Your View

Today Wolfville Town Council voted 7 out of 7 to pass this bylaw and I agree with their decision. I see several eyes rolling while reading my message but I believe that, as a society, we are responsible for the welfare of our children. Our town is very progressive in its pursuit of change and global responsibility. I believe many of you are naive to this fact. We were the first non smoking town in 2001 and were the first Fair Trade Town in Canada this past April. To this end it is inappropriate for many of you to comment on a situation, and a town, you have never lived in nor visited. The bars, pubs and restaurants complained to no end when we were the first to ban smoking in public places. They were afraid they'd lose business. So far I do not know of any business that has had to close it doors because of the non smoking bylaw. I acknowledge that change brings resistance. I also acknowledge that many parents feel they will be treated like children when this bylaw comes into effect. The fact is, when you have a habit, no matter what kind, you often fail to make the right decisions for those most important people in your life. Since children are impressionable, then will they really listen to a parent with a cigarette in one hand, saying "do not smoke it's bad for your health". Let's face it people, we lead and learn from example. We all have as we will continue to do. Besides we already face restrictions with what we are allowed to do in our own personal vehicles. Are we allowed to drive around town naked? Are we allowed to drive around town sipping a beer? Aren't children supposed to be properly restrained in a vehicle? Don't forget if driving while talking on a cell phone becomes a ticketed offence. We need Quebec to weigh in on that issue. Let's just say that restrictions as to what you are allowed to do in your own vehicle is nothing new folks. Small changes now equal big changes later. Let's not lose sight of that.

Like I have said before, the general public has been made aware the smoking contributes to cancer since 1912. Last year 70,000 Canadians died from a smoking related illness. Most life-long smokers will die prior to reaching the age of 66. Think about it for a minute. Why do rational people smoke? Because it makes absolutely ZERO sense. Smoking kills people. People who smoke are contributing to disease and illness of everyone around them, not only to themselves. Get rid of cigarettes all together. Ban them completely. They serve no purpose.

It amazes me that so many supposedly intelligent people cannot see this law for what it really is.
Of course people should NEVER smoke around their kids, its only common sense.
But there is something else very wrong with this kind of law!
Can we not see how bad the interference by government in our homes and personal lives is really getting?
Can we not see where it is all going?
At this rate,you will soon need permission from our leaders to even have children in the first place!
Wake up people!!
And like it or not,smokers are people with the same rights as anyone else.
They pay taxes like anyone else, and they are not second class citizens as some would imply!
Maybe it's time they got together and pushed back!
So for starters,smokers (I do not smoke)should not vote for ANY politician that does not support the rights of smokers just as they do for non-smokers!
Because after all,the only thing a politician understands is the ballot box!
Maybe smokers need to organize?

Most parents i know are quick to say the classic line 'I would do anything for my kids'. Jump in front of a bus to save them? Sure. Work their whole life to support them? Sure. Stop smoking in cars? Ummmmm.... WILL YOU DO ANYTHING/EVERYTHING FOR YOUR KIDS?

(its sad that legislation has to even be tabled)

Bravo, Wolfville. To those adults who argue this policy infringes on their 'right to smoke', I ask "what about your kids' right not to smoke?"

I feel sorry for smokers who refuse to recognize their addiction. But don't make the kids pay for your health problems.

This by-law is a further example of the ineffectiveness of anti-tobacco advocacy. For two generations and millions of tax dollars it is clear that anti-tobacco organizations have completely failed and now are off-loading their responsibillity to the police with by-laws of this type.

If these advocates knew what they were doing then these measures would not be needed. To date the media (with advertising bans), convenience stores and bars are doing the work of anti-tobacco advocates. Oddly, those that do the work are the only ones that don't get government funding. Anti-tobacco advocacy is a disgrace and these incompetents should no longer get a penny of tax funding.

If anti-tobacco advocacy is failing because they are constantly being outsmarted by tobacco companies, then there is a simple solution. Fire all of the stupid anti-tobacco advocates and replace them with people that can actually do the work.

I guess a lot of people did not see Wendy Mesley's excellent program "Chasing the Cancer Answer" where it's revealed that 82% (that's right 82%) of lung cancer is caused by air pollution, NOT smoking. Why aren't we banning those massive air polluting industry that are killing us instead? Get real people! We are chasing the wrong culprit.

It is not the role of the government to legistate no smoking in a private vehicle. Please take heed of the work private. Let us educate the population that smoking in an enclised place is harmful to both children and adults.

The council of this town should try to govern the city for which they are elected to represent. Their job is not to dictate what a person does in his PRIVATE vehicle.

Again let's please educate people that smoking in an enclosed space is harmful.

,,,And it should be illegal to smoke with a pet in the vehicle as well.

I work with children as a singing teacher every day. After 8 years I can now identify accurately within a few minutes of meeting a child which ones are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home. I haven't been wrong yet. How do I know? It shows in the dark shadows under their eyes, the huskiness in their voice, the effect that inflamed sinuses have on their singing voice. They are also more likely to cancel lessons due to illness. I'm no medical specialist but it doesn't take a degree to see when a child that should be 100% healthy is being put at risk because their parents are not willing to give up the smokes. I hope the other provinces will follow Nova Scotia's lead and work harder to protect our future.

What can you say. Smoking is a personal habbit with public consequence. The logic is simple. If it only affeted the driver.. then smoke away. However smoking affects everyone around you so you can't do it.. It is called being polite.. and oh by the way it will save lives. Until smoking produces no smoke I think the smokers of the world have no argument. Way to go!

Stop all your belly aching, you shouldn't be smoking in the car while your children are there, it's selfish to do it and you deserve a fine if you do. Our rights, our freedoms, blah, blah, blah. The law is not telling people not to smoke while other people are in the car, just children. It is just as enforceable as a seatbelt law, you can absolutely tell if someone has been smoking in a car, you can see their hand with the cigarette in it and the smell does not go away just because the cigarette has been put out.

I find it completely bizarre that people who wouldn't physically restrain a child and force them to consume arsenic cakes laced with cyanide can defend the practice of locking them up in a car with only a few cubic feet of airspace and filling that space with equally dangerous toxins. And they make that argument based on protection of their rights? Astounding!
But to those people I'll concede this - I agree that we honestly didn't need a new law on this. We already have laws prohibiting child abuse. But this Wolfville bylaw is really just a symbolic acknowledgement of the fact that this behaviour is, in fact a form of child abuse. It is this recognition that is needed so that we can criminally prosecute those few who actually do this to children.
I can also tell you from personal experience that this happens more than people want to believe.
I also agree that there are several examples of laws going too far. Like Ontario forbidding there to be any shelter for smokers, or the example in NB where people can't smoke in their own cars in a parking lot. Sure, these seem a little extreme (I am an ex smoker BTW, and have been effected by these in the past).
But this topic is NOT about infringing on anyone's right to kill themselves with smokes. It's about infringing on the negligent behavious that directly threaten the health of children.

Andrew of Richmond

You wrote: "With health care costs as they are, smokers should be required to pay out-of-pocket for any health issues related to their habit."

Wow! Finally a good idea comes out and a principle we can apply to many others (said with an appropriate edge of sarcasm).

How about denying medical coverage for alcoholics and their diseased livers, persons with HIV or genital herpes from having unsafe sex, drug addicts with fried brains, hockey players with broken ankles and a host of others who suffer diseases or injuries as a result of lifestyle choices and addictions.

Get real.

Wow, Jocko B.! I couldn't have said it better myself!
Anti-smoker laws have absolutely nothing to do with the health of the people.

They are passed to allow small people who feel pushed around by bosses, spouses, economics and society to feel good about stomping on someone else and to allow politicians to "appear" to be doing something rather than "actually" doing something.

Fire up your SUV's, you anti-smoker fascists. Your hypocrisy amuses us.

More nonsense on an issue that makes smokers an easy target.I don't see a lot of smokers advocating for either supplying,or exposing children to tobacco products.But I do see a lot of the anti smoking lobby to "spin" any objection to this law in a way that suggest smokers are advocating against children.

This issue is blown out of proportion by raging paranoia.While no one can deny that smoking,and second hand smoke are not good for anyone,it is surely posasible to overstate the danger.It seems that a lot of people believe that if they should catch a whiff from someones's cigarette,the will be doomed for life.

While I agree that we should all minimize our exposure,I do question whether or not the level of fear expressed by so many people can actually be justified.

My parents,and my grandparents smoked for most of their lives.I guess it's true,that what you don't know won't hurt you,because they all led long,healthy lives.And the current generation of our family is doing quite well,thank you.All this,in spite of living in cars and rooms full of smokers.

Don't get me wrong.I'm not a smoker,and am not advocating smoking as a good thing.I am sure it is a health hazzard.As is the smog in the city and thousands of other things floating around in our environment.I just think it's possible to go to far in either vilifying,or attempting to legislate the behaviour of other people.

Smokers need to act responsibly.I think MOST probably do in this day and age.I'm not so sure I can say the same about the non smoking majority.Surely,even for a majority of the population,there is a limit to the amount of social engineering they seem to claim as their right.

Personally,I oppose a lot of things in this world.But I have long ago recognized that I do not have the right to impose laws on those with different views,or values.

At face value, this is a silly law that should never have made it's way on to the books of any government. Having said that, if we are a civilized/educated/enlightened people without the need of such a law then why do we still see people harming their children by doing things like this??

Until our society is ready to act responsibly then maybe our governments should treat us like children and lead us by the hand in 'complicated' situations like this one.

If our government exerted a fraction of the zeal utilized against the personal rights of smokers toward curbing the air pollution caused by industry and giant personal vehicles the air would not become a brown carcinogenic haze every summer.

You should all look into the very well hidden statistics concerning the number of lung cancer patients that are non-smokers, (deliberately hard to find).

Record numbers of children are becoming asthmatic very early in life these days.

Do all of their parents puff in the car with them?
Passing laws against smokers is like beefing about somebody taking a pee while you are standing in a septic tank.

You people claim to care so much about "the children" yet do nothing as American bombs rain down on countless children the world over, (with the support of our storm troopers from America's vassal state "Canada"), while others are starved out of existence from the enacting of the psychopathic, neo-liberal corporatist agenda of Western elites.

Personal indulgences like giant pollution spewing vehicles do way more damage than "second hand smoke" yet if they were "banned" tomorrow, the cry from status grubbing consumer meatheads would be absurd.

March robots, thank your elite masters for saving you from yourselves.

Canadians are mush heads if they think the big brother state will stop at this little nazi-inspired intrusion in the PRIVATE lives of "consumers", (formerly known as "citizens").

Eat your mad cow burgers and genetically modified "frankenfood". Drink your fluoridated, chemically damaging water because your applause for persecution of private citizens will make you feel all warm and fuzzy, like your "opinion" really matters. Isn't groupthink cozy?

As a non-smoker, I have been supportive of legislation which ensures that smoking in public places is banned.

Having said that, I also have to express my concern with any further state legislation that would further "police" smokers, such as the legislation in NS to prevent people from smoking in their car with children present and the NB Region 3 legislation which prevents people from smoking in their own cars in the Region 3 parking lot.

We have to be very concerned about what group of people, or what behaviour will be next target for the public "witch hunt".

Why do Canadians feel the governments job is to enforce the social morals of a given majority.

Commenters are arguing for the police/gov.t to be responsibly managing the lives of every individual family.

Some seem to wish their own parents would have been dragged off for some social infraction?! It's not the gov.t job to perfect us

As an ex-smoker, I seriously don't care if adults want to smoke.

When it comes to youngsters, though, then the people who want to smoke are subordinate to the health & well-being of the kids.

Unfortunately, there are self-centered, irresponsible, undisciplined, callous and abusive people like "Roy Smith" in the world who make laws like this a necessary reality.

Roy, do you want to keep your "liberty"?

Then learn how to be a responsible grown-up and don't mess with children's health.

I'm a smoker and I have kids. I don't smoke when we are in the car and I don't smoke in the house. Plain and simple.

But having the government "legislate" that I'm not allowed to behave stupidly opens us up to a whole new way of living doesn't it? And since we are legislating against "stupidity"...we'll need to legislate a whole new form of government into existence, because the one we have is as stupid as they come

. And slowly but surely removing our rights as individual human beings. Smokers today....nose pickers tomorrow? Its all designed to make YOU "think" your Government is actually somehow effective. It isn't! And don't forget, we're no longer citizens...we're "property".

Reading all of the posted comments I'm starting to wonder if an epidemic of parents smoking with their young children in their vechiles has broken out and I just missed it!

But of course it hasn't and the reality of the matter is that this by-law or any other enacted across the country is only going to impact upon a small majority of parents who are smokers in the first place.

I'd rather see a municipality, or any other level of government for that matter, focusing its time and energy on issues that really have a positive impact on the people living within the community.

Next on the Block:

1) Ban Gambling for people that have children as the money lost could go to better the life of the child.

2) Ban drinking as the alcohol puts the parent at risk of getting liver disease and dying which would leave nobody to take care of the child.

3) Ban Child playgrounds and swimming pools as a lot of children are hurt in playgrounds every year which is not good for those children.

4) Fine parents who take their children to McDonald's or other fast food joints excessively as we all know that it is proven to cause obesity and bad health.

5) Fine parents for allowing their children too much sugar in their diet which may cause diabetes or hyperactivity.

6) Incarcerate parents who allow their children to watch violent television shows or play video games beyond the age for which they are rated because it may be causing psychological damage to the child.

I could go on.

Get real people! That law is crazy!

