February 6, 2012 in Nation/World

CDC: Too many kids breathe others’ smoke in cars

Associated Press

Online

CHICAGO — Texting while driving, speeding and back-seat hanky-panky aren’t all that parents need to worry about when their kids are in cars: Add secondhand smoke to the list.

In the first national estimate of its kind, a report from government researchers says more than 1 in 5 high school students and middle schoolers ride in cars while others are smoking.

This kind of secondhand smoke exposure has been linked with breathing problems and allergy symptoms, and more restrictions are needed to prevent it, the report says.

With widespread crackdowns on smoking in public, private places including homes and cars are where people encounter secondhand smoke these days. Anti-smoking advocates have zeroed in on cars because of research showing they’re potentially more dangerous than smoke-filled bars and other less confined areas.

The research, from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was released online Monday in Pediatrics.

The study is based on national surveys done at public and private high schools and middle schools. Students were asked how often they rode in cars while someone was smoking within the past week. The most common answer was one or two days. The smoker could mean other kids or parents; the study didn’t specify.

A CDC fact sheet suggests even small amounts of secondhand smoke can be risky.

“There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke,” the CDC says.

Overall, 22 percent of teens and pre-teens were exposed to secondhand smoke in cars in 2009, the latest data available. That figure declined gradually during the decade, from 40 percent in 2000, the study found. But still, the numbers of kids still facing the risks “is certainly problematic,” said CDC researcher Brian King, the study’s lead author.

“The car is the only source of exposure for some of these children, so if you can reduce that exposure, it’s definitely advantageous for health,” King said.

The CDC advises parents to not allow smoking in their homes and cars, and says opening a car window will not protect kids from cigarette smoke inside.

Measures banning smoking in cars when children are present have been enacted in a handful of states and proposed in several others. The study authors say similar bans should be adopted elsewhere.

