New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids

- The Ontario Medical Association and the Heart and Stroke Foundation are teaming up to raise awareness about the dangers of smoking in cars where children are present.

A series of radio and print ads encouraging parents to butt out while driving with kids is set to kick off Monday.

OMA president Janice Willett applauded Ontario for tabling legislation to ban the practice, but says many parents still don't understand just how bad it is.

Studies suggest second-hand smoke in a vehicle can be 60 times more toxic than second-hand smoke in a house. Read more

[Non-Cas Fan]

Sheesh!
Aren't there any smart people in Canada anymore?

And LOL@ the article for "Studies suggest second-hand smoke in a vehicle can be 60 times more toxic than second-hand smoke in a house."

O RLY? Which study was THAT?

[harleyhoney]

LOL. I am not one to put the US down, I love it. But some of the people are nice, really good people then you get ones that are as ignorant as they perceive Canadians to be. I have seen many Americans, Europeans, English, etc smoking like chimneys around their children in and out of cars, smoking with their teen kids, etc. I guess that makes us not much different. I am Canadian, but have very strong ties to the US. Not all of us Canadians are stupid. Although after reading some of the comments by some on here, you know where the misinformed ones are. Armchair experts who get thier info off the net, not life.
But will agree you have to be an idiot to not know the dangers of smoking in and around others, especially kids. WE, as adults can walk away.
But yes some people are so dumb they need the obvious pointed out.

I agree that smoking in a car would have a more profound effect, it is a smaller enclosed area. So I guess the other choice of an ignorant parents who smokes like this, is open the windows and freeze the poor little things who have no choices. It seems that these kinds of parents seem to think they have no rights either.
I am hoping next that they charge women who smoke during pregnancy. It is taking a drug, same as alchohol, it has a profound and sometimes a very bad effect on the unborn.

[harleyhoney]

Aren't there any smart people in Canada anymore?
Love the humor.

No, they have all moved to greener pastures. Like me, I live part time here in Canada,(this year buying in Arizona, just investment moslty), US, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic.

[bdjunker]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Sheesh!
Aren't there any smart people in Canada anymore?
And LOL@ the article for "Studies suggest second-hand smoke in a vehicle can be 60 times more toxic than second-hand smoke in a house."
O RLY? Which study was THAT?

Didn't ya know? The new way to release so-called "studies" is by press release. No peer review, no challenges; just give it to the media and let them run with it. Which, of course, the media does quite obligingly. Dr. Michael Siegel abhors these types of "studies".

[Non-Cas Fan]

harleyhoney wrote:

LOL. <excerpted>
I agree that smoking in a car would have a more profound effect, it is a smaller enclosed area. So I guess the other choice of an ignorant parents who smokes like this, is open the windows and freeze the poor little things who have no choices. It seems that these kinds of parents seem to think they have no rights either.<excerpted>

How long does it take to smoke one cigarette?
Anyone reading the study would know that having the window open 3" (76.2mm) would greatly reduce the exposure levels, and under most conditions that window would not be down long enough to freeze everybody. I assume there are car heaters in Canada. I'm also pretty sure that Canadians wear coats, gloves, toques, and all that, when it's cold.

Freeze. LOL

[harleyhoney]

Of course there are heaters in cars in Canada, it is the frozen north. That is ludicrous. We don't live in igloos either. LOL!

Actually it gets damn cold when someone opens the window heater or not. I know. Experienced it.

And yes some Canadians do wear toques,(not me), and not necessary to bundle up with heat in the car. Also kids are uncomfortable in the car with all that gear on, I did not do that to mine. I made them as comfortable as me.

And how long it takes to smoke a cigarette depends on the person, and how they smoke. I use to smoke and as I recall 15 minutes or so,(could get damn friggin' cold with windows open even a crack). I just do not think a person has to smoke around kids, nor should they during pregnancy, and if they are going to go full tilt on this, they should be charging women who smoke, during and after pregnancy (if they are nursing). They might as well give the kid a smoke.

