View Full Version : Making it illegal to smoke in cars with children



MadMonk
01-09-2007, 11:30 AM
BREITBART.COM - Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in Cars (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/09/D8MHRQEO1.html)

This article outlines one city has outlawed smoking in a vehicle when those under 18 are present. It would be a primary offence meaning that you can be pulled over for it rather than having to be pulled over for something else first.

How do you feel about this? Should Oklahoma follow suit?

My parents smoked while my siblings and I were in the car and I never experienced any negative effects other than disliking the smell. I'm not a smoker but I feel that while I believe smokers should have every right to their habit, they need to try to isolate any effects it could have on their children. Most smokers I know are very careful around their children when smoking, especially in the car, but I know not everyone is. Even so, I'm a little torn on the issue. More than likely the children are exposed to more smoking at home than they are in the car so what difference is this law going to make? Could it be a stepping stone to eliminating smoking everywhere, even in the home?

In the grand scheme of things, will smoking cigarettes one day end up being illegal altogether? If not, why isn't marijuana legal? Not that I smoke either, but I've never understood why tobacco (and alcohol) is legal but pot isn't. My guess is that if marijuana growers had as big of a lobby in congress as tobacco it would be legal.

Easy180
01-09-2007, 03:13 PM
I'm ok with it as long as they have the windows cracked sufficiently...Not sure if I'm ready for making it illegal, but would just hope the vast majority of humans with those brain things in their heads wouldn't smoke in a car with their children inside with all that we know now

BailJumper
01-09-2007, 07:29 PM
I hate smoking with a passion, however, I hate gov't intrusion even more.

I would be against this. But of course I don't think gov't should tell a restaurant owner he has to go smoke free either.

Personally, I avoid smoking at all cost. But that should be my personal decision and not 'da man's'

Karried
01-09-2007, 08:53 PM
I love the idea. Why should a baby/child be subjected to poisonous, dangerous second hand smoke? In an enclosed vehicle no less.

If the parents are too stupid to realize that they are endangering their child by polluting the air they breathe, then yes, the government might have to step in.. just like the stupid parents who refused to buckle up their human projectiles until they ended up flying through windshields and dying .. babies sitting on parent's laps in the front seat.. now it's the law to buckle up.. thank God for the children saved.

People who are who dense to figure it out need assistance or force if need be.

Patrick
01-09-2007, 10:22 PM
Why is it anyone's business whether a person smokes in their car with their kids inside?

PUGalicious
01-10-2007, 05:03 AM
Why is it anyone's business whether a person smokes in their car with their kids inside?
Because it's not just a personal decision; it's a decision that impacts the future of the younger, powerless occupants.

BailJumper
01-10-2007, 05:42 AM
Then lets not stop there! If you've ever had a DUI then you shouldn't be allowed to have children passengers in your car. If you have the flu you shouldn't be allowed to have children and elderly in your car. If you have more than two traffic tickets, you're on a cell phone, have a lower than average IQ. Wait, I've got it - the gov't should install a device on every car and if it detects cigarette smoke, speeding, not using your blinkers, cell phone usage, etc. and a child is in the car, the engine shuts itself down and the horn starts blaring while over the stereo speakers you hear a voice shouting "shame on you, big brother knows best."

Cool

BailJumper
01-10-2007, 05:46 AM
it's a decision that impacts the future of the younger, powerless occupants

Wait a minute - isn't that the same arguement used by people who think anchor babies and children of illegals should get free health care, education, etc. while I have to work my ass off to provide the same to my children?

Karried
01-10-2007, 06:56 AM
Then lets not stop there! If you've ever had a DUI then you shouldn't be allowed to have children passengers in your car. If you have the flu you shouldn't be allowed to have children and elderly in your car. If you have more than two traffic tickets, you're on a cell phone, have a lower than average IQ. Wait, I've got it - the gov't should install a device on every car and if it detects cigarette smoke, speeding, not using your blinkers, cell phone usage, etc. and a child is in the car, the engine shuts itself down and the horn starts blaring while over the stereo speakers you hear a voice shouting "shame on you, big brother knows best."


How can I get you elected?

We're talking about cigarette smoke being inhaled by immature lungs in an enclosed car.

