Arkansas bans smoking in cars with young children

[proud2BlibKansan]

Lighting up with young kids in vehicle banned under bill
BY JAKE BLEED AND MICHAEL R. WICKLINE

Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006

House Bill 1046 started out as a joke to just about everyone but Bob Mathis. And now it’s his turn to laugh.

The Hot Springs Democrat and reformed smoker spent much of this week in strong opposition to a bill to ban smoking in most workplaces.

It was a Mathis amendment that came close to killing that bill, says Gov. Mike Huckabee, the primary supporter of the measure.

So when Mathis filed a bill Wednesday evening to ban smoking in cars carrying young children who are restrained in car seats, a lot of people laughed. They didn’t take him or his bill very seriously, Mathis says.

more. . .
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/151141/

[Warpy]

1. That would have been heaven to me as a kid

Cig smoke always made me horribly sick and both my parents were heavy smokers. Any trip in a car in winter was an occasion for dread.

I know this law is unenforceable. Smokers don't care what they do to their kids, the addiction gets in the way.

It's a nice gesture, though.

[Clark2008]

2. That's not the point.

How would you like it if I told you not to do something in the vehicle you purchased and maintain? It's PERSONAL property and should never be restricted in that manner (ie. what are they going to do next? Regulate what radio stations you can listen to? I mean, some things on the radio are as dangerous to one's mental health as second-hand smoke is to one's physical health).

[MissB]

4. I know.

It would be terrible if they restricted things we could do in our car. Why, we might not be able to drink and drive!

[LostinVA]

11. Beat me to it

[Clark2008]

62. That's not something I do in my personal space.

That involves the actual operation of the vehicle on public roads. Just the same as laws against speeding.

I could sit in my car on my property and drink in it, though. Or smoke or clip my toenails or listen to really rotten conservative talk radio.

[donsu]

5. children's health and welfare tops doing with your car whatever you

want.

children come first

[400Years]

40. Yes, the government is your mommy!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

173. Sorry to break it to you, but some people are so dumb...

The government has to do something. If you're a smoker and you're smoking in the car with your kid, I'd love to come kick your ass. If you're so addicted you don't care about your kids' health, you deserve to get a ticket or better yet, lose your kids. Yes, that's harsh, but goddammit, it's the stupid smokers that give the rest of you a bad name.
Duckie

[yella_dawg]

134. Once you turn 18...

you're just a piece of shit. But until that day, you come first.

]

[Warpy]

6. Your right to swing a fist ends where my face begins

and smokers force everyone around them to inhale smoke along with them.

See what I mean? The addiction always gets in the way of considering the rights of others, especially one's own children.

And that is the point, not some stupid insistence that paying for a machine allows one to mistreat the people within it.

[walldude]

65. If what you say is true then you need to stop driving

because when I'm riding my bike I don't need to be breathing in your stinky polluting exaust. Your need to drive a car and pollute should stop where my face begins. See what I mean?

Mind you I don't think people need to be smoking in a car with kids with the windows up but you are opening a can of worms here.

[Warpy]

115. False analogy, try again

[walldude]

181. No it's not.

I don't smoke anywhere but outdoors, and if you think your car is polluting the outdoors less than my cigaretts I believe you would be mistaken. As far as a law about smoking in a car with children, well, you can't regulate stupidity.

[IndyJones]

125. I hope more states follow.

[jsamuel]

8. i agree to a point, but...

You also have to wear a seat belt right? And if you have a young child, you have to put them in a car seat, right? Even in your privately owned vehical...

You can't speed in it either...

Or you get a ticket...

What is the penalty for smoking with a kid in a car seat? Is it a ticket?

[KingFlorez]

10. This is a necessary law

Parents are responsible for their children and exposing them to secondhand smoke is dangerous and irresponsible.

[SoCalDem]

52. So the next logical step is for children to be taken from smokers?

If "gubbmint" really wanted to "end" smoking, they would quit subsidizing the tobacco industry, provide smoking-cessation meds to smokers, and make it illegal..

They like the money that returns to them in the form of campaign contributions, so they will never do this...

Meanwhile, they will still "pretend" to care about "the people".

Perhaps they could get the tobacco industry to foot the bill for a chain of homes to house all these kids while their parents are "kicking the habit".. (they take kids away from drug addicts and smokers are addicted to nicotine)..

[dolo amber]

157. Well done.

:thumbsup:

Car exhaust, pollution from factories...removing the dreaded "second-hand smoke" from the air kids breathe is an empty gesture. If everyone quit smoking, would the air suddenly become clean? Would it end smog, greenhouse gasses, coal dust in Appalachia? Would no one have lung cancer, asthma, allergies? No, kids don't need to be trapped in an enclosed space of any kind with smoke. Neither do they or anyone else need to live in the kind of air we all live in.

[elehhhhna]

159. the folks who eat behind the wheel are more dangerous drivers,

in my experience. Stupid law. Well meaning, but stupid.

[Iris]

193. what?

Ok - they might get in a wreck in which case the child MIGHT be injured but the damage from second-hand smoke can last a lifetime.

[SPKrazy]

162. State Government (Arkansas) Doesn't Subsidize Tobacco

try again

[progressivebydesign]

41. Do you care more about your car than your child's lives? n/t

[Iris]

177. pretty sick, isn't it!?!

By darn - it's MY house; I'll beat you to a bloody pulp if I want.


Hey - you could even say that to a spouse OR a child!

[radwriter0555]

radio stations don't cause cancer, lung disease, heart disease and

emphasema.

Smoking does.

A child in a car seat doesn't have the ability to escape the poisonous fumes from cigarettes....

[ecstatic]

58. irony- Ban smoking in public places where *adults* hang out but kids are

completely helpless when it comes to inhaling second hand smoke. We should be most concerned about the health and safety of helpless children that do not have the luxury of just getting up and walking away from the smoke.

[Ioo]

110. There are tons of things you are not allowed to do in Personal Property

I think you are a forgetting that you can not do all things in your car..

You HAVE to use the blinker in your car!

You have to buckle your seat-belt, it is YOUR CAR!

You are not allowed to burn your house down, it is YOUR HOUSE...

How dare the government tell you you can not smash your personal car into a busy coffee shope...

I could go on and on...

I think this is a great idea, as a child of smokers, I wish this was the law....

[Iris]

176. I'll keep that in mind if I'm diagnosed with lung cancer at some

point in my life. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life but spent countless hours in a smoke-filled car as a child.

[Telly Savalas]

183. Pretty soon those nanny-state libruls will tell me I can't beat my kid

in my car. What's up with that?

[javadu]

188. Well It Is Your Car and Should Not Be Restricted In Any Way

:sarcasm:

[donsu]

7. me too - in winter had my nose in the crack of the window trying to

get some oxygen.

and always fighting with x husband to situate windows so smoke went out.

(what is it with men that they don't understand air flow, drafts, etc. in cars, living spaces?)