My hospital with 9,000 employees has just instituted a new smoking policy - no smoking outside the hospital, on hospital grounds or parking lot of the hospital. Should be interesting seeing patients wandering around with i.v. poles trying to find a legal place to smoke.

The science has shown second hand smoke is just as dangerous as smoking. Children should not be subjected to cigarette smoke.

We shouldn't even model that type of behavior with children. The studies show that parents who smoke produce children who smoke because of modelling.

To parents who smoke..but say they never expose their children to "smoke", you still expose them to tobacco's many residual toxic chemicals.

They inhale in from your clothes when you hug them, its on your lips when you kiss them, its on your hands when you touch them. Think about it.

The comments I have read is good reason why most people think smokers are a selfish and irresponsible bunch.

Some smokers are arguing against not smoking while children are in their car. Yet I bet the majority cannot smoke at their place of employment.

If they can go without a cigarette for hours on end at work, why can't they not smoke in their car while their children are present. Do they respect their employer more than their own children???

I was a child of smoking parents. I remember how much I hated being around their smoke, especially in the car. I had bronchitis as a kid, directly related to my parent's smoking.

I only wish such a law was in place when I was younger. In my opinion, the law does not go far enough ban smoking in all confined spaces when children are present.

I read a study once that measured the smoking levels of minor children with smoking parents in a vehicle. First, they measure the parents smoke levels and then the minor child.

The levels of smoke where the same in the minor children as they were in the smoking parents themselves. You might as well give a cigarette to the children and let them smoke it themselves if you are smoking with children in a car or any other confined space!

Most people would never think of such a thing, why do we still see way too often a parent smoking in a vehicle with children present.

If mandatory car seats were not law we would see morons driving around with their children walking freely around the vehicle unstrapped to any kind of restrain. It is for the this reason we have to legislate common sense! This law is not about smoker's rights at all.

You have the right to smoke, you just do not have the right to subject others to the unpleasant irritations and carcinogens of side stream smoke. This is about the rights of children who don't have a much of say without a such a law.

Proud to be Nova Scotian!

This law is required right across the country because of those parents too stupid or too selfish to not smoke around their children.

They make the decision to smoke, but a young child is relying on you to protect them from such things. How often do we see pregnant women smoking, or even worse smoking while carrying their babies in those "Snuggly" carriers??

An actual law, if actually enforced, could go a long way to resulting in an assumed law - like not spitting in church for example. Both "choices" should be assumed equally innappropriate.

Maybe one Canadian community will finally have a majority of fit athletic kids and teenagers now that they'll have to walk everywhere!

On a serious note though, That the government has to intervene and enact laws to prevent bad parenting is sad simply because so many parents are doing such a bad job on their own!

People who shout "police state" and "Hitler" etc etc. are just some of the bad apples of the populace, it's probably best to just ignore them and let them self-destruct.

Excuse me folks, have you forgotten a very important point? Smoking is legal and is condoned by governments ........ its a cash cow, or had you forgotten?

So the situation goes something like this;
the governments tax the hell out of the tobbaco purchaser, then arrests that same person for smoking in public or in front of children and then we create "smoking designated areas" in public places so these destined to lung cancer patients can smoke in a non-smoking area .... oops!

Have we gone completly mad?

This is yet another example of what happens in Canada when the "Left Leaners" are granted the freedom to influence the "common sense thinkers' in Canada!
AAARRRRGGGGHHHH !

As a kid from the sixties I've navigated that strange terrain from my parents being able to smoke everywhere (for some reason not in buses or theatres... but everywhere else) all the way through to today, when a friend commented that you are less of a pariah doing intravenous drugs on a Vancouver sidewalk than a (gasp!) cigarette smoker.

Having grown up with copious amounts of second hand smoke (but never becaming a smoker myself) I'm often shocked by how much a little smoke can be so offputting. Entering buildings now becomes a running of a smoke filled gauntlet.

Of course it is common sense not to smoke in enclosed spaces with children (unless we feel that good parenting includes poking them with pointy sticks) - however it should also be common sense not to spend all of our time in cars on the phone, with pets on our laps while juggling a latte.

Stupid is getting so prevalent that it is making eugenics look really good once again!

Smoking in a car endangers childrens lives? Sure it does, but so does drinking and driving and we all know how lax we are on that law. Get real people and start looking at the bigger picture.

P.S. When you start paying my insurance/mortgage you can tell me than what i can and cannot do!!!

CONGRATULATIONS WOLFVILLE!!!
I truly hope this starts a trend that spreads across the country. There are lots here who are opposed to this by-law, but it is a pure and simple step towrd protecting our children from the criminally neglegent acts of irresponsible people.
This creates Canada's first official recognition of the fact that the behaviour being addressed is harmful and dangerous to the health and well-being of children and I, for one, wait with great anticipation for the first criminal conviction that could eventually become a reality as a result of this first small step.
For me, that is what this by-law means. A step toward creating the environment where we can criminally chrage people under sec. 218 or 219 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which is where the true legal implications lay.

A utter absurd example of our hideous need to control a vice. What happened to common sense. Extreme measures from a govt. to consolidate votes and preach to the converted.

I'm a smoker and I have a 2 year old child. He has never been exposed to smoke. I have always smoked outside of my home and car.
I respect and value my son enough not to have him breathe that crap in and him smelling like it.
I wish other parents who smoke felt the same. Your children's health and well-being come first. So respect the children and stop being so selfish.

You people think too much. Worry about yourselves. Its the parents responsibility and not government's to look after your kids.

It's too bad in todays day and age that there even needs to be a by-law like this one. I mean it's common sense not to smoke in a car, house or anywhere where others are, children or adults. Unless you just don't care about yourself or others then who would do it anyway?

I think banning smoking in vehicles when children are present is a good idea.
I smoke and I have a 2 year old child. I smoke outside at home and outside of my car. I have no problem with that. Like come on, how hard is it to step outside and have a smoke, it's not. If you're driving along and want a smoke so bad, pull over and get out to have one or wait until you reach your destination.

I hope the law goes one step further in all provinces.

With health care costs as they are, smokers should be required to pay out-of-pocket for any health issues related to their habit.

They obviously have enough money for one or two packs a day, so this shouldn't be a problem for them.

First, I propose that we ban the proposals of any municipal by-laws that propose to ban anything.

Second, I propose that we encourage the purpose of all those who are in a position to "ban" anything - which is to serve the electorate in useful things.

Banning "smoking in cars where children are present" sounds like an idea that was whipped up in the mind of someone who was smoking something other than tobacco.
Pink elephant, anyone?

If I may continue, Those who comment on a "police state" and "Hitler" are just demonstrating to the rest of us their ignorance not only on Nazi Germany, which is another topic, but also their inability to put others, especially their children ahead of themselves.

Why would you want to put your children in harms way? Why wouldn't you want to give your children as good an environment as possible where they could breath easier?

Your children could get asthma, or worse lung Cancer by exposing them to your nasty habit. Show some respect or at least concern for the most important people in your lives your children.

It's a great idea. Plenty of smokers are damn selfish when it comes to lighting up, they don't care who breathes in the smoke.

Some kids need protection. I know a few people with asthma who's parents did what...oh yeah.. smoked in front of them.

The "pro smoking" comments here are truly hilarious. Let's compare some situations.

You stick a child in a small box full of what are well known toxins. You're harming another person. Harm that you could easily avoid causing.

To cover the "in your own home" argument it's obvious to anyone with some critical thinking skills that the amount of smoke in relation to the amount of available are is much smaller than compared to a car. That means less toxic. Plus a child can leave a smokey room if / when they start to get dizzy.

This doesn't apply to the workplace because people can't just leave the office / restaurant if the air turns grey.

You get drunk. You're harming your own liver not someone else's. Not illegal, unless you decide to drive which puts you at great risk of harming someone.

Driving while talking on a cell phone. Surprise! It's already illegal in many areas! So much for that argument.

I'm truly shocked at the number of people who think that being prohibited from tromping all over the well-being of other people somehow limits their liberty.

What about the liberty of other people?!

This is an issue that I srongly believe in. Forcing children to endure second hand smoke is child abuse in my opinion.

I used to complain to my father that it bothered my eyes, couldn't breath, and I stunk from the smell. However, he continued to smoke arguing that he had the window open.

This law is a step in the right direction as it puts health of the child first over those selfish parents who only think about themselves. Hopefully other municipalities will adopt similar measures.

Do parents actually need a law to protect their children from smoke, drugs, or alcohol?...

Doesn't a parent have the moral value and/or obligation to teach their children about the physical and mental effects from smoking...

Any parent that puts priority on their smoking habit instead of their kids seriously needs to have their head and priorities examined by a mental health professional...

This law is useless...Parents, wake up...talk and teach your children...You are their role model ...Tomorrow is their future!

Roy Smith, you sound like a child whose toys have been taken away. I don't understand the comparison to Hitler's Germany...last time I checked, people were not forced to wear the star of David, sent to concentration camps or prevented from owning property.

It's ok to express your misguided frustrations, but to draw such a tenuous comparison is absurd and frankly, takes away from any point you were trying to make.

And yes, I'm proud to be a self-righteous zealot who would prefer that people don't light up. I could care less about their self-destructive behavior, but I do care about them smoking around me and around their innocent kids.

I think it's more than fair, and about time, and the only thing that shocks me is that this had to become a law - children not having a choice as to whether they want to smoke (secondhand) or not. We, as parents should have more discipline.

Re: Barbara who lived in a police state in Argentina - I think the you hit the most important point of all. WHY do people smoke? Is it really a closet form of suicide? Is the nicotine addiction a mask for a deeper issue?

All those questions point to a bigger one - who is responsible to address these issues? Can we really depend on government? Are the standard religions addressing these needs? Is it a parental issue only? Is it up to the individual to discover their own route? Are we free enough in this safety camera obssessed society to discover our unique spiritual voice so that we do not become depressed?

Where will it end? Is the nexy logical step in protecting the children to ban smoking in the home? Will the police need a warrant to enter or will the mere suspicion be enough?

I am a life long non-smoker but until cigarettes are banned all together how do we tell someone who is engaging in an otherwise legal activity (smoking while in the presence of a child) that what they're doing is illegal? And where does this infridgement on a persons rights in the name of childern end?

Do we ban cell phone use as a distraction when a person is driving? Surely that's a potential danger to childern as well as to the rest of us.

Should we put a limit on how loud the radio will turn up in the car? Music at a certain decibel level will damage a child's hearing after prolong exposure.

If the Town of Wolfville truly wants to help protect kids why don't they subsidize all the low income families in their town to ensure that these childern have a warm place to sleep, good quality food and proper hygene. Now that's going to help a lot of kids.

Or they could just ban the sale and possession of cigarettes in their town. Why stop at protecting the kids. Let's save the adults from themselves as well!

Then the only thing left to do is make all parents attend a course on how to raise their now healthy kids properly......

The Nannying of Canada continues, what a bunch of self rightous zealots, you marginalise a segment of society, pick on them as evil, pass laws against their actions and proclaim yourself as virtuos defenders of good.

Didn't a guy named Hitler do just that in the 1930's ? he was a non smoker. Sure glad Churchill wasn't though.

As long as we have healthcare in Canada the goverment has the right to make laws and bylaws that protect the health of future generations.

I think that this by-law is a good idea. Kids don't need the smell of some constantly on their clothes. Smoking is'nt good for children to begin with, it especially is'nt good for them when it is lingering in a car for a long period of time.

People can smoke when they want, but when children are present it's time to butt-out. We need to think about our future. These people (Children) are our future.

I wish it were illegal to smoke in all public places.

The university I go to has specific places for smokers to use so that they won't bother the rest of us, but smokers continually ignore the rules.

Last week I asked a smoker not to smoke in front of the door of the building I was trying to enter. I explained that I am very allergic to the smoke and asked him to move away from the door. He swore at me and said he would do whatever he wanted. Fortunately, the campus police were handy and they gave him a ticket. Maybe he will find a legal place to smoke next time.

I know most smokers try to be polite and follow the rules. Most smokers probably don't leave butts on the ground for others to clean up, or smoke around non-smokers or children. But some smokers do - I can see a pile of butts on the floor of the bus shelter outside (where it is illegal to smoke) that proves the point - so sadly we do need laws to control them.

I wish I could have had a smoke-free childhood, school and work environment. Thankfully, things are better than they were, but we still need laws to give us some controls on smoking when people don't use common sense.

Just like we need laws to control how fast we are allowed to drive, because some drivers don't use common sense in that regard either.

There

I understand the principle that the government should not intrude on our private spaces, however, when what we do affects others - especially children - especially the HEALTH AND SAFETY of children we have a responsibility to respect the rights of others.

I believe that opposition to this bylaw is based on fear - particularly fear of where this might lead in principle.

We already have many laws about what can and can't be done in our cars and homes and this law is no different.

For example

1. seatbelt laws
2. Neglect - I understand that smoking in a confined space with your children doesn't have the same intent as physical abuse. Neglect is a different story.

As far as arguments about the sanctity of what you do in YOUR CAR, people need to understand that rights are only rights insofar as they don't step on the rights of others.

As to whether or not it is enforceable...what law is 100% enforcable? It's also illegal to drive a car with bare feet - does that mean that the police force is mandated to do "Shoe checks" on the streets? Of course not. Once again with the example of child abuse - do child abuse laws mean that police will be watching our homes or using a "special gun" to detect where it is happening?

I feel VERY sorry for any child whose parents feel their rights are being trampled on by not allowing them to smoke in a car with thier kids in it.

You don't care about your kids health, you obviously only care about yourself...plain and simple. Makes me wonder wht else you all don't care about when it comes to your kids. Sad.

Oh and btw- i am a pack a day smoker and have been for 19 years...so don't give me all the crap about being addicted and rights being infringed upon. Try being responsible.

May this decision to value the health of children while in vehicles propogate through other jurisdictions as soon as possible.

Peter:

What the real problem is IF you try to inject any kind of logic or common sense to any "issue",the masses will label you as a bad person because in true mob mentality,they are ALL followers,right or wrong.

No one seems to have the ability to look beyond the current issue beyond the immediate solution.

Ban smoking in YOUR car today,YOUR home tommorrow.

Maybe cars should be the next issue to ban,right?

Until the act of smoking a cigarette becomes illegal it is entirely no one's business what a parent will allow themselves to do in the presence of their children, in good or in bad judgement.

I'd rather see the money spent on enforcing laws against dead-beat parents who fail to provide the necessities for their child's well being but seem to have enough money for shiny spinning hubcaps. Everyones' hearts are in the right places...but their heads aren't.

Although I have to admit I've seen adults in cars smoking when there are kids in the car, I for one can't imagine what would possess them to do it. They'd have to have been on another planet for decades to not know that they're poisoning the kids.

I often muse about the motivation of others doing incomprehensible things, and this is another instance. I suppose the bylaw makes sense but I'd naively hope that they'd never have to use it -- not realistic, but my humble opinion.
Just (don't) do it!
cheers,

Look it... At a certain point you have to stop and tell yourself, even if they ban smoking in cars, don't you think parents that smoke will do so in front of their children at home?

If so, what's the difference? So the child is not subject to the harmful effects of smoking in the car... they'll still be subject to it in the home.... which is even worse because they spend far more time there than in an automobile...

I think it's about time someone did something about that!Smoking in cars in presence of children should be banned.

I wish someone would of created that law when i was young... I remember when my mother used to smoke in the car. I hated it!!! I'd cough and found the smell horrible...she'd open the window thinking it would be ok...the smoke would still be in the car and in winter time we'd freeze!!!!

Now I have pneumonia's at least once every year if not twice...I use pumps regurlarily...It's outrageous that i have lung problems because of second hand smoke!!!!Now I'm stuck with this problem for the rest of my life. I'm glad people are standing up for children and trying to protect their health. If adults wants to ruin their own health, because of plain ignorance and stupidty what can you do...but don't ruin other people's health.

A fustrated adult that use to be a child...

well so many opinions and from all over the country, as a former resident of wolfville, i can assure you that , a bylaw on paper,in such a small town , is truly laughable. the town itself is about 30 to 40 square kilometers, you can drive through town faster than lighting a ciggarette,as has been pointed out, oh and the thought policenow theres a joke. the responce is fear based,and you are all afraid of losing some type of freedom . j

ust get over yourself ,whining to this extent over a by law, haven,t you noticed,all the police killings latly, shot in the back of the head ,while handcuffed,with his hands behind his back, murdered at the airport tazered now that you have something to whine about...............

ONE LAST TIME: I DON'T SMOKE! NEVER DID! I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE RIGHT TO POISON OTHERS!

I am saying that we have more things that harm kids than just this - why target this?

Everyone calling me names - you don't read to good do you? I mention 'judge not' and everyone judges.

Mankind will never get along because certain people like feeling intellectually superior to others - that's what these forums are about: "I think this, I'm better than you".

I've never put you people down. Why do you do it to me? Because you disagree? Congrats - you just showed how well you play with others. Calling me a cigarrette holding adolescent? Reading comprehension is at an all new low.

While I do not agree with parents exposing their children to second hand smoke whether its in a car or in their home; I do not believe that it is something for the government to control/regulate.

Do the RCMP have time to 'police' this? They should have just embarked on an education compaign.

If government wants to protect our children then we should also ban certain ingredients in prepackage foods, such as hydrogenated oils.

We should ban marketing of alcohol at liquor retailers; furthermore ban minors from the premises.

Ban all genetically modified foods not only to protect the youth but all Canadians.

We should not need a law to prevent adults smoking in a car with children, or in a house, or a restaurant, it is just plain common sense that you should never expose a child to cigarette smoke, its a no brainer, and people that persist is smoking have no brains.

“Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?”

Five Man Electrical Band. 1971

Amanda of Vancouver, where did I state that smokers have rights to harm others? Never. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I am a non-smoker and I don't dispute for one minute the effects of second hand smoke.

What I am saying is that this law is about one group of people targeting another in the name of the children. If they really cared they'd ban having the kids in the car altogether as we all know second hand smoke permeates fabric.

Another point was that those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither. We cannot victimize one group of people because of a habit that we don't like and then sell it legally and collect taxes which exceed the healthcare costs.

I'm sure all of you have habits I could find offensive and start heaping derision, right or wrong, on you about. I don't - it's not my business.

There are good parents and horrible parents out there. Don't tell me that a family physician can't figure out if a kid has problems because of second hand smoke. Don't tell me that gradeschools don't harp on the CAS model to the kiddies. The mechanisms are there.

Know what people? There was a famous man who hated smoking to the point he wanted it outlawed. His name was Adolf Hitler. I don't condone smoking, but I don't condemn people because they do it. How many throwing stones live in glass houses?

As I read these comments, I noticed that no one has commented on first comment to this story, I guess I hit the nail on the head and no one can argue.

Non-smokers are so blinded to the fact that cigarettes are an addiction, harder (this has been proven) to quit than Heroin. But you all pick on the smokers, while driving your SUV's, talking on the cell phone, etc.

Why are you people not concerned about the countless factories and the like spewing out crap in the air 24/7? The Car and the factory give off alot more smoke then a cigarette! Prove me wrong.

As far as you "healthy" non smokers go, I am 35 and can still run 3.2 km in 8 minutes and 55 seconds, and I smoke a pack a day, but not around non smokers, so get off your high horses.

Tammy mentions the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which she interprets to mean that she can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.

What about the child, Tammy? Which charter or law is protecting him/her from the dangerous behaviour of its mother?

I fully support the by-law to ban smoking in cars where children are nearby.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man, and people must be made to realize the danger involved for the children who have to suffer the inconsiderate actions of weak willed smokers.

I would hope that parents are not stupid enough to smoke in the car with their kids present, regardless of whether they support this law or not, but seeing that we live in a "free" country, I doubt that is the case.

If this law protects one or two kids every year, I'm all for it...although I just can't see it working, unless it is extended to a total ban...which won't happen in our "free" country.

Adults have been provided the opportunity to protect themselves from second-hand smoke. We can remove ourselves from smoking environment, and speak out on our own behalf. Children have never been able to do this.

I think it is incredibly selfish to continually subject a child to second-hand smoke simply because you lack the self-control to wait until you're out of an enclosed environment.

With the rate of children with asthma rising rapidly, I view smoking around children as abusive behaviour. If you can't kick your habit, at least don't force it on others. Put your own lungs in danger, but at least spare the set of little lungs sitting beside you.

PS: It really doesn't matter if you smoke with the car window down, either.

Excellent point, Joe. We should be looking at ALL toxins in our environment. The toxic soup that most of us breathe all day is not good for our health or reproductive capability, and carcinogenic chemicals have now permeated every corner of the earth, even areas thought to be "pristine".

Taking steps to protect kids from second-hand smoke is importnant, but needs to be just one part of a larger picture.

To: Mary K. of Kelowna

I appreciate your reply to my letter but you have made a number of errors.

1. You assumed that I am a smoker. I am not. I quit several years ago when our first grandchild was expected so that our home would be smoke free.

2. You assumed that I defend exposing children to tobacco smoke. I do not. In fact, I get quite angry when I see anyone smoking near a child, even outdoors.

My point was and is that we are unwisely inviting ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives, our homes and our families whenever legislation like this is passed.

"The end justifies the means" is increasingly being used to convince us that we should blindly accept every law that comes down the legislative ladder just because it is good for us. As I read the responses in this forum, it is obvious to me that most people have been lulled into a false sense of security and have been duped into passive acceptance of that dangerous principle.

Educating parents on subjects such as this is a far more effective tool than allowing power-mad politicians to dictate how we must parent our children.

The loss of rights in a democracy does not occur in one big crash. It happens one small step at a time. The trend in Canada should frighten us all because it is seriously damaging the future of the very children we are trying to protect. Holding back Big Brother is every bit as important for our children as dealing with second hand smoke.

It's ironic that the very people who label Canada as a "police state" in this forum at every opportunity are the same ones who support intrusive parenting laws that the police would be required to enforce.

OK well fine then. If so many people are in favor of these types of bylaws and Wolfville or wherever wishes to remain “cutting edge” (that nuclear free zone comment killed me) then let’s X or get off the pot shall we?

If we are truly so very concerned about the health and welfare of children then let’s begin talking numbers that can actually be helped versus politically easy topics such as smoking.

As an example, I would expect that once the Town has completed some initial research they will realize that the banning of the sale of many items of clothing and even stores altogether will help to ensure that thousands if not millions of children across the world will not be forced to work in sweatshops.

The same holds true for banning certain imported food items and let’s not forget that the many SUVs cruising about the town should really be banned as they are potentially far greater threats to future generations than most things.

I would also have to assume that the upstanding people of Wolfville will not tolerate any children in their community not being able to get regular dentist checkups, missing nutritious lunches or perhaps even not being able to attend the local university due to finances.

The point is, this issue boils down to a superficial effort that will achieve nothing but since it is mostly a moral matter that most believe does not effect them, many are more than willing to jump on the majority bandwagon and fell all fuzzy inside doing so while local politicians gain points.

I would have a lot more respect for the supposed proponents of providing for children’s health if they would decide to truly address the issue instead of hiding behind what has become socially acceptable bashing while ignoring efforts that could achieve far more measurable, lasting good.

I'm hardly advocating smoking but let's call a spade a spade here.

Troy,

I think the issue is not necessarily the legality of the activity itself - but, rather, the damage that the activity causes to others. For example: it is legal to starve yourself, if you choose. Is it legal to starve your children? No.

It is legal to drink alcohol. Is it legal to give your children a drink? No.

It is legal to drive. Is it legal to drive your car into another person? No.

These are just examples to illustrate the difference between a legal activity, and the harm that that activity may cause to others.

Even if the activity itself is legal, you may still be legally obliged to prevent it from harming anyone else - especially children, who cannot exercise many of their own choices in life, and for whom their parents are legally responsible.

I think the government has an excellent legal footing here, and in fact a case could be made that the government has been negligent for not having taken this step to protect children before now. I'm surprised no children have yet sued their parents for exposing them to second-hand smoke.

Wake up people! Its not the 50's anymore. No one can say they are unaware of the serious side affects of smoking.

Any parent who knowingly and continiously exposes their children to second hand smoke, especially in a controllable environment like a vehicle, should get a visit from social services.

Its comparable to seatbelt laws. Seatbelts save lives and not being forced to inhale second hand scmoke from your parent or caregivers cigaretts will save the lives of children.

We should not be debating whether this is a good law or not. The more compelling question is how is it that we as a society have to pass laws to force people to take care of their children's health?

What does this say about our parenting skills? With all the awareness of the danger that tobacco poses to our health, I am bewildered that some parents would still want to subject their kids to it.

I am amazed at people who complain about smoke when the car that they are riding in and walking around all day puts out far more toxins then a cigarette.

If you want to clean up the air go after the big problems so that everyone can enjoy clean air where ever they go; but that would be inconvenient for those who complain.

Personally, I think smoking is a disgusting habit. However, I don't think anyone has a legal foot to stand on in telling people what they can or can't do in/on their own property so long as it's a legal activity in the first place.

Unfortunately, some smokers are going to expose their kids to second hand smoke.

As bad as I and others may think that is, it's their choice. Besides, if smoking was that bad, wouldn't it have been banned by now anyway? (sarcasm at its best.)

As a parent and smoker i agree with a non smoking by-law(or law.....period) to ban smoking around children in cars.

I never smoked when my kids were with me in the car,apart from the fact it was unhealthy for their lungs i didn't like the smell of ciggy smoke in my vehicle.

It really comes down to being a responsible parent.

Yes, banning smoking in cars with children may protect the children ...

But I think banning children in cars altogether would make for much safer, more attentive drivers, and even healthier children! :)

Tobacco slavery is deadly especially when it controls you or your life which in turn impacts on everyone in your social circle including your family.

Our young children are innocent when it comes to smoking and yet so impressionable that smoking can appear as "cool" or a sign of maturity.

Growing up in a family where both parents smoked, at the age of 13, I started and didn't stop until 35 years later when cancer had taken it's toll on my best friend who died at the age of 43 from lung cancer.

If you want to continue being a slave to the tobacco industry and your addiction supercedes everything else in your life including your family, go ahead, have a smoke but remember, you don't have the right to infect your children or harm them in an environment that could lead to asthma or emphyzema or any number of lung diseases that they are too young to comprehend.

Our children are our responsibility and we have an obligation to at least guide them part of the way through life, lets not prematurely shorten their lives-

I hope it sets a precedent. It's a no-brainer!

Some other responders might put their first year Arts education to good use and develop common sense. We are talking about killing kids, not "Orwell" not "Big Brother".

Yes...I smoke I have children but its a law to protect them and their rights to safe clean air.

The government is doing their job by trying to protect children - because clearly some people think that having private rights means having the ability to cause harm to children in the privacy of your home.

