Considering Quebec's smoking ban in bars and restaurants has been in force for almost two years (and the sky hasn't fallen), the province should follow with another rule to protect children from second-hand smoke.
It's time Quebec follow the lead of other jurisdictions, such as Nova Scotia, Maine, New Jersey and California, to ban smoking in private cars carrying children, as the Canadian Lung Association advised last week when it launched its 'Stop smoking in cars: Our kids deserve it' campaign
www.cleanairforkids.ca).
There has been ample evidence for many years of the dangers of second-hand smoke. That is why the smoking ban for bars and restaurants came about. While the majority of children have parents and guardians that are sensible enough not to smoke in the car with children, Statistics Canada figures indicate about 17 per cent of 12–year-olds (based on 2003 data) were regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. On top of that, about 19 per cent of non-smokers aged 12 to 17 were also exposed to second-hand smoke in private vehicles. These should be alarming stats even if the vast majority of kids are not exposed to these conditions. We should have laws in place to protect our children from smokers, even if those happen to be their parents or grandparents. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are at high risk for many health problems. Considering other health problems that seem to afflict an increasing number of young people these days, from allergies to obesity, this is another concern that can be prevented with some action from our lawmakers.
West Islanders should take some initiative, even if you are smart enough not to smoke in front of your children or even smarter not to smoke at all. Call/write your local MNA and ask them to send your support for a ban to Health Minister Philippe Couillard and Premier Jean Charest. It seems they wouldn't face much opposition as one recent public opinion poll stated 82 per cent of Canadians say they support a smoking ban in private vehicles carrying anyone under 18 years of age.
Second-hand smoke, even if exposure is for a short period, especially in a car where it is concentrated, can cause health problems for children, some immediate, like asthmatic episodes, some deadly like sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), while others will surface later in their adult years, like cancer and heart disease.
Weather: Montreal, July 19th 2008 / 21°C
/ Overcast
/ Wind: 19 Km/h / Humidity: 83 % 
by Albert Kramberger 
Steven Guilbeault - Environment Column
Richard Cléroux - National Columnist
Kevin Mulvina
Comment online since February 1st 2008I wrote this in response to a recent promotion of the Canadian Lung Association at the CBC selling this nonsense.
Your readers could well find an alternate truth. If they have the courage to look.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/31/smoking-cars.html
It is really unfortunate to watch as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung associations are willing to sacrifice, once, fine reputations by promoting targeted hatred in this way. "No brainer" is declared in the latest CBC article, describing the idea to ban smoking in cars with children. To "lower their health risks." Where coincidentally if you took the time to really look, no evidence can can be found any harm actually exists beyond the emotional, which could be appeased entirely by opening a window, just a crack. No Brainer is entirely an appropriate conclusion in this situation. Certainly not a lot of thought is required when riding high atop a lobbied band wagon. We need to ban smoking because a sign just wouldn't send a strong enough message, choices are never a guarantee, and there is no safe level of anything. Intention is found in the "no safe level of tobacco smoke" chant, which affords no useful information, the truth is unearthed in it's true intent of creating fear which it does admirably..
I take exception to the consistent practice of these groups who put forward a heavily lobbied town council in one small municipality in Nova Scotia to represent the views of an entire Province. In other representations elsewhere they added a list of New Jersey, Maine and California in a similarly deceptive way. The original anti smoker advocate was Hitler who was the original promoter of the political ideal, that second hand smoke could harm others irregardless of, if it ever could. Hitler in fact invented the term "second hand smoke". Would the Lung Association add that name to its list and ask me to follow the same logic stream?
There is actually another third hand kind of smoke, being gratuitously employed here, its the kind people refer to as being gingerly blown up your backside.
It is no small secret the Lung association and the Canadian Cancer Society have long abandoned the search for cures, in spite of their misleading advertising. favoring the approach of "disease management" as a higher theological ideal. This affords no abuse to their largest donations from industrial interests, who might, in lieu of real scientific advances recently, actually be held to account for the damages their products do to communities. While affording all blame for disease to "individual choice" which they claim can be eliminated with fear and targeted hatred.
The realities of what was sold at the Rio Summit, in all the impassioned drama presented there, are finally coming home to roost. People are starting to understand the level of fraud involved by the promoters and the arrogance of domination consensus among unelected decision makers.
It is entirely unfortunate pseudo-government agencies promoting Global rule, have chosen to govern themselves in the national socialist mold. They started out with much more noble intentions [or so we are told].
The practice of managing diseases, can not avoid the reality you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.
State Paternalism only produces abusive parents. Bans can only serve to separate us and disease management can not possibly accept or even seek a cure.
Think about smoking bans and fat pandemics, even SARS or AIDS. How much extremely expensive media pro-[motion/paganda] has been expended [Who is paying for this stuff?]in controlling peoples lives by promoting the high drama of fear and hatred to direct all decisions, as opposed to finding cures and compromises which could eliminate all of the fear mongers largest complaints.
I don't need to be protected by the illegitimate church of pubic health. In the real world, parents do an excellent job of protecting their own children on their own. I don't believe industry promotional lobby groups, would make very good parents. But hey, thats just me...[Me and billions of others around me I would hope]
The kind of protections offered by Hitler and his Neo-Nannies we could all do well without.
Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario is quoted as stating "smokers need to quit or be punished and as with McCarthyism, that punishment will continue, until the proud day someone stands and says; "Enough". His hatred is clearly defined in a protection of the children at a website targeting them, he appropriately called stupid.ca[Canada]reflecting his views in respect to a quarter of the electorate. What will he call the website to make fat people feel bad about themselves? Another, No Brainer?
No one stands against the wind with confidence, to earn political power or financial gain.
People will stand and say "enough" in Canada, because to put it quite simply; that is just what real Canadians do.