Here's a scenario.. you and wifey dear split up.. she has custody and you really have no say in the matter..she decides it's time to party! With the kids in the car. You see her driving away.. knowing the windows are up and the lighter is out.. possibly she has had DUI's in the past..the kids are even in car seats or seatbelts, are you just going to wait until she kills the kids before thinking you have any recourse or say in the matter? Wouldn't it be nice to have some legal recourse? Someone other than you telling her she can't smoke with them in the car or endanger them in any way?

If you honestly saw your children being subjected to dangerous conditions such as second hand smoke and past DUI's wouldn't you be worried?

Yes, for those of us who can make decisions regarding the welfare of our children, fine, we don't need to be told what to do.. but there are some really idiotic parents out there who have no business having children in the first place. And if they can't get their limited neurons to click, they need a reminder.

We are talking about proven dangerous levels of second hand smoke affecting babies' lungs here ... they didn't make a choice to smoke. The parents did.

I don't think any parent has the right to force their kids to inhale cigarette smoke in an enclosed car.

PUGalicious
01-10-2007, 07:33 AM
Wait a minute - isn't that the same arguement used by people who think anchor babies and children of illegals should get free health care, education, etc. while I have to work my ass off to provide the same to my children?
Yes and yes.

PUGalicious
01-10-2007, 07:38 AM
Then lets not stop there! If you've ever had a DUI then you shouldn't be allowed to have children passengers in your car.
That might be a decent deterrent, but that's hardly comparing apples to apples. For a fair comparison, the person would need to be in the process of driving drunk to be the same danger to the children as the person smoking in an enclosed vehicle.


If you have the flu you shouldn't be allowed to have children and elderly in your car.
I think it would be difficult to argue that, except in very rare instances, that the flu has the same long term impact that smoking does. But again, common sense would tell most reasonable people that, (1) if you have the flu, you probably shouldn't be driving at all, and (2) if you have the flu, you probably shouldn't be subjecting others to your illness in fairness to them.


If you have more than two traffic tickets, you're on a cell phone, have a lower than average IQ.
If they pose an equal risk to the children, then so be it...


Wait, I've got it - the gov't should install a device on every car and if it detects cigarette smoke, speeding, not using your blinkers, cell phone usage, etc. and a child is in the car, the engine shuts itself down and the horn starts blaring while over the stereo speakers you hear a voice shouting "shame on you, big brother knows best."
Not a bad idea. I'm with Karrie... how can we sign you up?

BailJumper
01-10-2007, 07:53 AM
C'mon folks there are lots of things that are proven to be 'bad,' 'unhealthy' and 'a risk.' Do we really want our gov't dictating parenting to us?

I'm not unreasonable (debatable) but we allow far worse every day. I would argue MTV has had a more negative effect on our youth than second hand car smoke and I don't see any of you rallying to have them banned.

Find me one credible (that's my out) study that says second hand smoke IN A CAR has actually ever had a significant health risk to a child and I will conceed.

I would imagine those same smokers are puffing away at home too. So, would you outlaw smoking in homes with children too? My god folks - next you'll send in the cops to confiscate my fatty snacks!

As for my election - The first meeting will be an outdoor event. Be sure and wear khaki and to show your support hold one hand up high and instead of campaign buttons I am passing out armbands with my initials on them, "SS." See you at the rally.

Karried
01-10-2007, 09:42 AM
I can really see your point BailJumper... I don't like anyone telling me what to do either... It is sad that people have screwed it up for those of us who do try to protect our children. I think in this instance, if the parent can't make the right choice and at least wait until they get home to have a cigarette, then yes, the law should be instituted to prevent them from smoking in the close confines of a vehicle.

Smoking in a home is a little different in that there is a little more space and ventilation hopefully and if the child is old enough, they can leave the room to breathe.

Trapped and buckled in a car seat and being forced to breathe poisonous fumes is so unfair to kids who don't have a choice.

Karried
01-10-2007, 09:47 AM
next you'll send in the cops to confiscate my fatty snacks!



Actually that is in the works in New York.. but I want to clarify something.. what you do to yourself is your business ( even though studies have been done to show how the rest of us are affected by rising health care costs etc etc ) but that, in my opinion is up to you how to decide to live your life. In fact, please pass the Doritos my way.. lol

My problem is subjecting a child who doesn't have a choice in the matter - the child is being adversely affected my a smoking parent.

