jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (309 posts)

What do you think?

  1. 0
    cjaroszposted 3 years ago

    There will be a new law January 1, 2014. You will be fined for smoking with a child under 18 in the car. What are your opinions? Do you think smokers are making a big deal out of it, even when there are also laws on drinking, texting, calls,seatbelts and ect.

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good idea.

    2. JG11Bravo profile image94
      JG11Bravoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Its an inconsequential law presented to placate a certain demographic to gain votes. That's all. The car is one confined space of many that people smoke in, it will solve nothing but to irritate smokers and get support from the anti-smoking community.

      Ah, politics.

      1. 0
        cjaroszposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I honestly think that a car is worse than in the house, and such. It is more confined. With the windows up, the smoke has no where to go. Forcing those in the car to breath more of it in.

        1. JG11Bravo profile image94
          JG11Bravoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps it's worse, but it's still just a drop in the ocean the way I see it.  I really feel like it's more posturing than practicality, that's all.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is that, of course.  Posturing and another small chip in banning tobacco to everyone, everywhere.

            1. JG11Bravo profile image94
              JG11Bravoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Political positions are too easy to fight and argue about, but I think we can all agree that, if nothing else, there's no such thing as a pure motive in politics.  There is always ulterior motive, always an agenda.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Boy, you've got that one right.

                And the smoking bans have been going on for years and years.  Every higher taxes (make the smoker pay for projects benefitting everyone) and ever tighter restrictions on where one can smoke.  Not possible to believe that the fight isn't a part (and a major part) of this legislation.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          An ex-smoker, I never smoke in a car with the windows up.  Always had a wind blowing through, clearing out the smoke even in winter.  Just common courtesy to anyone else in the car. 

          And you?

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why not?  The All Knowing Government already limits our soft drink size and inspects our child's lunch at school (discarding it for a "proper" lunch from the school).  It prohibits sale of the raw milk many of us grew up drinking and now forces purchase of health care.

      What's a little thing like beating up a little more on the smokers that are helpless to defend themselves?  Never forget, Big Daddy in DC knows how to live your life better than you do.

      Do recall it though, when something you value is taken away as being bad for you.  The Nanny state rules, and your objections will mean no more to the do-gooders of the world than that of the smokers.

      1. 0
        cjaroszposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. At the same time, how is not a better thing to give a little protection to our little ones.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The perpetual comeback from the socialists: YOU WANT TO KILL THE LITTLE CHILDREN. 

          Personally I'm sick and tired of hearing that from people that are using it as an excuse to turn our country into a socialist haven; to remove all decisions from the public and most of their money.

          No, it is NOT a better thing to turn our citizenry into a nation of zombies, leaving all decisions from what to have for breakfast to how to raise our kids, to some bureaucrat in Washington.  In the long run it will do far more harm to lots more kids than some secondhand smoke to a few today.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When you smoke with a kid in the car you may not be trying to hurt the kid, but you still are.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed.  But that's not the question; the right question to be asking is does society have the right to determine how you shall raise and treat your child. 

              We already have quite a few requirements; school, "proper" food in their lunches, medical treatment, etc.  How far shall we go?  Is society responsible for the well being of every person, or do people - individuals - carry some responsibility.

          2. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think it has to do with how we raise our kids as much as do we have a right to make them breathe 2nd hand smoke which kills 600,000 ppl every year.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There isn't a chance in the world that second hand smoke, filtered through a set of human lungs, kills 600,000 ppl every year.  Nice propaganda from the anti-smoking league, but without a hint of truth in it.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, Im no expert, just googling. How many is an acceptable amount?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How many decisions properly belonging to the individual is appropriate for society to mandate?

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why do we bother to have CPS if it is not a collective societal position to protect the lives of children from those in authority over them?

      2. Sherry Hewins profile image94
        Sherry Hewinsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As a person who was once a kid trapped in a car with two smoking adults, I think smoking in the car with your kids in it is a terrible thing. Do we need a law? Maybe we do if people are too stupid to figure this out for themselves.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, those stupid people usually ignore the law.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So (not to compare the severity of the two... as I know you can be very literal) does that mean we shouldn't have laws against murder? B/c ppl are too stupid... or willful etc. to follow them?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, what I'm saying is that despite any laws in place, stupid people will ignore them and folks like Sherry Hewins will still be trapped in cars with adults that smoke.

              The idea is to educate stupid people.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's a good idea.

                Here's a thought though. Wilderness is very smart... very educated (I'm assuming). He simply doesn't believe the facts being shared. Then what do you do?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you notice, Wilderness is simply thinking it through and looking at a bigger picture and trying to get others to see that picture, as well.

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me see if we are on the same page.

                    Wilderness disagrees with the data that 2nd hand smoke is very dangerous, if I read his earlier posts correctly.

                    So it is not education he lacks. He simply disagrees with the data.

                    So assuming there are others like him... we can assume they would also dismiss the data/education you speak of. At that point, what actions could be taken to protect kids from the situation that Sherry described?

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.  And another law to limit soft drink sizes, because stupid people allow their kids to drink too much pop.  And another to have schools inspect lunches kids bring because stupid parents won't feed them right. 

          There are just thousands of laws we can come up with because parents are considered stupid by someone, somewhere for not raising their kids the "right" way.  May I suggest jail time for anyone spanking a 2 year old for biting their sister?

    4. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think that that is overreach, outside of  the auspices of Government authorities. This is going too far!

    5. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent idea, every hour of exposure to cigarette smoke significantly increases risk of death.

      In 2011 6 million people were killed by second hand smoke exposure. Smoking with a child in the car is gambling with their lives. Simple as that.

      http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo … as-smoking

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do try to get your facts right when making claims.

        Your link says there were 6M deaths from "tobacco use", not "second hand smoke exposure". 

        I'd sure like to see some quantifiable data showing that every hour of exposure to cigarette smoke significantly increases risk of death - got something to back the claim?  Be sure that distances to the second hand smoke are reported, along with concentrations observed at the second person.  A person smoking in Atlanta is not providing second hand smoke to someone in Seattle.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry you are correct I posted entirely the wrong study, mea culpa.

          http://www.livescience.com/23562-second … kders.html
          42 000 in the US alone yearly.

          Different cities no, same car, definitely.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Better.  However, the major things I get from it is that the "study" seems to assume that anyone with excessive Cotine in their body that dies from lung cancer has died from second hand smoke.  I do have a problem with that.

            The article is also heavy in repeating that blacks have a higher incidence than whites; what I got was the inference that they are physically more susceptible while it think the real truth is that there is statistically a higher incidence of smoking in blacks.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No not "study" study as in a study from a very respected university by very qualified experts in the field.

              Nope the study never implies that back people are more susceptible just more impacted, this is probably because of the higher rate of smoking in the African American population.

              However we put it we are still talking about tens of thousands of lives (not their own lives which they are free to do with as they will but the lives of others) yearly against the inconvenience of having to step outside...

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Outside isn't good enough, not where I live. 

                All public parks, even those of 500 acres or more, are smoke free now.  Apparently a smoker downwind and 1/4 mile away is killing the other people with second hand smoke.  You can be ticketed for smoking inside your car if parked in a college parking lot.  Or for walking on the public sidewalk of that same college.

                The obvious goal is to eliminate tobacco from the US, and this piece of legislation has that at its roots.  Just another small chip at the rights of others.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well then you aren't even addressing the topic of the thread anymore.

                  Personally I am fine with smoking outside, not in children's play areas in parks and not within 20 meters of a public building.

                  The simple truth is when you smoke you are releasing a frankly terrifying cocktail of cancer causing chemicals, poisons (nicotine and Arsenic are both effective poisons) and addictive substances. People shouldn't need to be told they can't do it around kids or others evidently some are not smart enough to figure it out though.

                  Doing something that categorically kills other people is NEVER a right.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "against the inconvenience of having to step outside..."

                    Sorry if off topic, just responding to your comment.

                    "Doing something that categorically kills other people is NEVER a right."

                    Unless lots of people want to do it: driving a pollution creator such as a car, for instance.  Particularly a large or older one, as half the country does.  Or using a wood fire for heat in your home, contributing huge amounts of pollution that can and do kill in the winter.  Or putting fertilizer on our beautiful lawns, fertilizer that ends up in the drinking water.  Or turning the thermostat up in winter, when the energy is coming from coal or other petroleum products (check out the effects of acid rain in the NE US).

                    Absolutely "Doing something that categorically kills other people is NEVER a right.", we just do it anyway if it's what WE want.  Only attack those things that OTHER people are doing but that we don't want to do ourselves.

    6. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Doesnt state and federal make billions a year in tobacco tax killing little Johnny?

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is a huge difference between smoking and forcing others to take in your second hand smoke. Smoking in such a way that it only affects you and willing participants is not only possible it's what the vast majority of smokers do.

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          PhoenixV wrote:

          Doesnt state and federal make billions a year in tobacco tax killing little Johnny





          Isn't nicotine as addictive as heroin? Since nicotine is legal and state and federal "profit" off of nicotine even though 600,000 deaths occur from second hand smoke (according to an earlier posted claim) it must be copacetic? Surely our government would not make money knowingly taxing a product that kills our children?

          If nicotine is as addictive as smack, shouldnt we get like Dr. Phil in there and do some interventions? Classify it as a disease? Maybe we could get a check and some disability?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well actually as I see it they should all be legalized but criminalized to use in such a way that it makes others do so.