Kids do have rights and the same as any human being.

[Non-Cas Fan]

harleyhoney wrote:

Of course there are heaters in cars in Canada, it is the frozen north. That is ludicrous. We don't live in igloos either. LOL!
Actually it gets damn cold when someone opens the window heater or not. I know. Experienced it.
And yes some Canadians do wear toques,(not me), and not necessary to bundle up with heat in the car. Also kids are uncomfortable in the car with all that gear on, I did not do that to mine. I made them as comfortable as me.
And how long it takes to smoke a cigarette depends on the person, and how they smoke. I use to smoke and as I recall 15 minutes or so,(could get damn friggin' cold with windows open even a crack). I just do not think a person has to smoke around kids, nor should they during pregnancy, and if they are going to go full tilt on this, they should be charging women who smoke, during and after pregnancy (if they are nursing). They might as well give the kid a smoke.
Kids do have rights and the same as any human being.

Some "rights", sure. That's hardly the point.

But you are correct, a smoker could either wait until they arrive at their destination or, on longer trips, pull over to have their smoke. That would be ideal, but not realistic.

As a former smoker, you I would surmise that you know first-hand what it's like to drive with that tobacco jones pulling at you. How many times do you think you would have had to stop for a smoke on a long trip? By the time you've stopped for your second smoke, the kids would be all ants-in-the-pants restless, probably provoke the need for another nerve-calming smoke, and before you know it you've added hours onto your journey.

Ideally, smokers will wait until the kids are not in the vehicle, but you know how impracticable that would be better than I.

Also, if I remember correctly, the majority of the population of Canada does NOT live in the "frozen north", and quite a large number live at latitudes south of the northernmost border of the US.

Additionally, do you really think it would work to criminalize a pregnant smoker, when they cannot even hardly justify qualifying her baby as a person until it's born?(I realize that THAT topic encroaches on one that is generally considered taboo...)

[raccoon]

Tobacco, until refined, is essentially near harmless in moderation. Only when Big Tobacco adds a myriad of carcinogenic chemicals for flavour do serious health issues arise. The issue isn't Nicotine. We all know the dangers of pesticides on the fruits and vegetables we consume and the degenerative diseases they cause.
We consume heaps of baking powder (contains aluminum) with every donut and slice of bread.
We gobble tons of soda from aluminum cans - knowing aluminum is a major cause of Alzheimers.
Big Tobbacco has never been asked to omit substances in manufacturing. Too dangerous a precedent? Big T wasn't smart enough to go organic, so it became a diversionary scapegoat for those practicing its same modus operandi.

[harleyrider1978]

Oh heck, this sort of stuff is whats going to make the conservative comeback that much more sooner,I smell a big victory brewing over all this social manipulation and deciet being played on stupid people.............thansk antis its gonna be fun watching your world collapse in a couple of years or sooner..........we voted you out in 94 and by-god we are gonna do it again all us hateful white boys and women who love guns....count your days their politically numbered.

[harleyhoney]

I did not smoke much and did not smoke around my children. So point is moot. I do not do "what if's".
And kids are entitled to every right that an adult is, they are not animals.
The unborn have rights too. Alcohol is not permitted. And smoking causes some of the same effects as alcohol, and even worse long term effects. I do think that a pregnant mother should be charged. I quit when I was pregnant. Cold turkey. I have not smoked in 18 years. I did not find it hard to quit at all, I have great will power, and great will. I also did not find it hard to refrain from lighting up when the occasion arose to abstain. I was also raised that smoking in public is rude for a lady, especially on the street. Old school rules, I still go by lots of them.

And no not all Canadians live in the frozen ( I was being sarcastic, much like you) north, but it is where lots make lots of money.
And yes some of the Southern areas are warmer, but mostly BC. It is the most congenial province when it comes to good weather in most areas.
I live in a semi dessert area (soon to move to the frozen north part time), where we get hardly any snow, and our spring times are the earliest in all of Canada. Our summers get up to 104-108 Degrees,most days stays around 90-100. And drier than a popcorn fart. I use to work in tourism here, and the people from Arizona and other hot spots, came to Canada for the cooler temps, but could not believe our area. They were glad to be heading further north, where I told them was a lot cooler,most days, with the occassional really hot day.

[Linda]

harleyhoney wrote:

The unborn have rights too.

I think it would not be possible for them to light a smoke in their protective cocoon LOL

[Non-Cas Fan]

harleyhoney wrote:

I did not smoke much and did not smoke around my children. So point is moot. I do not do "what if's".
And kids are entitled to every right that an adult is, they are not animals.
The unborn have rights too. Alcohol is not permitted. And smoking causes some of the same effects as alcohol, and even worse long term effects. I do think that a pregnant mother should be charged. I quit when I was pregnant. Cold turkey. I have not smoked in 18 years. I did not find it hard to quit at all, I have great will power, and great will. I also did not find it hard to refrain from lighting up when the occasion arose to abstain. I was also raised that smoking in public is rude for a lady, especially on the street. Old school rules, I still go by lots of them.
And no not all Canadians live in the frozen ( I was being sarcastic, much like you) north, but it is where lots make lots of money.
And yes some of the Southern areas are warmer, but mostly BC. It is the most congenial province when it comes to good weather in most areas.
I live in a semi dessert area (soon to move to the frozen north part time), where we get hardly any snow, and our spring times are the earliest in all of Canada. Our summers get up to 104-108 Degrees,most days stays around 90-100. And drier than a popcorn fart. I use to work in tourism here, and the people from Arizona and other hot spots, came to Canada for the cooler temps, but could not believe our area. They were glad to be heading further north, where I told them was a lot cooler,most days, with the occassional really hot day.

Children do not have ALL the rights adults have, and this could rapidly become a silly tangent... certainly a house of cards argument on your part.

Another tangential discussion would be to address the query of how can you justify charging a pregnant woman who smokes, when that same woman could rather easily visit a doctor to terminate her pregnancy? The way I personally view it, one scenario is 'risk of harm', but the other is tantamount to murder.

However the courts don't seem to hold truck with that notion. If the fetus is without legal protection in one scenario, there's hardly any justification to protect it in the other. But as I said, this is tangential here.

Have you read the studies upon which these laws are being based?(The ones about smoking in vehicles with children, to clarify...)Or are you reacting with your gut and your emotions?

[Non-Cas Fan]

Miron wrote:

Zyban is an antidepressant and indicated as an aid to smoking cessation treatment.

Stop violating the TOS, and PAY FOR YOUR ADS!!!

[harleyhoney]

I think it would not be possible for them to light a smoke in their protective cocoon LOL

That is not even funny, it is assinine.

I would think that in this day and age one would know that whatever the mother injects into her body during pregnancy and while nursing goes directly to the baby. Consider why they kick harder when certain foods, beverages etc are taken.
The arguements on here are not even arguements they are silly what if's.

And Yes I have read and heard all the studies done on second hand smoke, and I also see the real results of some who suffer from the effects of long term second hand smoke, first hand.
Unlike some I make sure brain is loaded before I shoot my mouth off.

And anyone who thinks that kids are not worthy of the same rights as adults is an ass, and certainly hope that this kind of joker does not have children to abuse and kick around. I would put this kind of person in the same category as the guy they just caught in Merrit BC,(who killed his own children,mother is involved, but they haven't said how, these parents probably thought those precious babes had little to no rights also). The unborn are entitled to the same rights also, as far as I am concerned, and to think otherwise is as I said. Not human, devoid of that emotion. Think how you felt as a child when those around you made you feel as though you were not human enough to have and be entitled to the same rights as they, the so called adults. Seems like selfish thoughts to me.
I know I certainly would not have liked it, and had some relatives of the same mentality, but they soon learned where I stood. Our parents did not treat us with minimal rights nor do I my own.

