Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 01, 2011, 09:47:58 AM
-
Heard a story about this. Didn't realize it's the law in my state. "A smoking ban in cars with children already exists in Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine and Oregon as well as Puerto Rico. Several other states, counties and towns are discussing similar regulations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_bans_in_private_vehicles#United_States
Not sure what I think about this. Should the government be allowed to ban smoking in a car with kids in the car?
-
You shouldn't be smoking around kids, bars are a different story.
-
You shouldn't be smoking around kids, bars are a different story.
kids get thirsty too
-
Heard a story about this. Didn't realize it's the law in my state. "A smoking ban in cars with children already exists in Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine and Oregon as well as Puerto Rico. Several other states, counties and towns are discussing similar regulations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_bans_in_private_vehicles#United_States
Not sure what I think about this. Should the government be allowed to ban smoking in a car with kids in the car?
Didn't realize it either.
I agree with PiP
-
Didn't realize it either.
I agree with PiP
I agree no one should smoke around kids, but people do it all time. What about parents who smoke in the house?
-
I agree no one should smoke around kids, but people do it all time. What about parents who smoke in the house?
Tough to enforce and a tough argument resulting in a law like that.
But yeah, second hand smoke is not good and kids shouldn't be exposed to it.
But like many things in our society, we can't always rely on people to be smart enough to choose the right thing.
-
Tough to enforce and a tough argument resulting in a law like that.
But yeah, second hand smoke is not good and kids shouldn't be exposed to it.
But like many things in our society, we can't always rely on people to be smart enough to choose the right thing.
Sad but true.
What about a woman who smokes cigarettes in her third trimester?
-
Sad but true.
What about a woman who smokes cigarettes in her third trimester?
Personally i think it should be banned completely for anyone who is pregnant. But i do not know if that it such a good thing to make into a law.
-
What's next? Banning drinking soda in private vehicles because it can spill and is carbonated? or coffee because it is hot and can spill AND contains caffeine? State power gone mad and I say this as someone who HATES smoking.
-
What's next? Banning drinking soda in private vehicles because it can spill and is carbonated? or coffee because it is hot and can spill AND contains caffeine? State power gone mad and I say this as someone who HATES smoking.
That's 1 problem. People need to be smart enough to not do these things on their own without turning it into a law.
The other problems is the child getting harmful second hand smoke.
where do you draw the lines?
-
Personally i think it should be banned completely for anyone who is pregnant. But i do not know if that it such a good thing to make into a law.
I'm not sure about making it illegal either. Just seems like it would be too difficult to enforce.
-
That's 1 problem. People need to be smart enough to not do these things on their own without turning it into a law.
The other problems is the child getting harmful second hand smoke.
where do you draw the lines?
I guess it depends on what your politics are; since I am a libertarian I think people should take responsibility for themselves in this regard without government authority telling them they have to and it will get worse and worse. Smoking will never be banned though because the tobacco lobby is all-powerful.
-
I guess it depends on what your politics are; since I am a libertarian I think people should take responsibility for themselves in this regard without government authority telling them they have to and it will get worse and worse. Smoking will never be banned though because the tobacco lobby is all-powerful.
What about protecting kids?
-
What about protecting kids?
In what regard? States have drinking laws for socalled minors. What else do you want?
-
In what regard? States have drinking laws for socalled minors. What else do you want?
Talking about the first post in this thread.
-
I guess it depends on what your politics are; since I am a libertarian I think people should take responsibility for themselves in this regard without government authority telling them they have to and it will get worse and worse. Smoking will never be banned though because the tobacco lobby is all-powerful.
Yeah, our politics may be sound in theory but in practice they aren't always practical.
the issue here isn't non-victimized crime because harm to children is involved.
-
Yeah, our politics may be sound in theory but in practice they aren't always practical.
the issue here isn't non-victimized crime because harm to children is involved.
The children argument is bad for a lot of reasons. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and protect them otherwise the government should ban kitchen knives which are far deadlier than smoking, after all, who knows? Maybe a child might get his hands on a knife and injure himself? anything can be dangerous and if there is a risk to children then parents need to step up, otherwise all children should simply become 'wards of the state' in lieu of parental authority.
