x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
CDC: Too many kids exposed to secondhand smoke in cars
Are smoke-free car laws the answer to protecting kids from dangerous levels of passive smoke?
Mon, Feb 06 2012 at 2:00 PM
 9

Related Topics:

Asthma and Allergies
Smoking cigarettes

Photo: drvglvd1/Flickr

As if there wasn't already enough to worry about when your kids are riding around in cars — texting, speeding, distracted drivers, drunk drivers, etc. — add this one to your list: secondhand smoke. A new study released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that way too many kids are exposed to secondhand smoke in cars. And it's not always from parents or other adults as many middle schoolers and high schoolers report riding in the car with friends who smoke.  
 
In many areas, smoking in public places has become taboo or even illegal, so smokers have retreated to their homes and cars to light up. But smoking in cars is particularly dangerous because of the enclosed conditions of the vehicle. And no, rolling the window down doesn't help. Secondhand smoke exposure has been linked with breathing problems and allergy symptoms. Secondhand smoke exposure in cars ups the risks exponentially. According to the CDC, more restrictions are needed to prevent kids from being exposed to secondhand smoke.  
 
The new report from the CDC found that more than 1 in 5 high school students and middle schoolers reported riding in cars while others are smoking. When asked how often they rode in cars with smokers, the most common answer was once or twice a week.  
 
Overall, 22 percent of teens and pre-teens were exposed to secondhand smoke in cars in 2009, the latest data available. That figure has declined significantly from 40 percent in 2000, but still, "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke," the CDC says.
 
There are currently fours states (Arkansas, California, Louisiana and Maine) as well as Puerto Rico that have "smoke-free car" laws prohibiting adults from smoking in a car while children are present. And according to the CDC report, more states need to enact this type of legislation to protect kids from secondhand smoke exposure in cars.
 

How bad could it be? This video offers some pretty impressive evidence regarding the hazards caused when one person lights up in a car.  

 

How Dangerous is Smoking in Cars? from TobaccoFreeCA on Vimeo.

 

What do you think?  Are 'Smokefree Car' laws the answer to protecting kids from secondhand smoke exposure?

The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 9
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
Enter your name Feb 11 2012 at 12:08 PM
A minor, but very quick window into propaganda and language can be seen in the description of the California law. It refers to "minors, 17 and under" rather than the more simple, "minors under 18." Why is that? Because a listener hearing "under 18 is going to immediately think of someone close to 18, and the silliness of the law becomes more apparent. 17 might sound silly as well, but not AS silly: so simply for the sake of this small effect, the language is carefully structured. I note that
.... More
the researcher featured in this presentation is Dr. Neil Klepeis. He was previously known for arguing that being around smokers outdoors, such as on patios, was dangerous. To see a reference to that study of his, as well as a funny but rather accurate satirical presentation of it, visit: http://wispofsmoke.net/satire.txt - MJM
|
tgit28
tgit28 Feb 06 2012 at 9:22 PM
lol.. Can you see their noses getting longer?? "Above all has been the repeated and world-wide directive that smokers should quit and live longer when every controlled trial without exception has demonstrated this claim to be false." "One important fact often causes confusion: an agent can be a certain cause of death and yet have the effect of extending life. Smoking could be a major cause of lung cancer or even the only cause yet also be associated with long life. The Japanese are amongst the heaviest
.... More
smokers in the world. They also live the longest." http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb… http://news.yahoo.com/lung-cancers-hidde… The national cancer institute study says: "the lung cancer death rate for black males was more than 36% than for white males"....."even though the peak prevalence of smoking among black males in that cohort never achieved that of white males"..."The reason for this disparity in lung cancer death rates is not clear. Differences in smoking behavior other than prevalence may play a role, such as the type of cigarette smoked".(pg 95) Graphs on pg 99 show increases in lung cancer rates with a large decrease in smoking rates among black & white males. "As smoking rates converged for white & black females in later cohorts, lung cancer deaths rates remained the approximately equivalent"..."despite lower smoking rates among black females, may AGAIN suggest a lung cancer risk that is NOT attributable to smoking."(pg 108). http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/mon… lol... Must be the TYPE of cigarette their smoking....
|
anonymous
marbee Feb 06 2012 at 5:46 PM
How on earth did the baby boomer become the largest, healthiest group on the planet when we had a 60% smoking rate! I seriously there is a plan with the FDA, the CDC, pharma, and federal government of a kind of eugenics! They've successfully gotten the public on board with it without them even knowing it. Doctors and insurance companies too. Instead of outright killing people, they'll just let them die with no intervention on their behalf due to propaganda like this! Tobacco is in the nightshade
.... More
family along with potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, cauliflower and ALL contain nicotine. Yet they keep trying to halt the use of tobacco by the public so the only affordable nicotine is pharmaceutical! Same with raw milk, successfully banned for pharma profits from probiotics. But smoke, and you can't get insurance, doctor's care, and now a job or even a rental! Must be pretty good business for mental health pros too. Perhaps it's time to expose this for what it is!
|
anonymous
Guest Feb 07 2012 at 2:09 AM

