Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids…S-CHIP expansionists’ heads explode
California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.
The ban, which takes effect Jan. 1, joins a string of smoking prohibitions adopted in California, including a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and within 25 feet of a playground.
B-b-b-b-b-ut how are we going to pay for the massive S-CHIP expansion if the Big Nanny brigade keeps cracking down on eeeevil smokers?
Via the Heritage Foundation, “22 Million New Smokers Needed: Funding SCHIP Expansion with a Tobacco Tax:”
Members of Congress seeking to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover children from wealthier families are exploring new ways to pay for it. The Senate Finance Committee generally has agreed to reauthorize SCHIP for five years with a $35 billion expansion funded by an increase in the federal tobacco tax by 61 cents per pack…Not only are some policymakers considering imposing a large, new burden on a small portion of the population, but they have chosen a revenue source that is in decline and will decrease even faster if the tax rate rises. Due to the sensitivity of consumers to increases in the price of tobacco products (known as “price elasticity”), the average consumer purchases fewer cigarettes when the price increases. Consequently, the additional revenue generated from increasing the tax will decline over time.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- MEXIFORNIA EXPANDS NANNY STATE « Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger
- QT Monster's Place
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids…S-CHIP expansionists’ heads explode
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Health care
Confederate Yankee
» Homegrown Terrorists Killed Outside U.S. Consulate in Istanbul
Right Wing Nut House
» THE IRAQIS ARE GROWING UPJawa Report
» Mulsime Honor Killer, "I did nothing wrong"TigerHawk
» Obama and the foreign language thingyPoliPundit.com
» GOP Convention Planners: George Who?Gateway Pundit
» Will The Real Losers On Iraq Please Stand UpJustOneMinute
» The Next Energy PlanThe Sundries Shack
» How Do You Say “Here We Go A-Pandering” in Spanish?Weekly Standard
» Staggering Obama Hypocrisy on Iranprotein wisdom
» What would a Pres. Obama face from Congress? [Karl]
Ridiculous.
Pretty soon, there will be taxes and fines on unhealthy food kept in homes with minors.
The Nanny state knows no bounds. Oh, wait…it does. When it comes to teaching kids about sexual behavior, and ecouraging promiscuity (see the Folsom Street Fair), anything goes and you cannot possibly dictate what people can do with their bodies or what they can expose their children to!
Give me a break.
Keep pounding this issue, MM. Everyone on this blog who agrees with her needs to tell everyone - their family, friends, co-workers - exactly what sort of scam the Democrats are trying to pull over on us.
Especially the notion that it’s OKAY to penalize the poor when they engage in behaviors disagreeable to the liberal elite (smoking), whilst simlutaneously lamenting the financial burdens of poor families.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.
See, I smoke because I care.
Taxes from my cigarette purchases fund schools, healthcare, and public works.
I’m a better american than non-smokers…
Exactly
Rumor has it if your speeding, illegal, smoking, dealing drugs, driving without a license/insurance or committing crimes Americans wont do you get a free pass “no fine imposed” and can go about your business.
California Town Approves Ban Making Smoking Illegal in Condos, Apartments
BELMONT, Calif. — Officials in Belmont have given final approval to a new smoking ban that is considered to be one of the toughest in the nation.
After a late push to ease some of the restrictions, the Belmont City Council voted Tuesday to pass the anti-smoking ordinance.
Prohibitions on smoking in parks and other public places will take effect in 30 days. The ordinance’s most hotly contested elements — which ban smoking inside apartments and condominiums — won’t be enforced for another 14 months.
Officials say the ordinance was written so that smokers will only face enforcement if their neighbors complain.
People will still be able to smoke on Belmont’s streets and sidewalks as long as they are not loitering near the entrance to homes or businesses and in parking lots and designated smoking areas.
Liberalism always generates the EXACT OPPOSITE of its stated intent. More laws=less freedom=liberals saying we’re more free?