There are already laws about child welfare that apply even inside your own home.

The government would step in if you were hitting your children, for example, or starving them - why should it be any different if someone is poisoning them with arsenic, cyanide and all the other chemicals that are in second-hand smoke?

Children don't have a choice of whether to inhale or not - it is up to adults to protect them. If adults refuse, than the law needs to step in - it's like any other form of abuse.

I applaud the Goverment on this law. I was the little boy in the back seat that was always "motion sick" when driving anywhere with my parents while they both maliciously puffed away with total disregard to my health.

Any parent who Morally does not think that smoking in the vicinity of their children, truly does not have the right to possess GODS GIFTS.

If you dont have the will power to refrain especially in the closed confines of a vehicle then you should seriously seek help or rehab for an obvious addiction gone wrong.

Kids dont choose to smoke at that age but you as parents can choose not to submit them to the disgusting habit.

If the Goverment had any guts at all they would pull the Cancer sticks from the shelves altogether and make this whole country a smoke free zone... that is unrealistic but our kids are our future and why poison them instead of just waiting a bit and smoking away from them!!!

I would hope most adults would not smoke around their kids. Family members and other people I know will smoke outside or in the garage to not expose their kids to second hand smoke in the home.

We do go through everyone's house to ensure they are not smoking around their children so what gives us the right to stop them in their cars. Or, is that the next step?

Should we have children removed by child protection services if their parents smoke? If it is abuse as some people are saying then children should be taken away from the parents.

Perhaps we should also check kids lunches at school to ensure they are getting "healthy" food and ticket the parents if it isn't nutritious enough? Where is the end?

Let's face it - smokers don't give a rat's patoot about anyone but themselves.

They think the world is their ashtray and if you happen to breath in their exhaled smoke - too bad, get over it - baby, child or adult, they don't care.

Say what ?? Who are the gov't to say what we choose to expose our children to and not to ? Does or does not Canada have a Freedom of Rights Bill and for that matter a Privacy Bill as well ?

I would not want to take bets on whether or not the Gov't decides next that we can't smoke in our own homes if our children our present .

It's one thing to say we can't smoke in public anymore (unless one is smoking pot of course because then it is legal)but in our "own" vehicles ?

Yes, that's right, we own them just like we own our own homes or pay rent to live our private lives in them. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ALREADY !!

"Butt" out of our private lives.

Well, thoughts ? First thing that comes to mind is enforcement. Of course in Wolfville this will help ensure the RCMP aren't wilinging away their time with nothing to do on any given afternoon at taxpayers expense.

Be interesting to see how this will go down in Vancouver, or Montreal, or Toronto.

As to those who think it is only smokers that have some concern about personal liberties and have concern, well, no it isn't just smokers "whining" .

I have lived in police states ( Argentina under Peron ) and believe me I hold, very dear, the personal liberty we think we have in this country. ( not quite the liberties we think we have actually and we are letting them slip away ).

The truth about that smoking in cars is even if the child isn't in the car if you smoke in it it is still a hazard to occassional non-smoking passengers.

Trust me ... the next step WILL be no smoking in cars period ! Now I heard the mayor of Wolfville say something about this by-law being really more about raising awareness .....

Difficult to believe that there is anyone in this country who is unaware that smoking is bad for the health of both smokers and non-smokers alike.

I think I learned this in grade six ..... at the age of 12 .... FIFTY YEARS ago ! My Mother smoked, her Mother smoked, my Father smoked, his Mother did not. My Mother died at 52, her Mother died at 97, my Dad, who no longer smokes, is 87 and very fit, his Mother died at 101 ( she didn't smoke but she was overweight).

My own observations are that many smokers are actually suffering from depression and a sense of hopelessness in their lives and smoking is a "closet" form of suicide.

I've been reading through the comments that this article has generated, and I cannot understand the mentality of some of you people.

Why can't you wait to get where ever you are going to have that cigarette? Do you really not believe that second hand smoke is dangerous?

You are so consumed with your own rights, that you think they outweigh those of your children.

Poison is poison.

Why should the government stop at banning smoking? I agree with all these people that suggest banning fatty, high sodium fast food.

Since parents who feed this stuff to their kids are oblivious to the fact they are killing their kids slowly. The same with smokers. They seem so dead set on killing themselves they have no regard for the health of others around them or the kids in their house (or car).

My mother smoked all through my childhood. I was plagued with respitory problems and still suffer the consequences of her actions. It was not until I became an adult where I could seek medical attention on my own that I finally received some relief.

We, as humans, are very selfish creatures. If we can't make our own decisions that smoking is bad for us and our kids then somebody has to.

Kudos for Wolfville for standing up for kids' rights. I believe we forfeit our personal rights when our actions serve no purpose other than to harm others.

Well now, where do I start.

I'm tired of taking it on the chin by all levels of government when it comes to my smoking habits. I'm truly glad my children aren't minors becuae I've been banished to the outdoors of restaurants, motel's, bars and I guess soon enough, my own car.

Don't tell me that yapping on the phone while driving isn't extremely dangerous. Just ask the family of the woman down in Holland Marsh who went into the canal with her small child while she was yapping on her phone, both died.

Dennis Leary said it best in one of his stand-up routines, "Pretty soon the police will be pounding on your door because you're have a smoke in your own home, hiding under the covers to not be seen."

Funny, the goverment won't stop selling me smokes, nope they want that tax money, this by-law is just another tax.

I smoked for 26 years and always made a point not to smoke around children, but noticed that pretty much everybody else and especially parents had no issue with it.

Parents do a lot of things they should not do unfortunately and although it is very poor parental judgment to smoke around your children we cannot police everything as it does promote a big brother culture.

And I agree strongly with the comments made by other people about the government being hypocritical by selling cigarettes. It would eliminate a lot of problems if cigarettes were just not sold.

I struggled with quitting for at least 15 years and wished dearly I just could not get my hands on any.

You can't sell something that is deadly, collect the tax money, and then act all holier than thou about it. It's totally counterintuitive to me.

This law has just effectively doomed many people to failure just by its proposal. Just as drinking and driving by-laws don't really weed out the fools, neither will this law make smokers refrain from smoking with children in the car.

Besides, the police should have absolutely zero time to focus on the mouths and index/forefingers of every driver's hand anyway.

If it is thrust upon them to enforce this law, then by-laws regarding cell phones should be in place also.

I have seen many a close call in recent years as far as near accidents go regarding cell phone use while driving.

To be brutally honest I fear for my safety in MY car than a child's lung's safety in their parent's car. And so does everyone else, they dare not lie about that.

If children's safety were paramount then there would be no need for children's charities or organizations. Everyone could donate time and money to the kids without being asked to.

First, even supporters tend to agree the law is largely unenforceable. Then what is the point?

(1) The awareness argument - do much better with a pervasive ad campaign. Public education and social pressure and the like.

(2) The 'save just one child' argument- as one poster said in response to an earlier post of mine, just driving is deadly. If saving a life is so important, ban cars. Save thousands.

Second, how pervasive is this problem really? Put it into perspective. Are there thousands tooling around the town puffing away with little johnny in the car?

Out of those people, how many have poor outcomes directly related to second hand smoke? I know people believe that one whiff from another's smoke and you're dead, but the exposure - outcome data is a bit more nuanced than that.

Even if enforced fully to save those untold thousands in Wolfville, it would have to be done in a lovely draconian manner (road blocks, spot checks, etc), the ticket punishes them for their immediate behavior and does not necessarily change that behavior (look at recidivism for any crime).

At what cost is all this to society? Government intrusion into family needs to be measured and done only when it can be done effectively. You'd be better off banning smokes totally. What I am saying is that if you are going to do it, do it right.

What next 'feel good' measure will be adopted? The fast food concept is on point. Kids don't get to choose (typically) what food they eat much as they don't get to pick what air they breathe.

People said moderation makes fatty food a moot point but the explosive growth of pediatric obesity disputes that point. If its is for the good of the children, why isn't the government telling them what to feed them? Oh wait they are (the food guide). As that didn't work, maybe fines are in order....

This talk of big brother is ridiculous. The health effects of smoking are borne upon society, so government, who represents society, has to do something about it.

Maybe this ban would also lessen the amount of cigarette butts that are being flicked out of car windows on a regular basis....but that's another story.

Like any other "non-smoking law", it will do nothing but annoy people who do smoke.

Last year I stopped smoking after 52 years and if Governments were really interested in my health during those years they would have banned the possession of tobacco.

Of course, that never happened as they didn't like losing all that tax revenue they collected.

All I can say to the do-gooders is...stay out of my face!

Seems we've overlooked the possibility that it could be young smoker(s) doing the puffing. This law clearly needs fine-tuning:

Smoking adult + non-smoking kid: Ticket adult

Non-smoking adult + smoking kid: Ticket kid

Smoking adult + smoking kid: No tickets

All smoking kids in parked car: No tickets

Some non-smoking kids in car: Ticket smokers

Smoker with candy cigarette: Ticket (wasting police resources)

It's a great by-law, there's nothing wrong with protecting children from the vile effects of cigarettes.

In this day and age if you don't know better than to smoke in a car, with kids in there breathing that poision, than you definitely deserve a fine, period.

After reading many of the comments here one thing is clear; smokers are a selfish lot.

I suppose that shouldn't be surprising given that it is an addiction, but I can't believe how many people think it's fine to smoke in an enclosed vehicle with kids present.

It's just common sense that this is a horrible thing to do.

So now we ban smoking in private vehicles.

Obiesity is a problem so lets start banning certain foods then we can send all the children to government health camps, control what people eat, restrict red meat and other "bad " things.

I now know where the old national socialist party from Germany has been hiding.

All good policies from Germant in the late thirties and fourties.

"What's not good for you is bad for you, therefore it is banned."

I cannot believe the amount of overreaction I am seeing here from the "personal liberty" supporters.

Nobody is talking about having the Gestapo and the KGB riding in your back seat taking notes on everything you do.

Nobody is talking about changing the way warrants are issued, or the circumstances under which law enforcement personnel are permitted to gain entry to a private residence.

What we ARE talking about is the small town of Wolfville, Nova Scotia passing a local bylaw prohibiting cigarette smoking in a vehicle where a minor is present.

Other jurisdictions have already passed laws forbidding cellular phone usage in vehicles in motion, yet I do not hear the same cry of invasion of privacy in regards to that issue.

Also forbidden in motor vehicles on the road are such things as alcohol, marijuana, crack cocaine, loaded firearms and sexual activity.

There is already a long list of things that one cannot do in their own home or in their car. Why does this particular subject rankle so many?

I am still free to puff away in my car, even in Wolfville. I just cannot do it when my kids are in the car, too.

I agree that the antismoking laws are getting somewhat extreme, but this particular activity is very much in need of being legislated against.

And I fail to see how a potential $250 dollar fine for breaking a bylaw is going to convert Canada into a "postmodern gulag".

I suppose some people just like to complain about everything.

Great start, but the real issue is what do we allow. Internal combustion engines are far more detrimental to children(people as well) when will they be outlawed. Dont tell me we dont know this!!!

Burning coal, exhaust from jet airlines ect ect ect. end it all or none, cmon people we are all self destructing and taking our kids and thier kids with us. why such an insignificant start.

I'm glad that someone has the guts to put this law forward. Whether it's fully enforceable or not, at least it *can* be enforced, and sometimes it probably will be! And I agree that the fact of the law's existence has brought up the topic for discussion, which increases awareness.

That's all good. But I think its most important contribution of all is to make smoking with kids in the car socially unacceptable.

I grew up in the '60's. My father was a chain smoker. He smoked in the house, and he smoked in the car. My mother, who never smoked a day in her life, developed chronic bronchitis which she's suffered from all her married life.

By the time I was 10, I had my first debilitating bout of bronchitis; it lasted for over a month. We would cough till we peed; would cough sometimes till we retched and threw up.

I'll never forget my mother gasping for breath one time and begging my father, begging him to put out his cigarette, saying, "I can't BREATHE!" And my father responding brutally and with all the privilege he somehow thought he had, "It's MY house, and I'll smoke if I want to!"

Today, my mother has emphysema, while I have spent perhaps 15 out of the past 40 years with an exhausting cough that I can sometimes only control if I lie totally still and don't talk, don't think, and just focus on getting every single breath in without going into spasm, just one breath at a time.

I can't begin to tell you how much productive time and energy I've lost in my life due to this. Nor how many natural or pharmaceutical remedies I've tried that have failed to control it. Sometimes I cry because it's so hard for me to breathe. And I've never smoked a day in my life, either.

I wish to hell there'd been someone there to advocate for me, to step in to care about what happened to me.

Even a law saying that he shouldn't have been smoking with me in the car would have helped, because it would have told me that the rest of society was on my side, even if my father wasn't.

Yeah! I'm so pleased! Hope other municipalities will join as well. Really, we shouldn't NEED to have such a law. People should know better! Smoking in cars with children is a form of child abuse.

Smoking around children is child abuse! Knowingly exposing your child to harm is abusive.

We ALL know smoking is very bad for you and probably will lead to cancer.

Anyone that knowingly exposes their children to the toxic fumes of smoking should have their children taken away from them.

I am a smoker who has tried many times and methods to help me quit the habit. None have been successful yet.

Cute little law they have come up with but I imagine it will be very hard to enforce. A dedicated smoker can be very crafty and sneaky in order to get their nicotine fix. This law will not stop any die hard smokers out there.

My father who quit smoking 40 years ago has a better suggestion than laws to further restrict smokers. How about our government provides stop smoking aides (pills, patch, hypnosis, acupuncture, or just plain old moral support) for free to all of us smokers?

