NOW: BREAKING: 5-Alarm Fire Rages In Greenwich Village, Causing Traffic & Transit Delays | 1010 WINS | WCBS 880

Democrat Lawmaker David Weprin Wants Ban On Smoking In Cars With Children

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — A New York lawmaker has proposed legislation that would ban adults from smoking in cars when children under the age of 14 are present.

Democrat Assemblyman David Weprin said he wants to reduce children’s exposure to secondhand smoke. The bill would apply even when the windows are rolled down.

The Daily News reports that violators could face a fine of up to $100.

Four other states have passed similar laws: Maine, Louisiana, Arkansas and California.

In New York’s Rockland County, smoking is banned in cars carrying passengers under age 18. Nassau County on Long Island is considering a similar bill.

Banning smoking in beaches, parks… and now cars? Is this going too far or good sense? Sound off in our comments section below…

(TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)


One Comment

  1. fact_is says:

    I think that is called ‘back door population control’.
    Wake up folks. Somebody is trying for a new cap feather.

  2. Carole says:

    This is an outrage, dictating what can take place within privately-owned property, our vehicles, and being subjected to governmental authority regarding the health and welfare of our children; these are decisions, in a FREE society, to be made by the adult in charge and control of his family and property. Next installment: “No smoking in the home.” Good grief, I never thought I would see this day in America, a “free”–what’s the politically correct definition these days?–society.

  3. Baja K says:

    Look up the symptoms of withdrawal from smoking…some being irritability and anger (road rage), inattention, dizziness, digestive problems, sleepiness, etc., and decide if you want anyone going Cold Turkey near you on the highway. It appears that no doctors were involved in crafting any no-smoking-in-cars-with-kids laws. For that matter, have any doctors diagnosed any illness caused to a child by a smoker in a car?
    If it’s a “crime to smoke” near kids…what about the crime of secretly adulterating so-called “tobacco products” with some of the most health-damaging industrial substances on the planet?…many of them being especially harmful to children, mothers and fetuses?
    It seems like more people personally don’t like smoke, but have no trouble with corporate crimes that endanger, experiment upon, and kill millions. And they have no problem with corporate lies about cigarettes being automatically tobacco.
    Serch “Fauxbacco” for more.

  4. amanda says:

    Brendan I totally agree illegals need NOT be here what is so hard bout getting legal papers

  5. badman says:

    would any responsible smoker smoke with his kids in the car?

    do any smokers want their kids to smoke, too?

    get over yourselves. it’s good for the kids.

    1. Da Troot says:

      Does anyone care what Badman thinks?

      Does anyone want him raising their children?

      Get over yourself. Your opinion only counts for your kid.

  6. Idratherbegolfing says:

    Wow what a joke you smokers are. How selfish can you be? You think it’s your right to be able to smoke when you want wherever you want. What about the rights of non smokers who have to tolerate walking around and through smokers as they huddle on sidewalks and throw their cigarette butts on the ground because they are too damn lazy and inconsiderate to thrown them in the trash. Bottom line is that it’s a disgusting habit and 95% of smokes just don’t have the will power or mental strength to quit. Keep smoking your $10 a pack cigarettes just don’t do it in the car with your children. They will be better for it.

    1. Da Troot says:

      1. Littering is a crime.
      2. You are free to walk around the smokers, and take an alternate entrance/exit.
      3. Farting your personal opinions at strangers on the internet is just as annoying as blowing smoke at strangers in public.

  7. Bob Fowler says:

    The government is in our lives enough. Ban smoking and the sales of all tobacco products but how dare you tell me what I can do within the confines of my life. The PUBLIC interest will be served if the sales of known carcinogenics is banned, and those selling it are taken to task.

    I want a law that bans over-priced gas from being sold. I want another that requires anyone with an IQ below average to wear a sign, warning those with above average IQ’s that they are dealing with a mentally inferior person. How about a mandatory bedtime for children? We could also come up with a law requiring certain marital acts be performed a minimum/maximum number of times per day/week/month… Stop trying to legislate my life!!!! You would make George Orwell proud.

  8. Tim Sitomer says:

    Personal accountability, i do not think that NY lawmakers know what this phrase means. they should change their state flag to the hammer and sickle

  9. jerseyjoey says:

    How about a Ban on democrats

  10. Barry Tilles says:

    I am from Boston and I love New York (not the Yanks), at least I used to. My wife and I won’t visit NY however due to the over the top smoking laws. Why does the biggest best city in the world have such uptight busybody fussbudget Laws? I am a Jew so don’t get the next part wrong. Is it a character trait of liberal Jews, the skinny pinch-faced, diet soda drinking, overprotective-parent type?
    We started out as freedom loving hippies and wound up as a nation of officious buttinskies. Sheesh. Good-bye NYC. I’ll miss you, and you will miss my tourist dollars.

  11. amanda says:

    Well I can say I smoked for 3 months out of my whole 31 years of existence and never smoked in anyone’s house or car! I now get the same respect from others no one smokes in my house or car! I’ve not said one word! They have took it upon themselves to smoke outside! My mother and father do NOT smoke in their car nor is anyone else allowed! IS IT REALLY THAT HARD!