[MountainLaurel]

45. Same here

Except that it was my grandmother (who (A) was our caregiver during summers and before and after school and (B) didn't drive, so my mother had to take her everywhere). My mother still tells the story of the time she and I got into an argument coming back from my uncle's wedding in a snowstorm. She was grousing because I had the window open and had said something like "You'll die of pneumonia." I snapped back with "I'd rather die of pneumonia than lung cancer!" My mother was sure one of us would kill the other.

[hopein08]

68. Heaven for me too...my mom used to get mad when I would roll down......

my window in the middle of winter. But I didn't care if I got snowed on or got in trouble, there was no way I was closing it. She smoked cigarettes and my dad smoked a pipe, which I hated too. She still smokes but my dad quit the pipe after he broke his neck and the doctor told him that smoking of any sort can weaken your bones and they will take longer to heal. I think that kind of scared him and he quit cold turkey.

I completely agree about the addiction in the way. I was in elementary school in the '80s and it seemed like every week we would get another lecture on the bad effects of smoking and secondhand-smoke. So I dutifully went home after each one and told my mom that not only was she going to give herself lung cancer and maybe even die, but she was going to give it to me too. She only got mad at me.

And then she had the nerve to tell me that she started smoking in the 8th grade and how horrible that was and that I shouldn't smoke.

To this day, when she lights up near me...I walk away.

[SmokingJacket]

98. Yeah, my g-father smoked cigars in the car!

Gawd, that was horrible.

He would have stopped, though, if there was a law against it.

[Matariki]

151. me too

i remember BEGGING to open the window a crack - sometimes they'd let me open the window a 1/2 inch and i'd have my little nose stuck out the top of the window. I thought I was going to suffocate to death - and the parents thought I was being dramatic. They're both dead of cancer now :cry:

[jojo54]

3. This is just the beginning.......

....next thing ya know, it'll be enforcement of the bedtime hour........

:scared:

[question everything]

9. The Democrats used to be blamed for the "nanny state"

where a government agency mandates how one runs his/her life.

And it was Reagan with his battle cry of "get the government off my back" that won him so many followers. This, of course, with the exception of a woman's doctor's office, a couple bedroom and a child's impressionable heart.

Since we stand for right for privacy, for freedom of choice (not necessarily abortion, but choice of thoughts and beliefs and life) I think that it would be nice if we, Democrats, carry this flag.

Clinton turned the tide back in 1992 when he did raise the flag of personal responsibility. Yes, I know, we've often advocate for the underdog and the disenfranchised, but too often we have carried this advocacy to patronizing. Perhaps this is the libertarian streak in me, but I've always maintained that if someone wants to smoke, to drink, to engage in extreme sport, to visit prostitutes - this is his/her life.

I don't think that smoking in a car where there is a child for a few hours will hurt his/her health. Same thing with calling on the authorities when a child is not in a child seat or buckled - as California some years back provided a hot line for snitches. I really think that too often we carry our "concern" abut others to a simple busy bodyism.

I don't know if this is spelled in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution, but I'd like to think that the "right to be left alone" the right to raise our children the best way we see fit, yes, including an occasional open hand spanking on the tush, is there somewhere.

We've heard of too many instances of overzealous social workers who took a child from a loving home just because someone complaint, even during a dispute between divorcing patents.

[Sinti]

12. Overzealous social workers who took a child from a loving home - yep

And in the reverse we've seen unconcerned social workers leave a child in a home until they were beaten to death - in one case it was my neighbor. Poor little girl had another, adoptive loving home, but they wanted her to be with her birth mother.

I can't help but cringe whenever they make laws like this. I think smoking in the car with a kid is a bad thing, smoking in the house with a kid is a bad thing. I smoke outside, where I'm not harming other people's lungs. The problem is, having the government regulate this kind of behavior is over-reaching and paternalistic. Drunk driving is because you might kill someone on the spot, smoking well... they need a good education campaign to make folks understand what they're putting their kids through, IMO.

[ileus]

16. good idea but...

I see dumbass parents every day that won't follow the car seat regulations in place. So would you really expect someone who has no respect for fellow humans to follow this rule? I have zero friends that smoke and that's on purpose.

[titoresque]

17. I have plenty of respect for fellow humans

and I love my children......I've been known to let them ride in the back of a pick up on occasion because it was a treat for me as a kid. I've even let my 13 year old daughter drive the car in our neighborhood. Lock me up, call CPS!
My parents loved me too, and I can't remember a day that I was told to put my seat belt on. In fact if I remember correct in some cars we owned seat belts weren't even installed!
I survived! I also survived with parents who smoked.

We've been slowly brainwashed to believe that laws are to protect us from all the what if's in the world, all the scary stuff, and because people are stupid and evil. Bullshit! You've been lied to.

[Sinti]

21. I don't trust the government, it's genetic, I inherited it from my mother.

I think laws like this in some ways encourage people to be stupid and uncaring about their fellow man. If it's not a law why shouldn't we do it? The more patriarchal the government gets, the less concerned for the well being of others we seem to become.

As if the government has any regard for regular folk, they're much more concerned with protecting and enriching their corporate masters. With the current crop it actually strikes me that they encourage us to be more self-centered than the prior ones did, because it serves them. I agree, it's BS. You've been and are being lied to.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

100. I have absolutely no desire to be around people...

who are so cavalier about the health and well-being of children. So that makes us even.

Sid

[seabeyond]

103. anyone who actually knew me would be flabbergasted by your

statement. you dont have a clue what you are talking, nor my interest, concerns and efforts with children, all children, including the children that are raised in non perfection, having to deal with the children of perfection.

you are so far off.

which is par with my original post to you and your attitude, that you would once again attack in such a meaningless, yet ugly way.

[SidDithers]

107. Just replying in kind, hon...

and I don't know you any more than you know me. Your posts on this topic seem to say "it was OK for me and my brothers, so what's the big deal."

I'm saying that we know alot more about smoking than we did 50 years ago, and just because you turned out OK, doesn't mean that thousands of other kids who are exposed, against their will, to second hand smoke, will be as lucky as you.

I don't really care how much you are a defender of children on other topics. Here, you're not being much of a defender at all.

Sid

[seabeyond]

111. your whole premise to my argument is false, firstly

secondly i think that there is not justification for putting on thousands of kids an illness that isnt going to happen. and thirdly, you spoke as ugly as anything i have heard about people. not perfect people, but people. and you feel it is justified to be as ugly as you want to a group of people because you are so opposed to something and our society has deemed it is ok with smokers. (we were allowed to do it with blacks not so many decades ago, we do it with gays today) many would call it hate talk. that is how i have started seeing it, reading some of the posters on this thread. and whether i smoke or not, that isnt ok with me. not for any group of people. it is not who i am. and you will never find in my post an excuse to be so ugly to another person. you have such a position that there is not a chance for me to talk to you reasonably about htis subject. the same as i would not talk to a bush supporter about iraq. it doesnt matter the information, you are closed. and you will attack. and you will be ugly, per your other posts.

[SidDithers]

113. Ok, just so we understand each other, then...

You support the right of parents to smoke in a car occupied by young children.

I support legislation which punishes parents who smoke in a car occupied by young children.

Have I got that right?

Sid

[seabeyond]

114. thru out this thread i have not talked about the issue

of this law. thru out this thread i have talked about the anti smoking crowd being as ugly as they want, to feel chest puffed up in self righteousness, being holier than thou, dictating a lot of false information.

that is my position

on this thread.

[U4ikLefty]

192. It is not that some of us "support", but that we oppose more ill-thought,

reactionary legislation. Why use "the children" to give the heavy-hand of the state another way to jail/fine us? This will affect the poor disproportionately.

[Neoma]

18. Hear, Hear.

"The problem is, having the government regulate this kind of behavior is over-reaching and paternalistic."

Very good point.

[etherealtruth]

156. That's my concern ...

Of course, smoking in a car with children is a BAD thing (very bad) ....Where does legislation like this lead? Shall we impose penalties on pregnant women that smoke ...how about their partners?

Childhood obesity has become a huge problem in our country (children born now are NOT expected to have a longer life expectancy than their parents) ... what kind of penalty or punishment should we impose on parents that feed their children junk/fast food?

[progressivebydesign]

37. Sadly.. they HAVE to make laws because everyone is not like you, Sinti. NT

[SPKrazy]

163. Yes, Let's Blame The Social Workers n/t

[TransitJohn]

13. Ever listen to a police scanner?

In my town it's 90% someone calling the cops because they saw their neighbor getting into their vehicle with alcohol. Enraging.

[titoresque]

14. This is bullshit!

Alcohol is sold in most restaurants, and ball games, INCLUDING establishments geared specifically for small children such as "Chucky Cheese"
Parents can order drinks with dinner or pizza while little Susie and little Johnny wait for mommy and daddy to finish their pitchers and then drive them home. Perhaps we should make a law to govern just how many glasses of beer mommy and daddy consume?! Good grief!!!!!!!

If you're child has a soda machine on school property the regular sugared sodas are now being replaced with the much "safer" diet colas with Aspartame...."For the health of the children" Perhaps parents who condone their childs consumption of aspartame (after they've reviewed the facts) should be scrutinized......and fined?!

I'm sick of this bullshit, and I'm sick of being treated like a second class citizen....and I'm tired of this systematic attack on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! We don't need more government dictating our lives!

[walldude]

73. I agree and unless every person on this thread that is

standing up for this law quits driving their carbon dioxide spewing, polluting cars then they need to quit the hypocrisy. I think parents should be responsible for their own behaviour. I can understand being anti-smoking but most of the attacks I see are anti-smoker. I smoke, I don't do it near anyone, I don't bother anyone and if I see I am bothering anyone I put it out. Most smokers are like me. Most also want to quit, but it's not so easy.

[Beelzebud]

88. Good point.

And for the record. I'm a non-smoker.

I only state that so you know not all of us are whiney brats that want the government to act as our guardian. :D

Sometimes the anti-smokers make me want to START smoking just so I'm not lumped in with them. :D

[Mythsaje]

120. I had a friend who used to say

"I'll quit smoking in your airspace when you quit driving in mine." He walked, rode a bike, or took public transportation exclusively. I found his argument amusing, to say the least.

[IndyJones]

128. I could see your point if the kid's face was in the tailpipe like it is

when a parent smokes...especially with the windows closed.

[IndyJones]

127. Drunken driving is against the law and in CA, sodas are not sold at school

[titoresque]

142. Well in Az

sodas are sold in school. And just because drunken driving is against the law doesnt mean we should trust a parents judgement to drink responsibly when they are drinking at a restaurant where they will leave with their children in tow.
I mean since we can't trust that parents make the decision to smoke only in the car when their children are not....or to not smoke around them.

Because with this assnine law we might as well not stop there!
Not all parents drink and drive responsibly when the kids are in the car so doesnt it just make sense to give the child some rights at the restaurant and limit the alcohol that can be served to the parent before they possibly endanger their child? :crazy:

This law is less about the child and more about taking parental rights and personal responsibility away.

[Beelzebud]

15. Big Brother is only doing what is best for you!

We all need our Big Brother to protect us, and keep us safe from any threat life my pose.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Like exposing children forcibly to class A carcinogens, yes. n/t

[Beelzebud]

42. Big Brother loves you, and thanks you for your support!

[LoZoccolo]

46. This stupid tactic has earned you a place under the red X.

:hi: :nuke:

We all gotta manage our time for 2006.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

169. You Just Made That Up

Sorry, folks. But as someone who was on the peer review committee of the NIH and CDC studies on the effects of second hand smoke, there is NO (repeat none, nada, zip, zilch) linkage between cancer and second hand smoke.

The data were abundantly clear. Passive exposure to cigarette smoke constitutes the exposure to a Class III irritant, which is annoying for everyone, and potentially health affective if you have a pre-existing respiratory condition like asthma, emphysema, pleural edema, and the like.

But, it is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic, and it contains, after the first 3 seconds of atmospheric cooling, ZERO class A, AA, or AAA carcinogens.

You can hate the exposure to second hand smoke all you want, but the science and your statement are in polar opposition.
The Professor

[Kingshakabobo]

171. Would you care to post any links???? n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

172. Go To The CDC Website

The report was issued in 2002, study ran from 1992 - 1998, and the medical/scientific analysis work was done in 1999. The peer review took 16 months and it was published in March or April of 2002.

I mostly did validation of the statistical analysis of the data. I ran the data multiple ways to determine if the confidence levels assigned to the conclusion were accurate and precise. I still have the hard copy somewhere in my house, but the data itself was on a Bernoulli disk for a Macintosh. Sort of antique technology now.

I don't know if CDC still has the study up. If they don't most college libraries can access their archives.

The Professor

[Kingshakabobo]

174. I guess you are referring to cancer/carcinogens only????

Fine. The poster called cigarette smoke a Class A carcinogen. I don't know what he/she was referring to. But for you to imply that the CDC only considers second-hand smoke as "only" an irritant is mis-leading, to say the least, as most deaths from second hand smoke are due to heart disease and respiratory disease.



From: the CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/etsfact3.htm

>>>Those most affected by secondhand smoke are children. Because their bodies are still developing, exposure to the poisons in secondhand smoke puts children in danger of severe respiratory diseases and can hinder the growth of their lungs. On top of that, the effects can last a lifetime.

Ventilation systems in homes cannot filter and circulate air well enough to eliminate secondhand smoke. Blowing smoke away from children, going into another room to smoke, or opening a window may help reduce children’s exposure but will not protect them from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
<<,

[LoZoccolo]

178. No I didn't.

The EPA classifies it that way. There may have been a study done later that I didn't know about but you cannot claim that I "Just Made It Up".

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/smoke/01.htm

[Radical Activist]

54. I need big brother to not give me an asthma attack

by smoking around me all the time. This bill would have done me some good as a child.

[Beelzebud]

56. "I need Big Brother". Enough said. n/t

[Radical Activist]

59. um...no

I need big brother to STOP doing something is the exact opposite of saying "I need big brother." So no, cutting off half the sentence is misleading, and not enough said.

[Beelzebud]

61. You stated you need big brother to not have an asthma attack.

Therefore you "need big brother" for something don't you?

Enough said.

[Radical Activist]

67. How silly and obtuse

No, I don't "Need big brother" I want the assholes around me to stop giving me asthma attacks while they poison themselves like complete morons. Does that phrasing do it for you or do you want to play more pointless word games?
And big brother was also a reference to family memebers who smoke near children, in this case, rather than the government. I guess that was lost on you.

[Beelzebud]

71. You're the one that said you needed Big Brother.

Maybe next time you'll think about how things sound.

And in a free society people actually are free to "poison themselves like complete morons". Look at the crap most of us eat (me included).

[Radical Activist]

75. You want me to look at crap?

Look right there, you said "Look at the crap." What crap are you referring to?

You can make a lot of mindless arguments if you cut off people mid-sentence and ignore the intended meaning.

[Beelzebud]

77. If you want to, sure. It's still a free country.

Big Brother hasn't taken over just yet. But he's getting plenty of help.

[titoresque]

Quick before they ban this site......

http://www.ratemypoo.com/ratemy/poo

[Beelzebud]

79. LOL

:D

[genieroze]

187. did ya check out the rest of the site, some funny shit.

[Telly Savalas]

184. Poisoning onself is not the same thing as poisoning someone else.

But I really wouldn't expect a libertarian to be able to deal with such subtle nuances.

[titoresque]

74. Maybe you should try

staying away from all the assholes that are making your life so miserable that you would actually say "I need Big Brother"
Incidentally, perfume makes my throat swell and I get migranes.

[seabeyond]

154. way preg, in restaraunt, so hungry, a perfumed woman sat by me

between the gags and running out of the restaraunt afraid i was going to throw up, this preg gal didnt get the food i NEEDEd

on edit: notice no need to call her names or stupid or anything else. i didnt need to make a big to do with restaraunt. i didnt need to be ugly. we left and i got food elsewhere totally understanding her right and want to perfume up

wink

damn i am consistant, lol llol

[Mugu]

167. Finally, somebody that I can identify with.

I have a real problem with perfume, scented shampoo, scented deodorant, etc. My girlfriend used to use some awful hair conditioner. I finally told her to not come around if she insisted on stinking like a bordello. Give me a smoker any day.

On a side note, want to do something for the children? Outlaw talking on a cell when driving. Some scientist will argue that some exposure to toxic materials is good for a child’s immune system. But running red lights, and sitting through green lights is dangerous whether the kids are in your car or the person’s that you run into.

[The2ndWheel]

70. Not give him an attack

I read it as his actual older brother. I don't think the government is smoking in his face.

Either way, just ask your brother to stop. If he doesn't, you don't have to get congress to legislate assholiness out of your brother.

[Beelzebud]

76. So his parents let his big brother smoke in the car? How old was his big

brother while he was growing up?

[The2ndWheel]

85. That's how I read it

Maybe I read it wrong.

He just said smoke around him, not necessarily in the car.

[Radical Activist]

89. It was a play on words

"Big brother" literally smoking in cars around kids and big brother the government. Jesus... that's the last time I try to be clever on DU for a while.

[titoresque]

63. Do you or do you not

"need" Big Brother?

















wait for it.........


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[SidDithers]

19. Good... and I hope the fines are significant....

There are all kinds of laws that are designed to protect the health and welfare of children. If parents are stupid enough to unnecessarily endanger their kids, they should be punished.

Sid

[titoresque]

20. so you would agree that.....

Alcohol should only be sold in restaurants,ball games,and concerts to patrons who don't have children with them.

[SidDithers]

22. No, I would be agree...

that children riding in car seats should not be forced to consume alcohol during a car trip.

Sid

[Beelzebud]

24. Should we ban Happy Meals?

The toys can be choked on, and the food is crap! Let's ban it!

[SidDithers]

31. Strawman...

Toys are produced so as to be as safe as possible. No toy manufacturer wants to be sued because their toy caused the death of a child. That's why toys with small parts have labelling so that parents can choose which toys are appropriate for their kids.

Unless you're suggesting that forcing kids to choke on small toys should be OK. But I'm sure there are laws against that too.

Sid

[Beelzebud]

32. It's not a strawman. Where do these laws end?

The food isn't healthy. should we ban it? The toys have caused more child deaths than cigarettes. Shouldn't we ban them?

I want to figure out where the line is, and how do we determine where to draw it?

[SidDithers]

82. And organizations like the CSPC issue recalls...

on dangerous toys.

From their site: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04216.html
"Each year, CPSC receives about 15 reports of choking deaths to children under age 3."


Still, second hand smoke has been shown to be a contributing factor to SIDS.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11865272

Lung tissue concentrations of nicotine in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
CONCLUSIONS: Children who died from SIDS tended to have higher concentrations of nicotine in their lungs than control children, regardless of whether smoking was reported. These results are based on an objective, biochemical test rather than history, and they further support the relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and the risk of SIDS.


Sid

[seabeyond]

158. well then what you are suggesting is all smoking parents

should have their children taken away because of the possibility of death, ..... sids?

is this what you suggest?

[SidDithers]

175. No, I was pointing out that second hand smoke is bad for kids...

and yet you still seem to think that a parents "right" to smoke is more important than the health of the kids in the car.

Sid

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

136. Eh, kids are crafty. They'll always outsmart the adult and try to kill...

themselves with something.

[titoresque]

25. but they should be forced

to ride in the car with alcohol impared parents?

[SidDithers]

27. Aren't there already laws against driving while intoxicated?

Are you advocating that drinking and driving should be allowed?

I don't see how that is comparable to a child forced to endure carcinogenic fumes while a captive in an enclosed space. :shrug:

Sid

[titoresque]

30. Sid

of course I'm not advocating.
And you're avoiding the obvious. I'm not talking about intoxication. I'm talking about government dictating my parental responsibilities.
It's personal. And laws like this are put in place to take away that personal responsibility.....or do you really think Government gives a shit about the well being of your child?!

You mentioned putting a child in a needless harmful situation. Where does it stop? It's a scary world out here.

[SidDithers]

34. I understand completely...

and yes, I'm being intentionally obtuse. But, as I said in my original post, there are already laws out there to protect children against bad parental choices, whether made out of neglect or ignorance. Would it really be so bad if parents were discouraged from smoking in their car when driving with the kids?


Sid

[titoresque]

49. Discouraged no

passing a law to discourage yes. Because you're heart is in the right place don't get fooled that the Government has the same intention. And it just keeps on going. Soon we won't have to make any decisions, good bad or indifferent. We'll just be dictated by law, fines, fear, and the ever popular traffic light cameras.

[LoZoccolo]

33. I can't believe you even posted this.

Your standards of what constitutes an argument are beneath what I will continue to listen to.

For the record, you fail to recognize that cigarette smoke affects nearby people like alcohol can't.

[titoresque]

44. I was playing devils advocate

for starters. And I do know very well about ciggarette smoke and alcohol. Am a friend of Bill. I also smoke and I do not smoke in the car with my kids nor do I smoke in my house.
And for the record Alcohol most certainly DOES affect nearby people!

[seabeyond]

28. let me come over to your house, and i will tell you

where out of laziness, or uneducated, or unaware you are doing bad to your children. bring it on.

you really feel you are in a position to so ignorantly judge your fellow man. you people make me more disgusted than any smoker. and i hate smoking. but i hate this mentality more.

[dogday]

39. I have to agree

This mentality is the reason our rights are eroding.. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.. Making all these laws that are so good for us... You give up one right, you forfeit the rest.. It is as simple as that...

[seabeyond]

51. as simple as that. so i am more outraged at the people because

of their dislikes dont have the will to stand up for another, would rather have the eroding on all fronts. wusses

i am at least willing to be consistant even on the things i am very much against, that i chose not to have in my house, but dont point the finger at the other

[dogday]

57. Isn't that what choice is all about?

Isn't this another form of denying a person choice? My biggest worry is the state legislating to parents how to parent and this is happening...

[seabeyond]

78. this is happening. so many times i have told boys, teachers, principle

govt, cops arent authority over you. i am. it is my job. and if you ever think one of these people will be telling me what to do with you, just watch, wont happen

i had kindergarten teacher want to dictate drugging my 5 year old for add.....

not a chance in hell

or in the private religious school cult them. told them no, not them, not me, not anyone. i raise free thinkers.

each of these people could have told me where i was wrong, hurting my child and had a good argument. but they were wrong. i am a parent that does my job, and i didnt need to drug my kid, i needed to figure out tools and implement them in the childs life. took work. took time and i did it. remember when we thought bush was going to test our kids and demand drugs. i have a child and niece and nephew that would fail. are we on this board going to advocate losing our parental right on drugging kid cause i tell you, there are a lot of believers that think we are doing harm to our child if we dont drug them. gonna take my kids away if i dont drug them when you deem it is necessary? it has been done.

i dont need a church to cult my children to get the to obey and love god. i did it my way, through respect, love kindness and example. my kids are beyond any church going child in what the bible teaches.

and these anti smokers can push their agenda, but my kids see their lie, and their hyocrisy.

[SidDithers]

95. What choice does the infant..

strapped into a car seat in an enclosed vehicle have?

Sid

[titoresque]

96. What choice does the child walking to the

bus stop have when there are 12 documented child molesters living within
5 miles of the bus stop?

What choice does the child have at Chuck E.Cheese while daddy slams back a pitcher of beer?

What choice does the infant sitting in rush hour traffic have while smog fills the air?

There are many choices we could take away from the Parents and give to the Government for the good of the child.....but where do we stop?

[SidDithers]

99. Try to stick to the issue at hand...

We're talking about captive children in a car with a smoker. Not child molesters, not Chuck E. Cheese.

Are you saying that because B is a risk too, we shouldn't try to minimize risk A? If you don't agree that young children should be protected from second hand smoke while in an enclosed area, that's fine. I happen to think they should. And if it takes a fine to protect children from ignorant or willfully careless parents, then so be it.

There are seat-belt fines to ensure kids are buckled up when travelling in a motor vehicle. How is a fine against smoking in a motor vehicle with young kids any different?

Sid

[titoresque]

106. How is a fine against smoking in a motor vehicle with

young kids any different?" It isn't. That's my point.
But someone someday will make the argument about Chuck E. Cheese, and Child Molesters and a lot of other things just as they have about all the other bullshit laws that keep getting passed because people like you have been brainwashed into thinking that Government=Mommy

Perhaps you've seen this?

For those who survived the 40's-50's-60's-70's

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soft drink with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given cowboy guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not poke out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
The town football club had tryout for the junior team and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

And if YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives "for our own good."

Some of these things listed are now against the law, such as riding in the back of a truck. The rest of them have been mostly demonized..... which is the first step toward outlawing.

[SidDithers]

109. There are already laws against drinking and molesting...

someone has already made those arguments, and because they made good arguments, driving while intoxicated and kiddie diddling are legislated against.

If someone makes a bullshit argument about taking away your rights to watch ESPN, then argue against it. You're entitled to argue that protecting captive kids from carcinogens is a "bullshit law", but when you back up your argument with that piece of sorry e-mail spam, don't expect anyone to take your argument too seriously.

Really, I can't believe you posted that e-mail. :rofl:

Sid

[titoresque]

112. Ok, so you're a little slow

I will spell it out for you.
A small child goes to dinner with parents. The restaurant serves alcohol to the parents with child at the table. Parents drink.
What can the child do but ride home with the parent?! Get it? It's not about intoxication! You are arguing that the child has no rights in certain situations where the parents make the decision!

Here's an idea: Take away the personal responsibility of the parent and make it a law that persons in restaurants with children cannot be trusted to drink responsibly therefore they are not permitted to drink or they have a limit. It's fair don't you think? I mean cigarettes are sold legally just as alcohol is. You can't possibly believe that all parents with children are drinking responsibly. And surely you don't believe that just because their are laws against drinking and driving that would stop the parent right?!

If that were true, we'd see more kids in bars.....oh, but theres a law against that. :sarcasm:


A small child walks to the bus...child molesters living all around.
Parent cannot afford to live in a child molester free zone (if there even is one) Parent cannot afford to be late for work, parent cannot find any other means to get child to school........child walks alone to bus stop.
What rights does the child have against being place in this potentially harmful situation?

Heres an idea: Make into effect a law that would ensure the parent has to walk the kid to the bus stop, have another adult do it, or drive them personally to school. Because after all we can't have the parents making the proper safety decision for the child. And the child needs to be safe, always.

A small child sits in rush hour grid locked traffic in a car with no air conditioning in 100 degree heat, the parent has to open the window thus causing smog filled POISONOUS air to enter the car. What rights does the child have against this abuse?!

Heres an idea: Parents without air conditioning caught in rush hour traffic with children in car and windows down will be fined! Additionally parents with children without air conditioning caught in rush hour traffic with the windows up, will be fined.

You think it's funny? You think self righteous people ( and it's usually people without children) don't think this shit up?


I am NOT talking about laws that are already in place! I'm talking about the ones NOT in place YET!!!!!!

Get it now?! :banghead:

Edited....just in case I wasn't clear enough.

[SidDithers]

116. Can't reply right now...

but I owe you the courtesy of a response. I'll reply later tonight.

Cheers.

Sid

[titoresque]

117. Why thankyou

until then :patriot:

[SidDithers]

179. First, thanks for the edit...

'cause before the edit I couldn't figure out what point you were trying to make. And even now, I'm not completely sure, but I'll give it a shot.

The phrase I'd like you to consider is "acceptable risk". The primary - some would say the only - responsibility that a parent has to their children is to try to minimize the risk that bad things will come to them. We try to balance giving our kids the freedom to grow and experience new things, with the risk that they may make choices that are harmful to them. We can never completely eliminate all risk, so we work to minimize the risk where we can.

The smoking law in Arkansas is not taking away anyone's personal responsibility, only adding a consequence if an adult fails to excercise that responsibility. There are plenty of parents who, through either ignorance or neglect, engage in behaviour that increases the risk of harm to their kids. Sometimes parents need to be educated to help them make better decisions. Sometimes, they need a stronger incentive.

