SACRAMENTO - Californians who smoke in motor vehicles carrying young children could be slapped with $100 fines under a bill approved Monday by the state Senate.

The smoking ban, in a bill by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood...

Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, said the Koretz bill was an attempt to "protect the health of children who cannot protect themselves."

"We all know that secondhand smoke is hazardous," she said, particularly for young children whose lungs are still developing. "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."

link

And no one called her on this absolutely idiotic statement?

Mother: 1
Baby: 30

A mother lights a cigarette and drives Baby around for an hour. The mother smoked one cigarette. Baby, on the other hand, somehow smoked thirty. One cigarette every two minutes for Baby. That's quite a feat.

I've seen many estimates on how much smoke a smoker inhales compared to the total output of smoke a cigarette produces. The closest estimate I've seen to help support Ortiz says a smoker inhales only 15 percent of the smoke from a cigarette. The rest is up for grabs by everyone in the room (including the smoker).

Rounding off, a single cigarette thus contains 7 cigarettes worth of smoke. Mommy gets one and Baby gets six. But that doesn't seem fair. Mommy should at least get half of the extra 6 cigarettes worth of smoke in the air. She breathes in air between puffs after all. So the score should now be:

Mother: 4
Baby: 3

That's nowhere close to thirty for Baby. And I know Mommy breathes in more air than Baby. To make it simple, I'm going to say Mommy breathes in only twice the amount of air as a baby. Therefore, the revised score would be:

Mother: 5
Baby: 2

But Ortiz says Baby smokes 30 cigarettes an hour. That means that mothers in California smoke 75 cigarettes per hour when driving. I say "when driving" because I don't think a human could tolerate smoking that much all day long. That's over one a minute. If the mothers sleep 8 hours a day that would still leave them enough time to choke down 60 packs a day. Impossible any way you look at it I'd bet. It now stands at:

Mother: 75
Baby: 30

But we haven't ventured into the ventilation arena. That is, how many air changes does a car experience in a hour's time.

"Even with the windows and vents closed, air circulation rates in vehicles are typically high, especially at high speeds. For instance, in the 1997 California study, the air exchange rate in a 1997 Ford Explorer standing still with the vents on the "recirculate" setting and the fan on "low" was 1.8 air changes per hour, more than in the average home. When driven at 55 mph with the vents and fan on the same settings, the rate inside the car increased to 13.5 air changes per hour. The 1991 Chevrolet Caprice, driven at 55 mph and with similar vent and fan settings, had nearly triple the Explorer's airflow, with 39 air changes per hour."

link

If we take the lowest air exchange rate mentioned above, the mothers in California are not smoking 75 cigarettes an hour, but 135. Their daily smoking has now risen to 108 packs a day. And as anybody can conclude by looking at those figures, it can only go higher. The Chevy Caprice at 55 would require Mom to smoke almost 50 cigarettes per minute.

We're approaching one cigarette per second that mothers must smoke and nobody called Ortiz on this absolutely idiotic statement?

Lies: 1
Truth: 0

I want to know why no one has publicly called Ortiz on this obvious lie.........

This oman does not belong holding a public office when she must resort to lies to get legislation passed.........if average folks like us can spot the lies of hers in this matter, what other pieces of legislation is she promoting based upon lies?

If this is the caliber of people elected to office in California, I feel for the people that voted against her and can only say those who voted for her and her kind are welcome to live with what they created - just keep it in California and leave the rest of us alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Gabz:
I want to know why no one has publicly called Ortiz on this obvious lie.........

They're all brain dead?

quote:

This oman does not belong holding a public office when she must resort to lies to get legislation passed.........

She probably thinks it's the truth. I'm sure she works hand in hand with antis and they feed her this stuff. If she's dumb enough to believe it she's not smart enough to come up with this on her own.

Then again, you may be right and she's just lying.

quote:

if average folks like us can spot the lies of hers in this matter, what other pieces of legislation is she promoting based upon lies?

And I doubt she's alone. If they believe this crap or are just going along with it so she can scratch their backs at a later time, either way it's awful.

Geez, Squeezer, I just hate people who are so good at math, LOL.

