States Ban Smoking With Children In Car

[pcosmar]

so if you are driving "recklessly" but the child is not harmed in any way, it is abuse?

I have to wonder this also. As someone that often rode in the bed of a pick-up, as well as a few "questionable" vehicles.

(I was transported across expanses of ice in a cardboard box behind a snowmobile.)

 

[virgil47]

seriously, people need to mind their own fucking business.

+10,000

 

[virgil47]

Going to the logical end of your implied argument, firing a gun in the general area of a child (but not intentionally aiming directly at the child) should not be punishable by law.

Lawmakers (or better yet - individuals!) need to decide how much risk is reasonable for children to be exposed to. It's my opinion that the health risks of second-hand smoke is wildly overblown and has been debunked. But this isn't entirely about endangering the childrens' lives - it's also about the unpleasant effects of second-hand smoke kids are being subjected to. That itself could be argued as abuse.

To my knowledge firing a gun near a child is NOT punishable by law unless you are aiming at the child. Second hand smoke is nothing as compared to the state sponsored pollution children are exposed to on a daily basis. First comes no smoking in your car then comes no smoking in your home then comes no smoking period. By the way I am not a smoker but I am for individual and parental rights.

 

[ChaosControl]

They're not ridiculous but rather, logical conclusions. When you support a law, you are supporting the violence that is used to uphold that law. The reason I asked if you would be willing to pull the trigger is that ultimately, that's what laws and government come down to- the threat of violence. You may be okay with others carrying out these acts, but would YOU actually be willing to enforce these laws you like the way the state enforces them?

I guess with the extremists who instead of trying to change the opinions of people to get rid of the law or move away and just want to break the local law anyway would eventually result in them getting put into jail, such is their fault for taking the stupidest option they had.

What you're advocating is still collectivism, even if it's local.
If the citizens in your state voted 51% to ban stereos in cars, would you be okay with that?

Would I support the ban? No.
Would I recognize that people have the right to vote that while in public you cannot have your radio on? Yes.

If you dislike the ban, you work to change opinions or you move. That is the beauty of localism. You can have the type of government you want. If town A wants peaceful 1950s style town and town B wants an anything goes town then both towns

Public land doesn't exist. It's government land. Who owns it? Nobody owns it. It doesn't matter what I call myself or what anyone calls themselves. If you want to ban smoking around kids in your household, that's totally fine. But what gives you the right to order me around with the threat of violence? Lots of bad things are happening right now, the government has no business being involved in them. Think about it- the government itself exists on threats of violence and theft. How in the world can they rightly go around being the moral police?

Call it what you want but its still public land. Everyone shares ownership of it just like I already mentioned.

What gives the people the right? The same thing that gives me the right to tell you not to smoke on my land. The people own the land so the people can vote on what is allowable on the land. Don't like it? Don't go on public land or move to a place with laws that suit you more.

There is no one-size-fits-all and that is why it is best to keep things local so everyone can have what most fits their views.

 

[Romulus]

If the police can already interpret law as they choose, and secondhand smoke really is child abuse (which is the entire premise upon which the law at hand is based), then people could be pulled over on the grounds that they are abusing their children in the vehicle.

Who, precisely, defines negligence? You are saying that the secondhand smoke issue isn't negligence, obviously, because it doesn't fall under existing child abuse statutes, so why is this question even here? If it's negligence, it's already against the law! If it's not negligence, then why do we need a law on the subject?

How small and confined constitutes a hazard? Why aren't you addressing residual exposure? Is smoking with your 17-year-old in the car a bit different than smoking with your baby in it? Oh, I know, NOW the police will exercise common sense (like they couldn't when stopping someone with a coughing five-year-old in the back of their smoke-filled, windows-up vehicle). The law attempts to be one-size-fits-all, rather than enforce the laws already on the books. It's another law that doesn't do what it purports to do, and you haven't proven otherwise.

How does this law actually stop people from smoking with children in the car? How does it reduce exposure to secondhand smoke? How does it save lives?

First you have to throw out the police applying the law wild card. There's no constant there. And actually the 'child endangerment' law is an attempt as a one size fits all law. It is not in this case. If police try it, chances are it'll get thrown out.

About ash trays. I think we can agree that one is actively more hazardous than the other and you can distinguish between the two.

And how does any law stop people from breaking the law? It does not, it's a deterrent to act as our society, be it local, state or national, has deemed to be responsible.

I am still in favor for this as either a local township or county law, for communities to decide.

How about ethics now?

I happen to live in a small town with a lot of smokers. Just yesterday, 4 adults and one 8 yr old child got our of a small car. ALL of them were puffing away with the windows UP. I felt sorry for the girl. But oh well, too bad for her I guess? Since its not against the law, I guess I can go around and blow smoke in all the babies faces at the county fair then? I mean, there's no law telling me I can't , right? Or can I be arrested for child abuse on that one? Or assault? Surely there's a law we could file it under.. or not.

 

[Fredom101]

To my knowledge firing a gun near a child is NOT punishable by law unless you are aiming at the child. Second hand smoke is nothing as compared to the state sponsored pollution children are exposed to on a daily basis. First comes no smoking in your car then comes no smoking in your home then comes no smoking period. By the way I am not a smoker but I am for individual and parental rights.