Like smoking crack while pregnant.. baby didn't ask to be poisoned.. should the government just let mom smoke her crack pipe in peace?

PUGalicious
01-10-2007, 10:23 AM
C'mon folks there are lots of things that are proven to be 'bad,' 'unhealthy' and 'a risk.' Do we really want our gov't dictating parenting to us?
When people cannot make reasonable decisions when it comes to the well-being of a child, yes. The government already dictates standards of parenting when it comes to neglect and abuse. Exposing a child to proven harmful effects is tantamount to neglect and abuse.



I would argue MTV has had a more negative effect on our youth than second hand car smoke and I don't see any of you rallying to have them banned.
You can argue it, but that doesn't make it any more valid. There is a mountain of evidence and documentation about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Can you cite an equally compelling body of evidence about the harmful effects of MTV?



Find me one credible (that's my out) study that says second hand smoke IN A CAR has actually ever had a significant health risk to a child and I will conceed.
Once you present one credible (that's my out) study that proves MTV has had a more negative effect on our youth than second hand car smoke, then I'll point you to the studies that demonstrate second hand smoke in a confined space has a significant health risk to a child. As far as you conceding, I don't think any amount of overwhelming evidence and facts will persuade you from budging.



I would imagine those same smokers are puffing away at home too.
And that's truly unfortunate and very selfish of them.



As for my election - The first meeting will be an outdoor event. Be sure and wear khaki and to show your support hold one hand up high and instead of campaign buttons I am passing out armbands with my initials on them, "SS." See you at the rally.
Oh, so you're a neo-con?

oldglory
01-10-2007, 10:31 AM
Because it's not just a personal decision; it's a decision that impacts the future of the younger, powerless occupants.So should the gov step in when we feed our kids to much fat in their diet,or if we let them have two sodas a day. Should the gov step in if we don't make our kids be active in sports and have to limit the time they watch TV ,ect ......... I think the gov has no place in this.

PUGalicious
01-10-2007, 10:41 AM
Should society do nothing if someone places a child's welfare, health and/or life at risk? Should society do nothing when a parent's willful disregard for their child's well-being puts that child at risk?

It's true that the things you listed can be detrimental to a child's health, but have any of those factors been demonstrated (with decades of documentation, research and evidence) to be harmful to the degree that second-hand smoke is?

Our rights end at the point those rights infringe on another's rights to live and breathe.

oldglory
01-10-2007, 10:58 AM
Don't get me wrong I think it is wrong to smoke with kids around, but I don't think tha the gov should step in!! The gov already has to many fingers in the pie as it is. When should we draw the line? Should we keep letting the gov make the all of our choices for us? Pretty soon we will be getting e-mails from the gov every morning to tell us what to do for the day.......

BailJumper
01-10-2007, 11:09 AM
I think welfare parents with no college education that put no importance on their kids getting a good education are very detrimental to those youth - LOCK'EM UP I SAY!

oldglory
01-10-2007, 11:11 AM
I think welfare parents with no college education that put no importance on their kids getting a good education are very detrimental to those youth - LOCK'EM UP I SAY!
What does that have to do with this thread?????

BailJumper
01-10-2007, 11:19 AM
Everything! At the essence of this thread is that if someone else is not parenting the way you think is healthy, wise or in the best interest of someone else then the gov't should step in.

I have yet to see a single study produced by anyone that says 2nd hand smoke in a car is going to have a negative effect on a child's health.

Is 2nd hand smoke in general bad? Sure. Does riding in a car on occassion with a smoker really going to harm a child? Show me the proof.

Certainly not a study that says smoke in the car is more negative than the 2 liters of pop a day some parents feed to their kids. But, I guess that is next on your list.

PUGalicious
01-10-2007, 11:23 AM
Still waiting, BailJumper, for that study about MTV being more harmful than second-hand smoke...

oldglory
01-10-2007, 11:35 AM
I think welfare parents with no college education that put no importance on their kids getting a good education are very detrimental to those youth - LOCK'EM UP I SAY!So everyone that smokes is on welfare and has no college education. Like i said what does this have to do with this thread?????

BailJumper
01-10-2007, 11:43 AM
Obviously, we should be concerned about what YOU are smoking.