A few years ago my father-in-law was forced to quit cold turkey due to the cost of cigarettes thanks to higher taxes in Oregon. Within 3 weeks he died of a massive coronary. We still believe the sudden shock to his system from over 45 years of smoking (a habit he picked up from serving in the US Army during the Korean War) was what did him in. So glad I do not live in a Nanny State.
Why not ban the selling of tabacco products in Calif.? Does this include Pot smoking? Users of Pot get a pass and they go after the pushers, why not the same with tabacco pushers?
Why if gasoline is flamable and drinking and driving is not allowed, GAS staions still sell tabacco and beer?
Zorro, I’m confused by your comment “Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.” This was a bi-partisan effort. Why didn’t Schwarzenegger veto this stupid bill?
As a smoker, I find this sort of thing appalling.
Ha, more legislation without an teeth. Speeding has been against the law for a long as I’ve been alive but the problem is still rampant. I moved to the south bay area for a job a few months ago and I have YET to see a single police office in the morning on my way to work, or home in the afternoon during rush hour. Laws don’t matter if there’s no one to inforce…
But WAIT! It so totally makes sense to me now. I KNOW where the extra smokers will be coming from: OPEN BORDERS! What’s a new guaranteed voting block for, if not to be exploited?
While I am a smoker and have smoked in the vehical with my children in there, it was always with the window open. I no longer smoke in the vehical when my children are in there with me because I believe it’s possible it could harm them.
That being said, I don’t believe the government has the right to tell me when I can and can not smoke as long as it isn’t in a government office. As long as smoking is legal (which may change if the hypocritical Folsom folks have their way), even private businesses should have the right to make that decision for themselves.
What’s next? a ban on hot coffee in the car because you may spill it on your kid? Let’s not forget that caffeine is a drug!
How about banning fast food drive thru’s when my kids are in the car, since it will be sending the heinous suggestion to my kids that fastfood is tasty, thus enabling obesity and an unhealthy lifestyle.
I’d much rather have her learn about sex in 3rd grade and become promiscuous so she can come in contact with all the STD’s out there. /sarc/
Instead of worrying about smokers, why don’t the nanny states start prosecuting those 2 and 3 times sex offenders and put them in prison for life, or better yet, on death row, instead of getting the ACLU to defend them and getting them paroled back into our neighborhoods.
I agree with you, swj719AWG. (Yes, with tongue thoroughly in cheek, as I believe you meant your remark.) And I’m sick of the hypocricy of tobacco smoking being the worst thing that anyone can do, and then relying on excessive taxes on it to pay for all sorts of silly schemes.
When did Schwarzneggar become a conservative, Wile? I never saw much evidence of real conservatism from him, but I guess he is better than the ditz they had before.
I don’t really want to start smoking again, so I guess the S-CHIP will have to go broke…along with Social Security.
I am sure your kids emjoy the ashes and embers flying into their faces at 70mph. But hey, at least you care enough to roll a window down rather than suffocate them.
Point is, it’s none of the government’s business what anyone does in their car or home. And “It’s for the children” doesn’t justify this type of fascism.
I encountered a fellow at the local grocery who tried to get me to sign a petition to raise cigarrette taxes.
I explained that the largest portion of this tax would be coming out of the pockets of the poor, and lower middle-class. He had never thought about it at all, and I saw immediately that he was struck with a dilemma. He initially tried to argue the point, but I said “[i]Hey, look it up. The information is readily available from a wide variety of sources. A far larger percentage of the poor smoke, and taxing cigarettes further will simply take more money out of their pockets.[/i]”
I talked to him a bit further, and he surprised me by saying he’d throw out the petition once he had a chance to verify what I told him. Nice to encounter folks who, when faced with new information, are still willing to modify their views.
Sorry about the bad tags in my last comment.
Yashmak, can you go and have a chat with Hillary? lol.
Well brand me as an evildoer.
I too smoke. Am I proud to be labeled as such by the liberals? No.
Do I care? No.
Time to tax those drivers who leave bars in CA with alcohol on their breaths while they’re at it.
There is too much hype regarding second hand smoke. Unfortunately, before I knew the terrible effects of smoking, I DID smoke while I was pregnant.