Why don't you put that in a letter and send it to the Sacramento newspaper? If nobody in California is smart enough to figure it out, they need a tutor.

quote:

The closest estimate I've seen to help support Ortiz says a smoker inhales only 15 percent of the smoke from a cigarette. The rest is up for grabs by everyone in the room (including the smoker).

Rounding off, a single cigarette thus contains 7 cigarettes worth of smoke.

You are very accurate. Even if a smoker only inhales 15% of the smoke from a cigarette, the other 85%, both what streams from the burning cigarette and what the smoker exhales, would be diluted to next to nothing. If, for example, it was diluted to 1/100, or 1% of what Mommy inhales, the score would be Mommy:1, Baby:0085...In other words, Mommy would have to smoke 117.64 cigarettes before Baby "smoked" ONE. For this idiot Ortiz to be correct, Mommy would have to smoke 30 times that amount in an hour, or 3529 cigarettes. That's 59 cigarettes per minute, or nearly 1 per second, continuously. We came up with the same answer, but I just took the air exchange rate into calculating a dilution of 1/100. With closed windows,no less.
Damn, and to think of all those trips I took as a baby in the late 50's and early 60's in a Volkswagen Beetle. My mom smoked 3 packs of Marlboro Reds a day, and my dad had a pipe in his mouth all day long. According to Ortiz (and this isn't even taking my dad's pipe smoking into consideration), for every 8 hours I traveled with my mom, I would have "smoked" the equivalent of 900 cigarettes. Hmmm...Now, in 8 hours, I go through maybe, I don't know, 20? I've really cut down since I was an infant.........

Face it - this crap is sticking in the minds of the voters without thought. If the baby in the back seat is smoking 30 cigarettes facing the rear of the car, what is a passenger sitting next to a smoker getting? Tehn you go on to the driver of the car next to them sitting in traffic. No mention, ever, of the ambient air quality in California being the worst in the country. Children in Calornia should be on pure oxygen.

Did you also catch the physical size of the infant, up to four feet eight inches.

I do not live in California, but I have seen the traffic. What is a parent to do, hire a nanny while they go out to restock the larder?

It is any wonder so many illegals enter California each year - what's the market for nanny's?

I would suggest parents drop their children off with lawmakers while out and about, but they probably all live in gated communities.

If children are so important to law makers and wild fires fill the air with smoke regularly when will the needs of endangered species give way to "the children"? Allowing property owners to clear dead brush from their property.

They say 1 cigarette is enough to get a kid hooked. And we're talking 30/hr starting with the trip home from the hospital the day after delivery? Geez.

Bruce, when you wrote:

"I would suggest parents drop their children off with lawmakers while out and about, but they probably all live in gated communities."

I read "lawmakers" as lawnmowers and wondered what the heck you were talking about. LOL

quote:

just keep it in California and leave the rest of us alone.

Unfortunately - Crapifornia has a way of infiltrating our lives when it comes to idiotic anti laws - the first indoor smoking bans started there, then higher taxes, then outdoor bans, now smoking in your car with kids present...next will be smoking in your home if you have kids, then within 50 feet of a child anywhere.

quote:

now smoking in your car with kids present

Actually, California is running third in that race. Arkansas passed almost precisely the same law several months ago, followed by Louisiana banning smoking in cars with children under - I believe - 12.

They are getting more ridiculous just because we're letting them. We're not out in the streets, screaming bloody murder. We just write letters to the editor and talk among ourselves. Until we revolt, until someone finally stands in front of these whackos and says "No more!", it will just get worse.

I think a problem with protesting these stupid laws is the parents of children are up at four am getting ready for work, taking the children to school or daycare, working all day, rushing to pick up the kids, then getting home and feeding them, puting them to bed, and then collapsing themselves so they can do it again tomorrow. No time for news of any sort - they will find out when they get ticketed.

The balance of us are past the age of having children. We would be effected when we are asked to watch or want to visit our grandchildren.

The question for all is "do we need a cigarette more than the love and atmosphere of children"?

If we vote for cigarettes we are selfish uncaring monsters.

No one mentions that "the children's" immune systems are not being challenged by anything and when they are exposed to any germ immediately accept them. How is this benefitting "the children"?