I never said what you said that I said.

Karried
01-10-2007, 11:49 AM
So... were you equally outraged and incensed when it became illegal to beat the crap out of young children - when welts, bruises and sometimes broken bones were just 'disciplining a child'.

Parents felt justified inflicting harm just because they were 'property' to do with as a parent wishes?

Even the most staunch defender of 'rights' has to know that some parents aren't cut out to be parents.

Easy180
01-10-2007, 11:51 AM
Even the most staunch defender of 'rights' has to know that some parents aren't cut out to be parents.

I would put that number at roughly 40% :tiphat:

oldglory
01-10-2007, 12:05 PM
my point is what does welfare and a college education have to do with this thread..i know you didn't say that but you did imply.........

MadMonk
01-10-2007, 12:40 PM
While I agree that more government intrustion into our personal lives is generally a bad thing, when we are talking about something that is so obviously detrimental to a child, the rules change a bit. If you grant the point that second hand smoke is unhealthy for anyone, it logically follows that concentrating the smoke in a confined area makes it even more unhealthy.

Once concern I have with this law is at what point do you say smoking in the car is dangerous? A smoker that has thier windows rolled up while smoking and allowing the smoke to accumulate is obviously crossing the line, but what about during the warmer months when all the windows are down and the smoke is quickly dispersed? How is that any different than walking beside someone who it smoking? I'm guessing that the law doesn't make any judgement on the conditions that constitue endangering the childs' health so maybe some sort of compromise could be reached for a more common-sense version of the law.

BailJumper
01-10-2007, 03:15 PM
I was simply trying to figure out how blurry everyones line is. If you ban sm9oking in cars for the reasons stated, then where do you go from there? Once a president is set it can be a hard thing to control.

Don't get me wrong - I hate smoking in public but I just don't think it is a gov't issue.

If we are 'just talking' then I'd be for requiring couples to get a license before having kids and even sterilizing some people who continue to have kids they cannot support.

But, when we are talking reality, I cannot support gov't encroachment in such areas.

Karried
01-10-2007, 04:16 PM
If we are 'just talking' then I'd be for requiring couples to get a license before having kids and even sterilizing some people who continue to have kids they cannot support.


My goodness, you have my vote for sure now! lol

I honestly do believe in education and 'license' for parenting. And I'm all for sterilization for people who abuse their children (yes, I'm talking serious abuse here) I don't think they should give people like that repeated opportunities to do it again and again to other children .. I hate hearing these stories, women who have kids, do crack, have an addicted baby, give it up, get pregnant again, have a baby, give it up, on and on.. obviously, something's not working here!

I know it sounds simplistic but why should an innocent baby suffer because of the sins of their parents?

PUGalicious
01-10-2007, 05:15 PM
Once a president is set it can be a hard thing to control.
So very true, whether you're talking about the commander-in-chief or precedent.


I hate smoking in public but I just don't think it is a gov't issue.
If government is not there to protect the rights and welfare of its citizens from the encroachment by other people's "liberties", what's a government for?

BailJumper
01-11-2007, 06:08 AM
If government is not there to protect the rights and welfare of its citizens from the encroachment by other people's "liberties", what's a government for?


I agree in theory, but at some point you must draw a line. While you do not think such a law would be crossing that line, I do.

If you took your definition literally, then the gov't would control all aspects of our lives.

Why allow smoking at all then? Or, if you do, then deny those who get ill from lung cancer medical treatment unless they have insurance or can pay cash. If not, let them die in the streets because they made the choice to smoke and how dare they cost the rest of us and make health care go up.

Why is a car more dangerous than a house (have you measured a single wide lately or a small two bedroom apartment).

Why allow welfare moms to have more kids? They can't support the ones they have without my dime.

In short, I just think there isn't enough evidence that smoking in a car is soooo harmful that the gov't must step in.

And fortunately I doubt it will happen on any large scale.

PUGalicious
01-11-2007, 06:24 AM
I agree in theory, but at some point you must draw a line. While you do not think such a law would be crossing that line, I do. If you took your definition literally, then the gov't would control all aspects of our lives.
Only those aspects where one person's liberty adversely impacts or harms another person's rights.



Why allow smoking at all then?
Good question.


