Homes and Cars Related News
Snuffing out smoking in cars with children
Backers say precedent-setting ban would protect kids; foes call it 'nanny government.'
Published: August 14, 2006
By: Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Targeting a new frontier in the fight against smoking, California lawmakers may ban motorists from lighting up near young passengers.
The measure would mark the first time that Californians would be prohibited from smoking legal tobacco products on private property not open to the public or employees.
No state had passed such a vehicle smoking ban until this year, when Arkansas and Louisiana set a precedent by barring the practice when passengers are under 6 or 13, respectively.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, a West Hollywood Democrat who proposed California's ban, Assembly Bill 379, said some parents don't seem to know -- or care -- about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
"If you're too stupid to recognize that on your own, then we have to pass a law to tell you, 'Don't be an idiot, don't smoke with your small kid in the car with you,' " Koretz said.
AB 379 makes no exception for vehicles whose windows are open to increase ventilation. It applies to motorists whose passengers are younger than 6 or lighter than 60 pounds.
Violators would be subject to a base fine of up to $100, which could rise to more than $350 through penalty assessments for courts, jails, trauma centers and other programs.
Opponents call AB 379 another example of "nanny government" in which lawmakers intrude into private lives or property rights.
Critics point to bills in recent years to require children to wear helmets while roller skating, restrict them from buying violent video games, limit their use of tanning salons, and to discourage soda pop sales in schools.
"I think we try to micromanage people's lives to an extent that's getting ridiculous, whether it's health or dietary or lifestyle decisions," said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg.
Canciamilla predicted that if AB 379 succeeds in limiting smoking in vehicles, other private property will be targeted next.
"The argument would be the same: Why would you let someone smoke in a car with children present? Then, why in an apartment? Or a house?"
But Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association said that smoking in a car is particularly egregious because toddlers can't escape.
"Think of the image," he said. "Young children, strapped into a child safety seat, unable to roll down a window or really control their environment at all -- and they're being exposed to harmful levels of air pollution."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position on AB 379, which is pending in the Senate. The governor typically does not commit himself until bills pass the Legislature.
California lawmakers have killed legislation in recent years to limit smoking in apartments or condominiums, and to restrict smoking in vehicles -- a measure by former Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh that was nearly identical to AB 379.
Koretz said he introduced AB 379 partly to honor the memory of Firebaugh, D-South Gate, who died in March.
Supporters of Koretz's bill say two relatively new developments improve prospects for passage:
. In January, the California Air Resources Board became the nation's first air regulator to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant, on a par with cancer-causing diesel soot, asbestos and lead.
. Two months ago, a report by then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona concluded that even small doses or brief exposures to secondhand smoke present a health risk -- particularly to infants and children, whose bodies are developing.
Carmona's report said secondhand smoke can cause respiratory problems, ear infections, asthma attacks and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in infants and children.
A survey of middle and high school students two years ago by the state Department of Health Services found that one of every four respondents had been exposed to secondhand smoke in a car within the previous seven days.
Arkansas Rep. Bob Mathis, D-Hot Springs, whose successful legislation was very similar to AB 379, said government has an obligation to protect public health and safety.
"A child has rights, too, and sometimes it's incumbent upon government to take care of people who can't take care of themselves," he said.
The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA, two of the nation's largest cigarette companies, have taken no position on AB 379.
John Singleton, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds, said the company opposes smoking around children but that legislating such a ban can "present some enforcement challenges."
"I think it just puts an additional burden on law enforcement to make judgments when they already have, most people would say, a pretty full plate," Singleton said.
The California Highway Patrol does not support or oppose pending legislation, but passage of AB 379 would not force officers to neglect major crimes, spokesman Tom Marshall said.
"Our officers prioritize what they need to do in any given situation," he said.
Visitors to Capitol Park in downtown Sacramento, interviewed randomly, had mixed feelings about imposing a vehicle smoking ban.
"I'm not a smoker, so I think it will be good," said Naira Garcia, 22, of Riverside. "That way, you're not teaching your kids that smoking is good."
But Mikkel Michelsen, 35, from Denmark said it makes no sense to demonize one unhealthy product while ignoring others.
"Why not criminalize junk food and say you can't eat that in front of your kids?" he said.
Kathleen Branch, 56, said she smokes but takes pains to avoid exposing children.
"I believe that people who need a law to tell them to do that -- they're going to (ignore) it anyway," Branch said.