Good idea for the kids! Krog picked up the idea from local governement in Halifax. Maybe it will prevent all the dummies from chucking their lit smokes out of vehicles as well.

Sorry Nova Scotia

This one's a no-brainer !! Its high time we try to put a stop to trapping innocent Kids in cars and forcing them to "smoke" right along with anyone else in there who has absolutely no consideration for what he or she is doing to the their health. The Kids are getting the smoke "raw", as well -- no filter, -- nothing but the straight carcinogen.

Combine that with two or threee smokers in the same car, and you might as well teach the Kid to light-up too ! After all, he or she's almost a smoker already -- been doing it in the car since they were babies !!

Although it's impossible to enforce, the concept should be supported by a majority of people who want to be considerate of others. Chester

A no-brainer for sure and something that everybody should understand!
But somehow I doubt it actually needs to be an un-enforcable law as such.
Publicity and advertizing would have just as much power if not more, by making people very much aware of the issue.
It will attach a stigma to people who do this and really,thats about the best we can hope for.
And we should also keep in mind that it is an NDP memeber's bill, probably born out of boredom and the need to actually be seen as doing something constructive in the legislature!
:-)

My Lord what is next, pushing the smoker out of the PG airshed out about 30-40km from town. Oh that probably would not work as that would traumatize and kill some moose out in the woods.

Are homes next? Much more time is spent in the home than in the car.

Just what we need. Another nicotine starved maniac out on the road.

Actually,homes probably WILL be next!
Better lock your bedroom door too!

On the surface it seems like a good idea but in the end it's another regulation chipping away at everyone's freewill.

It surprises me that some people are against this. I guess they just don't care about thier children.

Good going Andyfreeze. It's apparent that you have to politicize every post on this board. When it comes to the health of children who can't stand up for themselves, does it really matter what stripe the politician is who proposes it? I disagree with a lot of politicians also but if it is for the common good we just suck it up. Try it, you might like it.

Time and culture change has a way of looking after stuff like this on its own. Sort of like loads of kids piling into the box of a truck and going for a ride or pregnant mothers having a drink. In time, I don't think you'll even need a law like this because it will be such a "common sense" thing.

Now that being said, I still remember being stuck in those back seats as a kid, having to choke and breathe in all of that cigarette smoke. It was awful. I guess the one benefit it had is that it firmly implanted in my mind the fact that I would NEVER smoke a cigarette . . . LOL.

Camoose,even when I smoked I never smoked around my kids, and I never smoked when they were in the car!
IMO that's just common sense and while I realize some people don't have any of that,
we still don't need politicians to explain it to us.
I support the issue itself, but I don't need someone picking away at my rights and freedoms just because they think it will get them a few points with some of the voters.
(especially when it wasn't their idea in the first place)!
So when they come along and start to tell us what we can do inside our own houses,we will see who still thinks it's ok.
If we don't let them know when they are over-stepping their boundries,they sure as hell will!
Publicity is as good as an un-enforcable law in this case, and I would think the NDP AND the Liberals could find something better to do with their time.
Have a nice day!

Good idea but it won't fly. Awhile back on a driving job I was on,it was also up to each driver to load themselves, using a rubber tire Cat loader, with an enclosed cab. There were about 5-6 other trucks also running on this particular job. All trucks stayed in there rotation order. The two drivers proceeding me were both smokers we were running approx 10-15 min apart. Each time I got back to the loader, I had to open the door and ventilate the cab, the smoke came bellowing out, it took 1-1.5 min to clear the cab of smoke. The stench of tobacco in the cab was indescribable. It didn't matter how cold out it was, I ran the loader with a window wide open. Here is what I'm alluding to. Pryor to kids getting in a car, people will smoke, on the way to school to pick them up , waiting for mother and kids while their shopping. Warming up the car before heading out. etc, etc. Even though no one is smoking in the children's presence, those kids are trapped in a sealed container, breathing in the cigarette residue. Now, lets see how those in power will legislate that smoke out of those vehicles. I know smokers, and a great deal of them don't give a rats ass about 'no smoking rules".

True, stale cigarette stink is disgusting, and you can't get it out without a major hose down with soap and water. So what?

Not smoking while the kids are in the car is still better and safer for them than smoking while they are in the car. Stench or not, it is overall a major benefit. Even if it is only partially complied with, it is still better than no compliance.