Why is a car more dangerous than a house (have you measured a single wide lately or a small two bedroom apartment).
There are very, very few homes as small as any road-worthy vehicle (except for RVs and tour buses). If a person cannot figure out that a pollutant concentrated in a smaller confined space is more dangerous than that same volume pollutant dispersed in a larger area, there will be no amount of evidence to convince that bullheaded person of the foolishness of their position.

Having said that, I never said that smoking in a small home is not harmful to children. Just as a pregnant woman cannot recklessly endanger a child by abusing drugs or alcohol during her pregnancy, neither should parents be allowed to recklessly endanger their children by exposing them to harmful and dangerous pollutants and substances. Using your logic, parents should be allowed to give their kids any drugs or alcohol whenever they want because to restrict such parental discretion would be an unnecessary intrusion of the government.



Why allow welfare moms to have more kids? They can't support the ones they have without my dime.
Chasing another rabbit in an inane attempt at making some larger point about smoking in cars....



In short, I just think there isn't enough evidence that smoking in a car is soooo harmful that the gov't must step in.
And that would put you in a radical minority of "head-in-the-sand" naysayers who ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

BailJumper
01-11-2007, 06:44 AM
And that would put you in a radical minority of "head-in-the-sand" naysayers who ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, when this doesn't pass - you'll say what? Even though there was 'overwhelming evidence' and you were in the 'majority' it failed anyway.

PUGalicious
01-11-2007, 06:52 AM
I will say that it didn't pass. I would be surprised if it passed. But I was also pleasantly surprised that our legislature passed a law that essentially made most restaurants non-smoking. Just because politicians choose not to pass a given law (for whatever reason, sometimes being the language of such a law), that doesn't deny the "overwhelming evidence".

Legislative bodies, especially Congress, frequently pass laws and policies that the majority are not in favor of. That's not an effective or accurate measure of whether or not the evidence is valid or factual.

Nice try, though.

BailJumper
01-11-2007, 06:58 AM
I think there is a huge difference between a place of public accomodation (like a restaurant) and a person's private vehicle.

While I personally enjoy the anti-smoking in restaurants, I think the industry should have been allowed to set its own policy.

Of course, the gov't did step in and tell me I had to wear a seat belt in my own vehicle, so anything is possible.

Julesc2001
01-11-2007, 08:17 AM
Karried can I be your campaign manager?? I'm so there!

This all comes down to bad parenting... year after year parents continue to neglect the needs of their children. Smoking in your car is endangering your children, letting your 10 year old weigh 200lbs is pure ignorance. If you cant be a responsible adult... than it is someones responsibility (maybe the govt) to step in and do something about it. The life span of todays children is going to be dramatically shorter than ours (unless huge steps in cancer cures, etc.)

The govt has already invested in providing schools with healthier foods for the children and requiring PE, etc. Frito Lay has been working with the government for years providing elementary children with new healthier foods... If the govt can do this, they sure can stop parents from dangering their children's life.

Here are some stats...
Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

If yall think that smokers have the right to smoke than I have the right to think it is invading my personal space and to tell them to stop or leave, right? I dont want to walk out of a building have to inhale that crap... I dont want to sit at a bar and have to go home smelling it. It is just a disgusting habit and I am tired of being forced to live with it.

Martin
01-11-2007, 08:52 AM
property owners have a reasonable expectation to use their private property as they wish within the confines of the law. these laws vary based upon the nature of the private property in question. for example, it is legal for an individual to be intoxicated within the confines of his private home while it is not legal for him to be intoxicated while operating his private motor vehicle. the law varies here in the interest of public safety. since there is a direct and immediate correlation between drunk driving and safety, the government is compelled to make and enforce laws restricting its practice. the same is true for seatbelt laws. wearing a seatbelt has a direct and immediate effect on occupant safety. while second hand smoke (shs) has harmful effects, these effects are neither direct nor immediate. therefore, within the confines of private property i find that the government does not have a compelling reason to intervene and restrict this behavior.

the effects of shs are not direct. in order for the government to have a compelling interest in limiting personal rights in the use of private property, the use to be limited must be shown to have a direct negative effect on safety. that is, engaging in the behavior will almost always cause the negative effect. while there have been studies that show the negative effects of shs, these studies do not consistently prove that shs alone causes permanent damage. while those exposed to shs have a higher risk factor for smoke related diseases such as lung cancer, there is nowhere near a 1-to-1 relationship between those exposed to shs and smoke related illness.