  12. KPMc says:

    Any truth to the rumor that politicians want to ban parents from farting in front of their children because they contain potentially lethal methane gas?

    Someone must protect the children from such noxious fumes. Please big brother… tell me how to cope with this menace to society.

  13. Alan S says:

    As a constituent, I’m happy about the proposed ban but disappointed that Assemblyman Weprin only wants to protect children up to age 13 from secondhand smoke in cars. Why not protect all minors under the age of 18? Also, someone was concerned that a similar law banning smoking in private homes with children is the next step – I really hope it is. Children under the authority of their parents have no control over where they travel or live, and they have a right to be protected from secondhand smoke. This shouldn’t just be a law where someone gets a small fine, it should be considered to be child abuse.

    1. Tim Sitomer says:

      why is it the job of lawmakers to tell other what to do with their lives and family?

  14. Brendan Quigley says:

    I have changed my mind on this issue. Since the police could ask for ID to issue a ticket for a violation of this law they would be able to check for citizenship status and in the process remove illegal aliens from our midst! Go Dem Weprin! Thank you for trying to provide us with a new tool to remove lawbreakers from our homeland

    1. badman says:

      we should have kicked the irish out too when we had the chance

  15. Brendan Quigley says:

    My big question to the democrats would be..why not just make cigarettes illegal at this point? I already know the answer…..the want the tax revenue. That’s all this is about as well…a new revenue stream for the money hungry leftists

  16. Brendan Quigley says:

    The government (well, the democrats) want to control every aspect of your life. Let people be parents and back off the government controls!

  17. amanda says:

    Ryan it is but like I stated in my very first comment just because they get away from the direct smoke they will pick it up off clothing hair and carpet so how are they NOT going to pick it up off seats car seats and seat belts!? I do support the ban!

  18. TomNJ says:

    That’s right parents, don’t smoke in the car and risk harming you children, just murder your kids in the womb instead. It is legal and saves money on clothes and food and all. At least that seems to be the message the government is sending us. I weep for the future, i really do.

  19. Jill says:

    Well it’s about time. I applaud this indefinitely, it should be right under the umbrella of endangering the welfare of children. It makes me sick to see people especially women driving with their children in the car including infants and they are just puffing away. What makes them think it’s okay to do this, and then they wonder why they’re sitting in the emergency room holding a neubulizer up to their childs’ mouth.
    They can’t breath….Dummies…Evidently they’re not educated on the dangers of second hand smoke or they just don’t care.

  20. amanda says:

    Exactly Ryan!

  21. Ryan says:

    Second hand smoke is unhealthy. So is head trauma. Should I be able to decide if I want to give my children head trauma or not as a parent? I’m not seeing the difference here. Harming my child is harming my child. Here’s some data for all the knuckle-heads out there who think second hand smoke is no big deal.

    1. Ryan says:

      And before you say that this is government data, it was posted in 2007 under the conservative eye of your boy Bush. It must be true then right?
      Truly, I’m disgusted at how many people here are viewing this idea as a removal of rights. What is the take home from this? I have the right to harm my child? I brought it into this world and I can treat it how I please and no one should tell me otherwise? The enforcement of the rights is what our legal system is about. Children have the right not to be harmed. Children have the right NOT to be subjected to poisonous chemicals brought about by the uncontrollable impulses of their parents. Harming your child is not a right. There is no argument to be made for this being about how people chose to raise their children. This should not be made into a party issue simply because one side or the other suggested it. Harming a child is harming a child. The only way I would be convinced that this is not a law that needs to be put into effect is if I were shown data to indicate that there was no ill effect produced by exposure to second hand smoke. Anyone want to post some links to support the benefits of second hand smoke on children? Or at least some to say there are no negative effects?

      1. Da Troot says:

        You’re talking out of your posterior. Correlation does not prove causation. By your logic, I can prevent you from interacting with your own child by claiming something you do is harmful. More children die while swimming than die from lung cancer. If you try to teach your child to swim, you’re an abusive parent crying out for intervention.

      2. Ryan says:

        Sorry bud, you’re a bit off. The harmful effects of second hand smoke is not a claim, but proven fact (I still challenge evidence otherwise). Next, knowingly subjecting my child to poison is not really what I would call an interaction worth promoting or protecting. And you are correct about more kids dying from drowning than lung cancer. The unfortunate truth is that far more children suffer from the actual effects of second hand smoke than drowning; primarily respiratory symptoms, including cough, phlegm, wheeze, and breathlessness. Lung cancer in children caused by second hand smoke is indeed rare. Despite the possibility of my child dying while I teach him to swim, I am providing him with the opportunity to survive. No comparison can be made to trying to teach my child to survive by exposing him to poison. Any more bright ideas on protecting my rights?

      3. Da Troot says:

        “proven fact”
        You mean an observed correlation. You fail.
        “The enforcement of the rights is what our legal system is about.”
        How, exactly, do you enforce a right?
        “Harming your child is not a right.”
        Neither is raising other peoples’.
        “if I were shown data to indicate that there was no ill effect produced by exposure to second hand smoke”
        You mean like proving a negative? You’re a real smart one. Everyone who has ever suffered from lung cancer has also been exposed to sunlight. Should we ban that too, Mr Correlation Proves Causation?

  22. Jim Keine says:

    Why not ban Democrats.

  23. Jeff says:

    Is this control freak politician a Democrat? OH – that’s right, he is !! Typical Democrat “cradle to grave” control !!

    Land of the Brave – Land of the “not free”. thanks progressives.

    Got to run – packing for my move to Costa Rica.

  24. Da Troot says:

    This is a hard one. (No Weiner jokes). On the one hand, forcing your kid to inhale your stinky hotbox is not cool. However, prohibiting other adults from doing so is not constitutional. If we’re erring on the side of constitutionality, cool. If we’re erring on the side of “protecting the children” then I want to also levy fines for listening to pop, hip hop, rap, contemporary country, christian talk radio, NPR and/or reading Harry Potter.

    1. badman says:

      hey legal scholar,
      where in the constitution does it confer the unalienable right to smoke at all, for one thing? May I remind you that Prohibition was repealed because it was impractical, as opposed to falling to a constitutional challenge?

      1. Da Troot says:

        Dr Badman-
        “where in the constitution does it confer the unalienable right to smoke at all”
        Where does it prohibit smoking specifically?

        “Prohibition was repealed because it was impractical”
        That’s nice to know. It doesn’t say what you think it does about whether or not it was constitutional in the first place.

  25. Bill Bernhard says:

    and who gives a f— what you believe LIndsay. Why don’t you just take their children away from them ’cause you don’t like the way they raise them either. I bet you are an abortion proponent as well. I bet you and Marx would have made swell buddies.

  26. Moe says:

    Next steps:
    – No smoking within a 23.54 yards of a house, school, church, grocery, health food store, park, candy store, doctor’s office or any other establishment where a child may be found.
    – Can’t use a cell phone within 32.15 feet of a child.
    – Raise the price of a pack of 20 cigs to $74.83
    – Employ 7,941 agents to crack down on violators of the new law
    – Hire a $8,451,672 study group to research addition regulations.
    – Get rid of all the DEMS!!!!

  27. Mike Alright says:

    The sooner we BAN the feminized US the more free the future world will be. The nanny US state is a joke. Of course you women and feminized men “feel” safe with this wonderful overpowering gov don’t you!

    1. peteywheatstraw says:

      right on brother!! say it like it is..all this nanny state stuff is female in nature and a result of people not minding thier own f%$^%$^$g business, which is a female trait.

  28. Bill Bernhard says:

    Hell while your at it why don’t you just take their children away from them too. You in New York wanted these liberal dog politicians so you get what you deserve.
    Mommy and Daddy government knows what is best for you??????????????

  29. joujkhh says:

    ** Alert ***
    Nanny State ahead proceed with caution

  30. Patriot_Act says:

    My plan would be to cut restriction on smoking, let 12 year olds light up BUT, if you need hospitalization from smoking, too bad. Go home and die. If you drive and smoke with your windows open-you get shot on the spot. If you smoke with children in the car, you are shot on the spot. In both latter cases your car stays in the family if needed or sold at auction. If both parents are smoking, both are shot and the kids are put up for adoption.

  31. peteywheatstraw says:

    i left ny in 1982 for these very reasons, too much regulation and high taxes.
    I now live in one of the free states..florida, no state income tax low property taxes, right to carry a weapon, no state inspection on vehicles and so on.
    People and businesses are leaving ny in droves and ultimately there will be no tax base, look at detroit! so all you liberals that vote these feel good, tree hugging, people in desreve what you get and that is a loss of liberty.

  32. simon says:

    Keep voting Democrat! So now they want to be in your cars…How long before they outlaw smoking in private homes – – FOR THE CHIL:DREN!

  33. amanda says:

    I live in a small town and its not lost a bar too smoking to the economy yes!

    1. Ryan says:

      I agree Amanda. All the bars stayed open, people just go outside to smoke.

  34. Lindsay says:

    I am for this! I believe kids shouldn’t be around smoking at all. Smoking should be illegal. Like cannabis, cigarettes are just as bad.

  35. ed r. says:

    This is what happens when you start making public office hereditary. Saul Weprin was pretty decent, but his sons are morons.

    Remember: never ever vote of the child of a politician. G. W. Bush. Andy Cuomo. Evan Bayh. A vast collection of Rockefellers and Kennedys. This nitwit. Useless, all of them.

  36. amanda says:

    Mark what I ment was kids don’t ask to be in a car with people who smoke they don’t asked to be aborted abused neglected or from broken homes! They can’t say this is unhealthy so I don’t want in that situation!

  37. iwasadem says:

    I have never smoked but this is the “soft tyranny” that Levin talks about.

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Watch & Listen LIVE