[harleyrider1978]

LMAO.......... smoking around kids will continue as always these whacks think they can use any and all means to control us adults even if it means using our kids as a means to arrest us......There will be more antis shot if they try and enter a home where a smoker lives and tries to take children because the parent smoked around them...
Dont think that they took all those kids at the
poligamist camp becasue of plural marriage or child abuse..........they took them because the antis dont like it that someone isnt living by their standards and conforming to their declarations. Now if a woman smokes and is pregnant who cares..........I sure dont and anyone sticking their nose in a pregger womans choises and thinks they are so self righteous that they can charge her with any crime........needs shot.

[harleyrider1978]

there are limits to what social engineers can do.
And they are fast approaching the point to which people across the land are gonna stand up to them.
Now did you watch how the jack booted thugs were heavily armed going into the poligamist camp......just to knab a bunch of kids.......does this smell of ruby ridge and the branch davidians
saga and the govmnt..........theyve yet to find this supposed 16 year old girl who called. Their raid and reasons are slowly evaporating and when it comes crashing down look out lawsuits.....
What the govmnt did to those people is beyond madness........out of control govmnt and police action is a travesty of justice.........Those people had no guns or arsenal yet the govmnt shows up with sharp shooters,armoured personell carriers, swat teams concussions grenades........its deplorable..........

[bdjunker]

harleyhoney wrote:

And how long it takes to smoke a cigarette depends on the person, and how they smoke. I use to smoke and as I recall 15 minutes or so,

It took you 15 minutes to smoke a cigarette? WOW! What the heck where you smoking?

It takes maybe 5 minutes to smoke a cigarette. If someone is taking 15 minutes, they definitely are smoking something heavier than tobacco.

ROFLMAO

[harleyhoney]

If you were an adult then you would not have to be told when you are harming your child. I never smoked around my kids. I love and respect them.

bdjunker, I do not suck the life out of them, and did not smoke like a chimney. I took leisurely drags off the smoke. My brothers go outside to have a smoke and it takes around ten to fifteen minutes to smoke. Unless you only smoke half a cigarette.
If it takes you five minutes to smoke a cigarette then you are full of shit. And as for the other, that depends on the grade of pot, some burns fast, while some strains burn slow.

I think you had better check your clock. Also I understand there are some adults in this world who have no concept of time.

My response was to the ridiculous statement and opening windows so you can have a cigarette in the car, meanwhile freezing the ass of your passengers, turning the heat up, barely helps.
I just wanted to put some sane answers to the stupid questions. You may gobble up your smoke, but most I know, take about fifteen minutes, unless it is a break then they smoke it fast, and not all of it.

there are limits to what social engineers can do.
And they are fast approaching the point to which people across the land are gonna stand up to them.
Now did you watch how the jack booted thugs were heavily armed going into the poligamist camp......just to knab a bunch of kids.......does this smell of ruby ridge and the branch davidians
saga and the govmnt..........theyve yet to find this supposed 16 year old girl who called. Their raid and reasons are slowly evaporating and when it comes crashing down look out lawsuits.....
What the govmnt did to those people is beyond madness........out of control govmnt and police action is a travesty of justice.........Those people had no guns or arsenal yet the govmnt shows up with sharp shooters,armoured personell carriers, swat teams concussions grenades........its deplorable..........

Was that not reminicense of the old days, and uptight so called go gooders. Where were these so called good women of society years ago? All of a sudden they are concerned? Phoney liberals, and always a dollar short.
Those people mind their own business, and are good people, they just have strange ways, that are not ours, but they are good honest people.
I lived in Creston (right next to Bountiful) for a few years, and seen them a lot, at their farmers market, at the stores etc, they are good happy people, leave them alone, and give them back their kids, they have no right to take them, and are doing more harm than their lifestyles ever would. These children have been ripped out of their familiar and loving world, and now are lost, confused, hurt, and need thier mothers, not a bunch of ball biters looking down thier noses at them, and dictating to them what they should be. The government has no business sticking their nose in this.
I have been in their homes when I lived in Creston, and they are a good people. No one seems to give a damn when someone like Michael Douglas marries way young, or any of these rich old perverts. But it seems okay for society to accept rich old farts that marry young women.