When the hypothetical family goes out to dinner, the hypothetical dad (or mom, whomever is driving) has a personal responsibility to their family and to the public to not drink and drive. Our society reinforces that personal resonsibility by adding negative consequences (DUI and DWI charges) when that personal responsibility is ignored. In that situation, it is easy for a parent to reduce the risk, just don't drink.

The balancing act is a bit more difficult with the ficticious family living in the sea of child molesters, but the principle is the same. The parent must evaluate the risk to their kids and make decisions appropriate to the percieved risk. I would suggest that any parent who sends their 5-year-old out into a dangerous environment without supervision is acting in a willfully neglectful manner, and should face consequences. And there are already laws against neglect and abandonment.

I'm not sure where you're going with your last example. Your "situation" is in no way analagous to the no-smoking law in Arkansas. If that was an attempt at a rational argument, it failed. From a risk-management perspective, you open the window, because the immediate risk (heat stroke) takes precedence over the risk from chronic exposure. I don't see anyone proposing a law that kids shouldn't be exposed to city air, and if they do, you'd be welcome to call it a bullshit law and advocate against it. And you would probably have a brazillion supporters, including me.

But the Arkansas no-smoking law is not advocating protecting kids from city air. It is very specific to kids in car seats and cigarette smoke. And all the parent has to do to comply is to not smoke. So the question is, why is a law like this necessary? Why in the world would a parent smoke in the car with the kids in the first place? Are smokers so obsessed with their filthy habit that they're willing to sacrifice the health of their children in order to feed the monkey?

Sid

[yasmina27]

153. here here!

You stated my feelings exactly - only far more eloquently!

Thank you!

[seabeyond]

155. me too. i mean today we are just getting scary. i worry about when

boys are older if they are going to be able to be so damn perfect to keep ass out of jail. ah.... by then, we will just have a chip in brain and they can remote control us to follow all rule and eliminate all individuality or free thinking

[The Straight Story]

135. How is this different than in a house?

Why just cars?

[dogday]

140. You are right

Why not the house as well??????

[incapsulated]

182. Trust me....

When they pass a law against smoking in homes with children, the Big Brother Fan Club will be right here on DU giving them high-fives.

Because cigarettes, we all know, are the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM IN SOCIETY. Even cherished rights, such as privacy or how we raise our children, are to be discarded in this great Jihad against the Pure Evil that defiles each and every one of us, the true enemy of mankind, the bane of civilization itself, the ungodly cigarette.

[Telly Savalas]

185. Fuck the kids.

Me! Me! Me!

[SidDithers]

93. Bring it on...

If it makes me a better parent and protects my kids, then I want to be told when I can improve.

And yes, I am judging my fellow man, but not out of ignorance. I'm judging out of knowledge. Poisoining your children, whether out of ignorance or neglect, is a situation that must be addressed. Perhaps you should reserve your disgust for those whose need to smoke outweighs their duty as parents.

Sid

[Roland99]

35. Same here.I seem to end up arguing w/my ex every other week re:her smoking

in her apt. around our daughters.

Pisses me off to no end. Girls come over here and their clothes reek and I have to wash all of their clothes they bring over. Sure isn't helping their health, for sure.

[Beelzebud]

23. And the BIG POLLUTERS, a.k.a Big Business? They're free to pollute.

I mean, lets crack down on the regular citizens, and allow corporations to poison EVERYTHING and go unpunished.

Stick it to the little guy. YEAH!!!!

[progressivebydesign]

43. you obviously don't have small children

because anyone who does not smoke, or is an intelligent smoker, KNOWS of the lifelong health consequences of locking kids up in small spaces and exposing them to thousands of chemicals..

[dogday]

48. Like what, cleaning substances,

that stuff you spray to make your home smell better, the stuff you spray on your furniture to make it smell better..

Poor old kids, it it amazing children even survived with our fore-fathers who had none of these laws that trample on our rights.. How did they do it?

I am a Mother and I love my daughter, but I think it is more important to grow up in a world where you have liberties... The air in Houston alone will kill you, next will they ban us from going outside for the children's sake?

[Beelzebud]

50. Exactly. But they don't address that issue do they?

I'm sure all those chemicals in the cleaning products we use ON our children, and IN our children's homes are perfectly safe, right?

Same goes for the chemicals we FEED our children.

[IndyJones]

132. Like the liberty to breath non smoke filled air while in a car?

[seabeyond]

55. i beg your pardon???

in the old days they didnt open windows or go outside. i dont see that it effected my health at all, nor my firends who parents smoked. we are all old, we are all healthy we are all doing fine. so do tell me the life long health consequences because now you have me and all of mine being ill and we arent.

[SidDithers]

102. The plural of anecdote is not data...nt

Sid

[seabeyond]

105. i was told that i have lifelong health issues

the was no clarification, or anything. blatant in your face statement that a kid raised in a smoking house ahd lifelong health issues.

no anecdotal..........simple challenge on dont say i am this when i am not.....

say some. say possible. say they say..... but dont tell me i am sick when i am not sick

[seabeyond]

83. KNOWS of the lifelong health consequences

you KNOW......... tell me, i am hitting five decades. you KNOW. you say so. tell me what is wrong with my health?????? only time i did doctors was having babies oh and recently yawls outrageous you are going to die from smoking i had all of me checked. heart good, no cancer.

no asthma

no colds

no flu

what is wrong with my health, lifelong consequences. you made the statement, i want to know.

[Touchdown]

29. This thread needs to be moved.

If some overzealous moderator moves a thread on the POLITICAL, NOT MEDICAL issue of circumcision, then this one needs to move to health too.

[progressivebydesign]

36. Thank God! At least someone is looking out for the kids.

Sad... really tragic that you HAVE to legislate fucking common sense and care for your children. People are so unbelievably stupid and selfish when it comes to their supposed most-precious thing, their little kids. It makes me ill to see a parent, with kids in the car, sitting there at a light with the window barely rolled down and a cigarette blazing. Are these people complete idiots? Or just selfish?

[dogday]

53. What is tragic is that people like you

are trying again to legislate your belief using something like smoking as your weapon of choice... It will not stop with this, it never stops, once you open the floodgates and tell parents what type of parents they have to be....

Believe it or not kids managed to live and thrive and survive regardless of all of these well-intentioned laws... I love my children, but I have to ask when did we all of a sudden start worrying
about how bad parents are with their children in everything they do?

[Roland99]

60. There's no "belief" about the dangers of second-hand smoke. None.

But, go ahead and keep smoking around your kids. Enjoy your healthcare bills.

[dogday]

64. I am not a smoker, I am a person who

believes in a parent's right to raise their child regardless of whether I or you like the choice of how they raise it... You don't know me, so don't makes assumption it just makes an ass out of you....

[Roland99]

66. And I'm a parent that is concerned with his children's health

If I could get an injuction keeping my ex-wife from smoking around them, I'd do it in a split-second.

[dogday]

69. Oh I see this is a personal

thing with you... It is a matter of constitutional rights with me... I cannot and will not impose my beliefs on you, and I will not use smoking as my weapon of choice to do it with... I can not, because I know it will not end there...

I understand your problem and I hope you and your ex can work things out by discussing what is best for your children, but it should not be a law....