What if a cop pulls over a parent smoking in his car with kids in the back, and the parent refuses to go along with the cops demands and the cop eventually pulls out a gun and shoots the dad for "resisting arrest"? As long as we save the kid from 2nd hand smoke that's a perfectly acceptable scenario?

 

[Petar]

Who determines what "recklessly" is?

State legislators namely.

 

[Fredom101]

I guess with the extremists who instead of trying to change the opinions of people to get rid of the law or move away and just want to break the local law anyway would eventually result in them getting put into jail, such is their fault for taking the stupidest option they had.


Would I support the ban? No.
Would I recognize that people have the right to vote that while in public you cannot have your radio on? Yes.

If you dislike the ban, you work to change opinions or you move. That is the beauty of localism. You can have the type of government you want. If town A wants peaceful 1950s style town and town B wants an anything goes town then both towns



Call it what you want but its still public land. Everyone shares ownership of it just like I already mentioned.

What gives the people the right? The same thing that gives me the right to tell you not to smoke on my land. The people own the land so the people can vote on what is allowable on the land. Don't like it? Don't go on public land or move to a place with laws that suit you more.

There is no one-size-fits-all and that is why it is best to keep things local so everyone can have what most fits their views.

So then what do you have against the most local government of all, self-government?

 

[Fredom101]

State legislators namely.

And these are people who will be watching over you as you drive? Yep, sounds like libertarianism to me.

 

[ChaosControl]

So then what do you have against the most local government of all, self-government?

I don't have anything against it. You're on your land, do what you want as long as you don't harm a non-consenting party. You're on my land I can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off. You're on public land then the public can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

That's what parents get for giving up their kids to the state. Don't get mad when the state makes rules concerning babysitters.

There are crappy parents, and smoking with your kid in the back is not the best thing to do, but a "law" for smoking in your "private" property, really?

When will they make a "law" that you cannot smoke in your house because you have children? Will you be OK with that? Some of you seem like you would be.



"It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father". - Thomas Jefferson


"They have taken the care and upbringing of children out of the hands of parents, where it belongs, and thrown it upon a gang of irresponsible and unintelligent quacks." - H. L. Mencken

 

[virgil47]

What if a cop pulls over a parent smoking in his car with kids in the back, and the parent refuses to go along with the cops demands and the cop eventually pulls out a gun and shoots the dad for "resisting arrest"? As long as we save the kid from 2nd hand smoke that's a perfectly acceptable scenario?

If a cop shoots and kills a parent for smoking the cop should be prosecuted for murder and executed.

 

[virgil47]

I don't have anything against it. You're on your land, do what you want as long as you don't harm a non-consenting party. You're on my land I can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off. You're on public land then the public can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off.

As long as there are property taxes that are paid to a state agency you do not "own" your land. You rent it.

 

[Petar]

And these are people who will be watching over you as you drive? Yep, sounds like libertarianism to me.

No, it's up to cops to enforce the laws that legislators create.

So it's the job of state or local police to ticket/charge you if you drive recklessly.

Of course you at least have the option to go to trial as well, and that relies on the discernment of the judge/jury, relative to the law that legislators have created.

And if the law itself is unfair, then jury nullification is a great way for the community to counter-balance that.

 

[Fredom101]

No, it's up to cops to enforce the laws that legislators create.

So it's the job of state or local police to ticket/charge you if you drive recklessly.

Of course you at least have the option to go to trial as well, and that relies on the discernment of the judge/jury, relative to the law that legislators have created.

And if the law itself is unfair, then jury nullification is a great way for the community to counter-balance that.

You just described the system as it is. It fails miserably. The cop in fact has to drive "recklessly" in order to pull over the so-called reckless driver! So then you have 2 dangerous drivers on the road.

We're trying to make changes so that we can all have more freedom, not advocate the status quo which is adding more laws and giving us all more tyranny.

 

[WhiteHaven]

So ignorant. I don't smoke neither does anyone I associate with but this is b.s.

 

[Petar]

You just described the system as it is. It fails miserably. The cop in fact has to drive "recklessly" in order to pull over the so-called reckless driver! So then you have 2 dangerous drivers on the road.

We're trying to make changes so that we can all have more freedom, not advocate the status quo which is adding more laws and giving us all more tyranny.

Yes, I just described a large component of "the system", but there are of course many more.

Regardless, I do agree that many things need to be changed in "the system", but I do not believe that we need to just completely give up on child-abuse or reckless driving laws.

I do believe that cops should not engage in high-speed chases unless they perhaps have a really good reason, so maybe legislators should create laws against that.

 

[jmdrake]

If a cop shoots and kills a parent for smoking the cop should be prosecuted for murder and executed.

Except it will never work like that. The cop will say that he thought the dad was reaching for a weapon and so he pulled out what he thought was a taser but really was his gun. At least that fits what happened in the last well publicized police shooting trial.

 

[ChaosControl]

As long as there are property taxes that are paid to a state agency you do not "own" your land. You rent it.

True unfortunately, but it is still ultimately considered private property rather than public and thus you are able to engage in behaviors that would not be allowed in public.

 

[dannno]

True unfortunately, but it is still ultimately considered private property rather than public and thus you are able to engage in behaviors that would not be allowed in public.

So the public can vote to arrest anybody of a certain race who appears in public, if that is what the public wants

You should checkout "Individualism Vs. Collectivism" on youtube to find out what the public is morally allowed to do as far as laws are concerned.