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think it's all the carcinogenic additives that are being paired with the tobacco that are the root of all evil associated with cigarettes; not the tobacco itself.

|
harleyrider1778
harleyrider1778 Feb 06 2012 at 5:01 PM
Another Junk Study from CDC most likely funded by a grant from big pharma like their 9 states economic harm study on smoking bans! Below explains how the Junk science of car bans is so JUNKY!   Its normal tobacco control propaganda,questionaires to get a science by headline story tossed out there for the liberal media to spread like poison. Chris Snowden does an excellent job debunking the junk science of car ban science! Just open the window! http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/03/just-open-window.
.... More
html
|
anonymous
Michael J. McFadden Feb 06 2012 at 4:28 PM
It's interesting, but very sad, that the article tries to treat texting while driving as being in the same category as riding in a car while another passenger is smoking. A few months ago I analyzed a study on the dangers of such texting and compared it to the risks of smoke exposure based upon the figures in the EPA Report. I can give a more detailed analysis if desired, but basically, if the figures from the University of N. Texas are correct, then riding in a car for an hour while the driver
.... More
engages in a single text communication is roughly 13,000 times as dangerous as riding in that same car while another passenger smokes a cigarette. And yet this article tries to treat them as though they might be equal instead of taking advantage of the fears that have been implanted in kids about smoke to actually protect them from a risk that's literally thousands of times more deadly. Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
|
jsavedge's picture
Jenn Savedge Feb 06 2012 at 6:18 PM

No direct comparison was made. How about if we just agree that they are both bad for kids?

|
anonymous
Wallace Mar 11 2013 at 12:20 PM

Jenn, all these crazy responses to your article are a testament to the mind-warping effects of long term nicotine addiction. All that really needs to be said is that the Surgeon General and our major health organizations agree that "There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/factsheet7...

|
anonymous
Michael J. McFadden Feb 07 2012 at 11:21 AM
Jenn, true, you didn't make a direct comparison, and I also realize that you probably weren't aware of the extreme disparity between the two. Still, to say "they are both bad for kids" is kind of like saying "They're both dangerous for kids" when comparing a kid shooting rubber bands in a classroom to a kid shooting off a full magazine of an AK 47 in one. A "danger" factor disparity of over 10,000 times is pretty significant! Something else just caught my eye about this "study": Given the wording,
.... More
it may very well refer to reports of someone having ONCE ridden in a car in the past YEAR where someone was smoking: teen frequency of driving with a teen driver while texting would probably be far higher than that if my guess is correct. Ten texts by a driver would be the equivalent of 130,000 hours of riding with a smoking passenger. - MJM
|

EDITORS' PICKS

tease AnoNuevo

line

tease cars

line

tease fitness story

Advertisement
From our sponsor

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement