Yes. So that I can't quote it without a whole mess of annoying backflips and contortions, I suppose, but that's your right.
I dont know how to be anymore clear for you.. under a current broad vague law of 'child endangerment' chances are it would not be enforced as it would be thrown out in most court cases. As for your convertible car argument you keep holding onto, put in the law terms that outline a closed confined space. (any vehicle with the windows rolled up) There, that protects smokers from being harassed in their convertible with babies in the back seat - because that scenario is SOOOO common!
I don't know how it can be any clearer for you. Under the current child abuse/endangerment laws, you can make a case for whatever's actually endangering the child. Does it occur to you that many of the cases would be thrown out of court because there isn't demonstrable or even probable harm? If so, then why make a law?
Okay, good. Now we're in a "closed confined space." That would be any room of any house, or a building, or any number of other areas in addition to a vehicle. If you further define "confined" as being of a certain cubic footage, you get closer to isolating the problem. If you define "child" you're getting closer to the mark you wanted to hit. Of course, none of this actually addresses the problem itself. How does that escape you? If your problem is that smoking causes the air to be unsafe to breathe, then why not measure the air? If it's such a hazard, wouldn't pulling over the vehicle and measuring the air quality be a better measure of who should get a ticket or be arrested? This would quantify the hazard far better than simply seeing someone with a cigarette in their hand, but instead you're gunning for the latter.
So far we've reworded the law entirely to define a closed, confined space; defined how confined one has to be; defined how closed something has to be, of course (vehicles aren't actually closed spaces, otherwise we'd suffocate on long trips); and defined what constitutes a child for the purposes of this law. None of it actually measures health of the air in the vehicle, or the impact of the smoke on the child (all cigarettes are not created equal), but who cares about that? It's only the stated intent of the entire exercise.
Well now, dont you think cracking down on second hand smoke inside of cars with kids just might reduce the presence third hand residues?? Hmmm!
Not really. The two have zero to do with one another. Third-hand smoke, as indicated in the article, is present in things smokers have owned or come into contact with. The person who owned that used car before you bought it and put your baby in the back? Chain smoker. The guy who rented the apartment before you? Cigar afficionado. In order to curb third-hand smoke, you would need to regulate pretty much everything that involves a smoker. Someone not smoking while their kids are in the car, but smoking just before they are, is not any safer than the activity we've been discussing. The difference is that the former activity would be legal, while undertaking the same activity a moment later in the same confines would be illegal, despite the danger of both environments.
Yes. Unless you think a smoking section inside a McDonalds play land is a good thing. I can see it now. "Hey man, don't be infringin on my liberties and smoker rights man!"
If McDonald's wants to put up a smoking section, they very well should be able to. Parents can then decide whether or not they want their children subject to such terrible conditions. Of course, worrying about whether or not your kids are breathing in some smoke while they are inhaling their Happy Meals is a bit silly. One is absolutely full of carcinogens and life-threatening ingredients, setting a terrible example and endangering the child's health if it becomes a habit. It ain't the smoke.
