It is the next logical step for the nanny state, but do we really need another nit-picky law on the books? Can we just say it’s a bad idea and move on?
Smoking in a car with a child would be prohibited under a bill being circulated at the state Capitol.
Sen. Janet Bewley, D-Ashland, and Rep. Beth Myers, D-Bayfield, have proposed the measure that would not allow people to smoke in any vehicles with a child young enough to sit in a car seat or booster seat.
“The painful and costly effects of cigarette smoke are especially tragic when experienced by a child who is exposed to secondhand smoke,” a memo supporting the bill said. “We view this proposal as an option to augment our work to discourage smoking and reduce the potential for harm.”
Anyone who is caught smoking in a vehicle with a child would be subject to a $25 fine for the first offense, and $50 each time after, with the money going to the tobacco use control program.
I don’t get it. Lefties want to legalize everything when it comes to Mary Jane like in CO, but want to stomp every last vestige of freedom for other vices?
Is there a lefty religious list of which vices are sacred, and worthy of protection and freedom, and which are verboten?
This is the issue that disgusts me most about the lefty religion.
You of all people should be wanting to protect kids. You are against pot, abortion, etc., but more than willing to kill kids with second hand smoke. Hypocrite !
Ever heard of cracking a window?
How would this be enforced in Milwaukee? That police force in that liberal ruled municipality does not have time to respond to car thefts, African American grandmothers being in distress from violent crime, or simple theft. Now you want this police force to pull African Americans over for smoking in their car?
It’s a matter of priorities.
I’d rather have Milwaukee focus on kids in distress from violent crime. That will save more kids.
Cracking a window really does no good, and you know that. You are a great example of a selective rationalizer. Pick and choose your arguments without consistency. Otherwise known as a hypocrite.
I’m a believer in not having an over-arching nanny state. If we are going to outlaw every bad parent behavior, let,s start with abortion and work from there.
I have to refill my 32 oz soda now…and I don’t need your permission, thank you.
Again I ask, do you read what you wrote before you push “post comment” ? You have proved my point once again.
You can drink all the soda you want, as long as it doesn’t affect my health insurance premiums. Why should I and everyone else that maintains a healthy diet subsidize your poor choices?
Simply put, this is a bad law, and my guess that the democrats who support this either came from California or has the same belief as California.
This is a stupid rule proposal. If they propose this for cars, the next step will be to ban smoking in apartments/houses where a child resides.
From there, the next logical step is to mandate that parents stop smoking or they will be reported to CPS and the kids will be taken away.
Smoking is legal, whether you like it or not.
So, Baldy, why not just ban smoking altogether?
But you won’t support that because smokers supply a lot of money to government through the high tax on cigarettes and cigars and other smoking related supplies. smokers support a lot of liberal programs through their taxes so liberals will bark a lot but in reality, they really do support smoking and the money it gives to liberal programs.
I’m fine with banning smoking, but that will never happen because of the tremendous power of the tobacco lobby.
So you will be judge of what is “healthy” or not?
I thought you frowned on being judgmental?
Healthy vs unhealthy is a very serious act of discrimination when it comes to food.
Are you prepared to make good vs. evil judgments on food when you cannot even do that for radical Islam?
Umm, baldy, you are so gullible, just like you are an innocent child who has no idea how the world works.
So, I will explain it to you, but please read this slowly so you can comprehend what is written.
It is not the smoking companies who is keeping them in business, after all, if the U.S. bans smoking, there is still the world wide markets they still cater to.
The politicians are the ones who do not want to ban smoking.
The government, whether it is local, state or federal, make a boat load of money off of cigarettes, mostly, but also cigars, vape cigarettes, chewing tobacco and other kinds of tobacco products.
If the government outlawed smoking and chewing, they would lose all that tax revenue and that is a politician’s worst nightmare- less money.
So, old baldy- the dumb one, not the vile one, I certainly hope I helped you understand why smoking will never be outlawed. It’s not big smoky, it’s the government who keeps big smoky in business..
Second hand smoke is a proven health risk. But then you would have to believe in science to agree with that fact.
Did you read my post? And then agreed with it. Is your reading comprehension, or lack of understanding of the political system so poor that you make my argument for me? Try again.
Baldy, you mean this post?
I’m fine with banning smoking, but that will never happen because of the tremendous power of the tobacco lobby.”
Apparently, you read to fast and I even warned about reading too fast. I’m so sorry you are a brain damaged liberal.
Read you own post. Who do the tobacco lobbyists have to sway ; plumbers, engineers, truck drivers?? No they have to influence the politicians. So once you get your size twelve out of you mouth apologize.
And if you think the tobacco industry would give up the US market you are sorely deceived. The is big bucks, buddy. And have you ever seen the sin taxes in other countries. Take a look at Canada and most European countries .