Smoking bans in private vehicles?

[garebear]

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.

[Deicide]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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?

[OzmO]

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.  

[Deicide]

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.

[Deicide]

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?

[240 is Back]

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?

[Deicide]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Deicide]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Deicide]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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?

[Deicide]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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)? 

[Deicide]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[garebear]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[The Showstoppa]

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."

[240 is Back]

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