Four U.S. states, one Canadian province and one territory have already banned smoking in your car when children are present. Next up to potentially adopt the legislation is Ontario, Canada. A bill has been introduced into parliament that would fine anyone smoking in a car when someone under the age of 16 is also in the car.
The bill makes no exceptions for, well, anything. It doesn't matter if the car is stopped or moving, if all the windows are down and the sunroof open, or whether the smoker is driver or passenger. Smoke inside a motorized vehicle with a "child," and it'll cost you $250 Canadian.
While we don't argue with the supposed spirit of the law -- protecting children from the ill health effects of smoke -- we do wonder about the relevant age. Sixteen years old seems kind of long in the tooth to be classified as a "child," while 17-year-olds are suddenly adults who can handle it. There would also seem to be more dangerous things out there than traces of smoke at 55-MPH with the windows down, but it is Canada after all, so maybe not.
Thanks for the tip, Rodstar!
[Source: Canadian Driver]
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
IIHS releases official results on the smart fortwo
Tragedy at LeMons: Send love and a little bit more
Officially Official: New Ferrari California exposed!
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
Project Track Slut, Part One: Pick a weapon on the cheap
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Wally @ May 2nd 2008 7:12AM
Ahh, don't you just love government trying to protect us? You'd think that IF they really wanted to protect us they'd outlaw the sales of tobacca products altogether.
But then they'd lose all that money support they get from the tobacca lobbyists.
zmf001 @ May 2nd 2008 9:48AM
Tobacco makes too much money. Both farming and taxes for the govt. The govt has to present Tobacco as bad (because it is in most cases), but they don't want to eliminate it. Imagine the tax revenue the govt makes off just cigarettes ...
sk @ May 2nd 2008 7:30AM
Thats great, the government should squeeze every sent out of those dumb smokers that poison our precious air.
climbingcolorado @ May 2nd 2008 3:50PM
Except that the government has dedicated all the revenues from the cigarette taxes to education. The higher the taxes, the less smokers, the less tax-base, the less taxes, the less money going to the children.
And I thought this was all about the children.
DCragtop @ May 2nd 2008 7:49AM
Maybe they could also fine the holier than thou like Mr. sk there.
Jon @ May 2nd 2008 7:51AM
Just triple the tax on cigs.Problem solved.
sw @ May 2nd 2008 9:35AM
You don't know many smokers do you? Some will pay almost any price attached to them. Besides, they'll just go to the native reservations where they pay no tax.
Jon @ May 5th 2008 12:33PM
I smoked for 10 years.the price of a pack of cigs along with all the other negatives helped influence my decision to quit 9 years ago.
Jon @ May 2nd 2008 11:53AM
It'll give them more incentive.
BowserUSC @ May 4th 2008 7:12PM
Cigarettes are up to 8 dollars in new york city, more than double the cost in some places. I have a feeling people will still be willing to pay for cigarettes.
ed @ May 2nd 2008 7:52AM
"Sixteen years old seems kind of long in the tooth to be classified as a "child," while 17-year-olds are suddenly adults who can handle it." Surprised that a law comes with limits? Want to check each child for lung capacity or propensity for contracting lung cancer? Every law has a line drawn somewhere - drinking, driving, running for president. Wolfville, Nova Scotia was lauded and hated when the enacted a similar ban, but townsfolk seem to cope. (http://goodcarbadcar.blogspot.com/2007/11/smokecarkidsticket.html)
Guenther @ May 2nd 2008 12:42PM
I think the distinction comes more from the fact that a 16y.o. might have some more say in how clean the air ought to be around them. Also gives the OPP free reign to pull over any car with smokers in it.
PiCASSO @ May 2nd 2008 8:00AM
This used to always piss me off when I seen both mother and father taking tokes of the cigarettes while their kids in the back enjoying second hand smoke.
Now, if they also put out a law that would discourage/prevent smokers from tossing their cigarette butts out the window. The same applies for smoking people who walk, ride their bikes, or any other activity. I thought that littering was illegal, but appears that this is accepted by society.
ihatesmokers @ May 2nd 2008 8:34AM
+1
screw the smokers. ban it.
flame on smokers. damn junkies!
the receptionist at work smokes and is pregnant. she wont listen to
us.
her, boyfriend, and mother sit in the car outside of work everyday
smokin up a storm, sometimes with her other 2 small children.
in bad weather the windows are sealed up. its cold outside, i dont
wanna be cold. or its raining...
poor kids.
what the windows are cracked you can smell it. yeah right.
Tina @ May 2nd 2008 9:22AM
I really have a hard time understanding this anger towards smokers when a child will certainly be in more danger if mommy or daddy happen to be DRUNK behind the wheel.
Last time I checked, it is still legal to smoke cigarettes and no I am not a smoker.
apu @ May 3rd 2008 3:22PM
And which is why there are drunk driving laws too?
Pat @ May 2nd 2008 10:33AM
Drinking and driving is already illegal in Ontario
vdk @ May 2nd 2008 5:25PM
Not with a class G license. You can drink AND drive with that, there's some limits though, but it's possible you're ALLOWED to.
Ben @ May 2nd 2008 9:26AM
Its likely that the cutoff age they choose was 16 due to a number of legal changes that occurs with kids once they turn 16 here in ontario. At 16 you are able to obtain your drivers liscence and it is no longer mandatory to attend school. While your are not a true adult in the eyes of the Ontario government, they assume at the age of 16 you can make decisions for yourself.
h8rain @ May 2nd 2008 9:33AM
Can't you be tried as an adult if, for example, you murdered someone at 16 or 17?
The drinking age is like 19 in some places in Canada too, if I am not mistaken.