I think our country's money would be better spent in this manor instead of having the authorities trying to enforce laws that smokers will get around.

B. Kelley (Brantford)
My answer to your question “The question is where do we start and where do we stop?”

We start with cigarettes. It should be illegal to smoke around children (all children). Next, talking on cell phones, speeding, etc, etc.

I do agree that we can’t really stop YOU from smoking (or anyone else), but anyone that does WANT to pollute their OWN body can, but don’t pollute others (especially children). AND smokers should pay much higher rates for cigarettes (say $100/pack), to cover the almost guaranteed increases in health care costs that will occur from smoking.

If you don’t care about getting cancer fine! Just don’t think you have the right to give a defenseless child cancer. That is just plan selfish.

The problem here is not the proposal of such a law, but the fact that it is even required. It's required because some parents are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves.

It might not be enforceable, but it sends the right message for those who need to be told.

All of the people who are driving cars (even if you are not smoking in it)- STOP IT! I cant breathe as well. I'm sure the town of Wolfville has also put that in the ban.

And if they think a smoker in a car is killing us but a car belching out pure badness isn't, then they are smoking something besides tobacco.

I guess they will be ensuring nobody from Wolfville gets on an airplane for anything unneccessary such as a vacation. If anyone tries to tell me an airplane travelling at Xmas full of visitors that could live without visiting doesnt create as much crap as a smoker in a lifetime...

However I am a smoker and I would never smoke with kids in the car, or a non-smoker for that matter. I just dont need the gov't deciding my personal affairs. Big brother is on the hunt in a bedroom near you.

I watched the news last night and was thrilled to hear the new bylaw being passed. It is about time! I brought it up to my students today in the classroom, as I teach grade 8, we discussed the issue to great lengths.

All 26 kids hands went up favoring the smoking in car bylaw, Actually when I announced the news, I had a couple of boys get up and do the happy dance!

Both of these boys parents smoke in the car while driving them to and from school. Kids are excited about it.

Unfortunatley, it's not happening in our small community but my 90 students I teach are going to try to make it happen here in Grimsby. Wish us luck!

I did read the other comments, "it won't be enforced" was a common concern, but for some just breaking the law might make a difference whether it's enforced or not.

As for those who do smoke with their kids in the car, shame on you! With the education and facts we now know about second hand smoke, why??

My grandfather was change smoker all his life but he never smoked in the presence of us kids, back then we didn't even know the health risks involved, thank you papa for being a considerate smoker! He later died of cancer from smoking.

We have all seen that little toddler sitting in their 5 point harness in the back seat of the car, while mom or dad puffs away. For that little child's "pee" size lungs it's worth a shot. I would rather be a part of the solution!

I'm a non-smoker, and believe people should refrain from smoking such that children can inhale the fumes.

However, it strikes me this law is more about a popular witch-hunt on smokers. Why just smoking, and why just children, and why just in cars?

Exhaust fumes are dangerous for children, but do we ban cars?

Why not make it illegal for a pregnant woman to smoke? In fact, why isn't her diet entirely dictated by law?

There are lots of irresponsible parents, and smoking around children is just one of those many irresponsibilities.

But if you legislate parenthood to that degree, then most children would have to be put in orphanages, because I'm sure a majority of people (and your mother-in-law is one of them) will disagree with some elements of how you raise your children.

So, smoking around children: Stupid? Absolutely; Illegal? I don't think so. Not unless smoking is banned altogether.

Studies have shown the air in a car is worse than cafes that allow smoking, perhaps Wolfville should just ban children from cars.

Scientific studies show that second hand smoke causes NO significant increase in health risk.

Its one of thoes laws that it's nice to have in the books but will never be enforced.

The police have bigger fish to fry than make sure soccer moms don't light up with Jimmy in the van.

It is quite apparent that this bylaw is more about the publicity and raising revenues then any real effort to protect children. Then again it is better something then nothing!

On the other hand, we do not know whether or not this bylaw violates the equality rights as opposed to children in other cities.???

I hope that this bylaw becomes a law in whole Canada.

This is good begining! There are many other things governments could do to protect children, yet, for some hidden reasons won't!

Secondhand smoke IS dangerous and responsible people should not subject children to it however, this is outrageous neo-fascism that, if left unchecked will create an Orwellian nightmare of hideous proportions.

The benefits of this intrusivity are far outweighed by the terrifying ramifications that it can imply.

This kind of government intrusivity is an example of how far the nanny/busybody state will go to pursue its extremist ends.

We all know that the next thing will be in a couple of years to ban smoking altogether, but that is too much to start with so they bring it in with one of the two favourite sacred cows that draconian legislation is usually ridden on: Children or safety.

It's a brave new world comrade. Today fines for smoking, tomorrow fines for perfume. Tasers for jaywalking and incarceration for using body-spray.

After all (out comes another old saw, used by a previous person on this list, it always comes out in defence of fascism) if one life is saved by mandatary minimum jail sentences for body-spray then it is good
.
Welcome to the postmodern Gulag.

Those of you (Charlene, Peter) who insist that smokers have an unalienable right to smoke cigarettes to the detriment of others, and lament the demise of liberty that is surely to follow any limitation on that "right" should read the treatise "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, considered to be one of the founding fathers of liberal theory.

He argued that the individual had the right to complete autonomy over himself, and society should not be able to regulate the individual in any way -- except that no one has the right to do any harm to anyone else.

The only way to counteract the "tyranny of the majority" was to rely on this so-called Harm Principle to define what the state COULD regulate. In other words, the only right that the state had to regulate personal freedoms was at the point where it caused harm to someone else.

John Stuart Mill was a bit of a radical in his day, for his belief in the ultimate right of individuals to do whatever they wanted (up to an including suicide), but even this promoter of personal freedoms would not stand up to defend the right of a smoker to endanger a child by smoking in a car.

And let's not kid ourselves here, we all know that smoking and second-hand smoke is extremely detrimental to our health, and to those innocent bystanders forced to inhale that filth.

The question therefore isn't "where will we draw the line?" but "is this across the line?" The answer is obviously yes. Get real.

I would really like to ask those who support this legislation to answer the following questions:

1. Have you ever talked on a cell phone, applied makeup, drank a cup of coffee, etc. while driving with your kids in the car? Ever break the speed limit or do a rolling stop at a stop sign? Would you support traffic fines being quadrupled if a child under 18 is in the car at the time an offence occurs?

2. Have you ever checked to find out just what chemicals are contained in those fresh smelling cleaning products you use every day in your home? You'd be shocked at the dangers you are exposing your family to.

3. Do you run your children to the doctor for antibiotics every time they have a sniffle? Overuse of these drugs is helping to breed the next super virus that just may kill them some day.

4. How many of your children's toys were made in China? No comment needed on this one.

5. Do you use perfume, cologne, after shave, or scented deoderants around your children. If so, you are likely laying the foundation for a lifetime of allergies.

If you support the legislation in question then you must also be willing to support similarly intrusive laws that would hold parents to account for exposing their children to all the everyday substances and situations that are dangerous at some level to their health and safety.

The question is where do we start and where do we stop?

It's pretty well established that smoking is hazardous to your health. It seems that the only reason that it is still legal at all is the sheer number of smokers and the Government's addiction to the taxes.

Outlaw smoking in its entirety and treat the addicts. Don't just cut them off; treat them with compassion.

There should be no 'right to smoke' as the hazardous effects cannot be constrained to the user.

We expect the government to regulate and control so many toxic substances. Look at the hue and cry over exposure to Agent Orange in New Brunswick.

Is smoking any different other than it imposes on many more people in society?

The town should be given Full Marks for their suggestion and with some common sense many other communities should adopt the same law-

Peter of Winnipeg

You are way off the mark on rights.

Yes you have rights. So do children. When your rights infringe on theirs, then their's trumps your, to be blunt about it, because it is you taking an action that is detrimental to them.

They are doing nothing but wanting to have their rights protected.

The issue here seems to be who's in control. Back in the '50s or whenever when most of us didn't know the harmful impact of secondary smoke, your argument would have won the day.

As a parent, you have the right to decide almost everything about your child up to the point that what you do poses a direct threat to them.

You are also required to ensure your children use seat belts or properly belted restraint child seats. Is that an infringement on your rights as well?

You are required to have your child educated up to the age of 16. Another attack on your rights, I suppose.

The only reasons these laws come into existance is some parents are too damned lazy, or self-centred and think it's all about him.

The law isn't there to limit your rights but to enhance the rights of the child, who must still obey you.

That is why there are labour laws and why unions insist on collective agreements. Some employers would have virtual slaves if the laws did not protect workers who, like the child, has to obey the employer while on the job or suffer the consequences.

The boss can still say you are fired and send you packing, but the worker, armed with her rights can demand compensation and or other actions.

Again, this is not about the rights of the smoker.

Peter from Winnipeg tells us that he has allergies due to his parents' smoking, & that years later they stopped smoking around their grandkids after they realized how they hurt his health.

Sorry Peter, but your argument & analogy is ridiculous. Although your parents might not have had the scientific evidence decades ago, we all NOW know that 2nd hand smoke KILLS. Time to wake up & be an adult, not a cigarette-clutching adolescent.

Yeah Peter.

You're right. Actually, now that I think about it we should probably just rescind all of our laws designed to protect children.

I mean what's a little pedophilia among friends and family, eh? Let's fling open the doors of our prisons and set the rapists, abusers and killers free.

I mean - enough of this damned aggravating interference of the government into the lives of people who just think sexually abusing children is an innocent fix to satisfy their needs and desires.

So long as they don't do it on my property, right?

While we're at it, let's eliminate the age of consent. Now there's an interference if ever I've seen one. I mean why shouldn't a 40 year old be able to have sex with a 12 year old?

So does this go far enough to reduce the interference of the government into people's private lives for you Peter?

Or are there some other pesky laws we should look into getting rid of as well?

What's that you say? Its not the same thing?.....Oh really?

You advocate for the right of people to knowingly and willfully poison children. Surely that is no more or less cruel than these other miserable things I just talked about.

But if you are able to differentiate between them in your own mind then you are simply justifying an indefensible act of abuse to serve your own ends.

I like the idea of protecting children, but how far are we willing to go as a society?

Should it be illegal for a pregnant woman to smoke, drink or not eat a healthy diet?

Should it be illegal for a Mom or a Dad who suffers from a neurosis to pass this on to their children? What about children having proper supervision at all times?

Proper motivation towards school? A proper diet? Proper bathing habits? Healthy teeth? What about wearing scented products around your children? Not making them wear enough sunblock in the summer?

It can go on forever, where do we draw the line? I Personally have a problem with this.

Peter from Winnipeg:

"What's next on the banning crusade, since we're legislating morality now?"

Please elaborate on where it was stated that smoking is immoral. I'd really love to see the intellectual contortions required to come up with that conclusion, based on a by-law which prohibits the act of stewing children in a smoke filled box.

You want to smoke? Fine! Want to do it in a car with other adults? Fill your boots! Children have extremely sensitive respiratory and immune systems which can be very seriously harmed by your second hand smoke. I'm living proof of it.

The worst part of your comment is that you acknowledge the harmful effects of second hand smoke, but still seem to think it's hunky dory for someone to subject children to that.

This is far from a slippery slope situation. Smoking in a house or other place with large bodies of air is very different from a car. It's an issue of density. I'm very allergic to cigarette smoke, but I can handle being in a room where someone is smoking.

In a car the air will very quickly start turning grey, which is more than I can handle. This law is intended to make people aware of the problem, as many other laws are designed.

Most people will comply without having to be fined, which is great...because it's obvious they won't have the resources to walk around handing out tickets for such a minor offense.

Please stop thinking that harming someone else's health is your god given right. If something I were doing harmed someone, I'd sure as heck stop doing it! Unfortunately some people don't pay attention at all and need a little prodding before they notice the problem.

Excellent idea! Way to go Nova Scotia. The rest of Canada should take note; especially Ontario!!!

Of course this law cannot be enforced reliably, but it's quite obvious that's not the point.

The point is that it's been far more effective than a public education campaign, look how many people are talking about it here!

It's unfortunate that we have to resort to such desperate measures to make people realize what they're doing, but this serves a purpose.

This law is a statement to those who don't realize that their children's welfare must come before their own, and it's NOT a "right" to neglect your kids.

This is not an issue of smoker's rights, but of parental responsibility. Throughout family law in Canada, there is a focus on the best interests of the child, and the parents are the guardians of that best interest.

To suggest that a parent's right to destroy their own health supersedes a child's right not to be exposed to an environment that could affect their development is nonsense.

So no, this law is probably not going to result in many more traffic tickets, but the number of people who simply won't recognize their parental responsibilities (as seen by some of the posters here) mean that this is a message that has to be sent.

Not sure who said it but I don't need clarification regarding smokers being intellectually deficient, I've seen enough smugness on this board to prove the mentality of non-smokers.

You people really miss the point. When I was growing up my parents smoked constantly. Yes I have some allergies due to that. They didn't know. Should I go back and sue them for damaging my lungs? They don't smoke in their own house anymore, in their vehicles etc. for fear of hurting their grandchildren.

See? Voluntary compliance out of respect. No law required. If they wanted to smoke in front of the grandkids -could the cops stop them? Not on your life.

I'm glad you people are so zealous about infringing on others rights. Yes, rights. The right to consume a legal product. Outlaw it and see how many smokers you still have.