[Roland99]

72. What constitutional amendment provides anyone with the right to smoke

and endanger another person's health?

Never heard of "your rights end where mine begin"?

Apparently not.


Suppose you're against seatbelt laws? Helmet laws? Bet you're even opposed to being forced to carry car insurance.

[dogday]

80. Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Allows that the government has no right to come into your property and tell you how to live...

The bigger issue is if you allow this law because you don't like smoking, what about the next one?

If you want the federal government telling you how to be a good parent, more power to you, but I do not....

[Roland99]

81. You didn't answer my questions.

Your answer is not relevant to the questions posed.

[dogday]

84. I have posted my position and you

have posted yours...

On edit, getting personal and throwing out stupid remarks like that, just show me this is my last post with you, I don't get into pissing matches....

[Roland99]

87. You still haven't answered direct questions.

[Beelzebud]

90. Where in the constitution does it regulate smoking?

[Roland99]

92. Same place where it requires a driver's license and car insurance.

Too many people seem to confuse privileges with rights.

BIG difference.

[The Straight Story]

139. So they can sit in their car, at their house, and smoke?

IE - I understand the whole thing that driving is a priveledge stuff but then owning land a house is as well (you have to pay taxes, etc, to own a home, there are restrictions on cutting grass, and the list goes on).

This reminds me too much of the patriot act - we want to protect X member of society, so we will pass laws and punish those who do not conform. We can spy on your phone - because some people might be using their phones in bad ways and you don't own the transmission lines anyway. You wanna get a job (which is not a right) then we can get you there as well. It just seems to be neverending.

[IndyJones]

Raise "it"? They are not "it"; they are human beings.

[seabeyond]

86. my parents smoked thru out my childood. i went to doctor once,

at 12, for a fever.

my two brother resided in the same house. they didnt get sick and use doctors either. my firends parents smoked, they didnt get sick either, nor use doctors.

i call bullshit

[Roland99]

91. ooooo! Anecdotal evidence for the loss!

[titoresque]

94. I smoke

my parents also smoke. I don't smoke in the house, but my mom does. While I do find it disgusting, I am a very healthy person.
My mom had 8 children, gave birth 3 times at home without a doctor. Heres my point.
My son is 10, has not been to a doctor even once since he was born...except the time he had stitches for falling off the trampoline....anyhow, he is extremely healthy. So am I and so are all of my siblings.
I have chosen not to smoke in the house because I hate the smell, same with inside the car. I also don't want my kids going to school smelling like smoke. My mom smokes in her house. My kids love to spend the night with Grandma. I will not keep my children from their grandmother because she smokes in the house.........and I love them. Imagine that.
They are healthy, I am healthy......and we don't need our precious Government telling us what to do!

[seabeyond]

97. because it is bullshit. anyone with reason and logic knows it is

bullshit.

people act as if one whiff of smoke is going to take them down. k.... lots of adults with smoking parents, why arent we keeling over. why arent the children dropping dead. because it is bullshit. and i havent said anything thread after friggin smoking thread, as the most outrageous comments have been made in the ugliest of way. but this thread, and people here are outrageous.

i would take my smoking parents over any other parents...... their smoking had so little, was so insignificant in my life. what was important, what mattered to me as a child, had nothing to do with smoking. and the same with my kids

i dont have to justify or validate for others on this baord that my children are not sucking down the second smoke. because regardless of what i say, the precautions i use, i will still be tarrrrred by the anti crowd. my in laws do it. so i dont like to be around my in laws. their loss.

but to make a statement that we KNOW of lifetime health consequences, is really the all time high in bullshit meter

[SidDithers]

104. "I smoke"..."I am a very healthy person"...

You don't see the disconnect in those 2 statements?

Sid

[titoresque]

108. Nope

not in my case. I know a lot of non-smokers who are very unhealthy.
Could I be healthier? Yes.

[javadu]

180. My Dad Smoked

And I have asthma and my mom got lung cancer.

[incapsulated]

101. Next, no smoking in small apartments with children...

If you think it ends here, prepare to be surprised.

[Mythsaje]

118. There was some debate on this in Washington State

a few years back.

Until the cops said "we won't enforce it."

It went away.

Law is about enforcement power. Without enforcement, it's a waste of time and money.

[MelliMel]

121. Bingo! Have the police look for real criminals

instead of this.

[MelliMel]

119. Not a smoker, but a mother, and I think the law stinks.

This is no different than when conservatives look out for your children by trying to control what is on tv at 2am.

Besides, if fewer people smoke, where will states like mine (Cali) get so much tax money from? Tax another sin?

[SeattleGirl]

123. Yep, they will have to find another group of sinners to pile on.

Here in Washington, there is a ban on smoking in any public building, including bars and restaurants, and yet, they want to use the money from the very high cigarette taxes to fund health care for poor children. So, um, okay, they want people to quit smoking (so they say), and yet they need the money generated from cigatette taxes to fund health care. So, that says to me they really DON'T want people to quit smoking -- at least until they can identify the next group to "punish" with sin taxes. Oy! Government! :eyes:

[MelliMel]

126. Makes little sense.

Either they want the tax money or they don't.

And if the revenues from cigarette taxes go down because less are smoking, they will have to come up with a new tax and anger more people. How stupid.

[Mythsaje]

131. We think smoking is wrong...

"So we'll tax it highly, therefore making money off of people with an addiction. More than the tobacco companies, when you get right down to it.

Heh heh. Next we'll try heroin."

[Jose Diablo]

122. Why stop with smoking in cars?

Let's take it all the way. No-smoking period.

That's where all this stuff is leading, why be coy, Roy? All this dancing around with false motives like non-smokers rights and children's welfare. All that is just so much smoke and mirrors. It's really about banning tobacco, all tobacco, isn't it, Carrie, I mean Ms Nation.

[sweetheart]

141. Second hand car exhaust is surely worse yet...

I agree, no smoking period, starting with the cars themselves.

[LoZoccolo]

148. Wrong.

Slippery slope argument.

[Telly Savalas]

186. Slippery slope arguments are great!

If I ever have difficulty in defending my position on a subject, I can easily invoke a slippery slope argument to change things to a more black-and-white playing field, thus relieving myself of the responsibility for tackling the issue at hand:

"Those nanny-state libruls want to deny my right to poison my kids. Next thing you know, they'll invade my home and force me to redecorate my living room!"

[Mythsaje]

124. THIS was a big part of the reason I started this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1119788&mesg_id=1131854


I'm seeing a fierce dividing line between those who believe in freedom and those who give freedom lip service but really want to control others in much the same way as do the conservatives--just basing it on a different ideology.

[Jose Diablo]

129. Just no end to doin' right say's Colonel Redleg to Grandma in Josey Wales

n/t

[jsamuel]

130. part of the problem is that the line is broad and hazy

Is it ok to require someone to wear a seatbelt in their car?
Is it ok to require them to put their child in a car seat?
Is it ok to require them not to smoke if they have a child in the car?
Is it ok to require them not to speed?
Is it ok to require them to meet emisions standards?
Is it ok to require them to have all lights working?