-
The children argument is bad for a lot of reasons. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and protect them otherwise the government should ban kitchen knives which are far deadlier than smoking, after all, who knows? Maybe a child might get his hands on a knife and injure himself? anything can be dangerous and if there is a risk to children then parents need to step up, otherwise all children should simply become 'wards of the state' in lieu of parental authority.
The difficulty in drawing lines is a factor, but how about the specific issue of adults smoking in cars with kids. Should the government step in and protect kids who ride in cars from cigarette smoke?
-
The difficulty in drawing lines is a factor, but how about the specific issue of adults smoking in cars with kids. Should the government step in and protect kids who ride in cars from cigarette smoke?
Well, I don't think the government should but then I again I am generally against most government bans; this one is really a no-brainer for me.
-
Well, I don't think the government should but then I again I am generally against most government bans; this one is really a no-brainer for me.
So kids are on their own?
-
The children argument is bad for a lot of reasons. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and protect them otherwise the government should ban kitchen knives which are far deadlier than smoking, after all, who knows? Maybe a child might get his hands on a knife and injure himself? anything can be dangerous and if there is a risk to children then parents need to step up, otherwise all children should simply become 'wards of the state' in lieu of parental authority.
Huh? Do you know that stats on how many people die from smoking each year? to try to compare that to some "what if" about kitchen knives is just stupid.
-
What's next? Banning drinking soda in private vehicles because it can spill and is carbonated? or coffee because it is hot and can spill AND contains caffeine? State power gone mad and I say this as someone who HATES smoking.
How are these related to kids having to breathe a carcinogen?
Or are you trolling?
-
What about protecting kids?
do you think we need greater govt involvement in how people raise their kids?
When chunky MoBoama tried to tell kids how to eat, you had Sarah palin handing out Beef jerky at daycare centers to defy her.
Now the govt can tell us what air our kids should be breathing? Kinda a double standard there. Both things - junk food and smoke - are dangerous. But we should limit only 1?
-
-
How are these related to kids having to breathe a carcinogen?
Or are you trolling?
I am not trolling at all. I don't like the government telling people what to do, that is my general position. I hate smoking but I don't want the government to tell me whether I am allowed to do it or not. It's not about the risks but about government mandating people to behave in a certain way and it is certainly tricky with children BUT children are the offspring of their parents and hence their responsibility, not the government's. Of course, practically, how would one enforce this? Should smoking be banned in private homes as well when children are in the picture?
-
The children argument is bad for a lot of reasons. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and protect them otherwise the government should ban kitchen knives which are far deadlier than smoking, after all, who knows? Maybe a child might get his hands on a knife and injure himself? anything can be dangerous and if there is a risk to children then parents need to step up, otherwise all children should simply become 'wards of the state' in lieu of parental authority.
Your argument doesn't take into account that smoking is ALWAYS bad for kids. It kills people, even the young.
A knife isn't always harmful. It can be controlled for.
If we are going to have NO regulation, then should we allow child abuse by the parents? By child abuse I mean punching the kid in the face.
-
Your argument doesn't take into account that smoking is ALWAYS bad for kids. It kills people, even the young.
A knife isn't always harmful. It can be controlled for.
If we are going to have NO regulation, then should we allow child abuse by the parents? By child abuse I mean punching the kid in the face.
But parents are not allowed to punch their children in the face, that is explicit violence and is rightfully illegal. I raise my question again, should smoking be banned in private homes as well to protect children?
-
But parents are not allowed to punch their children in the face, that is explicit violence and is rightfully illegal. I raise my question again, should smoking be banned in private homes as well to protect children?
It's only illegal because society passed a law saying it is illegal. What's the difference between that kind of law and one that protects kids from cigarette smoke in a car?
-
That's the problem.
Extremes don't work in the real world.
Its nice to say you don't want regulation, but without it you end up with victims.
Like this bull shit bailout of the banks. Had we had regulation preventing all the BS hedging and splitting and selling of loans to multiple banks we might not have ever got ourselves in this mess.
But when you start talking about any regulation people start screaming.
Its whacked.
ehhhh i feel a meltdown rant coming. >:(
-
That's the problem.
Extremes don't work in the real world.
Its nice to say you don't want regulation, but without it you end up with victims.
Like this bull shit bailout of the banks. Had we had regulation preventing all the BS hedging and splitting and selling of loans to multiple banks we might not have ever got ourselves in this mess.
But when you start talking about any regulation people start screaming.
Its whacked.
ehhhh i feel a meltdown rant coming. >:(
Oz, I understand you are pissed off about the baliouts, we all are, but that is not related to the issue at hand, that is about corporatism and big government.
-
It's only illegal because society passed a law saying it is illegal. What's the difference between that kind of law and one that protects kids from cigarette smoke in a car?
It is a tricky issue. Violence not used in self-defence is almost always wrong and it is not a social issue. I am willing to concede that smoking might be a form of violence so an argument could be made for the ban but once again, should people be banned from smoking in their own home provided children live there?
-
do you think we need greater govt involvement in how people raise their kids?
When chunky MoBoama tried to tell kids how to eat, you had Sarah palin handing out Beef jerky at daycare centers to defy her.
Now the govt can tell us what air our kids should be breathing? Kinda a double standard there. Both things - junk food and smoke - are dangerous. But we should limit only 1?
I'm relaly not surprised the "conservatives" here don't want to address this point.
It's oh so wrong to limit the dangerous shit we can put in kids lungs - even though nothing more than education about eating right.
But it's correct to mandate with financial punishment what goes into kids lungs.
Kind of a double standard, huh?
-
I'm relaly not surprised the "conservatives" here don't want to address this point.
It's oh so wrong to limit the dangerous shit we can put in kids lungs - even though nothing more than education about eating right.
But it's correct to mandate with financial punishment what goes into kids lungs.
Kind of a double standard, huh?
It is a tricky issue but education is the key and good child-rearing, not the state coming in and telling everyone what to do or what not to do.
-
It is a tricky issue. Violence not used in self-defence is almost always wrong and it is not a social issue. I am willing to concede that smoking might be a form of violence so an argument could be made for the ban but once again, should people be banned from smoking in their own home provided children live there?
Have you done any reading on the dangers of cigarette smoke? Not only do people in an enclosed room (or car) get secondhand smoke, they get "sidestream" smoke, which comes straight from the cigarette. That's like smoking an unfiltered cigarette, full of carcinogens.
I don't think we should ban smoking in people's private residences. Have to draw the line somewhere.
-
Have you done any reading on the dangers of cigarette smoke? Not only do people in an enclosed room (or car) get secondhand smoke, they get "sidestream" smoke, which comes straight from the cigarette. That's like smoking an unfiltered cigarette, full of carcinogens.
I don't think we should ban smoking in people's private residences. Have to draw the line somewhere.
Why? It's clear that you are arguing that second hand smoke is a form of violence and I will concede that to you, having said that, it probaly should be banned in private homes since violence of other sorts is as well.
-
Why? It's clear that you are arguing that second hand smoke is a form of violence and I will concede that to you, having said that, it probaly should be banned in private homes since violence of other sorts is as well.
I did not say secondhand smoke is a form of violence.
-
I did not say secondhand smoke is a form of violence.
You did not use the words exactly but if it causes direct harm to others next to you then it is violence; violence need not only be done with fists or guns.
-
You did not use the words exactly but if it causes direct harm to others next to you then it is violence; violence need not only be done with fists or guns.
I wasn't talking about violence. I was asking about your attempt to distinguish laws protecting kids from violence from laws protecting kids from cigarette smoke while riding in cars: ("What's the difference between that kind of law and one that protects kids from cigarette smoke in a car?")
The issue is protecting kids, whether it's from violence or something that has a high probably of either killing them or causing serious health problems. Where do you draw the line when it comes to government's obligation to protect kids?