the effects of shs are not immediate. in the examples of drunk driving and seatbelts, the effects of the behavior are immediate and irreversible... a drunk driver is involved in a crash or an occupant is spared by a seatbelt. the effects of shs take time to accumulate. while occupants are placed at higher risk, they are in no immediate danger. therefore the government has no compelling reason to limit behavior on this basis, either.

i believe the argument was made that children are 'powerless occupants' whose futures are harmed by shs while riding in a car. i won't say that no child has ever been harmed by shs from being a passenger, but i'm certain that just as many or more haven't. while i would agree that such behavior is ethically wrong, i don't see a compelling reason for the goverment to intervene.

-M

BailJumper
01-11-2007, 09:11 AM
MMM - something you mentioned reminded me of something else that really bothers me.


it is legal for an individual to be intoxicated within the confines of his private home while it is not legal for him to be intoxicated while operating his private motor vehicle.

Lately there have been several arrests in Cleveland County (possibly OK Co too, I just haven't paid attention) for public drunk. The problem, many of these people were passengers in cars with perfectly sober drivers.

I kid you not. I have 6 reports on my desk where a police officer pulled over a person for a moving violation. While investigating the violation the officer noticed the passenger (not the driver) was drunk and arrested them.

Do we not promote for those who've been drinking to call a friend to get a rid?

PUGalicious
01-11-2007, 09:22 AM
property owners have a reasonable expectation to use their private property as they wish within the confines of the law. these laws vary based upon the nature of the private property in question. for example, it is legal for an individual to be intoxicated within the confines of his private home while it is not legal for him to be intoxicated while operating his private motor vehicle. the law varies here in the interest of public safety. since there is a direct and immediate correlation between drunk driving and safety, the government is compelled to make and enforce laws restricting its practice. the same is true for seatbelt laws. wearing a seatbelt has a direct and immediate effect on occupant safety. while second hand smoke (shs) has harmful effects, these effects are neither direct nor immediate. therefore, within the confines of private property i find that the government does not have a compelling reason to intervene and restrict this behavior.

the effects of shs are not direct. in order for the government to have a compelling interest in limiting personal rights in the use of private property, the use to be limited must be shown to have a direct negative effect on safety. that is, engaging in the behavior will almost always cause the negative effect. while there have been studies that show the negative effects of shs, these studies do not consistently prove that shs alone causes permanent damage. while those exposed to shs have a higher risk factor for smoke related diseases such as lung cancer, there is nowhere near a 1-to-1 relationship between those exposed to shs and smoke related illness.

the effects of shs are not immediate. in the examples of drunk driving and seatbelts, the effects of the behavior are immediate and irreversible... a drunk driver is involved in a crash or an occupant is spared by a seatbelt. the effects of shs take time to accumulate. while occupants are placed at higher risk, they are in no immediate danger. therefore the government has no compelling reason to limit behavior on this basis, either.

i believe the argument was made that children are 'powerless occupants' whose futures are harmed by shs while riding in a car. i won't say that no child has ever been harmed by shs from being a passenger, but i'm certain that just as many or more haven't. while i would agree that such behavior is ethically wrong, i don't see a compelling reason for the goverment to intervene.

-M

Now, there's a reasoned argument that I can accept. Bravo! :congrats:

Jjjjunkyarddog
01-14-2007, 10:28 PM
What is this goverment comming to???? First they try to tell the restraunts what they can and can't serve (fat wise) look what they tried to do to McDonalds to stop the super size, it is the people's choice not the goverments or law makers decision what i eat or anyone else.

And then they are taking all the snacks out of schools and only providing them with nutritional items, not saying it is bad but hello don't this kids have parents or has the goverment and law makers become their parents to tell them what they can and can't eat or drink.

What is the deal with smoking?? You can't smoke in any State or Goverment Buildings which is fine! But what makes it a crime to smoke outside in the open air where there is no second hand smoke? Who does this really offend? What would happen if we took their liquer and beer and in some cases there drug of choice away from them? How many parents drink and drive with their children in the car and then they turn around and turn them loose to go back and do it again. So what are they going to do to everyone that drinks and thinks it is ok to drive?????

bombermwc
01-19-2007, 09:24 AM
I'd make it illegal. If it's illegal to blow that crap in my face in a public place, why not protect the kids that can't speak for themselves? If they want to smoke, let them stand outside and smoke where it won't kill anyone. Personal freedoms are only protected when they don't harm others...ie second hand smoke.

toocooltim
09-14-2007, 01:18 PM
Please don't smoke around your children.

"...kids suffer excessive and unnecessary colds, flues, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and miss 7 million more school days than classmates who are able to breathe smokefree air at home..."


http://www.ash.org/kids/parents.html (http://www.ash.org/kids/parents.html)
ASH - ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH

Dark Jedi
09-14-2007, 02:04 PM
I believe that you should be allowed to kill yourself as slowly or as quickly as you see fit. I also believe that people, as a whole, are mind numbingly stupid. As such, laws do need to be in place to protect innocent bystanders from those people.

I wear a helmet and leather anytime I ride. I do not support laws that require helmets on adults. I do support laws that require eye protection, to help protect innocent others from some bug or wind-blinded biker wannabe.
He can kill himself all he wants, but we need to ensure he only takes himself out in the process.

Dark Jedi
09-14-2007, 02:07 PM
While I agree that more government intrustion into our personal lives is generally a bad thing, when we are talking about something that is so obviously detrimental to a child, the rules change a bit. If you grant the point that second hand smoke is unhealthy for anyone, it logically follows that concentrating the smoke in a confined area makes it even more unhealthy.

Once concern I have with this law is at what point do you say smoking in the car is dangerous? A smoker that has thier windows rolled up while smoking and allowing the smoke to accumulate is obviously crossing the line, but what about during the warmer months when all the windows are down and the smoke is quickly dispersed? How is that any different than walking beside someone who it smoking? I'm guessing that the law doesn't make any judgement on the conditions that constitue endangering the childs' health so maybe some sort of compromise could be reached for a more common-sense version of the law.

Or, *GASP!!!* the smoker could just, you know... wait until they aren't in the car with children? maybe? You act like they are powerless, and some big burly armed guy is lighting the cigarette and forcing them to smoke it at that exact instant. They have the perfectly viable option of waiting.

Dark Jedi
09-14-2007, 02:08 PM
I was simply trying to figure out how blurry everyones line is. If you ban sm9oking in cars for the reasons stated, then where do you go from there? Once a president is set it can be a hard thing to control.

Ain't that the truth, the current president is a runaway trainwreck.

Dark Jedi
09-14-2007, 02:10 PM
So, when this doesn't pass - you'll say what? Even though there was 'overwhelming evidence' and you were in the 'majority' it failed anyway.

False conclusion. The majority cited are those who understand that cigarette smoke is dangerous, not the percentage that would support such a law.

toocooltim
09-14-2007, 03:22 PM
...some bug or wind-blinded biker wannabe.
:omg:

Well put, Jedi.

Martin
09-14-2007, 04:38 PM
"...kids suffer excessive and unnecessary colds, flues, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and miss 7 million more school days than classmates who are able to breathe smokefree air at home..."
again with the flues. it's madness! :P -M

ShiroiHikari
09-15-2007, 03:36 PM
Uh...what's wrong with rolling down your window while you're smoking in the car? It all gets sucked outside that way.

Anyway, I hate cigarettes, but I think this is going too far.

Midtowner
09-16-2007, 08:14 AM
while i would agree that such behavior is ethically wrong, i don't see a compelling reason for the goverment to intervene.[/SIZE]

I don't think your standard of review is correct (re when a government is allowed to pass laws). My understanding is that all they need in cases such as this is a rational basis to pass the legislation. From a civil rights standpoint, you don't get to argue with them unless the behavior or the group sought to be restricted is one of a protected or semi-protected nature.

There are far more draconian measures being passed these days regarding smoking such as declaring entire portions of cities to be smoke free zones. Next semester, I believe Oklahoma City University is going to be a completely smoke-free campus. While that's not a government measure, it's indicative of the public's attitude toward smoking.

We don't like it, we don't want to be around it. We don't want to be affected by it.

You are right to say that studies are inconclusive. The WHO, for example even had a study which concluded that children in smoking homes were LESS likely to develop cancer than those in non-smoking homes.

That said, I find the odor of shs to be unpleasant. My right to enjoy stench-free air trumps anyone else's right to stink-up said air (or it ought to). I personally don't care about the science or the danger, I know it's a fact that second hand smoke affects my dry cleaning bill.

I think the government has the power to restrict this sort of behavior. That much is unquestionable. As to whether the government ought to be involved on this level? I think there are a lot more important subjects for the government to be tackling. I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Maybe my dry cleaning bill will be cheaper this month.

NE Oasis
09-16-2007, 05:41 PM
ig homes.

That said, I find the odor of shs to be unpleasant. My right to enjoy stench-free air trumps anyone else's right to stink-up said air (or it ought to). I personally don't care about the science or the danger, I know it's a fact that second hand smoke affects my dry cleaning bill.
I think the government has the power to restrict this sort of behavior. That much is unquestionable. As to whether the government ought to be involved on this level? I think there are a lot more important subjects for the government to be tackling. I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Maybe my dry cleaning bill will be cheaper this month.
Agree that the government should be working on many other issues. IMHO the best solution is for people to realize their SHS stinks up my clothes, my hair, etc and if the give up the smoking (particulalrly in enclosed environments) they will make themselves more attractive to others.

rugbybrado
09-16-2007, 06:03 PM
ive agreed with the no smoking in restraunts and public places, i wish they would do away with smoking in bars and casinos - but inside of someones car is kinda pushing it. i think if they really wanted to protect children from dangerous activities make parents(or anyone) stop talking on cell phones while driving(unless handsfree is used). alot of states have already done this and i wish we would too.

i just think that if we want to protect kids theres alot better ways to do that instead of passing useless laws about what someone can do in their car. besides how many of us who grew up with a smoking parents(my generation or before) actually knows someone who was a child while there parents smoked and has any effects of it?

rugbybrado
09-16-2007, 06:16 PM
.

I kid you not. I have 6 reports on my desk where a police officer pulled over a person for a moving violation. While investigating the violation the officer noticed the passenger (not the driver) was drunk and arrested them.

Do we not promote for those who've been drinking to call a friend to get a rid?

Wow, thats crazy. I could see maybe walking in the middle of the street endangering yourself/ being fall over drunk. But all of us were taught that calling a friend to drive us when we are impared is the best thing to do, i dont see how those people are now being punished for being responsible(if they werent hanging out the window being disruptive).

We might as well go ahead and outlaw all bars and just make people only allowed to drink in their own homes - or spend our time catching the real drunk drivers and stop bothering people who are being responsible.

California L33
09-17-2007, 03:01 AM
Should the government interfere in every aspect of our lives- no, but with freedom comes responsibility. If you're dumb enough to smoke with kids in the car (kids who don't know the danger and can't themselves mitigate it) then you deserve to have Big Brother sticking his nose in.

Dark Jedi
09-18-2007, 12:04 PM
You are right to say that studies are inconclusive. The WHO, for example even had a study which concluded that children in smoking homes were LESS likely to develop cancer than those in non-smoking homes.



Got a source for that claim? Every report I read said the exact opposite.

Dark Jedi
09-18-2007, 12:05 PM
Wow, thats crazy. I could see maybe walking in the middle of the street endangering yourself/ being fall over drunk. But all of us were taught that calling a friend to drive us when we are impared is the best thing to do, i dont see how those people are now being punished for being responsible(if they werent hanging out the window being disruptive).

We might as well go ahead and outlaw all bars and just make people only allowed to drink in their own homes - or spend our time catching the real drunk drivers and stop bothering people who are being responsible.

Beware that you are only seeing a portion of the reports, what the poster wants you to see. The reason for arrest can be multitude. Abusive behavior, warrants outstanding, passenger making threats, etc.

Midtowner
09-18-2007, 12:30 PM
Got a source for that claim? Every report I read said the exact opposite.


http://www.obscurious.co.uk/componants/smoking1440.pdf

Martin
09-18-2007, 12:48 PM
i don't think your standard of review is correct...

just saw your reply... while i don't think there is a compelling reason for government intervention, i'm not suggesting that the government doesn't have the power to regulate such things.

-M