States Ban Smoking With Children In Car

[dannno]

Once again: Food is necessary to survive. Tobacco is not, it's a drug.

Apples to Oranges.

Junk food is NOT necessary to survive, that's complete bologna. It is DETRIMENTAL to long term health. Did you even read my post? Apparently not. There is not logical defense for your position, you aren't even reading what we're saying.


Please read this and come up with one single LOGICAL defense:

So you have a person in one car and their kids are chomping down on organic fruits and vegetables, their windows are rolled down and the parent is smoking a cigarette, holding it out the window, blowing out the window, etc.. then in the next car over you have a bunch of kids eating junk food, windows up, a/c on. The junk food is more detrimental to the health of the kids than second hand smoke, which has not been proven to be detrimental to anybody unless they are trapped in smoke filled rooms for years and years and years on end... and it is not detrimental to the kids at all in this car because the windows are down.. yet you think the parents who are harming their kids with junk food should be able to drive off while the parent who is making their kids more healthy with healthful food and fresh air gets pulled over. Ya.. that makes a lot of sense. Would love to hear your explanation.

You can't, period. There is no logical defense for what you are saying.

 

[Romulus]

Junk food is NOT necessary to survive, that's complete bologna. It is DETRIMENTAL to long term health. Did you even read my post? Apparently not. There is not logical defense for your position.

A person can live on it on junk food.

A person can't live on cigarettes.

You can't logically can't classify junk food and cigarettes as the same. Food =/= Drug

I read your post and replied.

 

[dannno]

No Danno, they wouldn't be pulled over because the kids can breath fresh air - windows down = smoke away!

So you don't agree with the law? I could have sworn you were supporting it earlier in the thread.

I think that windows up, Mom, Dad and Uncle Fred are all puffing smokes and 3yr Johnny is gagging, they yes, I think a local gov has the right to determine if that is acceptable in their community.

Does anybody actually do this with their kid in the car? I don't think we need a law for an activity that one out of every 2 or 3 million people at most every actually do.. as Melissa I think was saying you could already get them for child endangerment for forcing them to sit in a smoke filled car, without a law.

 

[dannno]

The biggest problem I have with this law is that it actually encourages parents to roll up the window if they want to have a cig.. maybe roll down the back window so some smoke can escape.. but when you are flailing your cig out the window and blowing out the window, a cop is much more likely to notice as see if you have a kid in the car... If you keep the window down, you can hide it pretty well.

So the law is actually creating a worse situation for children here, cops should encourage parents who smoke to roll down the front driver side window and keep the bulk of the smoke out of the car to begin with...

 

[Romulus]

So you don't agree with the law? I could have sworn you were supporting it earlier in the thread.

No. I would not support a law where people could be busted for smoking in a car with their window down. Only in the case I outlined below,

Does anybody actually do this with their kid in the car? I don't think we need a law for an activity that one out of every 2 or 3 million people at most every actually do.. as Melissa I think was saying you could already get them for child endangerment for forcing them to sit in a smoke filled car, without a law.

Yes they do, read the whole thread. I see this all the time in my area. It's pretty sad. Then again, where I live you can't buy Sudafed over the counter because there are so many meth heads here. Some disagree with that law, but it makes the meth heads go out of the county to buy... Fine with me, keep their rif-raf out of here. I am for common sense laws, decided by local communties to protect them and minors. In the case of my hometown, it's definitely needed.

We have house burning, even cars burning and blowing up from Meth labs, mobile meth labs quite often.. within the past year since the law was passed, a lot of the activity has decreased.

 

[Wesker1982]

That is my quote.

Misquoting me is a desperate attempt to validate your weak argument, so I'll stop this discussion with you now. G'day.

i guess you have never seen a FYP before? it was not a misquote it was a fix your quote (post). it should have been obvious since the part that I changed was bolded. if i was attempting to misquote you i would not have pointed it out...

edit: maybe this will help http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fyp

 

[Romulus]

The biggest problem I have with this law is that it actually encourages parents to roll up the window if they want to have a cig.. maybe roll down the back window so some smoke can escape.. but when you are flailing your cig out the window and blowing out the window, a cop is much more likely to notice as see if you have a kid in the car... If you keep the window down, you can hide it pretty well.

So the law is actually creating a worse situation for children here, cops should encourage parents who smoke to roll down the front driver side window and keep the bulk of the smoke out of the car to begin with...

Huh? If its against the law with the windows UP, smokers would roll it DOWN when smoking with their children to avoid a ticket..

 

[Wesker1982]

Now you are going to try to use that as an excuse to continue to ignore these points:

-How is violence towards something potentially dangerous justified? How is this not excessive force?

-The cost of violence that will be required to prohibit these risks GREATLY outweighs the negative impact that these risks might produce.