            It's your choice to smoke or take Heroin. Though I will say I have sympathy for smokers since plenty started not knowing it was harmful since the tobacco companies pumped tons of money into preventing that from becoming public knowledge. 

            Most places have access to AA type things for tobacco addiction.

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So if the Government makes trillions of dollars of revenue from nicotine taxes over decades, knowing full well it kills people, it seems to me, people that are "suffering from this horrible addiction" that they should get a government check in the mail to help with their disability. Right?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                LOL  I want to be on YOUR side!  I'd be a rich man by now, with all those checks.

                Instead of helping the smoker out with the millions collected from cigarette taxes, the state of Idaho remodeled the statehouse.  Paid for 100% from taxes paid by smokers, and they were proud they managed to squeeze that specific politically helpless group that way. 

                Pretty disgusting - but - this is not a pleasant time for those that became addicted to a publicly approved drug that was actively pushed by both business and society.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sure do!  And have backed off of other laws designed to limit tobacco use for just that reason.

        But this one...this one is to save the children and that very much makes it an emo issue, not a rational one.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nope the preservation of children is a rational AND emotional issue. You will notice it's those people offering all the proof and studies while the opposition attempts to hide in the grey areas of those studies with things like "it might only kill one child".

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And yet not a single study germane to the question addressed by the law has been offered.  Just ones that are different enough, and general enough, to offer no information at all.

            Like I said, all emo and no rational.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You know except all the studies on how it kills a thousand infants a year, or causes bronchitis even in small periods. Or all the studies saying you should never smoke in the same room as your child.

              You know infants who by definition ave to have limited exposure. Also we covered that tons of kids live in their cars.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Talking about sweeping generalization.

                SIDS causes the death of thousands of infants a year. Secondhand smoke is a risk factor to SIDS. Not even the biggest one. Not even close to the biggest one.

                Bronchitis is caused by a bacterial or viral infection. Secondhand smoke does not create bacteria or viruses.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Was that what "it" was about?  The "it" that was in "it kills a thousand infants a year"?  "It" refers to SIDS?

                  *shakes head in disbelief*  The lengths that some will go to to promote and keep alive an emo argument.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No that wasn't the it. It was from you know... a scientific study.

                    Madness I know.

                    http://www.livescience.com/23562-second … kders.html

                    This one I believe.

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah that was a study I quoted earlier that found about 900 to one thousands infant deaths yearly as a result of second hand smoke. You weren't there for that.

                  Yes bronchitis is caused by viruses which are allowed access by irritation of the lungs.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, acute bronchitis IS an irritation of the lungs caused by an infection. The bacteria/virus has to be there first. Sorry.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "You know except all the studies on how it kills a thousand infants a year"

                Define "it" please?  Because, at "a thousand infants a year" it certainly relates to neither the question of second hand smoke in a car or even general second hand smoke in the home that is thousands of times more severe.

                Nor have we decided that "tons of kids live in their cars" - that is just another irrelevant Josak exaggeration.  Even homeless kids that have access to an operable car with fuel in it spends more time outside the car than inside it.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The other question is answered above.

                  Are yous seriously suggesting that kids who live in a car don't sped significant periods in it...Christ.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure they do.  Do they spend as much time in the car as other kids spend in their home?  Except for sleeping time, I would expect on a small fraction of as much time.

                    Do the parents living out of a car parked under the bridge somewhere smoke inside the car?  Probably not - the probably don't smoke at all and if they DO manage to steal enough money from their kid's mouths to buy cigarettes they probably step outside the car.  It is already stopped, after all, and likely has several people in it all objecting to the smoke.

    7. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What if someone smokes a cigarette in a car with the windows rolled up and then puts out the cigarette and a child gets in later? Even though they stopped smoking a cigarette there would still be more smoke in the car than someone actually smoking with the windows rolled down.

      Maybe there oughta be a ban on rolled up windows too? Idk.


      The government has made billions of dollars on the nicotine/death market. If they keep their windows rolled down can they get some government assistance for their government approved disease?

  2. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    As an ex-smoker, I understand what it's like to be ostracized for making an adult decision. Everyone treats you like a leper and looks at you like you're some dirty, suicidal moron while they gobble down their Big Macs, soft drinks and candy  (true story, a 300 pound man chastised me for smoking while he was carrying a bag of fast food. Pot, meet kettle).

    Granted, it is true that second hand smoke is bad. I made it a point not to smoke around children or adults who were bothered by it. The sad thing isn't the fines for smoking in a car with a kid, but rather the fact that the government NEEDS this law. Any parent who callously ignores the dangers of exposing a child to second hand smoke against their will needs to be psychologically analyzed.

