Home / Video / Florida Bill Would Ban Smoking In Cars With Children Inside

Florida Bill Would Ban Smoking In Cars With Children Inside

By

A proposed bill for the upcoming Florida legislative session would prohibit people from smoking in cars with young children present.

SB 548, filed by Sen. Jeff Clemens (D-Lake Worth), would ban smoking in a car with a child under the age of 13 inside. Officers would be required to issue a non-moving violation to drivers who violate the statute.

Dr. Lindsay Thompson, who specializes in pediatrics at UF Health, said the proposed bill is a step in the right direction toward protecting children from being exposed to secondhand smoke.

“At least every hour, we have a child come in with an illness that’s been made worse by exposure to smoke,” said Thompson. “There have been very important studies that show one cigarette in a car is worse for a child than bringing them to a smoky bar. So, I’m incredibly pleased to hear that this may be addressed in the state of Florida.”

Some law enforcement officers said it’s disappointing that such a law is even needed.

“It’s widely known that secondhand smoke, especially in very tight quarters, could be harmful to children,” said Gainesville Police spokesperson Ben Tobias. “So, for people to not do this on their own is very troubling. We always enjoy new laws that we’re able to enforce, but at the same time, this one is common sense.”

Up to 15,000 children aged 18 months or younger are hospitalized each year due to secondhand smoke exposure, according to the Center for Disease Control.

The law would go into effect Oct. 1, 2015 if passed.

 

About Zak Dahlheimer

Zak is a reporter for WUFT News who may be contacted by calling 352-392-6397 or emailing news @wuft.org

Check Also

Firefighters Lobby State To Pass Cancer-Protection Bill

Firefighter Joey Malphurs is pushing for a bill that would help cover firefighters across the state who develop one of 21 kinds of cancer. The bill, HB 857, has 70 co-sponsors in the Florida House.

4 comments

  1. In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

    The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

    The anti-smoker movement seems keen to supress its own evidence.
    Why were these studies not reported and promoted?
    The answer is simple: because they fail to support the political and economic goals of anti-smoking, the Fraud Of The Century.
    Smoking and Second-Hand Smoke DO NOT cause or exacerbate asthma!
    The list of scientific evidences: http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/asthma.htm

    Moreover, smoking was always natural and great medicine to help asthmatics.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844275/

    Despite the propaganda, nicotine has long been used for breathing problems.
    http://www.health-matrix.net/…/nicotine-the-insular-cortex…/

  2. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
    “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
    The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
    Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008

    .
    This is a Swedish study.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
    Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14

  3. OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13163/reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-third-edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  4. Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *