Re: Car smoking ban carrying childrenApr 7th, 2010
I haven't read the study but I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that the car is such a small space compared to a bar, with the windows closed of course.
If that's true, why didn't the government ban smoking in cars before they banned smoking in bars?
I've been in cars with three or four people smoking, myself included, and even with the windows just opened a crack, a great deal of the smoke is sucked out the window almost immediately..... with the windows all the way down, even the most rancid fart dissipates in 5 seconds, even if a skid mark was left behind.
I'm just curious if they meant a stationary vehicle with windows down, a moving vehicle with windows down, or either/or.
I'd also like to know how they came to such a conclusion. (How did they study this)
It reminds me of the similar claims against Marijuana, where they claimed smoking a joint has even more tar taken into your body then a cigarette. That depends on if you mix your marijuana with tobacco like most do, if you use a filter, what kind of filter, etc.... since a cigarette's filter is designed to reduce much of the intake, meanwhile a handmade joint tends to only have a rolled up piece of thin cardboard used, which doesn't filter anything except preventing chunks of weed/tobacco being inhaled. If they tested a pipe of pure marijuan against a pipe of pure tobacco, based on the same amounts, then you'd have an accurate answer that'd be hard to refute.
But these type of studies and vague comparisons without anything backing them up seem to not only get the most attention, they also seem to be believed more.
Why? Because people just need any excuse to be afraid or to hate something regardless if it is true?
It's because of things like this that make me oppose laws like the above, because the arguments used are based on vague or exaggerated information we're all expected to simply suck up as fact.
I'm a person who likes to ask questions and understand why something is being done.... if it can't be properly explained or justified, then I see no reason to support it, even if it's "Just to be safe."
Otherwise, if it's not me challenging it, it'll be someone else who knows even more about the subject, whom may find a major flaw, fight it, and reverse all the work that was done, thus wasting everybody's time and tax money on laws politicians didn't bother to think through first and just tossed out on everybody to shut up one vocal crowd who didn't seem to know any better either.
Do it right the first time, cross your t's, dot your i's, make sure you have a legit and solid argument.... otherwise, don't bother.