    Wilderness, what I find troubling about your stance is that you think it's part of our liberty to expose a minor to a knowingly dangerous toxin. Are you against drinking age restrictions as well, then? By your logic, I assume you'd have to be. After all, if you think we should have the "right" to choke our kids on cigarette smoke, we should have the "right" to get them sloshed if we feel it's okay.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I find it just as troubling that the automatic reaction to a handful of idiots that are poor parents is to make a new law about how one must behave and that adds additional restrictions to our freedom. 

      Shall we analyze the groceries purchased each week to verify the child is getting proper nutrition?  Check you home to make sure there is no weed being smoked there?  Check the child's clothing to make sure (s)he is properly clothed with warm clothes?  Shall we check the temperature in your home to be sure the child is OK?

      Where do we stop in taking responsibility from adults and giving it to the state?

  3. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    "There isn't a chance in the world that second hand smoke, filtered through a set of human lungs, kills 600,000 ppl every year."

    Wow, well Dr. Wilderness, I assume you know all about the safety of inhaling toxic smoke. And "filtered through human lungs"? Human lungs don't filter anything. If they did, we wouldn't have to worry about fumes. I don't know what's worse, the fact that you dismiss second hand smoke as propaganda, or the fact that you make these absurd medical claims without an ounce of legitimate data to back it up,

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well, let's see here.  The smoke enters the smokers lungs, full of tar and chemicals that will eventually cause cancer or other disease.  It leaves the lungs with some of those chemicals remaining behind to cause the damage. 

      That makes it more dangerous than if it still had a full load of chemicals, doesn't it?  Best set aside your propaganda and actually think about what you're saying (or reading as the case may be).

  4. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    "Human lungs don't filter anything". Correction on my last statement (*smack*). When I said they don't filter anything, I was referring to the chemicals. Human lungs do filter large particles, dust, etc. But cyanide, CO2 and all the other nasty toxins make their way into the bloodstream just fine.

  5. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    From the Center for Disease Control (hardly a "lobby group").
    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statist … ral_facts/

    Of course, maybe you're right. Doctors and medical organizations are just a bunch of socialist liberal hippies and second hand smoke is no more harmful than water vapor.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Don't know as I'd agree with anyone stupid enough to equate second hand smoke to water vapor.  So, sorry, cannot agree with you.

  6. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    Slapping parents who knowingly harm their children with something as blatantly dangerous as second hand smoke isn't "restrictions to our freedom" any more than nailing a drunk driver. Your comparisons are a moot point because they're irrational and excessive.

    Even as an ex-smoker (or during my smoking days), it really bothered me to see people smoking in cars with their kids - and I saw more often than I'd like.

    Are some laws unnecessarily restrictive? Absolutely. That law about maximum drink sizes - yeah, stupid beyond belief. But this smoking law isn't stupid. If a parent needs to fork over a few hundred bucks of their cigarette money to get the message, so be it.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Shall we analyze the groceries purchased each week to verify the child is getting proper nutrition?  Check you home to make sure there is no weed being smoked there?  Check the child's clothing to make sure (s)he is properly clothed with warm clothes?  Shall we check the temperature in your home to be sure the child is OK?"

      I notice that none of those questions were answered, or even the underlying concept that government is responsible for raising your child FOR you because you're too stupid to do it yourself.  Except, of course, to say they are excessive and irrational.  Just as the secondhand smoke is to the parent that does it, but of course they are just another stupid citizen that needs society to raise their child for them.

      Care to take a shot at them?  Where does individual responsibility end?  When anyone decides a child is in any amount of danger from anything?  Shall we prohibit dogs in the house because the kid might get bit?

  7. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    So the Center for Disease Control is "propaganda"? Okay, I give up.

  8. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    "Don't know as I'd agree with anyone stupid enough to equate second hand smoke to water vapor.  So, sorry, cannot agree with you."

    Clearly sarcasm is lost on you.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Question: do you think loss of freedom is warranted to protect children from a few idiots that might be contributing to the deaths of .008% of the population that die from second hand smoke?  Or that are claimed to have died from that, anyway?

      Where will you  draw the line?  Will you take freedoms to protect ,0001% of the population?  .00001%?  That's how many die in the US from dog bites each year - shall we prohibit all dogs?

      1. 0
        cjaroszposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There are laws against that too. Ordinances for keeping dogs on chains, or in chained yards. Laws on if the dog bites someone. Yes, it is another law that restricting. But its sad to say that enough people, don't have the moral judjements to know that this is wrong. Like drunk driving. People do it without using judgement. There are laws against that. Its not a select few. There are tons of people who smoke with their children in the car. Many studies have proven that second hand smoke is horrible compared to first hand.
        No its not " oh the poor little children". At 18 you have a choice to smoke. Any younger than that you don't. Choosing bad habits for your children in wrong. They aren't going to lock you up in prison for it. Its a fine.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Many studies have proven that second hand smoke is horrible compared to first hand. "

          No they haven't.  They have provided massive propaganda that removing chemicals from tobacco smoke, leaving it in one set of lungs, makes it far worse on the second pair of lungs that smoke encounters.  And idiots the country over have swallowed that ridiculous tale whole as they don't like people smoking anyway.  Again, "Best set aside your propaganda and actually think about what you're saying (or reading as the case may be)."

          Nor are there "tons" of people smoking with kids in the car, unless you mean that literally.  As in some 10 people making  a ton.  The number of smokers is way down from a decade ago, people are better educated about smoking and most people really do care about their kids.  There are people doing it, yes, but nowhere the number you would have us believe.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So we have laws restricting dogs.  But .00001% of the population dies each year from dog bites in spite of those laws.  Don't you think we'd better just ban dogs completely, like we're trying to do with cigarettes?

          1. 0
            cjaroszposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As avid you are on this subject, I'm guessing you are a smoker. And you don't have kids.

            1. 0
              cjaroszposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Its not about banning. Its about making moral choices for your children. You have the right to choose what happens to your body. They can't do anything about it. Smoking is bad for you and everyone around you.

              Argue the subject as you may. Its like abortion. There will always be two sides. Those who agree, and those who don't.

              Smoking causes cancer, and other health problems. Its addiction. I get that for some people.

              There wouldn't be a law if 10 people did it.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, it's not about "making moral choices for your children". 

                It's about making what YOU call moral choices for somebody ELSE's children.  YOU making the choices and decisions for somebody else, based on YOUR version of morality without regard to either their moral version or their rights to make their own decisions.  It's all about what YOU think should be done for the children of other people.

                The 10 people/no law?  You are probably wrong.  As long as proponents can scream out that "YOU'RE KILLING THE LITTLE CHILDREN" you will find others jumping on the bandwagon to control people's actions.  No one cares that the rhetoric is mostly lies, no one cares that there are very few deaths/injuries, no one cares that it is another expansion of the nanny state that is degrading our country.  Just that they have a chance to control somebody else (in this case the evil smokers) and that they must "SAVE THE LITTLE CHILDREN".  All emo and no substance, little truth and less care for others.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I spose in this case, you actually would be killing the children... if not now, eventually?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Your point?  That because if true (if true) that someone may die?

                    And that has what to do with expanding the nanny state and taking away our freedoms?  That if there exists a possibility of saving a life we should always knuckle under and follow orders of the sheep herders?

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                While that is true and I do agree that smoking in a vehicle with children can most likely affect their health, the point being made is that the government stepping in to make laws regarding how people treat their children is a double edged sword.

                In other words, while there may be agreement from parents who would like to see such a law come into existence because it doesn't affect them, they may very well disagree with another law created that does affect them.

                Obviously, there are some extremely stupid people in the world, and most likely these laws are meant for them and not the general populace of responsible adults who never do such things. But again, that is not really the point, it is all about what is and what is not acceptable as far as how far the government is allowed to step in to take control of how we raise our families.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Or how we kill our families.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you killing your family, Beth?

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You've got it.  Society finds it necessary to make laws restricting other people - where do those laws cross from "necessary for the good of the country" to "I want to control your actions because I'm smarter than you (and/or have more power)"?

                  People will always rationalize a reason to control others; we have thousands of years of history pointing that out.  And people will always exert whatever control they can; we have thousands of years of history pointing that out, too.  Fail to limit that control and you will lose the game.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not that it has a thing to do with anything, but you lose.  I am an ex-smoker and although my kids are grown now, I've raised two of them.

      2. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Likewise your freedom to fill your lungs with toxins ends where someone else's lungs are concerned.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Better shut down every fireplace and wood stove in the country, then.  Along with every lawn motor, car or any other IC engine.  Get rid of all perfumes and air deodorizers.  Outlaw all outdoor barbecues and any cooking of meat products (meats are toxins, don't ya know!).

          I do trust you will support those actions to protect MY lungs from YOUR toxins?

          1. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What exactly is your position? Are you rejecting the concept of law altogether, or just laws you deem to be an infringement of your "freedom"?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That the nation needs far fewer laws that it has.  That we are NOT our brother's keeper.  That it is NOT the moral thing to do to indiscriminately restrict people in order to do "good".

              What is your position?  Are you claiming that any law that provides any good result to at least one person in the country is a good law?  Or that only the ones you like and that do not negatively affect you should be enacted (no smoking in a car, but driving a large polluting SUV or burning a fireplace for nothing but enhanced ambiance is fine).

              1. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for the clarification. What criteria are you using to determine the laws you think we need and the laws you think we don't?

