Oregon Senate votes to ban smoking in car with kids
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Adults who smoke in a car with a child could face hundreds of dollars in fines under a bill approved Wednesday in the Oregon Senate.
If the House gives its approval and Gov. John Kitzhaber signs the bill, Oregon would join four other states with similar measures. Violators would face a maximum fine of $250 for a first offense and $500 for subsequent offenses.
The Senate's 19-10 vote Wednesday did not follow party lines.
Proponents said secondhand smoke is harmful, and minors shouldn't be subjected to health hazards because of their parents' decision to smoke. They say smoke can be trapped inside a vehicle and pool in the back seat where children often sit.
"Secondhand smoke is dangerous, and it's especially dangerous for children, more dangerous still when it's enclosed in a confined space," said Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, the bill's chief sponsor and a family physician in Portland.
Critics say the state shouldn't be limiting people's liberties or telling parents how to raise their children. The bill exceeds government's role and creates a "nanny state" that micromanages citizens' lives, they said.
"The reason I'm opposing this is not that smoking in cars is a good idea," said Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg. "The reason I'm opposing this is, how dare government tell me what I'm going to do in my own car."
Kruse said he's a smoker but called it a "terrible habit" and said he never smoked in the car with his children.
Not all conservatives agreed. Republican Sen. Fred Girod, of Stayton, said he opposes bills he believes create a "nanny state," but the smoking ban is different because it seeks to protect children from decisions they can't control. He voted for the measure, Senate Bill 444.
The violation would be a secondary offense, so drivers could only be ticketed if they were pulled over for another reason.
Arkansas, California, Louisiana and Maine have enacted similar legislation, along with several cities and counties around the country, according to Global Advisers on Smoke-free Policy, and advocacy group.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
A puzzling position for a smoker (Jeff Kruse) recently diagnosed with cancer. How could you not want to protect children from cancer? And yes, the dangers are very real and proven. Â
Does the same logic apply to not making kids wear seat belts? My car, my kids, butt out. The difference is.......what?
This legislative move must mean that, in order to justify such a ban, someone has finally found a child proven to have been harmed by "second hand smoke" in a car.  Funny, though, that no such child has yet been wheeled into legislative chambers in front of TV cameras to sell the law to a tearful public. There's no "Becky's Law" yet.
Speaking of the lawmakers...it's important to check economic links "anti smoking" officials have with under-the-radar parts of the cigarette industry that MOST hope to blame...scapegoat... smokers, and the tobacco plant, for illnesses. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Those interests include makers of some 450 registered tobacco pesticides, dioxin-producing chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached paper (and the timber-pulp suppliers), pharmaceutical firms that make both pesticides and/or untested non-tobacco cigarette additives, suppliers of the radiation-contaminated phosphate fertilizers, non-organic Ag Biz that supplies many non-tobacco cigarette additives AND waste cellulose to make fake tobacco, Big Sugar, etc etc...AND their insurers and investors...remembering that top Health Insurers are multi-billion dollar investors in cigarette manufacturing...and in the rest of the cartel. Â It's also necessary, for Constitutional Due Process reasons, to check Judges and Jurors in "smoking" cases for those same potential, apparent, or actual biases.
 A lot of references about such integral...but generally ignored...things are at http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com ...and search around for "You-Tube Bill Drake Smoke And Illusion". It'll be new stuff to many.
Put this bill down as another law that the police won't have the budget or time to enforce, as their are so better many uses of their time than as a nanny. This is just a grandstanding ploy by the Oregon Senate to show that they are sensitive to Hot Topic issues , that will be instantly forgotten in a month.Â
From experience... My parents both smoked.. My brother and I grew up and became smokers.. Our children grew up and became smokers.. they have since quit..My eldest grandson was around cig smoke..he grew up to be a smoker.. The other grandchildren were not subjected to cig smoke because by then,we had learned of the detrimental effects of second hand smoke..Once it was made public knowledge..anyone who cares about their children/grandchildren ceased to smoke in the same environment with them. Even when I transport my grandchildren,I do not smoke in the vehicle with them. All of us who continue to smoke..do so outside and not in the house.Its all about the care and concern we have for our children, not because the government has to interfere and butt their noses into our business..Another waste of tax paying dollars!
This is another fascist dictate by the growing nanny movement in the United States. I don't smoke, so this law won't affect me directly, but please understand there has NEVER been a definitive study proving second hand smoke has any negative health effect on people. A good statistician can poke holes in every study that claims second hand smoke is dangerous. When are people going to wake up to the fact that governments continually strip rights from people? They do not protect anyone's rights or freedoms.
@Gerald Cohail Wow. That is just shocking. There have been many studies, actually, and they're quite definitive. Are you sticking your head in the sand? Study after study after study has demonstrated negative health effects on people. It is a known human carcinogen and we're well aware of all the toxic chemicals in second-hand smoke. Are you really sitting there with a straight face and telling people that arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, polonium-210, benzene, and on and on are just a-okay to inhale? Really? Because an avalanche of medical studies completely disagree with you. Even tobacco companies have given up on trying that tired old argument. I honestly didn't even know there were still people around who didn't fully understand that breathing in toxic smoke is bad for you. Just wow.
How about we actually enforce the law no talking on your cell phone in the car. Before we pass another law we won't enforce.
@givupongod Excellent Idea.
Sad indeed
The State Senate thinks it has to make law prohibiting this practice, as in, 'common sense' does not exist among the citizens.
In many instances, it doesn't, not with today's up and coming bunch having kids...just take a look around.
Those who would smoke around kids anywhere in a closed space should not have kids or be allowed near children in the first place.
@Vetzero I'm going to have to agree with givupongod on this one... It's not "today's up and coming bunch." =/ Parents have been doing this for a very long time. From my perception, they're actually doing it much less today because the dangers are widely known and understood.
@VetzeroYou mean like most parents who smoked before 1990.
If you are the type of person who smokes in the car with your kid, then you most likely are the type who smokes in the house with the kids. Pointless to pass a law banning this, if they are subjected to smoking in the house.
@clbmom Not being able to do everything isn't an argument against doing something.
@clbmomÂ
...I beg to differ.
Good. Your right to enjoy your bad habit should end where other people's health begins.
It is a shame that we need to have legislation for something that should be a no-brainer.Â
When you ban smoking  in public places such as bars,, cafes and such to protect the public from secondhand smoke end don't protect the children in cars from the same...it is a travesty...YES PROTECT THE CHILDREN >>>BAN SMOKING IN CARS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT
I find it so sad that there would need to be legislation to prevent harming our children. Sad thing is if loving your child is not enough to prevent a parent from harming them with second hand smoke, I doubt very much a new law would prevent them either. Laws do very little to prevent unethical behavior. It all goes back to ethics VS jurisprudence. Not all things legal are moral and ethical, nor are all laws just. It is selfishness and greed that motivate many rather than love for fellow creatures. There are two laws that I recognize. Love of God and love of fellow man. If this kind of law motivates you ~ you will not need the multitudes of other laws. You will not murder, steal, harm others, pollute, act reckless, drink and drive, etc. Love, consideration and kindness go a long way.
I am really dismayed that this is going on in our capital. They allow abortion to take place and now they are trying to protect our kids??? What's up with that??? Isn't that contradictory?? Get rid of the abortions and the government cannot rule who is riding in our cars and the next thing it will be in our homes...................We will protect our own children we don't need the government to tell us what, when, why, where and how.
@Marilyn McAllisterExcept that some people obviously DO need the government to step in and protect their children, since plenty of people do smoke in cars with their children which is clearly not protecting them. And yes, Marilyn, we as a nation care about protecting children when he or she is actually a child. Not so much when it is merely the potential for a child.Â
@Marilyn McAllister The nanny state enablers are not limited by common sense, so they have no problem with the disparity of fighting for infanticide while at the same time restricting liberties "for the children". Â
Yes, smoking with your kids in the car probably isn't a great idea, but we did this for generations before the current anti-smoking climate (I don't smoke and consider it to be a sign of ignorance and poor self-discipline). Despite this, it is a bad precedent to give the government the authority to tell people how to live their lives. Â
Unfortunately, this is exactly the type of response we will be seeing from our government. Now that Obamacare has been passed, and the government is responsible for our individual health status, we can expect more intrusions into our once-private lives.Â
@Jerry Doing something for generations doesn't give something merit or make it okay in any way. The current "anti-smoking climate" is a reaction because it is TOXIC. And to be infanticide it would have to be infants being killed.
Good,anyone who smokes around a child is an idiot. My Mom did it and both my brother and I now pay for it.Â
@RelaxThereIsNoGod That is very nice of you to pay for your moms smokes. :)