The state has no place in anything related to my person, property or thoughts.

Can't you people see that once the ball starts stopping it is really hard? I hardly ever see people smoking in vehicles with their kids - why pass a feel good unenforceable law for those who won't obey anyways?

I challenge all of you to go home tonight & while enjoying something - anything - think about how you'd feel if someone decided tomorrow that you cant' do it. That's the issue, not 'somebody please think of the children'!

I honestly don't care what my neighbours do. I really don't. Break every law ever written on your own dime & time.

But don't do it on my land. Why do others seem to feel what other people do is their business? Don't give me the "healthcare cost" crap - outlaw McD's then.

What ever happened to 'judge not lest thy be judged'?

What's next on the banning crusade, since we're legislating morality now?

I applaud the decision of the brave people of Wolfville and hope that such decisions will be made in Ontario.

If some parents are so selfish and refuse to protect their own children then we have a duty to step in and do the job for them.

Jeez! Next thing you know, it will be illegal to hit a child in the head with a hammer.... that the cops could come into a private house & put a stop to it!!

2nd hand smoke causes cancer. Smoking around a child, in a confined space, increases the chances the kid(s) will get cancer. They have no choice - they are captive & cannot go live on their own.

Smokers' rights don't extend to the point where they endanger others. Some smokers are so blinded by their habit & self interest they can't even see this. These are the kinds of people who leave kids in a hot car.

Totally agree! Canada should starts ASAP as well.

Also no smoking in the entrance of all public building, and underground parking lot.

I am having such hard time trying to avoid them when I take my baby to the mall. They all hang out there.

The anit-smoking fanatics are running out of ways to infringe on people's rights.

Not happy with ensuring smokers have to stand outside in the rain and cold (no roofs or wind-breaking walls allowed), now they're trying to legislate something that is as unenforceable as it is rare. Don't delude yourself into believing this is a children's safety issue.

And for that study that insisted that there is absolutely no difference if all the car windows are fully open, please don't insult my intelligence. Kids get the same exposure, even in a convertible? Tripe.

... I would much rather see education and self awareness be used to refrain people from smoking while driving with kids in the vehicule or any other public place but sadly like I mentioned earlier common sense as left us a long time ago.

if the law "might" reduce the number of people who would do such a thing then how can it be seen as such a negative thing ?

I never smoke around children or any non smoker for that matter, legal or illegal, its the decent and smart thing to do....

IF people are in agreement with this being passed as a law,then are the same people going to pass another that allows people to enter their private homes also?

How far are people willing to go when it comes to the issues of child protection?

I have been an advocate since being a "child in need of protection" but I have also watched the pendulum swing too far to the opposite end of the spectrum.

Firstly, let me emphasize the fact that not all smokers are ignorant irresponsible individuals. I am personally not a smoker, however, my wife is one. And just cannot get rid of the habit despite her best efforts (but that’s another discussion). We have been together for 14 years, we have two beautiful children of 8 and 11. Never once has she smoked around the children, inside our house, inside our car or anywhere else where non-smokers (including kids) could be affected by her bad habit. That is what I call a responsible smoker.

Now on the by-law in question: Like many posters have stated, I believe that this law is probably not enforceable. Not with the resources currently available anyway. Hence, from that perspective, it is not a good law to have.

With this said, it does have the benefit of opening debates on the issue, and thus, if it can lead to a behavioral change even just in a minority of parents who are smokers and who do smoke around their powerless children, then it is arguably worth it.

In an individualist society where some want to be able to be free to do what they wish where they wish with complete disregard for others as long as it is not illegal, far-fetched laws like this are inevitable. Another example: banning driving while speaking on a cell phone. This is completely common sense, but because of people’s stupidity it has to be a very difficult if not impossible to enforce law!

I think this law is a great idea. When I was young my mom was a chain smoker, and smoked most frequently in the car. I ended up with pretty bad asthma, and during one long trip the smoke in the car was heavy enough that it weakened my immune system.

I ended up catching some bizarred combination of infections that the doctors had only seen once before . I was 7 years old at the time, and came extremely close to dying. Once she found out that her smoking was responsible she quit cold turkey and has never picked up another cigarette.

Some people might be really attached to their habit, but we're talking about a child's health here. Freedom is great, but we shouldn't expect our freedoms to allow us to infringe upon the rights and well being of others.

I come from a family of former and current smokers and although a light or social smoker when I was young, I eventually quit outright when I realised I was allergic to cigarettes.

Thankfully my closest relatives have all quit smoking. But when they did smoke, and they knew I was allergic to smoke, they would never smoke around me, even when I was visiting.

Now I have asthma and with being allergic to smoke, it is a big trigger for an asthma attack. I have told friends and family who still smoke, that I cannot be around them when they do (besides, I lose my voice entirely as well - part of the allergic reaction) and all of them have respected that.

None of them smoke around children or pregnant woman.

Now I know there are a lot of other folks who don't do that, and it's those folks a law like this is created for, and I don't exactly disagree with it. I don't see how it's going to be enforced, but at the same time, if it makes people think twice before lighting up with their kids in the car, then it can't be all bad.

...

And everyone else going about about rights and privacy issues, well, you may have the right to smoke and mess up your own health that way, but children do have the right to a smoke free and healthy environment AND so do I. I can express this implicitly and walk away from folks who disrespect the request to refrain from smoking in my presence, however, most children can't.

I don't think smokers are stupid or second class citizens. I would never suggest denying a smoker treatment for ailments resulting from smoking. I've seen what lung cancer can do and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Charlene - If someone is drinking around their children, it is a debatable issue, but in small quantities, it should not be too dangerous.

But alcohol is a liquid. Smoke is a gas.

The way you phrased your argument, you equate drinking around kids to be the same as smoking.

You even ask, "...are people going to have their kids taken away and the parents go to jail because they drink alcohol?"

If the parent is giving the child alcohol the same way that they give them cigarette smoke, damn right they should go to jail.

Nobody is talking about arresting people for being smokers. The issue at hand is smoking around children, which is PROVEN to be dangerous. There is no MAY about it.

True, cigarettes are not GUARANTEED to cause cancer. Kids are also not guaranteed to die if they play on the highway, but we understand the odds of death are much greater if they do.

What a joke ! Just another group looking for political advantage by attacking a minority.

My best points have already been made.You cannot,not will you ever be able to legislate against stupidity.Who do you think is going to enforce this?? Even now police are to busy to attend motor vehicle accidents and home break ins.Or even ticket serious moving violations.Now you think they are going to take this on.Get real.

Charlene is right on the money here.If we keep going from the "nanny" state,to the "nagging" state,each family will need a law enforcement officer in his/her home.

While I agree that smoking indoors,or in a car is reckless disregard for others in the area,it is equally insane to think you can either write,or enforce enough laws to deal with every hazzard on the planet.

As to those who want "prohibition" on tobacco products,I wish you well.In fact,I think I'd really like to see someone do that for real.I haven't had a good laugh yet today.It would be really something to see the drug smugglers racking up the kind of cash that would generate for them.I expect almost as much as marijuana,cocaine,and maybe even heroin combined.

The only think dumber than exposing others to your smoking is the notion you can take control of peoples private lives by writing more laws.

There are children suffering povery and abuses that are,at least as bad,and often far worse.And we stand by.I know of several communities who would love their children to have clean water,decent food,and a chance to go to a decent school.Unfortunately their needs go unanswered while we try engineering society simply to attack a disliked minority.
Lets put some energy into things we can change,for people who want help.We're wasting our time and money on people who haven't figured out the hazzards of smoking by now.They aren't going to comply,and your laws can't force them to.

You can't compare this to drinking around your children unless you're pouring it directly down their throat.

If they pour the alcohol down their kids throats, or take them for a drive when they are intoxicated I certainly hope they will.

This is the point you seem to be missing. It is not the totality of the behaviour that the law aims to regulate, rather it is certain aspects of that behaviour which create a clear and indefensible danger to the health and welfare of the child that we're talking about.

Furthermore, there is such a thing as responsible drinking. For instance, there is a great deal of evidence that indicates drinking in moderation can actually have health benefits. I certainly hope that parents teach their children well. That they teach moderation and responsible behaviours. But I am not naive enough to think that is always happening.

However, that does not, in and of itself, create any kind of justification for willfully and knowingly endangering the health and welfare of a child.

If you want to use alcohol as an example, then consider that by denying clean air and offering only smoke filled poisonous air is the same thing as withholding water or juice and offering the child nothing but whiskey to drink.

Protecting children is never a bad decision.

What are smoker's rights anyways? Not sure where to find them in the Charter, the Constitution or any other legisaltion in Canada. It is kind of like looking for an honest politician in Ottawa these days.

First, I've been living in Wolfville for several decades.

Wolfville can't even enforce their bike helmet law. How are they going to be able to enforce this?

This sort of thing may give people the warm fuzzies but it's ineffective and just silly. We're living in an agricultural area that still has significant DDT residue. That's not an acceptable topic in Wolfville though.

When I first moved here I was puzzled to see a sign at the town limits proclaiming Wolfville to be a nuclear free zone.

What that meant was that they didn't want the town to be a target in a nuclear exchange, so they banned the storage of nuclear weapons.

This in a town with major military bases an hour's drive away in either direction.

So, not only was the likelihood that anyone would want to store nukes here nil, but, in the event of a nuclear exchange, we're smack in the middle of two primary targets anyway.

As you can see, being a small university town, that sort of cultured stupidity common to academia has long taken root here.

Okay K,

let's use your same argument for drinking.

How many people drink around their children?

Alcohol is a drug and an addiction also.

It causes among one thing liver disease and heart disease.

We all know alcohol is bad for you.

There are also laws to "protect" children so in this scenario,are people going to have their kids taken away and the parents go to jail because they drink alcohol?

Just to clarify (for Peter) – smokers are not necessarily “intellectually deficient” – they are simply addicted to a powerful drug.

On the other hand, smokers who light-up with children in their car are without a doubt, intellectually deficient.

Susan of Dieppe: You are quite right that prohibition solves nothing, and in fact adds to the problem through crime and the black market. I prefer taking the other approach: Tax it like there's no tomorrow. I think $50 a pack is appropriate. (Luckily, we already have laws against smuggling. We should lower the personal exemption for tobacco after visiting the States to something near zero, as well.)

Scott Thomas gets the picture here. In fact I think what is extrememly interesting is that pretty much everybody here agrees that smoking in the car with children is, in fact, endangering the health of the child.

OK - so let's get beyond the Wolfville issue for a second. Would we all agree that to willfully and knowingly endanger the health and welfare of a child is wrong? Can we all agree that smokers can, and should, be expected to know by now the dangers to health associated with this activity?

If we can agree o these things, then all that is needed is for it to now come to the attention of the courts. We really do not need new laws here, we already have the Criminal Code - section 218 and/or 219.

Its not much of a stretch to envision a conviction under these provisions.

Hopefully, it won't take too many parents being put in jail for anywhere from 18 months to 10 years before people begin to regulate their smoking behaviour accordingly.

And it has nothing to do with some sense of moral superiority or righteous indignation. It has to do simply with the fact the we know with certainty the dangers associated with smoking and exposing others to second hand smoke.

You may do what YOU wish - so long as it does not affect others, including children.

This law does not prevent you from smoking in your car. It would only prevent you from smoking when children are in your car.

This is no different than if you got on an airplane and someone next to you lit up a joint or started to spray some strong chemical based hair spray. Odds are, you won't like it and it's not good for your health.

Now, I know there are no laws against hairspray around children, but luckily hairspray users have the common sense to not spray their hair while others are around.

As a regular smoker, I resent the fact that I am labelled as "bad" by people who have their own vices that could in fact harm me. How many of you have a few drinks and drive your car? (Though you will likely ever admit it publicly, run the scenario through your head.)

However, I never smoke around children and I agree with this by-law as they do not have the capacity to speak for themselves. While enforcing it will be difficult, I think it is an appropriate step and perhaps it will make those who subject their children to second-hand smoke think about their actions.

Charlene Smith and Cheryl

This law doesn't take any rights away from anyone. All it does is protect the rights of others, in this case children.

As a former smoker, I appreciate the difficulties smokers face these days in even trying to light up.

It's an addiction usually handed down from parent to child and willfully encouraged by an industry still in denial.

Frankly, the rights of a child, now that we know the dangers of second-hand smoke, make laws such as this obvious.

Society has a responsibility to step in to protect the children regardless of what the parents may wish.

Yes, they are your children, but they too are citizens and have individual rights that you have no right to ignore, parent or whatever.

When the children of smokers experience adverse heath effects from second hand smoke, it is not the smoler who pay for the cost of their children's heatlth care, but the community at large (Medicare!). The community therfore has an interest in protecting children from second smoke.

If the parents placed the chemicals found in second hand smoke into their children's food, those parents would be going to jail for abuse! Why does the method of delivery make a difference?

As for smoker's rights, they have the right to smoke, just not where it endangers the health of anyone else, including their children.

Jon

I'm with you Joe... just outlaw tobacco altogether...but wait... where would we get the millions of tax dollars made from the sale of tobacco that pays for the health care for all the smokers, and THEIR CHILDREN who are sick or dieing due to smoking or second hand smoke... by the way on my way to work today I saw a Dad(?) smoking in a small car with a baby and a toddler strapped in the back...talk about road rage...

The stretch of one's liberty ends when it removes the liberty of others. It's ridiculous to think that individual liberty should be absolutely limitless. Using the argument that the government has no right infringing on what we do in our private property is ridiculous. You're not allowed to beat your child in your house, yet it's your private property. What's the difference between that and smoking in an enclosed space with your child? They're both forms of child abuse.

When a kid is in a car with a smoking adult, they don't exactly have a choice to get out and walk, or take the bus, or take their own car. They're just kids.

Though I think this law is totally unenforceable at the municipal level, it should bring attention to the issue and hopefully it will be brought to the national level. It may be difficult to enforce, but, as someone else put it, at least if the laws there, it acts as a deterrent.

I'd like to make a comment to all the really smug "morally superior" types posting here who basically act as if smokers are second class citizens who are intellectually deficient. And I don't smoke.

Enjoy your time at the apex of morality, for when your vice, hobby, past time or culture comes under scrutiny no one will aide you. Today it's smoking should be outlawed, next it's drinking, drugs have been illegal for a while.

Yet somehow these vices keep staying around, despite prohibitionist attempts. Wonder why that is?

If my father is in my car and is smoking, do the police have the right to impair my freedom of mobility, as garaunteed under the Charter, to do a 'spot check' to see if there's a child seat in the back?

Society over-reacting to ills and creating morally based laws have killed our local Legion. The Vets can't smoke or drink anymore. Local bars, coffee shops and restaurants have closed up. Now the RCMP sit out infront of house parties looking for drinkers.

The population of deer were starving last year because there weren't enough hunters getting their annual deer. Too many people didn't want to bother with the registry, now we have to pay conservation officers to deal with it.

My point is just because you are against something doesn't mean everyone else is. Lead your life to the best extent possible and stop trying to run everyone else's. Mind your own business.

People don't need to smoke or be exposed to second hand to smoke to die of lung cancer,including the lung cancer seen in smokers.

Asthma is not caused by smoking.It is caused by an inflamatory process that MAY be aggravated by smoke,the environment,exercise,the cold,the list could go on and on.

My problem is government interference in MY LIFE period!

Anyone remember the Residential School fiasco?Government decided they KNEW BEST for how many Native kids.

Look where that got them.

Ever dealt with the CAS?

Again someone who DOESN'T know you,your kids.your life,yet,they can decide what is best for YOUR CHILD on the whim of a complaint from anyone.

This is not about smoking or protecting kids at all.

It's politics as usual.

If I knowingly put Arsenic, Formaldehyde, Lead and Butane into my child's food, I am pretty sure I would be breaking a law. Locking the kids in a box with the same toxins in gas form is however, still legal.

Once again, no one is advocating smoking in cars with kids or even smoking at all here but sadly that seems to be the superficial way that some have analyzed the topic and evidence that legal intrusions such as this bylaw are generally disregarded in favor of adherence to whichever cause they may support. It may seem a stretch to say that the next legal target could be someone smoking a cigar alone on their back porch, perhaps someone using certain type of household cleaner, ordering a particular type of fast food or maybe even people who purchase the ‘wrong” sort of book, magazine or film and so on but then again, maybe not.

Truthfully, I would much prefer to see tobacco outlawed completely than witness a creeping legal trend to regulate more and more of our personal lives under the guise of “public safety” or what have you. We are already a highly regulated society and further punitive measures should be considered as a last resort not an initial policy tool although that is certainly simpler for the people involved.

If there are certain decisions that government feel should be followed then they are free to advocate, educate and inform all of us and so they should but excepting the most pressing of public health and safety issues, personal freedom should be the most vital factor in question and the law not wielded like a blunted axe by people with ulterior motives. That only cheapens the very reasons laws exists at all.

And for the record, I can’t remember the last time I saw a person smoking in a car with kids.

Cheryl...the issue is not about smoking and singling out the poor smokers but rather about the rights of children to enjoy an healthy environment.

You state you would rather have your child inhale second hand smoke than have them victimized by a predator??!!...how are these 2 things even remotely related...talk about trying to rationalize an activity that is in itself irrationale...adults HAVE control over whether they will smoke or not smoke in the car that also holds children...period...Running into a predator is quite another matter.

It also minimizes the impact such an act would have by trying to lump it into a simple discussion about responsible adults not endangering the health of the children in their care. Ask someone with lung cancer, who has never smoked, if you want some real perspective on this issue.

K.Trudeau,

I know that there are laws in place but they are not enforced as they should be.

My point was more on the moral side of things, smokers are branded as evil intent, immoral people. We are perceived in almost a criminal eye. If it is so detrimental to the collective health of our youth then why not simply ban production completely, which would solve the problem at the source.

Why I was trying to say is that, not every smoker is ignorant of other people's health, a lot of us are very conscious about other people right not to be exposed to second hand smoke. I for one am one of those.

Education and public awareness is the best avenue in my mind, not depicting smokers as second class citizen.

But if the law does reduce the number of adults who would smoke with children in their vehicule then I am all for it. But dont put us all in the same basket.

Instead of giving the local RCMP something more to do, why not ensure enforcement of the provincial legislation which requires helmets to be won by bicycle, skateboard and scooter riders?

On most days, Wolfville looks to a helmet-free zone.

There are many good points being made on both sides of this arguement, but like Frank has stated "where do you draw the line."

There are tons of adults who drive well over the speed limit with their children in their car putting them at risk. I guess we will just have to get the government to legislate that cars have governors on them that do not allow them to travel over 100km/h or 110km/h in a couple of provinces.

Then we can move onto car sterio systems and what is coming out of them. Not only can upgraded car stereo's be played at decibel levels that can damage a child's hearing, just consider some of the garbage that some parents do listen to with their kids in the vechile. Guess it is time to get the government to start regulating what types of stereo components and radio stations/music you can own/listen to with kids in your vechile.

How about the fact that having a couple of drinks (while remaining under the legal limit) and driving with your children in your vechile is not illegal. There is an increased risk factor for children's health and safety as well. Guess it is time to ban having any type of drink before driving a vechile.

Of course this type of list could go on and we are just talking about a person's vechile. Take this same type of by-law and apply its implications to ones home and the list will be longer than the christmas wish list your kids are making this year.

I'm all for protecting an under aged child's safety and well being, but it has to be done with effective measures that make sense and are able to be enforced effectively. This new by-law does not, in my opinion, seem likely to accomplish its goal.

Um... Luc.
Maybe you haven't heard, but there actually are laws prohibiting that dangerous act of drinking and driving.... that's because it endangers people. So, in fact, we have legislated that aspect of that behaviour.

Now, there is a proposal to prohibit exposing children to second hand smoke inside a vehicle, so it would legislate that aspect of that behaviour.... because it endangers people. See the similarities?

Note that neither of these laws prohibits the behaviour entirely, just certain aspects of it.

First and foremost I have to admit I am a smoker myself. I agree that smoking in the presence of anyone who doesnt smoke is disrespectful to them. Smoking in the presence of children is quite stupid.

But making comments like these are idiotic ; "Its just protecting the rest of us from the stupidity and very poor behavior of a minority." The law will not change anything since common sense is non-existant nowadays.

I do not drink a drop of alcohol, does that give me the right to treat every drinker in Canada as ignorant and second class citizen ? No it does not, drinking is their choice not mine. Yet, even though I dont drink, I can still get killed or seriously injured by someone who made the choice to drink. The same logic then could be applied. Why should it be legal for anyone to drink outside of their home even in allowable establishments when we know that " half" of them will go and drive home afterwards....

Stop preying on the smoking minority to make yourselves feel moraly superior. But alas it is easier to critizes the minority in order to promote yourself to the majority.

Common sense is needed here, no laws.

When I was a child I endured many a long car trip with my father chain smoking. I would always be fine until he started smoking, and then I would get dizzy and nauseated.

I never said anything though...I thought it was normal. But now I realize that the smoke was making me ill, and the amount that I was subjected to could still have health effects on me.

As for the fast food argument, it is not the same. Fast food is not unhealthy in small amounts. Lots of fat and salt and calories, but if part of a properly balanced diet, it is fine now and then. Any amount of cigarette smoke is harmful, even if you are driving to a park and then will get lots of fresh air.

I agree with Sea from Dorval. Why has this not been a federal law from day one?

People must realize the characteristics of group being addressed - smokers. The simple fact they have chosen to be smokers is a example of their lack of intelligence and judgement.

If smokers were allowed to decide for themselves, they would still be smoking inside workplaces, restaurants and puffing away inside classrooms, infecting all those around them.

Since smokers cannot be relied upon to make rational decisions of their own accord, legislation is required.

The toxic nature of second hand smoke has now been accepted as fact by the medical and probably soon by the legal community. Look for smoking in the car and the house as factors in determining custody of children in divorce cases.

If an adult is subjecting a child to second hand smoke are they complicit in abusing the physical welfare of the child and be charged with child abuse? Look for people who insist on smoking in a vehicle with a minor to be charged with some form of child abuse.

Does exposing a child to second hand smoke not harm a child? Is it not the first priority and responsibility of the parent to keep their child from harm?

Let me say it again, but rephrased.

My kids shouldn't have to suffer from second-hand smoke. It's not their fault that I'm dumb enough to be a smoker.

All risky activities we choose to take part in automatically come with the responsibility of ensuring that our risk-taking does not affect the innocent.

If some people continue to refuse to accept that responsibility, then the government will have no choice but to act.

Maybe it is time to make parenting classes mandatory. It sure seems like a lot of my fellow Gen-X'ers are pathetic parents.

I hate government intrusions in our lives, but a good parent has nothing to hide and no reason to fear.

Why are so many people so stupid?

How can anyone draw a line that permits children to die early deaths from cancer?

Things were done differently in the old days because smoking was seen as a universal reality, and the dangers were not fully understood at that time.

If the parents of the 1950's were as aware of the true dangers of smoking as we are today, tobacco would have been outlawed before I was born in 1969.

But then again, people cared more back then, and only made mistakes because they did not know any better.

Today, we DO know better, and yet there are still selfish idiots who put their own desire to be "free" ahead of the lives of our future generations.

Something is horribly wrong with a large portion of Canadian society, when children are no longer valued above all else.

Charlene Smith: I am a child of a smoker. I now have severe asthma as a result of my mother exercising her right to smoke around me. I did nothing to deserve it, did I?

Your pathetic rant is out of touch with reality. Smoking should be banned in all places except the smoker's private property, and without children being exposed under any circumstances.

I guess the government is worried about outlawing smoking due to what happened in the States with Prohibition. Not a wonderful outcome.

If one can not smoke in their own cars next it will be that no one will be able to smoke in their own homes. Personally I feel that one should not smoke in their car while children are in it but I also believe that it is up to the adult to decide.

Is it not more important to adjust our laws for a safer place for everybody.

We currently have laws allowing people to leave our country when they have been arrested for murder and even if they are convicted we feel it necessary that they shouldn't serve their whole sentence. We also allow sex offenders (who by their own admission are unable to be reformed) out on our streets, does this help our children? I think that I would much rather have my child inhale second hand smoke than be victimized by a predator.

It is time to look at our legal system for the protection of all instead of trying to make the smokers of our county the outlaws.

The fact that many parents continue to smoke with children in the car indicates that a law is sorely needed.

Apparently, years of public awareness efforts have failed to convince some people that second-hand smoke, particularly in an enclosed area, poses a serious health risk.

If you believe that your right to smoke trumps your child’s right to healthy lungs, there is sadly, no law harsh enough to punish your sheer selfishness and stupidity.

Overheard at the bar on Saturday night: "I think that bar owners should have the right to decide whether their establishment is smoking or not!"

Said I, "Then they should then also have the right to substitute the shrimp on your pizza for baby mice."

Its time we look at non smokers rights first and last. This isn't "the nanny state" as so many state. Its just protecting the rest of us from the stupidity and very poor behavior of a minority. They can quit or step outside into (with any luck) a stiff cool breeze.

I applaud this community in NS for doing something that the country as a whole should be doing. It probably is pretty much unenforcable, but if this law even makes these idiots who smoke in cars with their children present, stop & think about it then I think it is a good law.

In response to some of the other comments made about government taking away our rights for our own thoughts and responsibilities, well, I for one think our children are more important than that, and I am in full support of any law that can help prevent idiots from further damaging these individuals who need our help - our children.

We wouldn't quietly sit by and watch adults pour poison down the throats of children so why should we sit by and allow them to expose the children to those same poisons by way of smoking.

Frank in Halifax.
From the CBC archives: "Over the past 50 years nearly 200,000 Canadians have died in traffic accidents — more than were killed in both world wars combined".

There's another stat. to toss around. Maybe we should forget about smoking all together and focus on eliminating motor vehicles in Canada.... nahhh, that doesn't make much sense.

Well, so much for the value of a statistical approach to this topic.

You say the law is un-enforceable, and you're probably right about that for the most part.

But like I said before, I see this as bringing attention to the issue more than anything. If it is because this trndy little town wants to be on the leading edge, or whatever, I'm fine with that.

I said before and stand by the statement that smoking in the car with kids can already be thought of as illegal because it is something that we can say with absolute certainty is endangering the child as the result of a willful act arising from an individual choice.

It is not an accident, it is not beyond the smoker's control, it is not simply one person endangering themselves with their own actions. It is willful negligence.

Maybe this Wolfville motion will result in national criminal enforcement. At the very least it might prevent a few thousand people from engaging in this behaviour.

To those who worry about the loss of freedoms and question the enforceability of a law banning smoking in a vehicle with children present, let me point out a few things.

There are presently millions of minors in this country who smoke cigarettes and consume alcohol.

The police often help to enforce the drinking age, but not the smoking age. And I seldom see them actually charge anyone for selling alcohol or cigarettes to minors.

Does the fact that the law is not being adequately enforced mean that it should be stricken down?

Of course not. Even with low enforcement, forbidding minors to smoke DOES make a difference, and it continues to do so each day.

It teaches us that underage smoking is no longer acceptable, and that helps to greatly reduce the number of underage smokers.

Can you imagine if the same logic was applied to drunk driving or sexual assault?

Since most drunk drivers are not stopped, and most sexual assaults go unreported, why do we bother having those laws?

Because at least if we DO catch the scumbags in the act, we CAN do something about it, and that in itself is a great deterrent.

Same thing applies to smoking in a car full of kids.

Use your heads, people.

Only an idiot would smoke in a car carrying kids!

But aside from that obvious fact,is the fact that big brother is inside our vehicles now. That should be ringing some alarm bells!

It is also a useless, un-enforceable law.

So where do they invade us next?

In the shower?,the bedroom?...oops,sorry,they have already done the bedroom.

If this kind of control doesn't make you just a bit nervous, it sure should!

We respect the health of our kids, but this is crossing a line!

Wow. Here we go again, legislating morality and eroding individual rights and freedoms.

Look, as someone who grew up with parents who smoked constantly I agree that people shouldn't light up infront of their kids.

But where do we draw the line. Want to come into my house yet? Why not monitor everything about my life and start issuing daily 'lifestyle offences'? What's next?

The issue isn't about smoking, it's about a bunch of whiny people making some noise to create a law which is practically unenforceable.

Case in point - it's illegal to drive while distracted yet every day I see people talking on phones, playing games, applying makeup and watching movies. If the cops can't stop them, they can't stop the smokers.

Welcome to the reason nothing gets done in this country. Our politicians jump like rabbits at every poll and at the beck of every idiotic special interest group. Govern? Nah, let's see if we can ramp up our popularity.

By the way, before my grandfather, a WWII vet died he raged against some of things he thought we went to fight against (comments in parentheses).

His list included smoking bans (I can risk my life but can't have a smoke with my war buddies); blood alcohol level of 0.05 being intoxicated (I'm not drunk after a beer) and the firearms registry (Hitler had one).

Time to start looking for another country to call home I guess.

Sneezing is still OK, thank goodness.

Charlene:

Are you advocating that you should have the choice to smoke with children present in a closed atmosphere that is no more than several cubic feet?

This bylaw is not saying you cannot smoke alone in your own car or with another adult present.

Do you think we as adults should have the freedom of choice to use car seats for children?

We have many rights and freedoms in this country. But why should your rights intrude on the rights of others? Does a child have a right to a smoke free atmosphere?

I'm not sure what "truth" you are referring to, but I'm quite certain cigarette smoke is harmful to children. Perhaps I have been duped by the government on this one.

As for the move towards communism, this bylaw is being voted on by a town council that was elected in a democratic election.

Also, there was a public meeting on the issue where it received strong public support. How much more democracy do you want?

I have to agee with Charlene Smith's comments
on this issue, especially the one about CAS.

Beaconsfield Ray:

I would love to applaud your idea of making stupidity illegal, it would save so much trouble.

But since we are all guilty of the occasional bout of stupidity, this raises one tiny little problem.

With the whole country in jail, who will guard us or pay the bills?

Toll from obesity
"By 2000, 9% of deaths among adults aged 20-64 could be attributed to overweight and obesity" CIHR (that's just under 4,000/year)

Toll from second hand smoke
"Breathing in second-hand smoke causes at least 800 deaths in Canadian non-smokers from lung cancer and heart disease every year." Health Canada

Believe it or not, I am for banning smoking totally. But like I said, the government wants that money, so that will never happen.

Am I saying people should puff their smoke in their kids faces? No.

What I am saying (1) is where do we stop? and (2) it is unlikely at best that this car ban will be enforced to a point so it makes a difference.

A law that has no reasonable teeth does nothing. It will not magically make people butt out with kids in the car. They might learn to butt out when they see the RCMP eventually.

That leaves a pool of smoke at home the kids get to wallow in, so the benefits to their health, when considering the additional exposure at home, is dubious at best.

This is an intrusion with a slim chance at a positive outcome. If you are going to intrude, do it right and have a real, quantifiable positive impact.

Keep up the good work, Wolfville! Why has this not been a federal law from day one?

Considering that I was born in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley, and that I started smoking there at the age of 14, I feel I should comment here.

I still smoke about 5 to 15 cigarettes per day, but every single one of those has been outside, in my vehicle with ADULTS ONLY, or in the home of a family without children, with no children present.

Even if I find myself in a home where parents smoke around their kids, I prefer to smoke outside.

As I often comment around my kids, "Why should my kids pay the price because I am dumb enough to smoke?"

I often smoke in my vehicle, but not when the kids are present. I will not even smoke if I know I will be picking up the kids within the next 20 minutes.

They are teenagers now, and some of their friends smoke, but I try my hardest to make sure none of MY smoke reaches their lungs.

I do my part to explain that smoking is NOT good, and that my life would have been so much better if I had never had that first one that fateful day in Greenwood in October 1983, which triggered my current addiction.

My kids understand this, and they often lecture me about quitting. I tolerate this because I know they are right, although I prefer to be pigheaded about it.

I know there are parents who are thoughtless about their child's health, and it is due to those neglectful and selfish idiots that laws like this are needed.

The child's right to be healthy is more important than the right to smoke. Plain and simple.

And that should include unborn children, as well. Smoking in a closed environment around a pregnant woman should be a crime, since a fetus suffers the most from second-hand smoke.

This law should be embraced by every jurisdiction on Earth.

Just to add; I know Wolfville and this issue has nothing to do with the Town truly caring about public health.

It has however, everything to do with a pretty, trendy little town dearly wanting to carry the mantle of being progressive at the expense of basic freedoms.

Again, the issue at hand is not smoking pe se and although it would be wonderful if parents were sensible enough to not smoke around children, legislation of this sort sets a dangerous precedent and is not the way to achieve that goal.

Why does something like this takes so long to implement? It speaks volumes of where are the priorities of our elected representatives!

My only hope is that governments are genuine and will not stop at smoking. There are many other harmful things children need to be protected from the for profit driven world!

I would like to know, why governments tend not to exercise their authority as needed until it becomes obvious to everyone else?

When will Canadian lawmakers and citiznes demand a law against stupidity? Because that's what smoking in a car with kids is, in my opinion.

A law against stupidity would be much better since it would be much more far-reaching. We could then elimiate this creeping nanny-statism and put the responsibility back where it belongs - with the individual.

It would also get rid of people pushing and supporting such laws which waste the paper they are printed on and the peace officers that will be required to enforce it (as opposed to doing more important duties).

This is a bylaw that is very hard to enforce. However, Wolfville makes a point.

As a child I grew up in second smoke and was sick all the time. I constantly had a cold. My sisters had pneumonia several times and still have weak lungs.

I wish someone had protected my health because my parents sure didn't. Not their own either I guess. My mother died at 45 and my father 62.

I am guessing you may see less absentism in your schools.

This measure is both unenforceable and largely symbolic and while perhaps well intentioned it crosses a line that municipal governments have no business even considering.

Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and few have any real problem with the stricter regulation of public spaces in that regard.

However, private spaces such as homes, cars, cottages, etc. are called private for a reason and should not be considered the realm of any level of government beyond for the most basic and serious crimes.

The criminal code primarily addresses how we are permitted to behave within places that are our own and beyond that, these attempts by busybody, small town councilors to use mock legislation to chip away at privacy and basic freedoms are reprehensible.

This issue actually has basically nothing to do with smoking at all. It has to do with local politicians getting a kick out of extending their supposed powers to enact a bylaw that is nearly impossible to argue against lest you be branded an “evil tobacco monster”.

We need elected officials to spend their time managing municipal tax money to provide proper services, encourage a healthy economy and so on.

We do not need municipal councilors trying to play “parent” to the population because they enjoy getting good press from supporting no-brainer policy issues.

If Wolfville councilors wish to address second hand smoking issues then bravo indeed but intrusive, nearly unenforceable and really quite shallow attempts to use municipal by-laws to regulate private behavior is beyond the scope of your job descriptions.

Chances are, this bylaw will rarely ever be enforced. Personally, I wish we as citizens had the power to enforce it.

I find it sad that people think their rights trump the rights and well-being of children. Not to mention the fact that it is their OWN children that they are harming.

Smoke, drink, eat cheeseburgers; I don't care. (Well, you cost us more in health care dollars, so I guess I do) Just don't harm children in the process.

Long over due measures to protect the health of our young. I now look forward to the Ontario Government to follow suit with the passage of similar legislation.........!

Do we no longer have any rights or freedoms in this country?

Do we really need someone ALWAYS telling us what is GOOD or BAD for us?

Are we going to create a SPECIAL POLICE to go into our homes next?

When does it stop?

Or are we just going to live totally mindless lives, where we have absolutely NO CHOICE about anything?

Frank in Halifax:

Do you honestly believe that "Fatty foods have more of a negative health outcome than second hand smoke does."????

Fatty foods can be eaten without much consequence as long as they are part of an otherwise healthy lifestyle and not relied upon as consistent meals.

But second-hand smoke damages the body *everytime* and is in no way acceptable even for an otherwise healthy lifestyle.

The fact that you could even suggest that second-hand smoke is acceptable, especially when we're talking about children, is absolutely appalling!

I would agree that smoking should certainly be banned outright, unfortunately that's not feasible right now.

I would much rather accept ‘silly laws’ that save lives and help protect children from stupid parents than ignore the problem completely.

While there is an argument that the state is becoming more of a nanny than is good for us, some people are and will always be idiots.

In those cases there is legitimacy in creating laws that protect the many from the stupidity of the few and I do believe that this is one of these occasions.

If we are not heading for a Communist country rather than a Democratic country, I am God his self then.

How long before we are arrested for not the proper foods in our homes?

What about wearing perfume or after shave?

Maybe it will be cruelty to own a pet or not own one.

Already the CAS has the powers to ABUSE THEIR POWERS on a suspicion that they know YOUR kid better than YOU DO!

How far are people willing to go before they DECIDE ENOUGH IS ENOUGH??

How many more RIGHTS and FREEDOMS are we willing to lose BEFORE we open our eyes to the TRUTH?

Slowly but surely the government is taking away ALL of our rights.

Thought we lived in a DEMOCRATIC country rather than a COMMUNIST one.

Good move. Kids should not be exposed to the second hand smoke.

To answer Frank of Halifax who wrote

Fatty foods have more of a negative health outcome than second hand smoke does. Much more widespread too.

As someone who has lost a loved one to second hand smoke like I have and you will get a different answer

"Half-baked measures are empty at best....I just dislike goofy laws."

The majority of your comments I won't bother adressing but I will pose one question to you.

If it saves the life of even one child how can any rational person call it a "half-baked measure" or a "goofy" law?

Frank makes some good points about the issue of where does regulation stop and parental rights and responsibilities begin.

I do agree with that.

But sadly, there are too many parents who are not responsible enough, educated enough and/or caring enough to not smoke with their kids in the car.

To subject children to what is known to be absolute poison is a purely disgusting and wretched act.

Bravo to the town of Wolfville on this - I hope they vote in favour. But even if they don't, at least it draws attention to the issue.

Personally, I'd like to see people who smoke in the car when children are present to be charged under either section 218 - endangering the health of a child, or 219 - criminal negligence, of the Criminal Code of Canada and be subject to a term of imprisonment of between 18 months and 10 years.

Comparing this to a Big Mac and fries is not even close to the point. Smoking in the car turns it into a gas chamber filled with toxins. That is criminally negligent if you're doing it to children.

Well, as far as STUPID ideas go, this is right up there. Yes, second hand smoke is bad, yes, you should not smoke in your car if there is anyone else in there, children or otherwise, but it is YOUR CAR!

As far as I am concerned, the second the government starts to pay for my car payments, insurance and gas, they can start telling me what I can and cannot do in or with my private property!

I hope the first person that gets nailed with this moronic by law takes the town to court over it, we will see how fast it is thrown out.

If we are all concerned with air quality, why don't we try shutting down the caol burning plant in Dartmouth, that thing is spewing out crap into the ir 24/7, and I am pretty sure its alot worse for you to breath that than second hand smoke from one cigarette...There I go, making sense again.

How long till they arrest you (sorry ticket you - arrests don't make money) for doing the drive through at McDonald's with the kids?

Fatty foods have more of a negative health outcome than second hand smoke does. Much more widespread too.

If you support the reasoning behind the smoking ban, then why not home inspectors to study your lifestyle with your kids? Fines for not following the rules.

If the state knows better than the parent on this issue, why not on a host of others?

If not enforced, it will be an empty 'feel-good' gesture with no actual aim at helping kids that suckers will applaud. Look at the reality of enforcing this 'law'.

Did they invent a smoking with kids gun to go with the radar gun in the patrol car? Nope. It will be the person that forgets to butt out when pulled over for another reason.

Will the smell of smoke be sufficient for the ticket? Special breathalyser?

Also, what better way to hide a tax grab than behind 'good intentions'. If you question it, you are a dummy cause its for a good cause/idea and smart people should 'know better'.

My opinion is you think it is truly bad, then have the guts to try to ban it outright.

But wait, the government does not want to ban smokes. It wants you addicted. It makes them major cash. On the front end (taxes on the product) and now the back end (tickets and fines).

Half-baked measures are empty at best. For the record, never smoked in my life. I just dislike goofy laws.