States Ban Smoking With Children In Car

[WaltM]

I disagree. I think this is about who gets to decide to what children are subject. And I come down on the side of the parent.

let's make the case more extreme.

just so there's no dispute about whether smoking is immediate harm, or harm at all.

Is a parent allowed to deliberately beat or kill their child?
I'm not asking you if it's the State's business or whether we should have monitors in every house to prevent it. If you can have it your way, would you allow a parent to kill their child deliberately, or not?

 

[WaltM]

Great idea, now let's also molest some kids for an experiment.

I don't see how any of these "parents first" people can say why not.

 

[dannno]

Have you guys ever smoked around your kids and studied their reactions -- or asked them how they feel when you're smoking? If you can get them to agree - put them in the car, roll up the windows, and light up a few cigarettes. This isn't about some studies suggesting there may or may not be a correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer - it's about what you're immediately subjecting your children to.

When I was 5 my best friend lived across the street and his parents smoked. My parents were very much against smoking, and I'd come home and they would smell my hair and be like 'they are SMOKING over there around you' and they would try to get me to play at my house with my friend rather than the other way around.. unfortunately my friend had cooler stuff and a cooler backyard than me, so I ended up over there all the time with the smokers, and it was a constant battle with my parents. Anyways, that's how much I cared about other people smoking when I was a kid.

 

[dannno]

let's make the case more extreme.

just so there's no dispute about whether smoking is immediate harm, or harm at all.

Is a parent allowed to deliberately beat or kill their child?
I'm not asking you if it's the State's business or whether we should have monitors in every house to prevent it. If you can have it your way, would you allow a parent to kill their child deliberately, or not?

If you read previous posts on this thread you'd know that it is acceptable to use violence to protect others against violence, but that it is not acceptable to use violence to protect against something inherently non-violent.

 

[specsaregood]

I don't see how any of these "parents first" people can say why not.

And I can't see how you govt first people can justify letting any children be raised by their parents. At some point every parent is bound to do something that many disagree with. Might as well seize all children and raise them by the state.

 

[Wesker1982]

If you read previous posts on this thread you'd know that it is acceptable to use violence to protect others against violence, but that it is not acceptable to use violence to protect against something inherently non-violent.

ding ding ding ding WE HAVE A WINNER!

 

[WaltM]

If you read previous posts on this thread you'd know that it is acceptable to use violence to protect others against violence, but that it is not acceptable to use violence to protect against something inherently non-violent.

so fraud and theft are non-violent, and cannot be prevented or protected by violence?

or, is feeding your child fatal poison violence?

or is lying to your child you're feeding him candy when in fact it's candy coated poison "violence"?

 

[WaltM]

And I can't see how you govt first people can justify letting any children be raised by their parents.

the fact you think I'm government first is a mistake.

At some point every parent is bound to do something that many disagree with. Might as well seize all children and raise them by the state.

I'm not pro-government or pro-parent in all cases, looks like we both agree there's a line ,we just dont agree where it is.

 

[Romulus]

I have not seen anywhere, where the law in question specifies the status of the windows. http://www.10tv.com/live/content/lo...ton-court-house-smoking-ban-cars.html?sid=102

It just says no smoking with children in the car. Danno's point, which I can't imagine how you are missing is that: if you ban smoking in the car (regardless of window status) the unintended consequences would be that people looking to break the law would be more inclined to smoke with the windows up as to lessen their chances of getting caught.

I'm saying that I would not support that law, unless it was specific to it being enforced only for an enclosed vehicle. If the community supports it, then so be it. Each community is different and I believe in local government being able to govern themselves especially to protect the individual rights for minors - be it a baby or a 17 yr old.

Funny, you can't abuse a cat, but you can blow a pack of cigarette smoke in your infants face?

 

[Romulus]

People wouldn't gravitate towards these dangerous substances if laws on supposedly dangerous substances did not exist.. they would gravitate towards safer more natural substances. The laws you are advocating make the situation much worse, though not nearly the detrimental effect when done on a local level, it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

I am all for the legalization of marijuana, as long as you treat is like alcohol and tobacco in relation to minors. It's still a drug. And am NOT for taxing it!

But to make a blanket statement that all drugs are equal, is absurd.

Sudafed has been a legal over the counter drug to buy here since day one. Finally, our town got some balls, defied threats from the ACLU and made it legal by prescription only - that means NO over the counter sales. We told the ACLU to fuck off, as if they know whats best for our town? Guess what, the residents won here. It worked. Meth heads and their labs incidents are decreasing by a substantial rate.

Common sense says you can legislate ALL drugs with a one size fits all policy. And no law itself is one size fits all, period.

 

[WaltM]

I'm saying that I would not support that law, unless it was specific to it being enforced only for an enclosed vehicle. If the community supports it, then so be it. Each community is different and I believe in local government being able to govern themselves especially to protect the individual rights for minors - be it a baby or a 17 yr old.

Funny, you can't abuse a cat, but you can blow a pack of cigarette smoke in your infants face?

hypocrisy of animal rights, get it?

 

[specsaregood]

Funny, you can't abuse a cat, but you can blow a pack of cigarette smoke in your infants face?

Are you saying you can't blow a pack of cigarette smoke in a cat's face? I must have missed where that was made illegal but kept legal in regards to infants. Can you source that?

 

[WaltM]

Are you saying you can't blow a pack of cigarette smoke in a cat's face? I must have missed where that was made illegal but kept legal in regards to infants. Can you source that?

i have no doubt that the same act done on a cat, or a baby, a baby would get you more punishment.

but it is surprising that smoking in a car isn't considered equally deliberate and harmful as blowing smoke.

 

[Wesker1982]

I'm not pro-government or pro-parent in all cases, looks like we both agree there's a line ,we just dont agree where it is.

Are we allowed to disagree without getting shot or thrown in jail? I would not support you getting shot or jailed over our disagreement.

If we are allowed to disagree on second hand smoke laws, surely those who disagree cannot be forced to fund the enforcement of them? If we are forced to fund them, we are not allowed to disagree.

 

[dannno]

so fraud and theft are non-violent, and cannot be prevented or protected by violence?

No, those things all require violence because you are taking something from somebody by force.

Even in the case of fraud, if you some how were able to convince me to take my TV away for payment, and that payment wasn't received, then I can use violence to protect my property by taking my property back.. HOWEVER when there is a state, that violence can be transferred and the state can use violent force to retain said property.

or, is feeding your child fatal poison violence?

Yes, that is extremely violent.

or is lying to your child you're feeding him candy when in fact it's candy coated poison "violence"?

Yup.

 

[dannno]

I am all for the legalization of marijuana, as long as you treat is like alcohol and tobacco in relation to minors. It's still a drug. And am NOT for taxing it!

But to make a blanket statement that all drugs are equal, is absurd.

Here's the problem, if you allow the state to make meth illegal, then what is to say they don't make other safer substances like cannabis illegal, thus leading to more dangerous drug use as we have now?

If you make all drugs legal, then people will gravitate towards the safer substances and you will have less problems.

 

[WaltM]

Are we allowed to disagree without getting shot or thrown in jail? I would not support you getting shot or jailed over our disagreement.

yes, but not all disagreements are equal.

If we are allowed to disagree on second hand smoke laws, surely those who disagree cannot be forced to fund the enforcement of them? If we are forced to fund them, we are not allowed to disagree.

there's a lot of things I wish the government didn't exist to enforce, trust me, you'd wish people for forced to pay for them.

 

[WaltM]

Here's the problem, if you allow the state to make meth illegal, then what is to say they don't make other safer substances like cannabis illegal, thus leading to more dangerous drug use as we have now?

If you make all drugs legal, then people will gravitate towards the safer substances and you will have less problems.

so when alcohol is legal, people gravitate towards less harmful substances like organic vegetables and candy?

 

[WaltM]

No, those things all require violence because you are taking something from somebody by force.

fraud is force? lol

then what isn't?

Even in the case of fraud, if you some how were able to convince me to take my TV away for payment, and that payment wasn't received, then I can use violence to protect my property by taking my property back.. HOWEVER when there is a state, that violence can be transferred and the state can use violent force to retain said property.

correct, what's wrong with that? the state acts as your agent to enforce your property.

Yes, that is extremely violent.

how is that?

Yup.

so what isn't violent??

 

[dannno]

so when alcohol is legal, people gravitate towards less harmful substances like organic vegetables and candy?

No, when alcohol was illegal many people drank moonshine which can cause blindness. The reason was because it was a more potent form of alcohol so it could be worth more to transport, not because people demanded moonshine.. they drank it because prohibition causes people to extract a pure form of the substance.

Now that alcohol is legal, people tend to drink beer, wine, and occasional spirits. Nobody really drinks moonshine too much anymore.

If drugs were legal, people would gravitate towards the less dangerous, which when processing is involved will mean less potent alternatives (though the purity will also be higher in the sense that processing these substances often leaves them with dangerous residues and secondary substances). Heroin users would largely be using opium which is MUCH safer and less addictive (though still addictive).