                I share John Adams' view that good laws promote the "general welfare". In that regard I am a bit of a utilitarian. I think a "good" action is one that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. So for me a good law is one that supports that maxim.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Are all laws promoting the general welfare automatically good?  Do all laws benefitting at least one person also promote the "general welfare"?

                  These questions are crucial, because maximizing happiness for an individual or two is usually NOT in the interests of the nation and laws that do that are NOT promoting the "general welfare".

                  1. Don W profile image84
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Maximizing happiness (pleasure, the absence of pain) in this context means creating the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. So the number of people positively affected, and the number of people negatively affected by a law is a factor in determining the utility of that law. Another factor would be the severity of harm the law reduces. The severity of harm reduced by a law preventing paper cuts is different from the severity of harm reduced by a law preventing cancer. These are some of the factors that can help determine whether a law is useful or not.

                    What criteria do you use to determine which laws you think are useful and which laws you think are not?

  9. 59
    dragonflymemoryposted 3 years ago

    The law of which you speak, is it local, state, national?  Just curious. 

    As for my opinion about such a law...well quite frankly I don't need a law that says I can't smoke in the car with kids under 18 because I don't do it. Nor, do I have any plans to do so. 

    This topic however was a matter of discussion at a recent child custody mediation session.  I think someone must have done a web search to see what things people put in custody mediation documents.  In the instance of which I speak that clause was simply eliminated because the couple had other more pressing things to come to an agreement on and a non-smoking clause was fairly nit picky, plus neither person had any plans to smoke in a room or car with the kids in it.  I think, since the kids wouldn't get to go see grandma and other close relatives with such a clause in the document, it was going to make more problems for the person who initially wanted it than for the person to whom it was proposed as a potential irritant.

    In the end it was excluded from the custody mediation document.

    But I digress...

    Perhaps some people need laws such as this. Mere speculation on my part but  maybe some people are more at ease with not having to decide for themselves, or not having to be held responsible for doing  research to learn for themselves that such acts may be harmful to children.  Kind of the same way it would be as I ask whether or not kids are at higher risk for having asthma if they are exposed to such smokey environments.

    If someone just tells a little bit of what they know about asthma and smoke exposure then I don't have to worry about finding out for myself.

  10. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    "No they haven't.  They have provided massive propaganda that removing chemicals from tobacco smoke, leaving it in one set of lungs, makes it far worse on the second pair of lungs that smoke encounters.  And idiots the country over have swallowed that ridiculous tale whole as they don't like people smoking anyway."

    Wilderness, it's YOU who's the ignorant one. Here's a challenge for you. Find us a credible source of information that backs your argument about baseless propaganda. You've made all kinds of wacko claims, but not once have you backed it up. Put your money where your mouth is and prove it.

  11. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    Wilderness, you're clearly a right-winger, but you also really hate laws infringing on our freedoms. So tell me, what do you think of Republican laws - the party of "personal liberty" in your opinion? Laws such as:

    -Increasingly draconian restrictions on abortion
    -Attempts to limit access to birth control for religious reasons
    -Promoting abstinence-only sex education in schools, leading to higher teen pregnancy rates (and yes, I can back that up too so that you can have some more hard facts to conveniently ignore)
    -Forcing religion into schools though "Intelligent Design Science", despite this being unconstitutional.

    All of these laws are based purely on moral/religious grounds. There's no science to support these bans. Yet I'm willing to bet you've never spoken out against this. Why? Because it doesn't fit your political agenda. This prod at an anti-smoking law is just an opportunistic attempt to try and demonize your political opponents. It's dishonest, selective, and anyone who actually takes science and logic over propaganda will dismiss it as such.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You lose again.  I most definitely HAVE spoken about all of those except abstinence only sex ed.  And that only because the opportunity has not come up.  What I have had to say has always been that all of those things are very, very wrong.  ID is stupid.  Religious control over birth control is wrong.  Abortion - I'm generally on your side, while making an effort to understand that to millions the question isn't abortion, it's murder.

      So your bet is worthless.  You're right - this law doesn't fit my "political agenda" because my "agenda" is to maintain that people should be left alone to live their lives and raise their children as much as possible.  We do NOT need a nation of do-gooders making all the rules for everything we do; such action causes a little damage to the nation every time it happens.

      Society finds it necessary to control citizens in their lives - fine.  Institute and use that control as little as possible instead of as much as it is possible to push through.

  12. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    "Second hand smoke is dangerous and harmful; there isn't a chance that it is more deadly that that coming off a cigarette held in a smokers fingers."

    Still waiting on that proof I asked for. Anytime now, Wilderness. Lay it on us.

    While we're waiting here is a quote (link below) that might enlighten you a bit:

    "Even though we think of these as the same, they aren’t. Sidestream (second hand) smoke has higher concentrations of cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) than mainstream smoke. And, it has smaller particles than mainstream smoke, which make their way into the lungs and the body’s cells more easily.

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus … hand-smoke

    Still going to ignore this as propaganda? Your claims are crumbling by the second.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You're making the claim it is more dangerous, and much more so.  Show the additional chemicals it picks up in the throat or lungs of the smoker; prove your point.

      And please, please  read for a change.  Think about what you're reading.  And then check it again.  Look at the definitions in your link, that plainly say that sidestream smoke (that smoke that has not been in a smokers lungs) is much more dangerous.  That is exactly what I've been saying, except that I use the term "secondhand smoke" in stead of "mainstream smoke" for that which has been in the lungs already.

      So is the article a lie or just a major spin, trying to make it sound like secondhand smoke is more dangerous?  Is either one honest - does it promote  credibility to you?

    2. 0
      alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

      "Probably a law because some people are not moral or honest enough to do what is right and not teach their children that nonsense."

      That's exactly what I'm saying. Religion is a major part of American culture. It permeates everything and millions of religious apologists will stop at nothing to force it on others. That's why we need a law (or in your case, the Constitution) to curb this. Nobody wants to ban religious observances, they just don't want it forced on others.

      The same applies for smoking. The government doesn't want to ban smoking (too much lucrative tax income). They're trying to gear a law towards a certain stupid group of people. These laws don't affect me or you.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Govt. does not want to lose their tax base, true.  The do-gooders that always know how others should live most certainly DO want to ban tobacco.  Which you know as well as I do.

    3. 0
      alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

      Wilderness, in your constant rantings about personal freedom, why have you not addressed the blatant restrictions posed by your side that I listed earlier? If you think the democrats are restricting on your freedoms, the Republicans are doing the same thing. If you keep hammering home your argument, you're just calling the kettle black.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        MY side?  MINE?  That would the side of minimum regulations on anyone.  Just which ones do you think I support?  The ones I already said I did not?

    4. 0
      alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

      "Show the additional chemicals it picks up in the throat or lungs of the smoker; prove your point."

      I posted a link to my source earlier. Did you not read it?

    5. 0
      alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

      "That is exactly what I've been saying, except that I use the term "secondhand smoke" in stead of "mainstream smoke" for that which has been in the lungs already."

      Second hand smoke is any smoke that others are inadvertently exposed to. Besides, what difference does it make? Smoke exhaled from the smoker AND smoke from the burning cigarette will both be present. What exactly are you trying to prove?

      "So is the article a lie or just a major spin, trying to make it sound like secondhand smoke is more dangerous?"

      Sheesh, Wilderness. You and your "spin" this "lie" that. Is that the only argument you have? Give it up, Dismissing something like cancer.org as being a biased spin source is the action of a intellectually lazy person who can't admit that they're beat. NOTHING will convince you. If it goes against your preconceived notions, then it's a lie or propaganda. I'm done replying to you. It's a waste of time.

      Go ahead, keep acting like you're a doctor who knows more than doctors. Be my guest. Only your own ilk will actually take your counterarguments seriously. Face it, you have nothing to back up your claims. Just admit you have nothing. Seriously, admit you're wrong. Or keep B.Sing. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        OK - you have a nice day.

    6. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

      I don't care what adults do to themselves.  But as long as "my brother" is a moron who exposes his kids to smoke, someone needs to be that kid's "keeper".

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        May the deep south far right winger be your own kid's keeper?  Because, after all, your kid's soul is far more important than his life and you refuse to give any consideration to that soul?

    7. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago

      Right. This sounds like the super size soda ban that the mayor of New York City tried to pull off. Idiocy.

    8. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago

      There are rules in place... laws. They are to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
      They keep us from molesting them, keep us from starving them, neglecting them etc. This is a given.
      Smoking with children in a small space raises considerably their chance of lung and many other kinds of cancer let alone emphysema and all the other possibilities. To act is if this is a freedom worth fighting for is really hard for most to imagine to be anything but complete and utter selfishness.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nice claim.  Can you back up that "considerably" part with hard facts and figures or are you guessing?  Be sure to have an average of the time a child spends in a car with a smoking adult - the claim is meaningless without including that.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, but you say all the medical claims are false so what good does it do?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You can back it up but decline to do so.

            I understand.  Completely.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I posted several links, you simply denied their worth... effort over.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I apologize if you posted links giving hard facts on the results of an average child spending an average amount of time in a car with a smoking adult and I did not see it.

                I DID see links showing that second had smoke causes harm, just not anything that such small amounts as we're talking about here does.  Using that reasoning nearly anything that enters our body - ham, eggs, catsup, soda, right up to water, should be banned because enough of it will cause harm. 

                I'm asking for data showing that the very small amount of second hand smoke a child could reasonably expect to see from a smoking adult in a car is likely to produce serious illness.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Already provided above, also seriously do you believe that cumulative time spent in a car with a parent is small for all children?

                  I mean for starters how many millions of kids live in cars? You know since that is how so many homeless people live.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Cumulative time is irrelevant.

                    The charge isn't smoking cigarettes over a period of time, it's smoking A cigarette in a car with a child. One time.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So remove all homeless (and tenement?) children from the equation.  Far fewer lives to be negatively affected by the smoking in cars, then.  Does that make a difference in whether the law should be enacted?  Remember, you've already agreed that both sides need to be addressed...

                    1. Josak profile image60
                      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Sorry do you mean all homeless kids should be taken from their parents? No because the state of being homeless itself is not an indication of abuse or neglect as there are myriad ways one can end up in that situation.

                      On the other hand smoking in the same room as your child (unless you legitimately didn't know they were there) does demonstrate neglect/abuse.

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It IS cumulative and for some children (suspect a very small number) the time will be greater.

                    Compared to the time spent in the house with a smoking parent is it a significant time?  Enough extra to cause physical damage?  I keep asking for data on this...

                    1. Josak profile image60
                      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Again the fallacy. Just because I think smoking in a car with your kid should be a crime doesn't mean I support smoking in the same room in your house. A positive step is a positive step.

                      Now As for specifics it's a difficult one from hat I find because lungs vary so widely but people with asthma can have serious consequences from just minutes for example.

                      But again let me repeat every expert says it's a terrible idea and yes that is enough for me. I am all for going with the guy who actually knows what he is talking about.

    9. Will Apse profile image89
      Will Apseposted 3 years ago

      The obvious observation to make in this thread is that addicts are not to be trusted.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You've got that one right.  All the laws in the world will not prevent a heavy smoker from smoking in the car, children or not.  Leave them in there long enough and they WILL smoke.  Or alternatively, refuse them the OK to smoke where they came from (pick up at school, maybe) and where they are going (city park maybe) and they'll smoke in a 20 minute drive.

        Which we already do without a thought as to the real world consequences.

    10. Will Apse profile image89
      Will Apseposted 3 years ago

      This is what those crazy canucks have to say about kids and air pollution:

      Young children are included in the sensitive groups because on a per-body-weight basis they tend to inhale relatively more air than adults. Their elevated metabolic rate and young defence systems make them more susceptible to air pollution.

      http://www.ec.gc.ca/cas-aqhi/default.as … 8727DF6F-1

      Just another govt organisation.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, pollutants in the air are bad.

        Water is wet, the sky is blue, and pollution is bad.

        I like cats.

        Potato.

        Okay, so now that you have proven a point I wasn't contending, now what?

        1. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Now, you have to accept that smoke from cigarettes is a pollutant in the air. Then we can all shake hands and live to fight another day.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Um... Ok.

            Accepted.

            Wow it was hard to accept something that I never denied in the first place.  Did you also have an entire conversation in your head? Could you let me know what I said?

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "There is no established cause and effect for second hand smoke."

            2. Will Apse profile image89
              Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So if cigarette smoke is an air pollutant and air pollutants are bad for children it follows that.... ?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I also never said that cigarette smoke wasn't bad for children.

                Keep going Will, I have faith that you'll eventually address something I actually said.

            3. Will Apse profile image89
              Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If this does not give succor to those who want to expose people to second smoke without reservation, I don't know what does:

              1. There is the potential for imminent harm in running a stop sign. Unless you are pleading special case for an asthma sufferer, your entire argument has been about cumulative harm. There is no cumulative harm for running a stop sign. There is no imminent harm in being exposed to second hand smoke.

              2. It has been proven, beyond a doubt, what the worst possible outcome of running a stop sign could be. A car accident.  There is an established cause and effect. There is no established cause and effect for second hand smoke. There is an increase in risk. An increase in risk is not a causation. It is simply a correlation.

              3. The severity of worse possible case scenario from running a stop sign are astronomically more harmful than the severity of worse possible case scenario from being exposed to the second hand smoke off of one cigarette.

    11. hebbie2010 profile image61
      hebbie2010posted 3 years ago

      Anyone who loves to smoke should do so without endangering others.I remonstrate when I see adults puffing out with kids inside the car.Disgusting!

    12. Herman Tibbs profile image60
      Herman Tibbsposted 3 years ago

      I personally think that the lawmakers and law enforcement officials should focus on the enforcement of the laws on drinking, texting, calls, seat belts before starting this crusade.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good point, are police actually going to enforce this law? Is this how we want our tax dollars spent? Wouldn't we rather have them going after the criminal element of society, instead?

     
    working