Think seat belt use. The same comments were made when that was made compulsory, but most people now use them.

Why is it that some posters just can't resist insulting politicians and ascribing self-serving motives to them. Ad hominem attacks of this nature detract from the debate of the issue (keeping children cancer free). Perhaps Leonard Krog is NOT concerned with getting a few extra votes, perhaps he is genuinely concerned with protecting children's health. And, who cares if it was originally another person, politicians or political party's idea. That happens all the time in politics.

One more comment. We are already told what we can and can't do inside our houses. Try smoking a joint in front of a police officer inside your home and see what happens.

gee, I thought that Nova Scotia, did that just last week,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

ammonra, hope you not insinuating thayt Im against the idea, Im jut stateing that I don't think they have thought it through. Myself, Im against smoking altogether. I quit 15-16 years back.

I think if a parent smokes in the presence of their child they are guilty of child abuse and the child should be taken away from them.....

I also think if a parent allows a child to eat more than one chocolate bar a month, they are guilty of child abuse and the child should be taken away.

I also think that if parents send their children to nursery school and kindergarten too early they are guilty of child abuse and the child should be removed.

There are so many things that parents do with children that have a major effect on them in later years that is negative. Second hand smoke may be one which impacts a child the least ....

It is just that we have this thing about smoking .... we are on a roll ... no more smoking anywhere ..... but take a whiff of that industry pollution and no one gives a shit because we could upset our ability to earn money .....

I just do not see it .. to me, there is something wrong with this picture .....

And here I thought, after reading the headline, we would finally take diesel transportation off the roads ..... wishful thinking .....

Better fine the mother with a child in the car for driving too close behind an oil belching or diesel vehicles with her windows open and the ventillation fan on high ...

It has been estimated that 3,000 or so people die in Canada every year due to second hand smoke. It is estimated that twice as many die every year due to air pollution.

;-)

BTW, parent with samll children at home also should not live in houses besides the major arterial roads in PG, such as those houses behind the Casino with back yards backing onto HWY 16 .. and those College Heights houses alongside Peden Hill .....

and, of course, there is no way they should be allowed to live in the North Nechako next to the asphalt plants ....

;-)

Another unenforceable law. I'd be happy if you could get pregnant mothers to stop smoking and drinking first. Then worry about smoking after the kids are born.

BTW, does anyone have a rough idea how many parents in PG smoke while their children are in the car with them?

5? 50? 500? 5,000?

How often? Once a year? once a month? once a week? once a day? once an hour?

If they do that, how often do they smoke in the house with children close by to take in the second hand smoke?

Once for each time they do it in the car? 5 times as frequently? 10 times as frequently?

Can anyone give any numbers to this thing and identify a risk? or is this just one of those "oh, this feels so good" type of things that makes us think we are saving the world when we actually are doing nothing of the sort?

Furtree, I wasn't insinuating anything about anyone, just making a point in response to yours.

Those who sqwawk the loudest are often the ones who are most guilty ?

We all know this is a pretty much unenforceable law, and I'm no different from anyone else when it comes to Government sticking their noses into my private life. However, having said that, if we didn't have laws in this society that are intended to protect ourselves from each other, there wouldn't be nigh as many of us around today as there are now!!
In some cases that'd be a good thing, (if criminals could pop each other off without penalty, etc.), but in the case of the health and safety of young defenseless children, we're in a whole 'nother ballpark here!!

There are probably millions of children growing up in homes today where the parents or "occupants" smoke not only cigarettes, but anything else you can think of including marijuana, crack, and all manner of unimagineable other forms of "dope" !

These Kids are being set up for a lifetime of dealing with the residual effects of what they had to live with every day in their formative years, and were taught by example must be "OK", because "MOM" or "DAD" or "UNCLE" did it whenever they damn well pleased. Alcohol can be a serious problem too, of course, but at least the children don't have to ingest this substance along with the other drinkers around them, like they do with smokers! Big difference here in my opinion, but here's the parrallel with that substance. What happens when the Drunk tells his or her four year old Son or daughter to "get in the car -- we're going to ("wherever") The child has no recourse - they have to get in a car with an intoxicated driver, and go off and get killed along with that idiot if that's what ends up happening!!