29 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

oneanddone on February 06 at 4:48 a.m.
The only real solution to this problem is to make tobacco products illegal. That won’t happen however because the feds and states won’t give up the taxes collected. Since it’s legal, as are foods high in fat and calories, telling people how to live is pointless. All of this sort of thing contributes to the lack of personal responsibility.
rosehips on February 06 at 5:54 a.m.
According to at least one commenter around here, those kiddies have nothing to fear. Quit whining!
Do parents have the right to subject kids to second-hand smoke in confined spaces? Yes, they do.
Some think they should have that right. Unbelievably.
rosehips on February 06 at 5:56 a.m.
Personal responsibility is essential but exposing innocent child to second hand smoke goes beyond a lifestyle choice. This is about childrens’ lives. Children have rights of their very own, despite what some parents think.
dataxman on February 06 at 6:11 a.m.
rose - obesity kills more Americans than smoking so are we going to keep parents from feeding their kids fatty foods?
I hope you are willing to take in thousands of foster kids
gmorton on February 06 at 7:48 a.m.
Ah, so we have new *cause celebre* among the nanny-staters. But I suppose it is unrealistic to expect them to keep their noses out of other people’s business, since they have no business of their own from which they can derive satisfaction.
Amazing, though, that lifespans continue to increase, even though virtually everyone over 30 has been exposed to “second-hand smoke” throughout their lives.
jessiepn on February 06 at 8:03 a.m.
Amazing how many people feel threatened when public officials (oops, of course I meant “big government”) try to enact legislation to promote the health and safety of the citizenry. I guess we ought to scrap all those laws that interfere with what we can do with our kids. After all, it’s no one’s business if I put my children to work in a factory, or beat them if they misbehave, right?
Also amazing how many people seem to think that just because “we” lived through growing up in households where people smoked, or didn’t die while riding in cars without seatbelts, it means those activities don’t carry risks.
misjustice on February 06 at 8:09 a.m.
Geez REALLY?
Today’s kids are a bunch of wimps! They wear helmets and knee/elbow pads just to ride their bikes. They are strapped into cars like astronauts ready to be launched into space. And NOW folks are whining that the lil’ darlin’s should not be exposed to cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces such as cars! Geez…
When we were kids we didn’t need no stinkin’ helmets, knee pads, safety belts or protection against cigarette smoke! And we turned out just fine! I remember dad’s old Rambler, and us tooling around on the country roads on a weekend afternoon; Mom and Dad up front and us kids in the back, all sans seatbelts. Dad would accelerate when approaching a hill and it would launch us into the air and tickle our bellies! Good times! If we’d been strapped in we would never had been able to defy gravity for just a moment…
And always, on these little jaunts, Dad would light up a cigarette and the smoke would fill the passenger compartment, sure it was stinky and our eyes burned but it made us tougher, made us able to endure, and made us all vow to never smoke when we grew up!
But I digress, the larger point here is that kids today are wimps!
nottored on February 06 at 8:18 a.m.
anyone who smokes and subjects others to that smoke should be prosecuted.
dataxman on February 06 at 8:26 a.m.
missj - both my parents smoked and none of us kids do. As for Dad filling up the passenger compartment with a foul smell that made our eyes water - the smoke was the lesser of two evils…
misjustice on February 06 at 8:29 a.m.
Lol!
dataxman, I get your drift!
; )
rosehips on February 06 at 8:38 a.m.
dataxman,
What parents feed kids is another issue. Kids have to eat. Parents can’t always afford the best food. We need better education for parents on how to feed kids healthy meals. It doesn’t have to cost more than McDonalds.
Exposing kids to second-hand smoke is increasing their risk of respiratory illness and disease. This should be criminal.
rosehips on February 06 at 8:41 a.m.
I had an uncle who would thrill us by driving with no hands. His son once fell out of the car door while it was moving.
Life was fun when we didn’t have the sense to strap our kids in and smoke our stinkin’ cigarettes outside.
Local on February 06 at 9:06 a.m.
I guess some of you just love to live in the past and resist evolution. Now go out there put somebody else first before you and make today better than yesterday.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 06 at 9:31 a.m.
Education. If we can educate people (big “if” sometimes, I know), then they can make the right / smart / healthy choice for themselves and their kids, based on knowledge rather than because it’s what some busybody told them to do. There’s been a lot of education on this in recent decades, but (a) it appears to have slacked off lately and (b) it appears not to have reached a fair number of people. Or maybe the people still unreached are the ones who were never going to be reached anyway — that is, they’ve heard the message, they just don’t care or don’t believe it. In which case, more education.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 06 at 9:36 a.m.
“Ah, so we have new *cause celebre* among the nanny-starters.”
Hardly “new.” When it comes to child welfare, the State has been ‘butting into folks’ lives’ ever since the late 19th - early 20th century when some busybody decided that working twelve-year-olds for 18 hours a day might not be the kids’ best interest after all. (But it was such a golden age back then. Ah… nostalgia.)
But you tell us, gmorton. You’re always blovating about how you have no trouble with valid exercise of the State’s power, it’s just unjustified intrusion you object to. Are you now saying that the State is unjustified in regulating for the welfare of children who would have no other advocate? And if so, if trying to intercede on behalf of childrens’ health isn’t a valid exercise of the State’s power, what in God’s name is?
nslopeofw on February 06 at 10:02 a.m.
No, they don’t have the right to subject their kids to second hand smoke. Any parent doing this is not only selfish, but also a complete piece of poop! They ought to lose their children for doing something we all know can cause cancer down the road as well as breathing diseases.
JimLahey on February 06 at 10:07 a.m.
So if I’m reading this correctly, reducing children’s exposure to tobacco smoke would benefit their health. Who knew?
Milan70 on February 06 at 10:41 a.m.
Well! my wife and I do not smoke so we do not worry about offending any one over it. When I was single and ate out the waitress would ask if I wanted to eat at smoking or nonsmoking and would tell I did not care as long as the smoke was not blown in my face.
gmorton on February 06 at 11:07 a.m.
jessiepn wrote,
“Amazing how many people feel threatened when public officials (oops, of course I meant “big government”) try to enact legislation to promote the health and safety of the citizenry.”
I’m amazed that you are amazed. No doubt this will come as a surprise to you, but some people believe that apart from protecting their rights and properly managing the public goods for which it is responsible, their health and safely are none of the gummint’s business. They believe they are quite capable of weighing risks against the returns they expect to gain from their lifestyle choices, and do not need bureaucrats to make those decisions for them. They should concentrate their energies on keeping the streets free of muggers and potholes and keeping the cops under control, and cease imagining they are everyone’s Nanny.
gmorton on February 06 at 11:17 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Are you now saying that the State is unjustified in regulating for the welfare of children who would have no other advocate?”
The State is justified in protecting the rights of children, just as it is justified in protecting the rights of adults. Indeed, that is its *raison d’etre*.
Neither working nor occasional exposure to tobacco smoke violates any of their rights. Do those activities pose small risks to their health? Perhaps. So does allowing them to ride in a car, taking them fishing, sitting around a smoky campfire, and allowing them to play football in school. You gonna jail their parents for exposing them to those risks also?
If I beat my kids or fail to feed them, you have cause to intervene. Otherwise how I raise them is none of your business.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 06 at 11:31 a.m.
“There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke,” the CDC says”
Although it intuitively makes sense that nobody should be exposed to lots of nasty things in the air they breath, nobody has shown…least of all the CDC, that 2nd hand smoke impairs or kills anyone. Look at that phrase above….doesn’t anyone ask “risk to what?”
The statement assumes facts not in evidence…ie that there is a risk? Where’s the data on that??
Government needs to stop this nonsense. Next stop is to reach into cars and stop whatever they want using data to buttress their actions when there is no strong data………it’s the cause of the liberals….STAY OUT OF THE CARS and HOUSES! Cut the budget, lower taxes..do what you’re supposed to do.
I’d say kids can get out of that smelly car and take a “green” bus, but the so called “green buses” aren’t so green as it turns out. Oh Verner spent $4.5 million on Green Buses.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 06 at 11:36 a.m.
MAN it stinks in here.
**sprays Troll-B-Gone, now with AIR FRESHENER!**
misjustice on February 06 at 11:41 a.m.
By all means, do NOT limit the rights of the Tobacco Companies! After all, they are people Too! And their product is legal. They have legal rights regarding the consumption of their product. And those rights trump the health of kids.
gmorton on February 06 at 11:57 a.m.
misjustice wrote,
“And those rights trump the health of kids.”
Actually they do, misj. So do their parents’ rights and even your rights. Rights trump health and every other mere interest. That means that no one may violate your rights to promote their own or anyone else’s health, provided you are not yourself violating anyone’s rights.
misjustice on February 06 at 12:15 p.m.
I know, I said they did!
Besides that, the health of kids is highly over rated; money and corporate profits are superior to lil’ kid’s health.
Love the fetus, hate the child!
nslopeofw on February 06 at 12:33 p.m.
MisJ,
Dont try to be a hard azz. Gmorton believes in “rights”. That is not a bad thing, just different from what you think. I bet you are a big proponent of other rights such as gay rights, woman’s rights, etc. The problem with messing with rights is that once one is messed with, there is no stopping people from messing with other rights.
I still think any parent who smokes in the car with their kids isnt fit to be a parent. I dont see a lot of difference between that and letting your kids drink your whiskey. I just doubt its anything we could enforce. Look at all the dirtbags talking and texting on their phones, even after the law was passed.
gmorton on February 06 at 4:54 p.m.
misjustice wrote,
” … money and corporate profits are superior to lil’ kid’s health.”
That statement is vacuous. There is no common scale upon which to measure them; there are only the subjective scales of each individual. You will likely rank the value of even a marginal reduction in the risks to your kid’s health higher than the value of someone else’s money.
If it is your money and someone else’s kid, however, your ranking of their values would differ.
Thayne on February 06 at 5:47 p.m.
The tobacco industry - the only one allowed to kill 40,000 of its customers each year. Both of my parents smoked and both died of smoking related illnesses. I don’t smoke and have no problem giving grief to people who do - especially teenagers. If they have the right to pollute the air I breath and drop their butts anywhere they want - I have the right to express my annoyance.
cozzster on February 06 at 8:07 p.m.
I agree that sensible parents should not expose their children to second hand smoke. The problem with today’s society is it is largely selfish; more about “me” than the greater good of “us.” Parents who smoke and expose their children to second hand smoke are selfish and are potentially limiting that child’s life by exposing them to toxic chemicals. Even others who smoke in public do the same thing. I cannot count the number of times I have been sitting at a red light and the person in front of me has a cigarette in their mouth and I smell the smoke in my car. It’s disgusting. I agree the only way to stop this would be to outlaw cigarette products, but it will never happen, unfortunately. I just wish people would wake up and think about someone other than themselves.