States Ban Smoking With Children In Car

[dannno]

fraud is force? lol

then what isn't?

Voluntary transactions which are completed to the satisfaction of both parties are not force.

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

That's pretty much their only job, protecting your life and property (also contracts, which means protecting us from fraud)

how is that?

Anything that causes injury or death is violent.

There is no proof that second hand smoke from being in a car causes injury.

Now, I've hotboxed closed cars with cannabis before.. actually probably dozens of times. It's a lot of fun. I'm talking like 2 or 3 blunts, which are cigar papers filled with cannabis and at least twice as big as cigs, being passed around between several people until you can't see anything in the car. Of course, there is absolutely nothing dangerous about cannabis as compared to cigarettes, but even if it was cigarette smoke it isn't going to be harmful. Now if the kid was stuck in that car most of the day every day for a few years, that might cause some harm..

Even if somebody here says they see people smoking with the windows up, I'm still skeptical that there isn't some window cracked somewhere.. I really can't imagine anybody doing that with cigs to their kid.. but it's one of those problems that has to be soooo tiny, I just don't see any need for a law.

Last time I checked, going camping with children was still legal. Campfires are still legal. I accidentally inhaled a lot of smoke when I was a kid, just sitting around a campfire. Believe it or not, our lungs are designed to deal with air pollution.

 

[Romulus]

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

It is, but no one wants to admit that. Apparently its ok that I strap my baby to my chest and smoke a pack of cigarettes in her face.

Because its my liberty and all/sarcasm.

 

[WaltM]

Voluntary transactions which are completed to the satisfaction of both parties are not force.






That's pretty much their only job, protecting your life and property (also contracts, which means protecting us from fraud)





Anything that causes injury or death is violent.

There is no proof that second hand smoke from being in a car causes injury.

Now, I've hotboxed closed cars with cannabis before.. actually probably dozens of times. It's a lot of fun. I'm talking like 2 or 3 blunts, which are cigar papers filled with cannabis and at least twice as big as cigs, being passed around between several people until you can't see anything in the car. Of course, there is absolutely nothing dangerous about cannabis as compared to cigarettes, but even if it was cigarette smoke it isn't going to be harmful. Now if the kid was stuck in that car most of the day every day for a few years, that might cause some harm..

Even if somebody here says they see people smoking with the windows up, I'm still skeptical that there isn't some window cracked somewhere.. I really can't imagine anybody doing that with cigs to their kid.. but it's one of those problems that has to be soooo tiny, I just don't see any need for a law.

Last time I checked, going camping with children was still legal. Campfires are still legal. I accidentally inhaled a lot of smoke when I was a kid, just sitting around a campfire. Believe it or not, our lungs are designed to deal with air pollution.

how is fraud and theft cause injury and death? lol

 

[DamianTV]

So will blowing smoke in someones face be the new face of Assault & Battery?

 

[dannno]

how is fraud and theft cause injury and death? lol

Easy.

If i have a tv, and you want it, if it is my property then I won't let you have it unless you pay me. If you want to take it, then you will have to overcome me with violence, and I have the right to return that violence.

Same with fraud, if you defraud me out of my TV, then the TV is still mine and I have the right to defend my property using violence. Therefore you can't steal something without implying violent force to steal said thing.

Stealing requires violence, even if the violence doesn't go down, when libertarians or NAP folks say violence, the threat of violence = violence. It is conceptual. That's why leftists laugh and us libertarians when we say that taxing requires the use of violence. They don't get it, but it absolutely does. Do you get it yet?

 

[Wesker1982]

It is, but no one wants to admit that.

Kind of like how you won't admit that you would not use violence to stop somebody from smoking with their kid in the car

Apparently its ok that I strap my baby to my chest and smoke a pack of cigarettes in her face.

Another strawman.

Just because someone does not think something is ok does not mean they support violence to stop it. I do not think its ok that so many people feed their kids terribly unhealthy diets. I would never imagine using violence to intervene, it would not be justified.