States Ban Smoking With Children In Car

[specsaregood]

And again, if anyone thinks its ok for me to blow smoke in their kids face, please say aye.

Is it ok for me to force feed your kid whatever I want?
The unhealthy diet is a very relevent comparison. Unhealthy diets lead to just as many if not more health problems than 2nd hand smoke. And if you can ban it in the car you can certainly ban it in the house or completely. Obesity and diabetes is a much bigger problem in this country than smoking is, both very closely related to the diets being fed to our kids.

 

[pcosmar]

Very disheartening. /thread

First, it is sad to see how many people buy into the "2nd hand smoke" bullshit.
a purely emotional response to a widespread propaganda campaign.


Secondly, the number of posters that would support the use of violent force (police) to be used against others to satisfy this emotional response.


Is this still a Liberty Movement?

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

Please explain relevance to discussion.

It's quite relevant actually. If you are pro life then you believe that the child has freedoms and that child's freedom is infringed on when it is murdered by its mother via an abortion.

If you are pro choice then you believe the mother has the freedom to do whatever the hell she wants with the baby. Babys have no freedoms or no rights its all up to the mother on how she wants to raise or not raise the baby.

So we come to this discussion. Do you think the kid has the freedom to not have harmful chemicals inhaled because of his mothers habits? Why should the mother's choices affect the kids freedom that is the freedom to live a healthy life if he/she so chooses?

Once again either the kid has rights or freedoms or he doesnt. No one would like to walk outside their back yard to a whole lot of pollution given off by their neighbors. Why is this any different?

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

Very disheartening. /thread

First, it is sad to see how many people buy into the "2nd hand smoke" bullshit.
a purely emotional response to a widespread propaganda campaign.


Secondly, the number of posters that would support the use of violent force (police) to be used against others to satisfy this emotional response.


Is this still a Liberty Movement?

Yes, 2nd hand smoke is 100% for real. Let me guess, cigs dont cause cancer either?
Also Im not advocating for violence, I think a reprimand is in order. Sadly not every can be parents, some need to be taught. If it happens over and over then the parent should be forced into some class.

 

[Krugerrand]

It's quite relevant actually. If you are pro life then you believe that the child has freedoms and that child's freedom is infringed on when it is murdered by its mother via an abortion.

If you are pro choice then you believe the mother has the freedom to do whatever the hell she wants with the baby. Babys have no freedoms or no rights its all up to the mother on how she wants to raise or not raise the baby.

So we come to this discussion. Do you think the kid has the freedom to not have harmful chemicals inhaled because of his mothers habits? Why should the mother's choices affect the kids freedom that is the freedom to live a healthy life if he/she so chooses?

Once again either the kid has rights or freedoms or he doesnt. No one would like to walk outside their back yard to a whole lot of pollution given off by their neighbors. Why is this any different?

In some ways the pregnant mother is very much not different than the mother in the car comparison.

I very much oppose a mother killing her child before it born. I also support a mother's decision making for the well-being of the child before it is born. PERHAPS there are some negative consequences to second-hand smoke. There may also be negative consequences if a pregnant women eats Twinkies and McDonald's french fries. Yes, the child must LIVE with those consequences. That's simply unfortunate. Much like the many children who were fed formula instead of breast milk because their mothers were told that it was scientifically formulated to be healthier than breast milk have the unfortunate consequence of poorer health.

Parents are responsible for the children not government. It takes parents not a village to properly raise children. To shift responsible decision making from the parents to the state ENDANGERS the children far more than second hand smoke.

 

[MelissaWV]

Yes, 2nd hand smoke is 100% for real. Let me guess, cigs dont cause cancer either?
Also Im not advocating for violence, I think a reprimand is in order. Sadly not every can be parents, some need to be taught. If it happens over and over then the parent should be forced into some class.

Oh that's good. The police can pull you over, scold you, and send you to be reprogrammed. This would only be used for good, though... right?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Lot of statism in this thread and a lot of people with a "stick up their ass" (thanks for that danno) about smoking.

One hell of a slippery slope, based on bullshit:

Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

I can see where this heading, decades of work to legalize marijuana only to have the smoking of it banned under public health codes.

You either have the right to eat, smoke, drink or ingest whatever you damn well please into your body or you don't.

Second, third and fourth hand smoke danger is as bullshit an argument as the danger of second hand farts. That's the camel's nose in the tent of accepting the concept that everything you do has some effect on somebody else somewhere, therefore we (government) claim the right to regulate every single aspect of your existence.

 

[pcosmar]

Yes, 2nd hand smoke is 100% for real. Let me guess, cigs dont cause cancer either?