Somebody just shoot me ok?
My son weighed over 9 pounds and my daughter was over 7 pounds. Both are healthy and do not smoke.
Now where is the blame here?
I feel like a leper in a society that looks down its supreme nose at me when smoking in public. I do respect others’ environments and will not smoke in their homes or businesses.
Having said that, no one can convince me that second hand smoke kills any more than second hand flatulence does.
First hand flatulence is a different story. lol gayle.
Thing is once they get it passed on the basis of paying for it with a new cigarette tax the program will become another entitlement. Since smokers are so evil who cares?
But when they can’t sustain the revenue needed through cigarette taxes then they’ll have to pick someones else’s pocket to pay for it.
Non-smokers are only delaying the inevitable and by then it’ll just be another out of control government program.
Wile E Coyote sais:
I think the operative word in what I am seeing on this is “cigarette” … I hear nothing about other forms of smoking and the Governator is a Cigar Aficionado (so is Rush for that matter)
But don’t you see Gayle,it’s been repeated thousands of times so now of course it’s true
The flatulence causes Global Warming
englishqueen, etc., what is your position regarding the decriminalization of drug use?
It’s not the first hand flatulence that is so bad it’s the second hand stuff that has you running for an oxygen or gas mask. LOL.
Flatulence is bad when you put a lit cigarette next to it. Where’s the turnout gear and SCBA? lol. Parents should have the brains not to smoke in a car with children. Why does government have to regulate common sense?
I thought it wasn’t a child but merely a choice…since when do the lefties care about the kids?…
We are waiting for an answer. Hello englishqueen. calling englishqueen……
This from a governor who owes his office to the consumption of steroids.
I hate cigarettes and I hate that people smoke in front of their children, but this is the sort of government meddling that almost makes me want to join the Libertarian Party. Next, the Nanny State will be mandating your calorie counts, taxing you every time you take a dump, and regulating how much toilet paper you get to use afterwards.
OK, I have to say this. I have been in health care and taking care of patients for only 28 years. I have cared for 100’s of patients in CCUs, ICUs, Cancer patients. I have read the studies. Their methodologies are suspect, and conclusions are leaps on par with man-made global warming. I have care for people all over the world and from differnt countries. I have NEVER seen one patient diagnosed, either as a primary, secondary, or other diagnosis with cancer or heart disease resulting from second hand smoke. You would figure that I would have seen at least one.
PS: Yes, it can exacerbate acute asthma attacks (so can pet hair or a number of other natural and synthetic environmental stimulants), and other transient acute upper respiratory problems; and can be an irritant to non-smokers. Obviously. parents should take precautions with chilren with asthma and chronic upper respiratory problems.
Otherwise, IMHO, second hand smoke is on par with the global warming hysteria.
PS: I smoke cigars…so there…and no I won’t quit.
It’s another way to “CONTROL” us.
Brainwashing hysteria.
Only libs could create such havoc.
(think I’ll go to Pelosi’s house and have a teepee set up and smoke a peace pipe)
Now what?
Augustine, common sense tells me that breathing in tobacco smoke is bad, whether it’s first, second or third hand. As a medical pro, I’d be curious as a layperson to know how the smoke is any less dangerous because it has entered my lungs after being in your lungs.
C’mon…I’m still waiting to hear from all the “would-be nanny state hating libertarian wannabes” out there who don’t want the government to intrude on your personal liberty. What is your position on decriminalizing drug use?
greenfairie;
Why do you hate when people smoke in front of their children?
How about people who fight, argue, drink, lie, etc., in front of their children?
My adult kids are very healthy.
No one can prove that second hand smoke harms anyone. Does it smell good? NO.
I can honestly say, in all the years I smoked in my vehical with my kids, we never once had a flying ember or ash fly into either of my kids eyes or faces. So please keep your sarcasm to yourself.
Dakine,
Your lungs are filters. The largest portion of carcinogens are carried to the primary smoker. The amounts in seconds are not significant enough to cause cancer or heart disease. As I noted above though there are issues with astham, etc.
You’re right about the common sense, but there are alot of things that are not “good” for us. While cigarette smoke can be irratating to a child or anyone around, they’re not going to get cancer from it.
On the other hand the eating habits of children and their sedentary lifestyle is the leading cause of obesity and type II diabetes in teenagers and young adults. That’s alarming, and diabetes is nothing to screw around with, but I don’t see the gov’t trying to regulate that…yet.
They shouldn’t regulate either. As you say, It should be a matter of common sense. I guess I appeal to common sense and common decency.
The force is strong…is it the dark side? May not be young Skywalker.
Here’s one for them to sort out: what if someone’s smoking their “medically prescribed marijuana” in their car w/their child present? Then what???
gippergirl, NOW you know that’s ok to libs.
LOL!
You know what’s interesting? Many on the left are some of the strongest supporters of Darwinism and human evolution from monkeys (not agreeing or disagreeing here) and thus “survival of the fittest”, yet the Nanny state is throwing a big wrench in that equation, at least it should from their point of view. If smoking, trans-fats, marijuana, etc are all deadly and will kill people, well under Darwinism shoudln’t they just be left alone to get sick and die? I guess they didn’t think that one through.
I was smoking in the car yesterday on the way back from the vet’s office. Hopefully PETA doesn’t find out.
Someone mentioned Oregon upthread. There’s a voter initiative there that will raise the cigarette tax $.845/pack for children’s health programs. Pelosi is already pushing a $.61/pack federal increase for S-CHIP. I wonder how much revenues will decrease when Oregon smokers see prices rise $15/carton. I very much doubt that the revenue decrease will be from cessation. It more likely will be from tax avoidance.
I will quit cigarettes the moment Steal Chip is passed and they can go after the “middle class” for their funding.
That was helpful Augustine. I’d like to hear the counter-argument if anyone on here is qualified. What about drug use Augustine…your response was pretty cryptic and way over my little ole’ lawyer head.
Dakine,
Sorry! Man, I thought I’d never see the day when I sould speak over a lawyer’s head…LOL!
To answer your question, you know, I am actually really warming to it. I have to get over the enculturation (maybe I’m chicken). There certainly is some sense to it (legalize and regulate). What I wouldn’t want is to make things worse. There’s some pretty scary stuff out there though that runs people to the brink of insanity (PCP, Crystal Meth). Taken care of them in the ER. They peg out the weirdo meter and are pretty dangerous if not restrained. One guy on PCP snapped his own forearm in half while he was in handcuffs in the back of the squad car. He was trying to get out of them. (sorry for being gross).
oops…could not sould.
This is what I think, they think:
The government can’t regulate what I do with my own body. If our society is allowed to consume drugs, it won’t destroy our society because alcohol has not. Mary Jane is not as destructive as alcohol. They use the failed prohibition as an example. Therefore decriminalization of drugs will not destroy our society.
Libbs on the other hand just want to get high. Tune in, tune out type of stuff.
Can I read their minds or what?
Decriminalization or legalization of drugs is not the topic. Nice try, though. Nothing like changing the topic when you’re on the wrong end of a stupid policy. And having the Lifestyle Nazis ban perfectly legal behavior in my vehicle and (soon) my house is wrong. And no, I don’t smoke, but how long until these little fascists come after me?
The topic is criminalizing legal behavior because the Nanny State disapproves of it.
There’s some pretty scary stuff out
libertarian view (I think) Most people have the common sense not to take drug use to the extremes. Therefore it should be decriminalized.
Try working in the ER in Vegas on ST. Patricks day. I see a lot of that here. Meth is out of control here.
pdig, not sure I ever articulated my position on the issue. Is nicotine not a drug? It is legal, right? Alcohol? The question is relevant. You write pretty well, so the actual content of your comment is pretty disappointing.
Simplistic jose, but actually sounds about right.
Sounds like we’re on the same page Augustine. Where do you draw the line on prohibition? Hard to argue for legalizing PCP, Meth, Heroin, etc., unless you’re a really hard-core libertarian type. Good stuff though…thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Okay, so explain if snorting cocaine and the act of prostitution is criminalized legal behavior, and why smoking in your car does or does not fit in this category.
josetheguerilla - no thanks, bro. I’ve done my stint and gone off the deep end into healthcare policy in the D.C. asylum. I’m one of many trying to beat off the barbarians at the gate who want to legislate the actual practice of medicine and healthcare, not to mention socialize it. Bad idea.
Depends on which drugs you’re talking about, and the circumstances of their use.
High-end narcotics, stimulants and hallucinogens like Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, PCP, LSD? I’ve seen what they do to people, and what those people in turn are willing to do to others. Legalizing them sounds like an invitation to chaos.
Mid-range stuff like Ecstacy and whatever else the club-crowds do? Don’t know enough about these to have a strong opinion, but in general anything that’s targeted toward youth’s inexperience and sense of immortality/invulnerability raises serious concerns about whether I’d want to make it more available.
Lower-level things like Marijuana? I’m not sure… part of me wants to put it into the same category as alcohol in terms of what happens if you get caught under the influence driving a car, or operating equipment, or what happens if you get caught providing it to a minor.
Another basic consideration is, I’ve seen too many news stories about the violent and destructive things narcotics addicts and tweakers are willing to do to themselves and others to score their next fix. I don’t see the same kinds of stories, as a general rule, about pot-heads or cigarette smokers.
Keeping dopers from doing bad things to others isn’t so much the problem as getting them up off their asses. But at least they’re not robbing, stealing, injuring and killing people when it’s all they can do to work up the motivation to get up and raid the refrigerator.
So part of me thinks, “Maybe we can shift law enforcement away from pot and toward the more serious drugs.” An economy-of-force kind of thinking.
And then part of me looks at places that have decriminalized marijuana, like the Netherlands - a place where nobody seems to give a damn about anything, spectators to their own fates, classic doper behavior - and I don’t think we’d benefit from following their example.
sorry, i left the other part out….
Asthma rates are high here in Vegas. The prevailing wisdom was it was caused by second hand smoke in the Casinos. However, they forget to mention our air quality. It’s now illegal to smoke in bars and where food is sold. Come on, this is Vegas!!!!!!
With taxpayers bearing the astronomical cost of the AIDS epidemic among male homosexuals those who leave “gay” bars without condoms should likewise be taxed or ticketed. If we are being honest and across the board, “sin” taxes should apply to all dangerous activity, not a select few.
It cracks me up to see all the disjointed attacks on smokers by the Democrats. On one hand, make smokers foot the bill for healthcare. On the other, make smoking anywhere illegal. Funny!
The Dem’s are all concerned about tax fairness, jobs above the minimum wage level, unemployment, etc., etc. If anyone has bothered to look at the actual percentage of tax increase the S-Chip bill attachs to tobacco products, one will see enormous tax unfairness! The tax on cigarettes increases 156%, but what about cigar taxes? The increase on large cigars (actually, cigarillo sized and up) is 6,154%! This will have the effect of eliminating the cigar industry, and putting more than 750,000 people, both here and abroad, out of work. Look what a leader in the cigar industry says.
(http://www.cigarcyclopedia.com/news/news.php?c=journal&id=948)
Basically, the tax on cigars goes from .05 cents, to $3.00 each. (An el cheapo cigar of $1.50 will now cost $4.50; a box of 20 goes from $30.00 to $90.00) For the record, I do puff on cigars, about 3 or 4 a week, and they are not “el cheapo’s.” I will not buy anymore if Pres. Bush’s veto is overridden.
purplepeep said:
My thoughts exactly! However, no one in the GOP leadership (or elsewhere in the party for that matter), has the cajones to go there…something about “in the privacy of one’s bedroom/car/public bathroom/Miller beer sponsored gay festival in SF/etc./etc.” Whoa! What if…? Naa.
I’ve run into this paradox(?)before here in Pa.We’ll tax smokers to pay for whatever–then tell peole where and when they can smoke and cause them to quit.Where do they then expect to get their needed revenue then?Liberals can’t seem to be able to think beyond their noses,or to learn from History.They still think Socialism can work”if we all work together,kumbaya”.Morons.
Yup, Right_On - if we’re going to go after people engaging in harmful behavior in the privacy of their homes, let’s do it right. The stats on homosexual men and AIDS are just as alarming as those on smoking, if not more so.
And they are allowed - actually encouraged - to engage in disease spreading behaviors in public, i.e. the open sex fairs to which you alluded. There are even sponsors who will pay for the public sex parties - but not the horrific and costly results. We get to pick up that tab.
At least smokers pay for their “sin” every time they buy a pack of cigarettes. Let the sin taxes apply to all or to none.
I know that’s politically incorrect, but common sense is rarely PC.
Conservative definition: common sense- the ability to think rationally, and act on same.
Liberal definition: common sense - an affliction or defect in conservative thinking, which causes undue pain and suffering, both economically and intellectually, to those less fortunate.
Point #1
Please tell me where “third hand” smoke comes from.
Point #2
Smoke that has entered my lings has already deposited its harmful elements (tar and nicotine) in my lungs. By the time it gets to you, it’s no more than an unwelcome smell.
Ever been to a cookout? Ever had a fire in your fireplace?
leepro, yeah the 3rd hand smoke thing was dumb, and thanks for the info. I’ll still pass on breathing in someone’s exhaled tobacco smoke.
What’s all the fuss?
Just put the kids in the trunk –
that way you can smoke
and your mother-in-law can enjoy the company of her grandkids.
Disclaimer: I’m a bachelor. [Wonder why?]
Now that Barack Obama has quit smoking, does that mean that he no longer is paying for all of the wonderful liberal things that cigarette taxes fund?
Why does Obama hate wonderful liberal programs that do wonderful liberal things for the downtrodden and oppressed peoples?
Mark Twain said it best:
“Quitting smoking is easy. I’ve done it a hundred times.”
I’d love to ask these libs if pregnant women should be fined for smoking. It might cause their oversized heads to explode!
Another “fee” to pick my pocket. I smoke, but the senior blimp’s a lush. I want a $20 tax on each bottle of booze. Mary Jo K would be proud. People die from second hand smoke? Ask for the WHO findings on second hand smoke. It may be an irritant, but those who have been exposed develop a resistance to lung cancer. They didn’t publish that finding to the general public.
Alcohol kills more innocent people than second hand smoke. I bet Mary Jo’s parents would agree if they were free to talk.
Another interesting debate. The liberals raise taxes on cigarettes so they can fund health care. Intelligent people know that higher taxes on something will stop them from doing it. As Chief Justice John Marshall once said, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Unfortunately, liberals don’t understand that. They actually believe that tax revenue will go up if you raise taxes. Initially, yes. Long term, snort-worthy.
In CA, they have their vaunted anti-smoking commercials paid for by state money. After the campaign ran for a while, the state had a survey done. The number of smokers (and smoking in general) was down. One of the survey questions was about the effectiveness of the commercials. The liberals were giddy with anticipation about the outcome showing the intelligence of liberals! Show the unwashed masses that the socialist gov’t is always right! However, the majority of previous smokers said they quit because the increased taxes made the cost prohibitive. The liberals cocked their heads sideways, got the deer-stuck-in-the-headlights-look and said, “Huh?”
Explaining taxes to a socialist is like explaining nuclear physics to a rock.
I’m in the process of quitting smoking myself, since I can no longer financially support the habit.
Next thing you know, I won’t be able to afford coffee anymore either, because the gubmint decides to tax it too.
Ahhhh…the old Victory By Proxy trick.
Point: Dems
As my seventh grader’s football coach tells him, “If they’re holding the ball, clean their clock.”
Fine with me. And while were at it all “free” medical and intervention services need to be privitized so the cost of caring for drug abuse is removed from the involuntary backs of taxpayers.
Not to mention a boatload of other nanny state services we have to pay for.
I think the exception is Medical marijuana