[Non-Cas Fan]

harleyhoney wrote:

I think it would not be possible for them to light a smoke in their protective cocoon LOL
That is not even funny, it is assinine.
I would think that in this day and age one would know that whatever the mother injects into her body during pregnancy and while nursing goes directly to the baby. Consider why they kick harder when certain foods, beverages etc are taken.
The arguements on here are not even arguements they are silly what if's.
And Yes I have read and heard all the studies done on second hand smoke, and I also see the real results of some who suffer from the effects of long term second hand smoke, first hand.
Unlike some I make sure brain is loaded before I shoot my mouth off.
And anyone who thinks that kids are not worthy of the same rights as adults is an ass, and certainly hope that this kind of joker does not have children to abuse and kick around. I would put this kind of person in the same category as the guy they just caught in Merrit BC,(who killed his own children,mother is involved, but they haven't said how, these parents probably thought those precious babes had little to no rights also). The unborn are entitled to the same rights also, as far as I am concerned, and to think otherwise is as I said. Not human, devoid of that emotion. Think how you felt as a child when those around you made you feel as though you were not human enough to have and be entitled to the same rights as they, the so called adults. Seems like selfish thoughts to me.
I know I certainly would not have liked it, and had some relatives of the same mentality, but they soon learned where I stood. Our parents did not treat us with minimal rights nor do I my own.

So, children vote in Canada?
Children can buy liquour and tobacco in Canada?

Clearly children do not have these rights here in the United States, so by your house-of-cards reasoning, everyone in the USA who refuses to allow children these rights is an ass? From Jamestown and the Mayflower, forward? How about everybody in your own country that accepts an 'abortion-on-demand' policy?

Your arguments down that lane are little more than a method to take things WAAAAY off-topic.

Back on topic: When considering any new law, how else do you guage the potential effects of that law, except to consider the "what-ifs"? Or is critical thinking simply not done up there?

I honestly doubt you are being truthful when you claim that you have read all the studies done on secondhand smoke. You seem to possess a good amount of reading comprehension, so it couldn't be that you merely read them without understanding them. Well, maybe.

Tell you what, since you think you've read all the studies, please point me to the study that YOU think is the most convincing that would justify preventing short-term exposure by means of legal action.

After all, it's almost a given that chronic or long-term exposure can have detrimental effects. Where are the studies on the short-term exposure effects?

[here tiz]

Smoking bans have reached a point of diminishing returns. We must now consider other areas with a higher return.

I own a number of laboratories all of which have always been non smoking. Even so, I am putting my employees at risk every second they spend at work. Even though we take every precaution known to protect our employees we find serious health risk from the floor covering, ceiling tiles, paint on the walls, copy machine, refrigeration system all causing lung problems. That was just a partial list of lung problems! I put them at risk just driving to work. I have ignored this in the past thinking we had no choice, but that is no longer the case. We are in the process of contracting out the manual work to a highly robotic lab. My employees are certain this is for financial reasons, but in reality I won't be making as much as I am now. They don't believe this is for their own good. I expect most of them to be able find other work.

We have a lot more work to do to improve the health of this nation, these smoking bans are only a very small step in the right direction. Although it took these smoking bans to open my eyes, I have found a more productive means to improve this country’s working environment. We are in the process of applying these same concepts to other industries through a consulting service. Many industries can ship work over seas where coming into work will put the employees into a safer environment then they would be in otherwise.
I believe, if we work together, we can solve all these problems. What we give up will mean nothing compared to what we accomplish.