BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.
When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.

Source (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/09/D8MHRQEO1.html)

To avoid a new thread

Supreme Court upholds “secret law” requiring travelers to show their ID to fly

If this ruling doesn’t truly discredit the Supreme Court as just another rubber stamp I don’t know what will. The ruling is in reference to Gilmore v. Gonzales, 06-211, in which millionaire Libertarian Activist John Gilmore (co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation) attempted to force the the federal government to disclose the actual law that requires people traveling by air to either show ID or submit to a more thorough search when passing through airport security.

The justices, by letting the appeals court ruling against Gilmore stand, have legitimized the use of “secret laws” against the citizens of the United States. This means you are now responsible for abiding by laws that are not published, and even classified in some cases.

I have asked before and I will ask again. When will people say enough is enough? What happens when people start getting arrested for breaking secret laws, and then find themselves in secret courts. Oh, wait, that has already been approved by the Military Commissions Act.

This ruling marks yet another blow against personal liberty and freedom, and a giant step towards totalitarianism in America. I just hope people start waking up to this soon, before it’s too late.

Source (http://wikiprotest.com/blog/index.php/2007/01/08/supreme-court-upholds-secret-law-requiring-travelers-to-show-their-id-to-fly/)

I generally don't trust anything you post cause your sources are always sorta hazy!

However, its stupid if theres not a clear law about requiring ID for flying, but there absolutely should be one. (A law that requires some form of ID for flying)

Top one is clearly marked "The Associated Press" in the top corner on the source page. The other one provides many links embedded. I provide my source almost always. A good chunk of those are supported by mainstream news articles if you had the time and energy to follow them back to the origional source.

To avoid a new thread

Supreme Court upholds “secret law” requiring travelers to show their ID to fly
Ok, I checked this one out.

You should start a new thread, otherwise you are hijacking this one, even if you started it.

This is true. Strangely enough the EFF site www.eff.org doesn't talk about this. However, several reliable news sites do.
In another case on Monday, the justices [of the Supreme Court] turned down an airline passenger’s challenge to the airport screening policy adopted in an unpublished directive by the Transportation Security Agency.

The passenger, John Gilmore, was not permitted to board domestic flights from San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., because he refused to show identification. He argued that a secret directive actually gave passengers the choice of submitting to an intensive screening as an alternative to providing identification. The government lacked a basis for refusing to make the full policy public, he argued.

Responding to Mr. Gilmore’s lawsuit, the government did not concede that it had such a policy. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s request to dismiss the case, holding that whatever identification policy existed did not violate any constitutional rights, including the right to travel and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. The case was Gilmore v. Gonzales, No. 06-211.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/washington/09scotus.html?ei=5088&en=968ffad1072aef83&ex=1325998800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
It is true that you can fly without showing identification but they will give you intensive screening. Officials of the Transportation Security Agency have actually said this. Why the actual policy is kept secret is a mystery. It leads to confusion and situations where someone is denied the right to fly even though the rules say they can as long as they submit to additional screening.
However, its stupid if theres not a clear law about requiring ID for flying, but there absolutely should be one. (A law that requires some form of ID for flying)
Whether you agree with it or not, the current official rulings on identification in the USA are that you are not required to have any. While the police and government may take additional steps to verify that you are not a wanted criminal if you don't have ID, you are not breaking any laws by not having any.

The freedom to not have to carry ID is worthless if it only applies when you are in your home, rather than traveling. Thus, while if you are driving a car you must have a license to prove you are allowed to drive, the passengers do not have to carry ID. Walking on the street, no need for ID. Taking a bus or train, no need for ID. Taking a plane, officially, no need for ID.

Allowing secret rules about ID and planes is wrong. Secret laws are a violation of basic freedom. I can think of no reason why the TSS just can't publish the rule that if you don't have ID, you are subject to a strict search.

Now that we have covered the issue, if someone wants to continue this, I suggest they start a new thread about it. Hijacking the smoking thread is wrong.

BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.How is this news? Many cities have enacted various smoking bans, including in cars, and several states, including California, are considering it.

The town of Belmont, a few miles south of San Francisco, just enacted an even more restrictive ban (http://www.planetizen.com/node/21948), prohibiting smoking anywhere but in a single family detached home (this means smoking in cars or apartments/condominiums is banned). It's more restrictive than the one you quoted.

Berkeley, just east of here, is considering a similar ban.

Wake up, this is 2007, not 1957. Smoking is a nuisance and a health hazard to third parties and it should be banned everywhere except in a private residence.

Supreme Court upholds “secret law” requiring travelers to show their ID to flyThe Supreme Court did not "uphold" it, they just declined to review it. They didn't "legitimize" or "rubber stamp" anything.

Also, this guy had full notice that he was supposed to present ID, as it was written elsewhere. That's why he lost the case. Not to mention, you'd have to be an idiot to think you don't need to present ID or be searched when you board a plane.

Allowing secret rules about ID and planes is wrong. Secret laws are a violation of basic freedom.Why?

Let's say I own a restaurant, and I have a big sign on the front that says that I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but I also give my employees a private list of types I want thrown out. That's a secret law, one I don't show you.

Now you come in for dinner, and I throw you out, and you sue me, demanding to see my secret law. Why should I be forced to show it to you? It's my restaurant, I notified you of the possibility that I might throw you out, and my internal rules are none of your business.

The only difference between my situation and that guy's is that airlines are loosely regulated by the government. But it's still a bunch of rules that only relate to when and how a business can refuse service to a customer. They're not "laws" in the sense that you can be thrown in jail, or fined, or kicked out of the country.

So, what "basic freedom" is violated here? The inalienable right to be nosy?

The Supreme Court did not "uphold" it, they just declined to review it. They didn't "legitimize" or "rubber stamp" anything.
When the Supreme Court declines to review an issue, they are upholding the lower courts decision. That's how the legal system works. They are saying that the lower courts decision is correct. Thus, they legitimized it.
Also, this guy had full notice that he was supposed to present ID, as it was written elsewhere. That's why he lost the case. Not to mention, you'd have to be an idiot to think you don't need to present ID or be searched when you board a plane.
It has nothing to do with this. He deliberately didn't carry ID to force the issue. He wanted to be a test case.
The only difference between my situation and that guy's is that airlines are loosely regulated by the government. But it's still a bunch of rules that only relate to when and how a business can refuse service to a customer. They're not "laws" in the sense that you can be thrown in jail, or fined, or kicked out of the country.

So, what "basic freedom" is violated here? The inalienable right to be nosy?
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. First off, this isn't your private restaurant. It is the United States Government. The Transportation Security Agency is a part of the government. The United States Government, not the airlines, not your restaurant, made up some rules and refuses to reveal them.

It is the most basic freedom that laws, rules and regulations that you are required to obey must be public. Why? Because how can you have representative government when you can't ask your representatives to change a rule because it is secret? Laws represent the will of the people to govern themselves. There is no government of the people if the people can't govern because they aren't allowed to know what the law is.

When the Supreme Court declines to review an issue, they are upholding the lower courts decision. That's how the legal system works. They are saying that the lower courts decision is correct. Thus, they legitimized it.No, you are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court only grants certiorari in rare cases that it considers important enough to merit its attention. It often grants certiorari in important cases, just to affirm the case, and set a uniform national law.

A denial of certiorari -- as happens in about 98% of the cases the Supreme Court receives -- has <i>nothing</i> to do with whether they think they decision was right or wrong. It just means they didn't think the case raised an issue that was important enough.

You can look it up if you don't believe me, it's Supreme Court Rule 10 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/10.html).He deliberately didn't carry ID to force the issue. He wanted to be a test case.Exactly. He was screwing with the government, pissing away taxpayer dollars, just to say "nyah, nyah, you gotta show me your secret stuff now!" Everyone could see he wasn't injured in any way, and that has a lot to do with why he lost.First off, this isn't your private restaurant. It is the United States Government.No, it's my private airline, and my private plane. This is all about whether I, as the person in charge of the airline, allow you, the customer, to get on board.The Transportation Security Agency is a part of the government. The United States Government, not the airlines, not your restaurant, made up some rules and refuses to reveal them.Ok. But the rules are still about whether you, as a customer, can board my private plane.Because how can you have representative government when you can't ask your representatives to change a rule because it is secret?You can vote out the government that chooses to keep this rule secret, and elect a government that doesn't.

If you want, and you have enough people agree with you, you can even elect a government that keeps nothing secret, though that government would likely be conquered in short order.

Smoking is ... a health hazard to third parties

FYYR! Do your thing.

FYYR! Do your thing.Yes, Fyyr. While you pontificate about the "second hand smoke lie" and how the New Zealand study involves a lot of extrapolation (though it is not, per se, flawed), be sure to explain why these other studies (just a sampling from the ones out there) are all lying:

Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jan 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17204311&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)<b>Lifetime cigarette smoke and second-hand smoke and cervical intraepithelial neoplasm-A community-based case-control study.</b>

CONCLUSIONS.: In addition to HPV infection and active cigarette smoking, exposure to SHS is a major risk factor for CIN among Taiwanese women.Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Nov 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17174132&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)Second hand smoke (SHS) exposure lengthened stimulated apnoea, increased the number of stimulated coughs, and augmented the degree of stimulated bronchoconstriction.Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Dec 1;12(23):7187-93 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17145845&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)<b>Second hand smoke exposure and survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer patients.</b>

CONCLUSIONS: SHS exposure is associated with worse survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer patients, especially for SHS exposure at the work.Hum Reprod. 2006 Oct 19 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17053002&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)<b>Maternal exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke and pregnancy outcome among couples undergoing assisted reproduction.</b>

CONCLUSIONS: Female exposure to second-hand smoke as a child or in utero may be associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion in adulthood.Lancet. 2006 Aug 19;368(9536):647-58 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16920470&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Tobacco use and risk of myocardial infarction in 52 countries in the INTERHEART study: a case-control study.</b>

CONCLUSION: Tobacco use is one of the most important causes of AMI globally, especially in men. All forms of tobacco use, including different types of smoking and chewing tobacco and inhalation of SHS, should be discouraged to prevent cardiovascular diseases.Mutat Res. 2006 Sep 28;608(2):157-62. Epub 2006 Jul 13 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16843042&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Human cancer from environmental pollutants: the epidemiological evidence.</b>

A causal association has been established between second-hand tobacco smoking and lung cancer, which may be responsible for 1.6% of lung cancers.Thorax. 2005 Oct;60(10):814-21 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16192366&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Directly measured second hand smoke exposure and asthma health outcomes.</b>

CONCLUSIONS: Directly measured SHS exposure appears to be associated with poorer asthma outcomes. In public health terms, these results support efforts to prohibit smoking in public places.Mutat Res. 2004 Nov;567(2-3):427-45 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15572289&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Genotoxicity of environmental tobacco smoke: a review.</b>

According to the recent evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, involuntary smoking causes lung cancer in never-smokers with an excess risk in the order of 20% for women and 30% for men. The evidence from in vitro studies demonstrates induction of DNA strand breaks, formation of DNA adducts, mutagenicity in bacterial assays and cytogenetic effects. In vivo experiments in rodents have shown that exposure to tobacco smoke, whole-body exposure to mainstream smoke (MS), sidestream smoke (SS), or their mixture, causes DNA single strand breaks, aromatic adducts and oxidative damage to DNA, chromosome aberrations and micronuclei.BMC Cell Biol. 2004 Apr 5;5:13 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15066202&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Effects of "second-hand" smoke on structure and function of fibroblasts, cells that are critical for tissue repair and remodeling.</b>

CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our results suggest that: (i) SSW may delay wound repair because of the inability of the fibroblasts to migrate into the wounded area, leading to an accumulation of these cells at the edge of the wound, thus preventing the formation of the healing tissue; (ii) the increase in cell survival coupled to the decrease in cell migration can lead to a build-up of connective tissue, thereby causing fibrosis and excess scarring.Cancer Cell. 2003 Sep;4(3):191-6 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14522253&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth.</b>

SHS significantly increased tumor size, weight, capillary density, VEGF and MCP-1 levels, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPC).J Okla State Med Assoc. 2002 Mar;95(3):135-41 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11921863&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Second-hand tobacco smoke in Oklahoma: a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality and means of reducing exposure.</b>

The ratio of deaths is approximately one nonsmoker dying from illness caused by second-hand smoke exposure for every eight smokers who die from diseases caused by tobacco use.Rev Saude Publica. 2000 Feb;34(1):39-43 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10769359&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>[Effects of environmental tobacco smoke on lower respiratory system of children under 5 years of age]</b>

The odds ratio for asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia was greater for children exposed to second-hand smoke (odds ratio = 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1. 11-2.31).J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Dec;30(7):1878-85 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9385922&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum)<b>Effects of second-hand smoke and gender on infarct size of young rats exposed in utero and in the neonatal to adolescent period.</b>

RESULTS: Birth mortality was higher in the SHSu group than in the non-SHSu group (11.9% vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). Body weight of neonatal rats at 3 and 4 weeks in the two SHSu groups was lower than that of rats in the two non-SHSu groups (p < 0.001). Exposure to SHSna increased endothelin-1 levels in plasma (p = 0.001). In all 70 young rats who survived the neonatal period, infarct size (Infarct mass/Risk area x 100%) was greater in the SHSna groups than in the non-SHSna groups (p = 0.005) and in the male groups than in the female groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS in the neonatal to adolescent period and male gender increased myocardial infarct size in a young rat model of ischemia and reperfusion. These results are consistent with epidemiologic studies demonstrating that SHS increases the health risk to neonates and adolescents.Are all these unrelated scientists major shareholders in a nicotine patch manufacturer, or what?

Sheesh Tudamorf... I seriously cannot believe that you think it is OK for our government to have secret laws that we must abide by. That is like... mind boggling. Are you really that insane? Why would anyone give the government that kind of freedom?