-
I wasn't talking about violence. I was asking about your attempt to distinguish laws protecting kids from violence from laws protecting kids from cigarette smoke while riding in cars: ("What's the difference between that kind of law and one that protects kids from cigarette smoke in a car?")
The issue is protecting kids, whether it's from violence or something that has a high probably of either killing them or causing serious health problems. Where do you draw the line when it comes to government's obligation to protect kids?
Well, as I said, I don't think the government should be involved, I think parents should step up to the plate. Parents make mistakes all the time, some huge, some minor but the government doesn't regulate that.
-
Well, as I said, I don't think the government should be involved, I think parents should step up to the plate. Parents make mistakes all the time, some huge, some minor but the government doesn't regulate that.
Ok, I understand you don't think government should protect kids from cigarette smoke in cars, but I'm asking where you draw the line? At what point do you think government should step in and protect kids from things that are likely to be harmful (or even fatal)?
-
Ok, I understand you don't think government should protect kids from cigarette smoke in cars, but I'm asking where you draw the line? At what point do you think government should step in and protect kids from things that are likely to be harmful (or even fatal)?
If there is documented evidence of harm being done to the child then the state can step in. I would support a ban on cigarette smoke in cars if it is also stated to be a form a violence and there are compelling arguments to suggest it is.
-
If there is documented evidence of harm being done to the child then the state can step in. I would support a ban on cigarette smoke in cars if it is also stated to be a form a violence and there are compelling arguments to suggest it is.
Understood. Thanks.
-
But parents are not allowed to punch their children in the face, that is explicit violence and is rightfully illegal. I raise my question again, should smoking be banned in private homes as well to protect children?
YES! OF COURSE IT SHOULD!
Should parents be able to do lab experiments with carcinogens around their kids 8-20 times per day?
Of course not.
That's what smoking is.
-
Is there really that much health difference from feeding your kid bacon and potato chips with pepsi 24/7... and smoking with them in the car?
I mean, at least the lungs will heal in 5 years when they turn 18 and move out. The 18 year of hardened arteries and digestive misfortune?
What if MoBoama had went on a "educate parents about the dangers of smoking in cars?" Would that have been too intrusive?
Yet she wanted to educate kids on better eating, and it's "keep your nose out of what my family eats".
it's a shame people are a-okay with the govt telling you what to do in your car, but freak the hell out when they want to put up a nutritional content sign at Wendy's.
-
Is there really that much health difference from feeding your kid bacon and potato chips with pepsi 24/7... and smoking with them in the car?
I mean, at least the lungs will heal in 5 years when they turn 18 and move out. The 18 year of hardened arteries and digestive misfortune?
What if MoBoama had went on a "educate parents about the dangers of smoking in cars?" Would that have been too intrusive?
Yet she wanted to educate kids on better eating, and it's "keep your nose out of what my family eats".
it's a shame people are a-okay with the govt telling you what to do in your car, but freak the hell out when they want to put up a nutritional content sign at Wendy's.
How about this.....Ollama and not allowing smoking are both correct. People need to quit acting like we live in a vacuum where nothing you do affects others. Of course it does....obesity, lung cancer, etc... are a huge expense for the medical community (especially hospitals that don't refuse patients without insurance) and for those of us who are relatively healthy, yet pay insurance premiums that are higher than they should be just because we have to cover the losses on those who, by their own choice, decide to eat bad, smoke, drink too much, etc... I'm not talking about legit health issues, but rather those that idiots bring on themselves with their lifestyles.
And the FACT that there are so many morons who decide to have kids, yet not raise them properly to be productive members of society, gives the govt some limited boundaries to try to "govern their choices."
-
when a person eats junk food, they leave a legacy of "taxpayers must foot 40 years of healthcare bills for this fatass' diabetes and disability".
So there's a very valid concern - a very good reason - to try to limit how much shit these poor folk should be eating. Essentially, that McDonalds is piping people right to the ER - on your dime!
The dbl standard only exists because the anti-junk food thing has obama's name on it ;)