A Georgia state legislator wants to take the debate over second-hand smoke a step further – if children are present.
Rep. Sandra Scott, D-Rex, is the sponsor of House Bill 18, which would prohibit smoking in a car when people 18 or younger are aboard.
It would be one of the strictest laws of its kind in the country. Eight states already ban smoking with kids in a vehicle, but only in California and Oregon do the laws apply to riders as old as 18. (The other states are Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.)
“We all know it’s affecting the children,” Scott told the AJC. “This’ll help eliminate some of the intake of smoke in such a small place.”
There is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke, health experts say.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says children exposed to second-hand smoke can come down with ear infections, have more frequent and severe asthma attacks, are subject to respiratory problems ranging from coughing and sneezing to bronchitis and pneumonia, and are at greater risk of sudden infant death syndrome.
Yet punishing people for doing something that is otherwise legal would be “government overreach,” said Benita Dodd, vice president of The Georgia Public Policy Foundation. “It’s nanny government.”
Two years ago, a bill died in the House of Representatives that would have made it a misdemeanor to smoke in a car with a child under the age of 15. Stockbridge, though, has passed its own law: Drivers who smoke with kids on board face fines of up to $500.
Is government intruding on your private property rights by saying you can’t smoke in your car, if a child is present? Send comments to communitynews@ajc.com. Yoour comment may be published in print and/or online.
After a boy was killed by vicious dogs last month and school mates were severely injured, the issue of dangerous dogs has resurfaced. Animal lovers say it’s not about the breed, it’s about the training. Others say human safety shouldn’t be compromised for animals.
In the end, nobody seems to really know what to do.
Legislation has been enacted against certain breeds of dogs and just recently an Atlanta city councilwoman has proposed zoning of sorts. Keisha Bottoms introduced an ordinance restricting dangerous dogs from being near schools and other places frequented by children. She said if zoning wasn’t an option, perhaps requiring owners of certain breeds or sizes of dogs to have fenced property would do.
We asked readers their thoughts.
Here’s what some had to say:
If you can't get rid of them any other way, authorize the police to kill them.That will prevent them from maiming or killing anybody. That will also avoid the need for individuals mauled by these animals for having to pay the cost for medical treatment needed to repair the damaged caused by these attacks. Especially the scars that remain forever on the torn faces. — John Harof
I believe there should be a license for those choosing a dangerous breed dog. You need a license to drive, and to have a gun. I think some of these dogs can be viewed as a lethal weapon and there should definitely be a license to own them. I think that license should require a class or classes where the owner is made aware of the legal consequences should their dog be involved in an altercation as well as provide other safety requirements needed in caring for this dog . I think a yearly fee should be required for this license and those caught without a license for the dog should pay a penalty. — Rockman Cannon Jr.
Irresponsible actions, or inaction, on the part of a person, can be legislated, and remedies put in place to address those actions or failure to act. — Kathryn Smith
Most of us know the dogs behavior is the direct result of how it is trained and treated by its owner. Make dog and owner attend obedience school. Heavy fines and possible removal of dog if no compliance. —
Myra Alkins
Make breeding of those dogs illegal. Those who breed will face jail time and fines. Or what can be done is required pet training for those owners — in order to legally be in possession of an aggressive breed you need to be trained on what triggers their behavior and how to safely secure them. — Terrance Travis
This current rash of vicious dog attacks and maulings should not be allowed to continue. We humans seems to place more value on animal rights than human rights. The mere thought of little boy Logan lying on a coroner slab should be enough to move our politicians to swift and possibly lethal action! Police officers (some) are now equipped with patrol rifles, I say we utilize these officers to patrol said neighborhoods and give them carte blanche authority (no waiting on a supervisor's authority) to shoot and kill any loose dog on the streets, the loss of another human life is one too many. I understand to some this may sound horrific and archaic in a civilized society but believe me, it's warranted. At least several times a week as I traverse numerous metro neighborhoods I see owners walking pit bulls and other dangerous breeds on a length of chain, not a leash. Any responsible owner never allows their dog to roam freely and I'll wager after the police start executing these loose dogs on the spot, you will begin to see a dramatic reduction in these types of attacks. — Curtis J. Ball
It isn't about breeds. It is about owners who don't control their dogs. It is about homeowners who don't secure dogs in their yards. It is about building codes that don't force homeowners to properly fence their yards. It is about codifying proper dog care to include spaying/neutering, training and exercise. It is about civil and criminal penalties before trajedies. A few years ago I saw a pit bull in the neighborhood running free and chasing kids out of his cul-de-sac. At one point I was on the phone with 911 and was told two things. Police couldn't respond until someone was bit and as I stood there with a growling pit bull just feet away, I'd be arrested if I shot the dog. When you have a problem neighborhood as is obvious in the case of the little boy's death, we have to ask where the animal control procedures and leadership failed. Get out in front. Quit waiting for a tragedy to get motivated. — Roger Summerlin
I think all pit bulls brought into the shelters should be euthanized once an owner does not come forward to claim it. It sounds cruel but the fact is no one knows what kind of life it had so no one will no if it is one of the sweet ones. Adopting a pit bull is no different than playing Russian roulette. — Michele Plotts
Dogs are just dogs, no matter what, and you can't ban an animal from a certain place because of it's actions. It's not the dog's fault that he/she acts that way, the person who takes care or used to take care of the dog probably brutally abused the animal. All animals act a certain way for a reason, not because they want to, but because they're cautious of humans because of their past. So no one should be banning any animals, we should cherish them, most of them are becoming extinct anyways, so why start *banning* them, it makes no sense. — Asya Cooper
Dionne Kinch for the AJC
About the Author