As for the SHS studies... yeah its bad and it causes bad things. But exactly, how is my smoking in my car exposing YOU to SHS? Even if I crack the window (which I do) the smoke dissappates in the air and could not reach you if you were in a convertible with the top down right next to me. The pollutants in the air - especially in California - are way more toxic than the minute amount of SHS coming from my killa SUV.

Sheesh Tudamorf... I seriously cannot believe that you think it is OK for our government to have secret laws that we must abide by.If the "secret laws" only affect a private business's decision to service me as a customer, and the practical effect of the law is already disclosed to me, and it's something sensible such as showing ID when you board a plane, then yes, I have no problem with the "secret law."

In other words, in this situation, I have no problem with it. Do you? And if so, why?But exactly, how is my smoking in my car exposing YOU to SHS?If you have a kid in the car, it's going to the affect the kid, and he can't exactly hold his breath for the whole trip. (Do it for the children!)

When I'm stopped at a light and some tobacco addict is lighting up in the lane next to me, I have to close my window to prevent that stench from coming in.

You know what really gets me though about car smokers? They keep throwing lit cigarette butts out the window. Talk about irresponsible and annoying.

But yes, I suppose if you're alone in your hermetically sealed car, turn the atmosphere gray with smoke, and then open the window in some remote location to let it out, it wouldn't affect me.The pollutants in the air - especially in California - are way more toxic than the minute amount of SHS coming from my killa SUV.Just because there's a bigger polluter out there, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate a smaller one. Pollutants in the air are hard to fix. SHS is easy to fix.

If the "secret laws" only affect a private business's decision to service me as a customer, and the practical effect of the law is already disclosed to me, and it's something sensible such as showing ID when you board a plane, then yes, I have no problem with the "secret law."

In other words, in this situation, I have no problem with it. Do you? And if so, why?
Somehow, even though the rule is made by the TSA, a US Government agency, you keep saying it is a private business decision.

I'm sure that Northwest Airlines can just tell the TSA to go screw themselves anytime they want to, right?

Just like your fictional restaurant can decide to make a private business decision to refuse to serve black people and the US Government will say that is just fine.

Businesses do not make laws, nor are they above the law, despite what Microsoft, Exxon, Enron and GM might feel.
and it's something sensible such as showing ID when you board a plane,
"Experience should teach us to be on our guard to protect liberty when government's purpose are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment of men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States

My father smoked when I was young. He quit permanently when I was 13 years old.

I won't get into the hazards of 'second-hand' smoke.

I remember getting headaches and ill when my father smoked in the car. This was an 'acute' reaction, not the 'chronic' effect of second-hand smoke.

I think that barring smoking in cars when there are children present is a good idea.

I don't think it's a bad idea to not smoke in the car with children, but I also don't think it should be a criminal offence.

I don't think it's a bad idea to not smoke in the car with children, but I also don't think it should be a criminal offence.

When did we go from "they're banning smoking in your own car" to "they're banning smoking WHILE THERE ARE KIDS WITH YOU in your own car" exactly?

Should tying your children to the luggage rack be a criminal offense? I mean... where do we draw the line at how much you're allowed to harm your children?

When did we go from "they're banning smoking in your own car" to "they're banning smoking WHILE THERE ARE KIDS WITH YOU in your own car" exactly?

Umm the first post.

BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.

Should tying your children to the luggage rack be a criminal offense? I mean... where do we draw the line at how much you're allowed to harm your children?

You mean that's not OK either? We had better make a law to make sure.

I don't think it's a bad idea to not smoke in the car with children, but I also don't think it should be a criminal offence.Then how do you plan to convince those who aren't as enlightened not to smoke in the car, and harm their children?

If you just make it an optional suggestion, nothing is going to change. Tobacco addiction is powerful. Tobacco addicts, who are being raped by Big Tobacco, will be the first to step up to the plate to defend them.

Opinions aren't going to be changed, unless you force the issue.

How is this news? Many cities have enacted various smoking bans, including in cars, and several states, including California, are considering it.

The town of Belmont, a few miles south of San Francisco, just enacted an even more restrictive ban (http://www.planetizen.com/node/21948), prohibiting smoking anywhere but in a single family detached home (this means smoking in cars or apartments/condominiums is banned). It's more restrictive than the one you quoted.

Berkeley, just east of here, is considering a similar ban.

Wake up, this is 2007, not 1957. Smoking is a nuisance and a health hazard to third parties and it should be banned everywhere except in a private residence.

Banning smoking in cars is patently ridiculous. If I smoke in my car not by the largest stretch of anyone's imagination is it a risk to anyone not in my car. Anyone wishing to ride in my car, does so with the understanding that they must take the infintismal risk that the 120 seconds of cigarette smoke wafting about them on its way out the windows.

Smoking is not a health hazard to third parties except in long term, heavy exposure situations. Nuisance isn't sufficient cause to enact these laws.

In other words, in this situation, I have no problem with it. Do you? And if so, why?If you have a kid in the car, it's going to the affect the kid, and he can't exactly hold his breath for the whole trip. (Do it for the children!)

Children make the issue a distinctly seperate issue. You, however, said smoking should be banned everywhere but private residence

When I'm stopped at a light and some tobacco addict is lighting up in the lane next to me, I have to close my window to prevent that stench from coming in.

To abuse a pun, suck it up.

If the guy next to you has loud country music, I would suggest that is a far greater nuisance. Ban country music. Please.

You know what really gets me though about car smokers? They keep throwing lit cigarette butts out the window. Talk about irresponsible and annoying.

Throwing a cigarette butt out the window is littering and punishable by the applicable state and local laws, generally with a fine of roughly 500 dollars. The law is in place already.

Further, how in the world does a cigarette butt in the gutter effect you?

Smoking is not a health hazard to third parties except in long term, heavy exposure situations. Nuisance isn't sufficient cause to enact these laws.Do you think we should allow urinating in public, even though it's just a nuisance, unless it's a long term, heavy exposure?Further, how in the world does a cigarette butt in the gutter effect you?It bangs against my windshield, and is distracting and annoying. They are almost always still lit, and create a fire hazard where they land. And they accumulate all over the road, creating toxic trash.If the guy next to you has loud country music, I would suggest that is a far greater nuisance. Ban country music. Please.A loud music ban? Show me the petition, I'll sign it.

I'd even go for a car subwoofer ban, that would solve most of the problem.

It bangs against my windshield, and is distracting and annoying. They are almost always still lit, and create a fire hazard where they land. And they accumulate all over the road, creating toxic trash.
It is especially fun when someone else's butt gets sucked into your open window!

Do you think we should allow urinating in public, even though it's just a nuisance, unless it's a long term, heavy exposure?

Eh? As long as you're peeing on a bush or a tree, I have no qualms with it. Just don't piss in the middle of the sidewalk.

Of course when you piss in public you create a concentrated puddle of flith, as opposed to smoking which, especially outdoors, is diffuse and generally unnoticable other than as a brief scent.



It bangs against my windshield, and is distracting and annoying.

The only time a cigarette butt is going to bang against your windshield is if you are stopped...otherwise the vehicles slipstream will take that but right up elsewhere.

They are almost always still lit, and create a fire hazard where they land.

Last I checked the asphault of roads were not flammable at the temperature from a cigarette butt...and that is where most cigarette butts lands. I don't know anyone who flicks their butt for the nearest stand of dried flammable grass, rather than just dropping it on the roadway.

And they accumulate all over the road, creating toxic trash.

The road is already a cesspool of toxicity. If all the cig butts magically vanished tomorrow...you going to start licking roads? I don't think so.



A loud music ban? Show me the petition, I'll sign it.

I'd even go for a car subwoofer ban, that would solve most of the problem.

That's because you're one of those fascist style liberals.

Ok, so I assume since you formerly likened peeing in public to breastfeeding in public that this would also make it ok to breastfeed in public.

Smoking is stupid and dangerous to the health of the smoker and those subjected to the smoke of the smoker.

Society has the right to protect non smokers from the smoke of smokers.

But it should not be able to force smokers to not smoke, either through laws preventing smoking in private places or through taxes designed to discourage smoking.
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
If someone is smoking in their car, that is a private place. Complaining that the smoke wafts over to your car when stopped at a light is a bit extreme. Momentary exposure is not a health risk.

Smokers who throw butts out the window are already breaking the law. Do some do it anyway? Yes. But how is another law going to change this when they refuse to obey the first one? Besides, it is a bad idea to have a law that isn't designed to serve its stated function but to stop possible related acts.

As for outlawing smoking in cars when children are present, I would have to disagree with that. Because the next step would be to outlaw smoking in homes with children. What is the difference between being subjected to smoke in the car and in the home?

I'm sure some people will now say they are in favor of banning smoking in homes with children. Are you also in favor of stopping parents from doing any other actions that might be bad for the health of the children? If parents feed their kids McDonald's seven nights a week, should they be arrested?

Statistically speaking, it is probably more unhealthy for children to eat McDonald's seven nights a week than to be around smoking.

I grew up around my father who was a major smoker. I had to breathe the air polluted by his cigarettes. I certainly didn't like it. But you shouldn't legislate every possible bad action by parents. Because it never stops. You have to choose the major abuses and deal with them. Beating your children, sexually abusing them, starving them, those are the things which should be illegal.

The answer is to use education and propaganda to teach people that they shouldn't smoke around children. Will it work for every case? No, of course not. But it will help.

Should tying your children to the luggage rack be a criminal offense? I mean... where do we draw the line at how much you're allowed to harm your children?

If you can show me the law in California which states that, you would have a point.



Someone who smokes in the car with kids in the car should be slapped, or boxed in the ears. Not thrown in jail.

You liberals want a law for everything to account for every situation so that every thing is all fair and equitable, and everybody receives the same equal serving.

Just don't piss in the middle of the sidewalk.Why? Piss is sterile, and composed of water, salts, and urea. It's just a nuisance.

It's no different than a cigarette butt tossed at my windshield or a cloud of toxic vapors wafting from the neighboring lane from some wrinkled smokestack.Last I checked the asphault of roads were not flammable at the temperature from a cigarette butt...and that is where most cigarette butts lands. I don't know anyone who flicks their butt for the nearest stand of dried flammable grass, rather than just dropping it on the roadway.I don't typically see the rude smokers stopping along the side of the freeway, and gently placing the butt on the asphalt. They just flick it out the window at 90 miles per hour and let it land where it may.

Umm the first post.

Uops, nevermind me - keep walking, nothing to see here :P

On the topic of rude smoker karma:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/18/BAGM9BDF021.DTL<b>SAN FRANCISCO
SUV burns on Bay Bridge -- cigarette butt blamed</b>

No ifs, ands or butts about it, Jonathan Fish learned an expensive lesson Thursday about the dangers of littering.

The 20-year-old San Francisco resident was cruising across the upper deck of the Bay Bridge at 10:40 a.m., smoking a cigarette. When he got near the Harrison Street off-ramp, he rolled down the window of his white 2004 Ford Expedition SUV and tossed out the butt, authorities said.

Instead of bounding along the pavement, however, the still-lit cigarette blew back in and set the interior of Fish's $30,000 SUV ablaze, he told police.

Black smoke filled the vehicle. Fish pulled over to the far left-hand lane about 100 feet from the Harrison Street exit and leaped from the Expedition -- leaving the SUV in neutral instead of park.

The flaming Expedition rolled driverless into a guardrail by the exit, where it crashed to a stop and burned to the frame.

California Highway Patrol officers and fire crews arrived and closed the off-ramp until 11:45 a.m., tying up traffic all the way back to the toll plaza. Fish had his hair singed but was otherwise unharmed.

Tossing a burning cigarette onto the road is a misdemeanor, and even though this particular cigarette never actually hit the road, Fish will probably be cited all the same, the CHP said. The fine could be as much as $1, 000.

"Obviously, this guy is fortunate that he wasn't a fatality and that he did not receive any more serious injuries than singed hair,'' CHP Officer Shawn Chase said.It was even an SUV. Karma, twice over.

If you can show me the law in California which states that, you would have a point.
.
So you don't think tying your children to the luggage rack is against the law?

I think it'd fall under "child endangerment" or some such.

Why? Piss is sterile, and composed of water, salts, and urea. It's just a nuisance.
Piss is sterile when it leaves the body of a healthy person. Once it leaves the body it is a great growth medium for bacteria.

It also smells really bad. Public urination is effectively vandalism.

Public urination should be banned. However, I am prepared to allow an exception for homeless people or anyone without access to toilets. At least until communities provide public toilets.

Piss is sterile when it leaves the body of a healthy person. Once it leaves the body it is a great growth medium for bacteria.So is tap water, which contains more bacteria to begin with. Maybe we should outlaw water in public.It also smells really bad. Public urination is effectively vandalism.In other words, it's a nuisance. So are noxious tobacco fumes. Some people are also hypersensitive to tobacco smoke and can have acute responses even after momentary exposure.

So is tap water, which contains more bacteria to begin with. Maybe we should outlaw water in public.
Oh, you got me. Yes, indeed, urine is just like tap water. That's why I save my urine and wash my hands with it just before eating. I rinse my laundry in urine. My coworkers really love the smell, they say it is just like tap water.

Tap water isn't a growth medium. Just because it contains bacteria doesn't make it a growth medium.
In other words, it's a nuisance.
Yes, I would say that is correct. Public spaces belong to everyone. You are allowed to use them as long as your use doesn't create a nuisance to others. This is a fine line to draw.
So are noxious tobacco fumes. Some people are also hypersensitive to tobacco smoke and can have acute responses even after momentary exposure.
And some people are hypersensitive to perfume. So let's ban everyone from wearing any.

