke where ever they want...
    take a look around you and see and use ur brain for God's sake...
    it really gets to me when people come around in their car and smoking anywhere they want to..its like taking a dump anywhere u want...there are certain places where u do things..
    And for those people who smoke with kids in the car...how can a person do that?..u must be really selfish and cold hearted..
    Adults know better then why is it that we are making stupid decisions? k we get it u want to smoke and allow harmful chemicals in to ur body..but why are u allowing ur decision affect a child or anyone in that matter??.. take the time to think and understand where u belong in all of this...at least let the ones that want to live, live!!
  72. Blue Sky from Strathmore, Canada writes: "For 40 years, the slippery-slope argument has been used against every tobacco measure"...heck, for 40 years we've been sliding into a liberalized obsession with controlling how people act, speak and think. KMA people.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

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.