Some of these questions make the other ones hazy when you try to reason them out together even though they may look obvious when not looked at simultaneously.

I think it all comes down to risk management and mitigation. Which ones are the riskiest for others or themselves? Which ones have the worst impact if they happen? Which ones are more likely to happen than others?

[Mythsaje]

133. Well...

No, yes, not if it won't be enforced (God knows the cops don't have anything else to do), and nobody obeys this goddam law anyway.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[seabeyond]

145. dont dare put child or baby in front seat with airbags.

i NEVER do. i think that is horribly reckless to let a less than adult setting in the front seat. i want that a law too.

oh that leaves three seats in back. leave the fourth at home

btw,.... a lot of things to make us especially safe is awfully costly and our poor brothers and sisters will not be able to keep up. should they just not have children. they cant afford them anyway, fuck em......
besides they wouldnt love there children if they werent able to have new safe tires because they couldnt afford all the stuff i can to make and keep my child safe.

[sandnsea]

137. That's very true

If we enacted all the laws the left wants to "protect the children", and all the laws the right wants, we wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning without breaking a law. At some point we've got to accept the human condition. Prevention education, legislation only when the consequences are so harmful as to be unconscionable not to legislate, like baby car carriers.

[seabeyond]

143. couldnt agree with you more

some comments on here almost make me sick. kinda like how i listened to people attack those on a cell phone. what was the reasoning for such hatefilled attacks? it was effecting their or their childrens health? no.... couldnt be that with cell phones. but such anger and hate in that thread, the do it my way... how dare you chose not to do what i tell you to do.

are we going to have a machine that when they pull you over will state the amount of smoke in a car. what if, i keep car well ventilated and not a single smoke smell (let alone contaminates) in my car. then isnt the reason for ticketing me null and void? should i be punished? or is it really jsut all about attacking hte smoker cause society allows us to.

and while we are at it, no smoking in home or we will take your kids.

cause we the people know so much better what is right for the kids, fuck the parent. obviously they dont love their kids. do you know i have heard adults actually say this to kids. parent doesnt put you in seatbelt, to bad they dont love you. they smoke around you, to bad they dont love you. what sick person would say that to a child.

as i say, my parents smoked. smoking was nothing in what my parents gave me. totally insignificant in my youth. i wouldnt want any other person as my parents. i was blessed. my health, nor my brothers health were effected. the only people smoking is issue for is those outside, judging and spouting off false facts in order to continue the ability to "hate" a group. and do it on the moral high road

you know, i got pissed at the cell, ipod thread and i dont do either in the public. yet the posts on there was just outrageous

same thing on here with this post

or a post on guns

or so many others, that we deem society doesnt do what we want.

breathe, in.... breathe.... out

(i dont think i can come back into this thread, listening to some of these people)

[seabeyond]

144. i have to make a meatloaf for dinner, feed kids some red meat

maybe all can tell me how much i hate my kids

[titoresque]

146. You've made some really excellent points

in this thread. Even mentioning the cell/ipod thread. The one where the lady got mad at someone bothering her in line at the grocery store? Anyhow, I was one in that thread who thought the woman was rude. I don't recall being rude in that thread. But after that I started to notice my partner talking on the cell phone EVERYWHERE in public. I had never really noticed it before. It started to really piss me off, and then I started thinking, damn if I never really noticed this before that thread conversation........
Anyhow, thanks for your comments and for making me consider my own behavior......even though I don't think that was your intent, which is why I probably "got it"
:hi:

[seabeyond]

147. thank you

i have a hubby that uses cell often. because he fixes computers. we all know how desperate we are for a fix when we cant get on the net. my hubby doesn't like getting interrupted with all these calls thru out his day, even at 2 a.m. but it is his business and he knows how important it is for people to be able to get on net. i cant chew his ass out. i understand

i also just have never been bothered by other people, with so many things.

you know there have been threads on kids. some people seem to get every smoker that blows in their face, every obnoxious cell phone user, and every out of control child, whereas i can say honestly, i have not been afflicted with either of the three. i have to wonder why..... i am never inundated with all these horrid people and children. or if..... it really doesn't have to do with all these horrid people, but more to do with me.

anyway, i appreciate your post. i do. really. lol lol a lot.

now for the meatloaf

[sweetheart]

138. I'm looking forward to all those smokeless cars.

I'm sure the city will smell better for that... its about time
we banned exhaust from cities for the benefit oof our children,
i'm wholly supportive of that.

[degreesofgray]

149. Next thing you know

you won't be able to shoot your kid in your car, either.

[seabeyond]

152. or feed him the big mac, or let him watch ed ed and eddy, or

let him have the candy bar or soda, or red meat, or not have health insurance for the kid whether you can afford it or not, or .....

yup

pretty soon

[MrSlayer]

150. What a complete and utter waste of the police.

Surely there are real criminals out there to catch and they'll be wasting time on this bullshit. Ludicrous.

[readmoreoften]

160. My father smoked like a chimney.

In the car. In the house. Just about anywhere. I've never had lung problems. I'm pretty damn healthy and I don't smoke myself. I would've been more upset if my father was arrested for smoking in the car with me, than inhaling smoke.

Cancer rates are high in the area I grew up in from toxic fumes and invisible pollution. This non-smoking stuff is ridiculous.

[SPKrazy]

161. Great Law! Protecting Children From Poison

how could anyone EVER be opposed to protecting children from breathing poison?

[seabeyond]

164. you arent feeding children red meat are you

processed foods? surely not. no sugar or soda? how could any parent feed that to their kids, poison them? how could they use reg veggies aND FRUITS THAT HAVE POISON ON THEm? how could any parent live in a large metro enviroment without all that outside pollution? what parent would poison their kid? water from the tap, fish, lunch boxes, teflon pans. how can a parent poison their kids? they must not love them huh?

do tell

[SPKrazy]

165. Ehhh Go Eat Your Veggies! n/t

strawman arguments are for those who can't be reasonable

[seabeyond]

166. strawman

that is the you are dismissed comment. hm.....

[SPKrazy]

168. Okay, You Are Dismissed! n/t

[seabeyond]

170. no

[genieroze]

189. I read the whole article and they don't say how it will be enforced.

The primary thing that bothers me is if there are cigarette butts in the ashtray and kids in the car can a cop make the decision if you were smoking or not if he pulls you over for another reason. Maybe you were smoking when you left the kids at home with your spouse before. Do they have to see you smoking? "Violating the bill would be a “primary offense,” Mathis said, meaning police could use violations of the bill to justify pulling someone over.
“And I’m tickled to death about it,” Mathis said. "

[REP]

190. I Smoke For The Children

There's some huge tax slapped on every pack of cigarettes in my state that goes to some damn children's handout, and I smoke for the children. I don't have any, and I've had a great deal of surgery to make damn sure that I never have any ... so I'm free to smoke in my car as much as I want. For the children.

[Leopolds Ghost]

191. BOB DYLAN... "I Saw Cops that Ban Smoking in Cars with Young Children!"

-- "Blue Eyed Son", 1961

Bob Dylan predicted this!

Next up: ban automobile exhaust!