Tap water isn't a growth medium.Of course bacteria will grow in tap water. What are you talking about?Public spaces belong to everyone. You are allowed to use them as long as your use doesn't create a nuisance to others. This is a fine line to draw.Right. It's a nuisance, and should be outlawed as such. That was my point.And some people are hypersensitive to perfume. So let's ban everyone from wearing any.Perfume doesn't cause cancer, or respiratory diseases, or genetic damage.

Though personally, I'd love to outlaw those women who bathe in perfume, thinking it makes them attractive.

Of course bacteria will grow in tap water. What are you talking about?
You seem to think tap water is a growth medium. Perhaps you should look up the definition of growth medium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_medium). Bacteria will grow on almost any surface but that doesn't make it a growth medium. Regardless, the bacteria risk is small for urine.
Perfume doesn't cause cancer, or respiratory diseases, or genetic damage.

Though personally, I'd love to outlaw those women who bathe in perfume, thinking it makes them attractive.
Being exposed to a few seconds of cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer or respiratory diseases or genetic damage either.

Are you making any kind of point to all this? I've already stated my position on these issues. If you disagree with it, then you can quote my positions and explain where I am wrong. Otherwise, I'm just pointing out any errors I see.

Are you making any kind of point to all this?Yes. While hypersensitivity alone isn't enough for a ban, it's certainly a factor to consider when you have other health risks too.

So you don't think tying your children to the luggage rack is against the law?

I think it'd fall under "child endangerment" or some such.

You really are not that obtuse.



As an addendum:
If smoking in the car was equal(the same things as, analogous) to tying your children to the rack(as you said it was), then 'child endangerment' would clearly apply, then wouldn't it.

Ok, so I assume since you formerly likened peeing in public to breastfeeding in public that this would also make it ok to breastfeed in public.

Sure, as long as they breastfeed behind a tree or a bush...

Why? Piss is sterile, and composed of water, salts, and urea. It's just a nuisance.

It's no different than a cigarette butt tossed at my windshield or a cloud of toxic vapors wafting from the neighboring lane from some wrinkled smokestack.I don't typically see the rude smokers stopping along the side of the freeway, and gently placing the butt on the asphalt. They just flick it out the window at 90 miles per hour and let it land where it may.

Urine, in a healthy person, is sterile, in and of itself, yes. However, the moment it leaves the confined area of the urinary tract, it becomes laden with the bacteria which covers the host.

Human's are filthy beasts...and our crotches, especially, seem to be festering cesspools of potential disease.

Urine in the streets goes beyond a nuisance.


And, yes, but at 90 miles per hour where it lands is, inevitably, the roadway behind their moving vehicle.

You really are not that obtuse.



As an addendum:
If smoking in the car was equal(the same things as, analogous) to tying your children to the rack(as you said it was), then 'child endangerment' would clearly apply, then wouldn't it.
Hmmm... look in the mirror Mr. Obtuseivityman. Where did I saw they were equally dangerous? I said, where do we draw the line at what is allowable harm to children? To help you with the concept: does it have to be immediate danger? Or could it be long term danger? I mean, there are certainly examples of both we don't allow. Certainly they take children away from parents who are beating them, but not really permanently bodily harming them. Or sexually abusing them. You could argue there is no harm, but we all know there is long term psychological damage. Same with smoking. They're not going to immediately succumb to lung cancer but it could have an effect on them later in life.

Although I do have to argue with myself that the smoking probably isn't as bad as the diet that most parents are feeding their kids. Probably the epidemic of early onset diabetes is going to be far, far worse than second hand smoke. Still at least at this point pretty much everyone recognizes that smoking is harmful. It'll take awhile for the message to sink in about the crappy diets parents are feeding their kids.

But we don't prioritize like that. Its stupid to argue you can't remove Risk A because Risk B is worse.

This seems to fit this thread!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI&eurl=

HaHa. Was the female at the end of that a Dr. also? Oh wait.... not back then I guess. But watch her raise her eyebrow just like Spok after she takes a drag. It must have been good.

Ok, so I assume since you formerly likened peeing in public to breastfeeding in public that this would also make it ok to breastfeed in public.

Touche

Lol... don't cross Panamah... she has a long memory :)

Human's are filthy beasts...and our crotches, especially, seem to be festering cesspools of potential disease.Actually, your genitals are usually far cleaner than your hands and mouth, yet people feel the need to shake hands and kiss one another all the time.

The keyboard you're nonchalantly sitting at is the ultimate cesspool of bacteria, but the public toilet seat you're apprehensive about sitting on is nearly sterile.

It's about cultural custom, not actual danger. We don't like urine because it smells, the color is unattractive, and we perceive it to be dangerous. Ok, fair enough. But don't complain when those customs begin to encompass noxious tobacco smoke, too.

Actually, your genitals are usually far cleaner than your hands and mouth, yet people feel the need to shake hands and kiss one another all the time.

The keyboard you're nonchalantly sitting at is the ultimate cesspool of bacteria, but the public toilet seat you're apprehensive about sitting on is nearly sterile.

It's about cultural custom, not actual danger. We don't like urine because it smells, the color is unattractive, and we perceive it to be dangerous. Ok, fair enough. But don't complain when those customs begin to encompass noxious tobacco smoke, too.

Most of that post is factually wrong.

Most of that post is factually wrong.Oh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3505414.stmA desk is capable of supporting 10 million microbes and the average office contains 20,961 microbes per square inch, according to research.

The key offenders are telephones, which harbour up to 25,127 microbes per square inch, keyboards 3,295 and computer mice 1,676.

By contrast, the average toilet seat contains 49 microbes per square inch, the survey showed.What is your data?

This seems to fit this thread!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI&eurl=

Damn the '40's had some fine looking womenfolk...

Women today need to revert to the '40's look with some minor alterations (above the knee skirts and bra's that don't look like battleship shells).

Actually, your genitals are usually far cleaner than your hands and mouth, yet people feel the need to shake hands and kiss one another all the time.

The keyboard you're nonchalantly sitting at is the ultimate cesspool of bacteria, but the public toilet seat you're apprehensive about sitting on is nearly sterile.

Why would my keyboard be a cesspool of bacteria, I'm the only person who touches it...unlike my genitals.

Why would my keyboard be a cesspool of bacteria, I'm the only person who touches it...

As long as you touch nothing BUT your key board, you're safe. But I bet sometimes you forget to wash your hands thoroughly before checking your email. And at those sometimes, you occationally forget to disinfect your key board and rush to wash your hands as soon as you remember.

That's how your key board ends up filthy.

EDIT: Our tech support guy at work once had an eye infection. At the same time, he had to install some upgrades on everyone's computer. Two days later - over half the work force showed up with bright red eyes.

I was going for the punchline there Tinsi...not asking a serious question.

I was going for the punchline there Tinsi...not asking a serious question.

I know, but since someone bit on your all-women-want-is-to-trap-men-by-having-their-babies thing, I thought it prudent to overlook that and the obvious "uopsies" you would've had to confess to had it been pointed out that you, if you really have figured women out, are just plain dumb if you let them anywhere near the lower parts of your body.

I offered you a dignified out, but noooo.

This seems to fit this thread!
It was interesting to see that the artwork on a pack of Camels is almost exactly the same now as it was when that video was made.

I know, but since someone bit on your all-women-want-is-to-trap-men-by-having-their-babies thing, I thought it prudent to overlook that and the obvious "uopsies" you would've had to confess to had it been pointed out that you, if you really have figured women out, are just plain dumb if you let them anywhere near the lower parts of your body.

I offered you a dignified out, but noooo.


But, Tinsi...men are stupid...we're made that way biologically, for the good of the species.

We know women are ebil...and we know that they seek to trap us and steal our very souls, enslaving us in a lifetime of bondage...and yet our overriding goal in life is to have women in very close proximity to the lower parts of our body.

We can't help it.

Hmm, given that rationale, I think I'd rather be ebil than stupid.

We cannot help it. We were built this way.

If men weren't built stupid, we'd long since have forgone women, other than prescribed weeks for reproductive purposes, and spent our time happily watching football (or soccer for you wacky non-Americans), eating buffalo wings and nachos, drinking, bathing only when needed, and being generally uncouth and happy. We'd live in shacks just big enough to contain our 52" LCD TVs and gaming setup...and drive pieces of **** cars, that went 125 mph.

Tinsi, men are stupid.

We would have died out as a species long ago if we were not.


Tinsi, let me repeat this for truth, men are stupid.

If men weren't built stupid, we'd long since have forgone women, other than prescribed weeks for reproductive purposes, and spent our time happily watching football (or soccer for you wacky non-Americans), eating buffalo wings and nachos, drinking, bathing only when needed, and being generally uncouth and happy. We'd live in shacks just big enough to contain our 52" LCD TVs and gaming setup...and drive pieces of **** cars, that went 125 mph.
I could argue it's because they are stupid they watch football, eat nachos, drink and don't bathe enough, but I have a lot of men friends and wouldn't want to offend them. :p (Buffalo wings are exempt, I love them).

No, men watch football as a substitute for instinctive behaviors that are unacceptable today, not because they're stupid.

No, men watch football as a substitute for instinctive behaviors that are unacceptable today, not because they're stupid.

Men play football as a substitute for instinctive behavoirs. They watch it in a crowd as a substitute for instinctive behaviors. To continually watch it on the goggle box is a little stupid :).