So - how do we try to protect the child in this instance? WE MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO DRINK AND DRIVE! Yeah, its not enough to protect them all or even the rest of us from the "drunks" out there who drink and drive, but its about the best we can do under the circumstances of "rights" and "freedoms", and its better than doing nothing, which is what some would advocate I'm sure if they could, -- especially those who do drink and drive. At least on occaison, this law nails a few of them sooner or later, and gets them off the road for awhile, undoubtedly saving a lot of lives in the process.

But there's another factor here which has already been aluded to, --- and that's the fact that these "laws", however hated or debated, serve to RAISE THE PUBLIC AWARENESS of just what we are doing to ourselves here! At the very least, maybe it can serve to "emberass" the culprit when someone else gets into the vehicle with him/her, and they both know there's an injustice being done to the that child who's been duly strapped into the booster seat in the back, according to the "laws" and is now being forced to "smoke" along with the other goof who's thinking only of himself in there by doing so!

How many of us who have never drank and drove, don't know that drinking and driving is irresponsible, unsafe, unlawfull and potentially fatal to everyone around that idiot !! We all know this due to a very effective anti-drinking and driving campaign over the years by the authorities assigned to try to reduce this practice. I suspect that a no-smoking in a car with children in it law, would have a similar effect, and point a finger straight at those who do this every time they light up in the car, even by the Kids themselves, who'll undoubtedly learn about this law at school, or wherever, when they can comprehend the reason for it.

Like I said, as much as I hate government sticking their noses into my affairs, -- this one's got my vote. I'll think of it every time I'm in a car when someone lights up, even if I'm the only other one in there.

palomino

There is a simple resolve to the smoking problem. A total ban of and the use of any tobacco product in this province or country.

Thank you to those parents who don't smoke in enclosed areas where there are kids. *I didn't even know one of my friends is a smoker, she never does it near the kids.*

I think a total ban is the only reasonable way to go. The same as recreational drugs. Let's drive it underground and create some more jobs for those in the business of crime. Let's create another reason for plice to taser people ... smoking .... as they say, smoking kills and it would really point that fact out almost immediately .....

;-)

The more things change, the more they stay the same .... Al Capone would be happy!!

Cars are major killers. People keep getting into accidents. Let's make driving cars illegal then we would not have to worry about smoking in cars with children in them .....

It does really make you wonder when the average price of a carton of smokes in B.C. is over $80.00+, or around $10.00+ a pack!
And of that $80.00+ per carton,well over half of it is taxes with the provincial tax being the highest.
My god!...how much does a bag of weed cost these days? (hey,I don't get out much anymore)
Somehow,with those kinds of dollars coming in,you would have to wonder just how bad the government really wants to eliminate smoking or banning cigarettes?
Must be quite a cash cow?

Andyfreeze, you hit the nail squarely on its head, and thereby lies the hypocrisy of it all, Money!

Good time to market kids car seats that sit real low so the cops can't see the kids in the car when you are smoking.

Also those people that used to roll the window down and stick the smoke outside better keep the butt inside and out of sight. After all you don't want to attract the thought police.

A word to parents with kids - light up a smoke with the kids in the car and roll up the windows until their eyes water. Repeat as needed. The only people I know that have health problems are the ones whose parents didn't season their kids with a little smoke. It also cures the urge for kids to smoke later in life.

Every time the tax on tobacco is increased, more people give up smoking. The taxes have been increased repeatedly because of that. I am not sure that the revenue is maximised by making it so high. More could be generated by lowering the taxes and encouraging people to smoke. The deaths that resulted would save on health care costs as well, so there would be a double benefit.

Since the governments don't do that it is obvious that their motivation is to stop people smoking by raising taxes. Personally, I think they should do so more.

For the record I smoked 25 a day for years. I quit 10 or so years ago when I spent the first 15 minutes of every day coughing my guts up.

So ammonra is the reason our taxes went up! Darn, now if Ammonra had only taken up gambling we wouldn't have these tax hikes.

If the one armed bandits took smokes there would no net loss in tax revenue.

The tax on cigarettes and the revenue it brings in is exactly the point!
Everytime too many smokers give it up because they just can't afford it anymore, and the tax revenue to the government drops,they raise the damn tax!
And that,no matter what the government tells us,is exactly where the hypocracy comes in.
I support not smoking around kids whether it is in a car or in a house,but they should not assume that we don't understand that,because I am sure we all do!

Eventually the taxes on cigarettes will be so high that essentially nobody smokes. That is the point. The aim is harm reduction through taxation, not raising money. The focus is on stopping smoking. That is a good thing.