I don't think they need a new law, that one seems relevant and required given the amount of information available about smoking however, is sad. That said, why can't existing child endangerment laws be applied here? My view is the law seems un-necessary. Broaden child endangerment laws and apply it as needed.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
I see nothing wrong with the law. The child has no way of defending itself especially in the back seat of the car. The parent is endangering the child by smoking in the car.
Run your own nation, play Cybernations."Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
- Mark Twain
I voted other. I don't think it should be illegal for the simple "slippery slope" argument. If we are going tostart making stupid things illegal we are going to need to hire a lot more cops, judges, lawyers, prison guards, etc, etc, etc
yeah it's a bad idea and stupid to be smoking in the car with kids, but so are a lot of other things. my problem is with who gets to choose which stupidity is illegal and which is not.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
I like it. Don't share your cancerous habit with children.
"I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816 "[F]acts are before ideas." -- Mikhail Bakunin, 1882