Cause?
No, I don't buy it at all.
Fish get cancer, and they don't smoke. People died of cancer before cigarettes or the industrial revolution.
NO , I don't buy the hype.

Also Im not advocating for violence, I think a reprimand is in order. Sadly not every can be parents, some need to be taught. If it happens over and over then the parent should be forced into some class.

I disagree. But you are contradictory.

 

[Wesker1982]

Why should the mother's choices affect the kids freedom that is the freedom to live a healthy life if he/she so chooses?

Apply that question to junk food (which is a HUGE problem today) or sunlight. Both which can have adverse effects on a healthy life.

Pro life/pro choice would be relevant here if we were talking about death. But we aren't. We are talking about something that can potentially cause health problems, not something that instantly ends a life.

You might as well say anyone who is against junk food or sunlight exposure laws is pro choice. Its a strawman.

Once again:

Would any supporters of this law be willing to walk up to a parent in a car smoking with a kid and try to make them stop? Would you be willing to pull a gun on them to make them stop?

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

Would anyone here support a law regulating the amount of direct sunlight your child can get? Would violence be justified in enforcing such a law?

There are health risks from many different things. The cost of violence that will be required to prohibit these risks GREATLY outweighs the negative impact that these risks might produce.

Put simply: the cost is too high.

 

[Romulus]

Is it ok for me to force feed your kid whatever I want?
The unhealthy diet is a very relevent comparison. Unhealthy diets lead to just as many if not more health problems than 2nd hand smoke. And if you can ban it in the car you can certainly ban it in the house or completely. Obesity and diabetes is a much bigger problem in this country than smoking is, both very closely related to the diets being fed to our kids.

Poor argument.

Food is necessary so survive. Tobacco smoke is not.

I understand how this could be a camels nose, by all means.

But again, this is nothing new. Minors cannot consume alcohol. We have laws against that to protect them, the same as you cannot buy cigarettes if you're under 18. These are logical laws to protect minors. Now if someone has a beef with how they are enforced, fine - that is another thread.

This one is about protecting those who cant do that themselves.

 

[Wesker1982]

Food is necessary so survive. Junk food is not.

There. By your standards this is now a valid argument.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Poor argument.

Food is necessary so survive. Tobacco smoke is not.

I understand how this could be a camels nose, by all means.

But again, this is nothing new. Minors cannot consume alcohol. We have laws against that to protect them, the same as you cannot buy cigarettes if you're under 18. These are logical laws to protect minors. Now if someone has a beef with how they are enforced, fine - that is another thread.

This one is about protecting those who cant do that themselves.

Those "laws" are from engaging in commerce with a store, not for limiting parents personal responsibilities and the bad decisions they make. Plus, kids can drink and smoke in their house as well as their parents, you want house inspections, too? You know, to comply with the statute.

 

[REDNECK WOMAN]

I like to drink coffee, smoke my CIGS and cuss, so leave me the hell along and mind your own damn business!!!! Those that think that way.

 

[Romulus]

There. By your standards this is now a valid argument.

Food is necessary so survive. Tobacco smoke is not.

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.

Those "laws" are from engaging in commerce with a store, not for limiting parents personal responsibilities and the bad decisions they make. Plus, kids can drink and smoke in their house as well as their parents, you want house inspections, too? You know, to comply with the statute.

No I'm not in favor of any home inspections.

Actually those are not just commerce laws. If a 15yr old is walking down the street with a beer, he can be cited for possession. Also, a policeman can cite a minor on private property if they are smoking and drinking underage. Valid or not, its within the current laws. We are talking about controlled substances here and minors.

 

[dannno]

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.

They weren't misquoting you, they were making a logical argument against you. They were making the argument that junk food is in fact detrimental to your health, you don't need junk food to survive.

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.

 

[Romulus]

No, that was a direct misquote of me by Wesker. Putting words in my mouth, making it look like a said something is a trick, similar to what the mass media will do to try and make a point out of a weak argument.

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

Apples to Oranges.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[Krugerrand]

No, that was a direct misquote of me by Wesker. Putting words in my mouth, making it look like a said something is a trick, similar to what the mass media will do to try and make a point out of a weak argument.

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

Apples to Oranges.

Again ... good is necessary to survive. Junk food is not necessary to survive. Twinkies are not necessary for survival.

 

[Romulus]

Ok so if junk food and drugs are the same:

Should we not sell Twinkies to minors?

Or should we sell Beer and Cigarettes to an 8yr old?

 

[Romulus]

They weren't misquoting you, they were making a logical argument against you. They were making the argument that junk food is in fact detrimental to your health, you don't need junk food to survive.

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.

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

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.