Smoking ban in vehicles with children passes Senate

By Justin Snow

A controversial bill that would ban smoking in any vehicle with a passenger younger than 8 passed the state Senate 27-19 on Wednesday after debate that centered largely over the role of government.


Photo by Raul Lieberwerth

Supporters argued that the bill was about protecting children from the toxins of secondhand smoke and cited a range of studies showing the negative effects tobacco products have on children. They said the age requirement was for enforcement reasons, noting that children younger than 8 are required to use a car seat, making it easier for police to spot.

“If we do nothing we are condoning threatening the life of young people who have no voice,” said Sen. Paul Pinsky, D-Prince George’s. Pinsky said the bill raised questions about what role government should play in light of science.

Although opponents did not disagree that scientific evidence affirms secondhand smoke is harmful, they warned of government intrusion into private life and the bill’s broader repercussions.

“Cheeseburgers are next,” cautioned Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin, arguing that government instructing citizens about unhealthy behavior was a slippery slope.

Sen. John Astle, D-Anne Arundel, who proposed a killer amendment last week that was later stripped from the bill in a rare parliamentary procedure, invoked George Orwell as he voiced his opposition to the bill. Opponents, however, said such warnings were overblown.

“This isn’t about big brother,” said Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery. “It’s about little brother in the back seat, in the car seat.”

The ban must still be approved by the House of Delegates.

SLAPP reform defeated

By a narrow 21-25 vote, the Senate defeated a bill that would have revised statutes concerning strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Commonly called SLAPP suits, these lawsuits concern a deliberate attempt to stifle critics by burdening them with overwhelming legal costs until they abandon their criticism. Typically such lawsuits concern a small publication being sued by a wealthy person or organization.

Sen. Brian Frosh, D-Montgomery, sponsored the bill and said it was ultimately about balancing the scales and defending those who cannot afford to fight for themselves. Frosh added that Maryland has the weakest SLAPP suit statutes in the country.

Opponents, however, argued that the bill would give protection to those who ruin reputations. Speaking passionately against the bill was Sen. Robert Zirkin, D-Baltimore County, who said the bill would only protect defamers and liars.

Other senators worried about a changing media landscape. Citing a declining Annapolis press corps and the rise of some “unscrupulous blog sites,” Sen. Joseph Getty, R-Baltimore County, said he had grave concerns that the bill would embolden such sites.

“We’re going to see a distinct change in the way things are covered,” Getty warned.

About The Author

Len Lazarick

Len Lazarick was the founding editor and publisher of and is currently the president of its nonprofit corporation and chairman of its board He was formerly the State House bureau chief of the daily Baltimore Examiner from its start in April 2006 to its demise in February 2009. He was a copy editor on the national desk of the Washington Post for eight years before that, and has spent decades covering Maryland politics and government.


  1. Edfitz

    Since stupid does stupid, someone needs to inform stupid that it’s stupid. We can fix stupid through education, but the people who have control of the process have designed it to keep people stupid. Rather then establish ways to train the stupid, they would rather create more stupid taxes and disregard education, which in turn force us to live with stupid laws like this. Consider this as a option to fix the stupid who are in place by design, rather then controlling people with a another stupid law for the stupid. 

  2. Dale Mcnamee

    I wonder if the same standards will apply to marijuana if it’s ever legalized ? Smoke is smoke after all …

  3. Dale Mcnamee

     From the article : ” Commonly called SLAPP suits, these lawsuits concern a deliberate attempt
    to stifle critics by burdening them with overwhelming legal costs until
    they abandon their criticism.”

    Who’s worried over criticism ? The Legislature, of course !

    I just love this ! ( Sarcasm )

  4. abby_adams

    Kids over 8 expendable? How about Fido, doesn’t he/she deserve to breathe clean air? A primary offense? Get real. Rid the streets & highways of people talking on hand held cell phones with the car on cruise control. If I can see them, why can’t a cop? Ditto for the pocket rockets weaving in & out of traffic. Or the jerks who still can’t remember to turn on their headlights when using wipers? The legislators have no guts. They want more $$ to spend & will use any excuse to get it.

  5. OutOfBubbleGum

    So, tell me how a police officer is going to be able to tell what age a child is from mere sight alone?  Moreover, how’s an officer going to prove a child is under 8 if the parent/driver says he or she is 8?  Just ask a movie theater to how many parents buy child(ren) tickets for teen(agers).

Support Our Work!

We depend on your support. A generous gift in any amount helps us continue to bring you this service.