Courtesy photo Williston Middle School students met Gov. John Hoeven on their trip to the state capital to testify for Senate Bill 2070, no smoking in a vehicle where children or teens under the age of 16 are present. Students attending, in no particular order, were Dreysyn Bratcher, Austin Anderson, Keely Kleven, Samantha Miller, Hailey Bendixson, Sydney Hauz, Shelby Nelsen, Kaitlin Zuther, Tristen Slapnicka and Drew Borseth. They are pictured with sixth-grade teacher Nancy Selby, who worked with them on the bill when they were in her class last year.
The process thus far, including testifying in Bismarck, has been “really nerve-wracking,” said seventh-grader Hailey Bendixson.
“When you testify, you don’t know what will happen. I think the bill will pass because it’s a good law,” Bendixson said.
Seventh-graders Austin Anderson, Keely Kleven and Drew Borseth also believe the bill will pass.
“I had some friends think it wouldn’t pass; we’ve gotten this far. I think it is a great bill,” Borseth said. “It passed in the Senate with pretty high numbers,” Kleven said.
“It’s personal to me, and I believe it will pass,” Anderson said.
The bill makes it illegal to smoke in a vehicle if someone younger than 16 is inside. The ban applies if the vehicle is parked on private property, and it would still be a violation if its windows were rolled down. Violators of the law would face a $50 fine, states an Associated Press article.
The students began working on the smoking ban legislation last year when they were in Nancy Selby’s sixth-grade class at Rickard Elementary. The issue was among a variety of issues students researched for a business-letter writing and persuasive-writing portion of the language arts course, Selby said.
While working on their projects, the students needed to find the correct people to contact regarding the issues. Some of the students chose the smoking-ban issue and wrote to Sen. Stan Lyson, R-Williston.
Lyson wrote back and visited the class to talk to it about the issue, Selby said. He encouraged the students to talk to their parents about the issue and get their opinions. Lyson later returned to the class and the students asked him to draft the bill, she said.
On Jan. 22, the students traveled to Bismarck to testify for Senate Bill 2070 before the Senate, and it ultimately passed. On March 12, they testified before the House. They’ve enjoyed the experience of being at the state capital.
“It was a blast, it was fun. I like the feeling that we were little business people,” Anderson said.
Borseth is excited he had the opportunity to shake hands with Gov. John Hoeven, and Kleven enjoyed the bus rides and tour of the capitol building.
Last Thursday, Selby heard from Rep. Gary Sukut, R-Williston, that the bill came out of committee with a 7-6 do not pass recommendation. The bill eventually goes to the House floor for a vote, she said.
Comments
Headward wrote on Apr 2, 2009 2:35 PM:
There was a world health study that said second hand smoke does not statsically increase lung cancer deaths. Being around second hand smoke will make it from 10:1,000,000 to 12.5:1,000,000 although you'll hear that it's an increase of 25% chance although it's statistically irreventant.
I'll state it that I hate smoke and smokers but I love my country and freedoms. The problem is that there is not sufficient evidence for second hand smoke. We don't have a right to breathe clean air in somebody else's property. Nowhere in the constitution has that defined nor does the laws of the land. We just assume and take rights away.
I would like people to think if we imposed that if the government thought you were to fat that you would need to ban all fast food and soft drinks. Because I have a ‘right’ not have to look at fat people. When I see somebody that is overweight I become very depressed and that is a serious health issue.
I think a better solution would be to arrest pregnant women that smoke/drink for child abuse and attempted murder./s
There are bigger issues for our expensive politicians need to debate this legislation that takes rights from the people and gives more control to the government. "
FrstKnt wrote on Mar 30, 2009 10:57 AM:
Hillary wrote on Mar 30, 2009 10:49 AM:
headward wrote on Mar 27, 2009 8:18 PM:
Let's stop this un-Constitutional bill in it's tracks. "
Karen Overson Perritte wrote on Mar 27, 2009 3:59 PM:
Mike R. wrote on Mar 27, 2009 2:22 PM:
You can't legislate common sense or respect. This bill has no chance of passing. "
What Next wrote on Mar 27, 2009 1:51 PM:
Reality wrote on Mar 27, 2009 12:14 PM:
Second hand smoke, aka passive smoking has absolutely been proven to be a carcinogen. Google it. "
Concerned wrote on Mar 26, 2009 11:20 PM:
Bill wrote on Mar 25, 2009 6:07 AM:
Congrats wrote on Mar 24, 2009 6:37 PM:
I am kind of on the fence on this issue, though. On one hand, I think it is a great thing to have for children as they don't have a choice of whether or not to get into the vehicle with a smoker. On the other hand, it is taking another freedom away. I just don't know how far this is going to go-pretty soon we won't have any freedoms. "
annie wrote on Mar 24, 2009 3:25 PM:
herewegoagain.... wrote on Mar 24, 2009 1:24 PM:
non smoker for life wrote on Mar 24, 2009 12:56 PM:
FrstKnt wrote on Mar 24, 2009 11:37 AM:
As for this bill, it is a bit of a slippery slope. Banning smoking in cars with children present is only one step from banning smoking in homes with children present. I would hope given the evidence that smokers would choose to go outside on their own, but it doesn't always happen. Then it becomes a question as to society's responsibility to protect the children who are not protected by their parents/guardians/etc.
Therefore, I support the bill by a hair...protecting children who have no other choice overrides the infringement on personal choice...because some smokers are not responsible enough to take it outside on their own. "
people please think wrote on Mar 24, 2009 12:44 AM:
Headward wrote on Mar 23, 2009 4:20 PM:
I agree that adults should not be smoking around children but it's not the job of the state to do change that. If it was truely for the children then they would have made it the same penality as child abuse. All this bill does is elimate our freedoms and stop all over our liberties. It has to be changed through education and prevention in the first place. This bill is infringe on everybody's right to smoke in their car.
We've got to look what's the next step they could take:
I say if we’re going to ban smoking in cars because of health risks, we better require to wear helmets everywhere we go. I’d hate for somebody to slip and fall and bump their head.
Let’s also remove all carpet. Carpet holds a lot of dirt and dust. Some people have really bad allergies and they have a right to breathe clean carpet-free air.
While we’re at it, let’s make all food services serve koser food for jews. I would hate to think how racist we are because these places are serving unclean food.
We should also make people wear silver one-piece jump suits. And shave all the hair on our heads. That way I know I won’t have a chance of getting flees or lice from other people.
This might be an extreme but 40 years ago to ban smoking in a store, bar, etc. would be considered unheard of and un-american. Now we're moving closer to banning smoking in your own home.
Stop this nanny-state bill. This bill could be argued as unconstitutional. I am against this bill because I am for freedom and liberties. "
respectingrights wrote on Mar 23, 2009 3:45 PM:
adultasthma wrote on Mar 23, 2009 2:17 PM:
Headward wrote on Mar 23, 2009 10:53 AM:
I do have a problem with this bill though. This bill will take personal freedoms and liberities from the people and gives them to the state. The state has overstepped with the the ban on smoking in private establishments. The jury(no evidense) is still out on second hand smoke being a health problem for anybody.
The real problem with the bill is that we're transferring personally responibilty to the government. My car is my personal property. If we're going to restrict on my private property, why don't we ban it? It's because the state takes in over $27 million a year in just state taxes.
Let your reps know that you want your freedoms and liberties and to vote no on this bill. "
Thankful wrote on Mar 22, 2009 8:08 AM: