Taylor 36 Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 The fact that the government can make it a law telling me I have to wear my seatbelt, which I should do on my own for my own safety anyway, but because of the insurance dollar signs that were/are being put out every year due to deaths and severe injuries caused by people not wearing seatbelts set the precidence here. People SHOULD be wise enough to not endanger their own children to the toxins of unfiltered, second-hand smoke, but we know they're not. Now comparing insurance payouts from car accidents and those medical insurance payouts for children with asthma and other medical conditions brought on by second-hand smoke, there is no contest. Subjecting children, espcially insmall, confined areas such as a car, to second-hand smoke causes many physical and mental developmental problems, diseases, relapses that can last for life. For me, I think that this bill does serve a great purpose. People shouldn't be asking should the government do this, but why is that the government has to be the one to make people do what is in the best interest of their own flesh and blood. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Y'know, I hear breastfeeding is good for babies. The government should make women breastfeed. For the kids, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Taylor36 Do you wish them to set the diet for you and your children? How about a BFI target,since heart disease and diabetes are the next major threat? A $100 fine a month for non-compliance sounds about right. Or will it stop with the evil smokers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Y'know, I hear breastfeeding is good for babies. The government should make women breastfeed. For the kids, of course. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 The fact that the government can make it a law telling me I have to wear my seatbelt, which I should do on my own for my own safety anyway, but because of the insurance dollar signs that were/are being put out every year due to deaths and severe injuries caused by people not wearing seatbelts set the precidence here.People SHOULD be wise enough to not endanger their own children to the toxins of unfiltered, second-hand smoke, but we know they're not. Now comparing insurance payouts from car accidents and those medical insurance payouts for children with asthma and other medical conditions brought on by second-hand smoke, there is no contest. Subjecting children, espcially insmall, confined areas such as a car, to second-hand smoke causes many physical and mental developmental problems, diseases, relapses that can last for life. For me, I think that this bill does serve a great purpose. People shouldn't be asking should the government do this, but why is that the government has to be the one to make people do what is in the best interest of their own flesh and blood. :2cents: Man oh man, I need to stop taking my children out camping. The campfire smoke is dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Y'know, I hear breastfeeding is good for babies. The government should make women breastfeed. For the kids, of course. Well it is proven to be better for both the mother and child. How about we outlaw divorce as well, since it contributes to depression and other health risks as well. We can solve all the worlds problems if we fine em enough. :2cents: added Paging Kilmer We need the accuary tables on risk behavior to really nail this down, wouldn't want to miss anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 For me, I think that this bill does serve a great purpose. People shouldn't be asking should the government do this, but why is that the government has to be the one to make people do what is in the best interest of their own flesh and blood. :2cents: I doubt you will find anyone who supports some idiot that wants to smoke in the car with small children. What scares me, and what I'm sure others are arguing against, is the further government intrusion into our lives. It is a slippery slope into diet, exercise requirements, mandated sunscreen, etc. If you want the government protecting your children why stop at smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Man oh man, I need to stop taking my children out camping. The campfire smoke is dangerous. You definitely shouldn't build the campfire inside a tent. I hope someone would stop you from that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_33 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Let's see here?You can't smoke in the car with a child in the carseat behind you...because it's hazardous to the child health and safety....(even with the windows down) But you CAN talk on a cellphone while driving... Nah.....This world ain't screwed up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I'm a smoker and whenever I have kids in the car- my nephew, girlfirends realitives whatever, I dont smoke in the car, in fact I try not to smoke around any kids who might look up to me in any way. But this anti smoking thing is getting a bit ridiculous.I'm affraid if this passes it will set a precidnece (sic) that could be used to furhter impose on the rights of smokers. Here in Canada some lady is trying to get outdoor smoking to be considered as a public nuisance like loud music, smelly garbage etc. Her reasoning is she had a neighbour who smoked on HIS porch and the smoke would blow into her house though the windows she left open.......EVEN IN THE WINTER! One of the scientist who worked with professor who studied and published the paper on second hand smoke that has been used as the main argument in most anti-smoking laws, has now admitted that he report has been taken out of context and used irresponsibly by anti smoking groups lobbying for more by-laws. Most peole still believe taht any exposer to second hand smoke has a negative effect on their long term health. It has been proven that in the short term (read: immediatly after being exposed) that the lungs are effected to a small degree, BUT that minute amount they are exposed to and any health ramifications are completely and 100% reversable, usually within a few days. The healing process can be sped up signifiacntly if the affected person engages in some form of cardiovascular activity. So if your a health nut, or not, and someone blows smoke in your face, dont worry that 40 years from now you'll have to have your diseased lung removed, go out and jog or to the gym. And if you really want to be a prick about it, then send the smoker the bill for your personal trainers time.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Let's see here?You can't smoke in the car with a child in the carseat behind you...because it's hazardous to the child health and safety....(even with the windows down)But you CAN talk on a cellphone while driving... Nah.....This world ain't screwed up! No its talk on the blue tooth cell, while drinking a 32 ounce Coke and eating your McGriddle with extra bacon...in the rain... at dusk to the 12hr daycare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Let's see here?You can't smoke in the car with a child in the carseat behind you...because it's hazardous to the child health and safety....(even with the windows down)But you CAN talk on a cellphone while driving... Nah.....This world ain't screwed up! Actually, CA has passed (or is it passing? I forget the timeline!) legislation that will take effect very soon banning talking on handheld cellphones while driving (unless its for emergency purposes). You could still use hands free devices though. Also, Prop 86 on this year's CA election ticket will add another $2 or so onto the cost of cigarettes making them over $6 a pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 What do you expect from the Peoples Republic of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Hey, go ahead and kill your own kids if you want to. It's called Natural Selection, and those are genes we probably don't need anyway. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Hey, go ahead and kill your own kids if you want to. It's called Natural Selection, and those are genes we probably don't need anyway. :2cents: Yep nobody smoked in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's. They way some of you talk I'm surprised anyones here to talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Hey, go ahead and kill your own kids if you want to. It's called Natural Selection, and those are genes we probably don't need anyway. :2cents: :laugh: If governments would stop trying to keep idiots from harming themselves, man would actually have the chance to evolve. That's why I'm against helmet laws, against making drugs illegal, against seat belt laws... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 There are a few things (very few) that the government is good for, but micro-managing our lives isn't one of them. I don't mind them trying to make our nation more secure, especially with the current threat of terrorism. But, I don't want them telling me what, where, and when I can smoke, drink, eat, fart, burp. If someone is stupid enough to smoke around their kids, that's their problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 :laugh: If governments would stop trying to keep idiots from harming themselves, man would actually have the chance to evolve. That's why I'm against helmet laws, against making drugs illegal, against seat belt laws... And don't forget doing away with welfare altogether. Sink or swim, dammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 There are a few things (very few) that the government is good for, but micro-managing our lives isn't one of them. I don't mind them trying to make our nation more secure, especially with the current threat of terrorism. But, I don't want them telling me what, where, and when I can smoke, drink, eat, fart, burp. If someone is stupid enough to smoke around their kids, that's their problem. Yeah - those three year olds should know better than to ride in a car with a parent that smokes. Stupid bastages have no one to blame but themselves. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Most peole still believe taht any exposer to second hand smoke has a negative effect on their long term health. It has been proven that in the short term (read: immediatly after being exposed) that the lungs are effected to a small degree, BUT that minute amount they are exposed to and any health ramifications are completely and 100% reversable, usually within a few days. Link please. I am genuinely curious about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Yeah - those three year olds should know better than to ride in a car with a parent that smokes. Stupid bastages have no one to blame but themselves. :laugh: So how far do we go to protect them from risk? seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 So how far do we go to protect them from risk? seriously? Honestly, I don't know. It's a hard question. I think I agree with most of you that this law is probably over the line into too much "nanny state." But not so far over the line as some here seem to think. It's not like child endangerment laws are that new and unusual. None of us have any problem with criminalizing certain parental behavior, like say, starving your kids or leaving them alone in a hot car with the windows rolled up, or whatever. This law is not that far removed from that. I was just struck by how many people ridiculed the law by mocking the parents. This law is about protecting the child not punishing the parent, something that we as a society do quite often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Let me give you a example. Where I live the air and water and ground is likely more of a hazard than 2nd hand smoke, not too mention the usual crime and pedo's ect. Shouldn't there be priorities? It is nice they are concerned for the infants,but aren't there more pressing problems to address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Benefit verses risk. Example: exhaust fumes verses the elimination of vehicles Lifestyle choice that negatively impacts those who cannot yet decide for themselves whether to share in that lifestyle, or those who expressly decide not to engage in that lifestyle. Example: Smoking. Those are the two deciding factors on whether a law should be passed and enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Let me give you a example.Where I live the air and water and ground is likely more of a hazard than 2nd hand smoke, not too mention the usual crime and pedo's ect. Shouldn't there be priorities? It is nice they are concerned for the infants,but aren't there more pressing problems to address? Like I said, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about this law. I just don't think it is as ridiculous as some posters here were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.