Smoking in cars with a minor present; civil penalty. (HB115)

Introduced By

Sen. Joe Morrissey (D-Richmond)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Smoking in cars with a minor present; civil penalty.  Makes it unlawful for a person to smoke in a motor vehicle with a child under the age of 13 present; punishable by a civil penalty of $100. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/03/2012Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/12 12102552D
01/03/2012Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/13/2012Assigned Courts sub: Civil
01/24/2012Impact statement from DPB (HB115)
01/30/2012Subcommittee recommends no action
02/14/2012Left in Courts of Justice


stephen writes:

Keep your stinking laws and Government out of our cars and homes.

robert legge writes:

Stephen- Do you doubt that it is harmful to the kid's lungs? They have laws dealing with not buckling kids in their car seats. Do you object to that one?

Harold writes:

Stephen - If you think something is stinking, it may be your car and clothes.

Harold writes:

This should be a primary offense and cause to stop a vehicle. Can you imagine seeing an adult smoking in a closed car with children, but they are properly belted but you can't pull them.

However, if they weren't belted, you could pull them over.

So for seat belts, they MAY be in danger, but smoking in a car they ARE in danger but you can't pull them.

stephen writes:

I say if your all against kids being around smoke, lets rip down all the chimney's, and plug all the car tail pipes on those gas guzzeling suv"s that you yuppies like to drive. PS, even I wear a seat belt these days.

Harold writes:

Ummm.... "YOU yuppies" seems a bit presumptuous. You have no idea.

By the way, I don't like helmet or seatbelt law (however use both) for ADULTS; but putting kids at risk is ridiculous.

ps.... I bet you wear a seatbelt because it's the LAW and not that it makes sense.

stephen writes:

I wear a seat belt because of all the drunk drivers that keep getting their license's back from a government that claims nothing is more important than protecting kids. As for wearing one because of a law, that wont happen.

Michael writes:

I'm curious about the underlying principle behind this bill. Is it that any activity that presumably increases the health risk to a child should be punishable by law? If so, then Virginia stands to make a boatload of money next Halloween.