-Would you be willing to use violence to stop a parent from smoking in a car with a child?

 

[specsaregood]

Huh? If its against the law with the windows UP, smokers would roll it DOWN when smoking with their children to avoid a ticket..

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.

 

[dannno]

Yes they do, read the whole thread. I see this all the time in my area. It's pretty sad. Then again, where I live you can't buy Sudafed over the counter because there are so many meth heads here. Some disagree with that law, but it makes the meth heads go out of the county to buy... Fine with me, keep their rif-raf out of here. I am for common sense laws, decided by local communties to protect them and minors. In the case of my hometown, it's definitely needed.

We have house burning, even cars burning and blowing up from Meth labs, mobile meth labs quite often.. within the past year since the law was passed, a lot of the activity has decreased.

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.

If you go down to south america, you can still get high on cocaine straight from the coca leaves, that is how many people there still do it. It's not as intense or nearly as dangerous or addictive as doing cocaine, but people there CHOOSE to use this method for consumption. People in the United States are FORCED to use powder cocaine because of black market laws prohibiting the coca leaf, so the most effective way to get the substance into the country is to isolate the drug itself and smuggle it over in pure form. The result is that more people in the US are addicted to cocaine, and recreational use of coca leaves is not a problem at all in South America. If it were legal, people would start growing coca plants and you could safely get high off coca leaves, it would be like having a cup or two of coffee but not as jittery, much smoother feeling.

It is prohibition that leads to the use of dangerous substances, like during alcohol prohibition when people were cooking up moonshine. The vast, vast majority of people don't drink moonshine anymore, they drink beer or wine, maybe a spirit..

 

[dannno]

Huh? If its against the law with the windows UP, smokers would roll it DOWN when smoking with their children to avoid a ticket..

No, I was saying the law in the OP is bad because it encourages parents to keep the windows down and smoke.

Personally I don't agree with parents who smoke in their car with their kids, and I would yell at a parent doing that, and I encourage others to as well.. as far as initiating violence, I think I have to go with Wesker..

Taking kids from parents should probably be only in extreme circumstances where they are directly in danger of being harmed, not this voodoo pseudo scientific "well.... it MIGHT harm them down the road...."

Fining parents for endangering their kids seems kinda silly.. either they are in eminent danger or they aren't..

 

[WaltM]

not really sure what to think about this. The state definitely has the right to do this. I don't think that smoking is acceptable around children, but a law on the state level is probably pushing it.

i have no problem using force to protect children from smoke, assuming there's scientific evidence that smoking is detrimental to health, and younger children are more vulnerable.

Unless you believe a parent should allow their children to smoke, I don't see how this isn't logical.

 

[Wesker1982]

Taking kids from parents should probably be only in extreme circumstances where they are directly in danger of being harmed, not this voodoo pseudo scientific "well.... it MIGHT harm them down the road...."

Exactly.

If I saw a child or an old lady being beaten or otherwise severely abused on the street and I had the means to stop it, violence would be justified in defense of the victim because the level of aggression being used against the victim is extreme. I would not feel guilty in this situation using violence to defend somebody. However, if I used violence to stop second hand smoke, unhealthy diets, or to force parents to put sun screen on their children, I would definitely not feel right about it. Would you?


The level of abuse/neglect of second hand smoke, junk food, poor diets etc, is not serious enough to justify violence. Violence should only be used when in extreme circumstances.

 

[Wesker1982]

i have no problem using force to protect children from smoke

If you saw a parent smoking in a car with a child and you were armed, would you put a gun to the parents head and make them stop?

If you saw an old lady being mugged/raped/beaten and you were armed, would you try to help the old lady?


There should only be one of the above situations where a non-psychotic person would pull a gun on somebody.

 

[Kludge]

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.

 

[Krugerrand]

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.

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.

 

[pcosmar]

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.

Then don't,, with your kids.
I grew up in a home with smokers. It never bothered me.
I am one of 5 healthy siblings,, that are all presently getting old.

Raise your own children. Mind your own business.
It is this kind of Statist busybody attitude that is responsible for the drug war, was responsible for Prohibition and the Police State we have today.
Mind your own friggin' business.

 

[WaltM]

If you saw a parent smoking in a car with a child and you were armed, would you put a gun to the parents head and make them stop?

Only if
a) it were legal
b) that wouldn't pose a greater risk than the smoke itself

If you saw an old lady being mugged/raped/beaten and you were armed, would you try to help the old lady?

Only if I believed it's wrong to mug, rape and beat an old lady, and it wouldn't cost me more than I can afford to help.

There should only be one of the above situations where a non-psychotic person would pull a gun on somebody.

says you?

 

[WaltM]

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.

are you suggesting that seeing the weather is more important than predicting the climate?

 

[Petar]

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.

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