SFGate: Senate votes to ban smoking in cars carrying young kids

[JohnLockesGhost]

Benefit verses risk. Example: exhaust fumes verses the elimination of vehicles

Those are the two deciding factors on whether a law should be passed and enforced.

For the strict utilitarian, I suppose.

But by this logic you could also argue that it was ok to round-up Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. I mean, espianage clearly was a danger and by rounding them up we could definitely avoid that danger. But some benefits aren't quite as material as you suppose. Example: freedom.

[TheKurp]

For the strict utilitarian, I suppose.

But by this logic you could also argue that it was ok to round-up Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. I mean, espianage clearly was a danger and by rounding them up we could definitely avoid that danger. But some benefits aren't quite as material as you suppose. Example: freedom.

So based on your logic then being Japanese is a lifestyle choice?

[Zguy28]

I can't believe this bill actually made it through. If I were a liberal, I would be embarassed.

Actually the opposite, traditionally Democrats have been in favor of Big gov't. Lately its been both parties.

[Thiebear]

You know its going to become law soon:

It began in America, as so many trends do, but for years no one in Europe took any notice. American tourists wearing helmets around the streets of London first drew media attention. And although public response to walking helmets was initially amusement, the appeal of extra safety drew some pioneers to the habit, especially academics and competitive walkers.

The first case-control study of about 2000 injuries to pedestrians in Britain (180 of whom had worn helmets) concluded that the risk of serious head injury was reduced by 75% when a good walking helmet was worn. Safety campaigners used the slogan "walkers need helmets" to encourage parents to send their children to school in helmets. Several high profile accidents focused public attention on the dangers of walking. A well known television presenter was severely head injured by a police van answering an emergency call. Doctors concluded that her injuries would have been "substantially reduced" had she worn a helmet.

[TheKurp]

I love how people attempt to denigrate these types of issues by going off on a wild tangent or crying about the erosion of freedoms.

How about addressing the particulars of this topic without the hyperbole for a change?

Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?

Debate the law within that context, because that's exactly what the law is addressing. Nothing else. Nada. Zip.

[rictus58]

I love how people attempt to denigrate these types of issues by going off on a wild tangent or crying about the erosion of freedoms.

How about addressing the particulars of this topic without the hyperbole for a change?

Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?

Debate the law within that context, because that's exactly what the law is addressing. Nothing else. Nada. Zip.

:doh: How dare we discuss the possible side effects of such a law being passed. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

[nelms]

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:

Typical response from a left wing liberal from San Francisco. It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent. What's next, coming up with a law banning parents from letting their kids eat twinkies?

It's scary to think people like you have no problem with giving constitutional rights to terrorists, yet want to micro manage the lives of average Americans.

[TheKurp]

:doh: How dare we discuss the possible side effects of such a law being passed. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

I see you didn't answer within the context.

In my world of software engineering it's called analysis paralysis. I.e., $hit will never get done if you analyze the requirements to death. In fact, the longer you take to analyze the requirements chances are by the time you build the thing the requirements will have changed.

Get it? You can't approach every bill up for a vote by delving into "what ifs". Argue the merits of the bill within the intended context and deal with the "what ifs" if and when they arise. It's called making progress.

[TheKurp]

Typical response from a left wing liberal from San Francisco. It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent. What's next, coming up with a law banning parents from letting their kids eat twinkies?

It's scary to think people like you have no problem with giving constitutional rights to terrorists, yet want to micro manage the lives of average Americans.

Are you saying that there are no parents out there who will smoke in a car with small children? Rhetorical question.

And when those small children, who cannot make rational health-related decisions on their own, come down with a chronic respiratory disease, who is held accountable for that life? The same parent? What a lucky child!

Personal responsibility goes hand in hand with repercussions for irresponsibility. What are the repercussions for that parent who abuses the lungs of their young children by smoking in confined quarters?

[rictus58]

I see you didn't answer within the context.

In my world of software engineering it's called analysis paralysis. I.e., $hit will never get done if you analyze the requirements to death. In fact, the longer you take to analyze the requirements chances are by the time you build the thing the requirements will have changed.

Get it? You can't approach every bill up for a vote by delving into "what ifs". Argue the merits of the bill within the intended context and deal with the "what ifs" if and when they arise. It's called making progress.

To equate "software engineering" with politics is asinine.

You probably shouldn't try to circumvent the profanity filters.

[TheKurp]

To equate "software engineering" with politics is asinine.

You probably shouldn't try to circumvent the profanity filters.

It's not an equation. It's a metaphor. I see now it was above your level of thinking.

[Popeman38]

I love how people attempt to denigrate these types of issues by going off on a wild tangent or crying about the erosion of freedoms.

How about addressing the particulars of this topic without the hyperbole for a change?

Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?

Debate the law within that context, because that's exactly what the law is addressing. Nothing else. Nada. Zip.

Kurp, you just love thes anti-smoking laws, don't you?

Here is your debate:

Allow the govt to restrict a personal choice that has nothing to do with the govt or the welfare of the US of A. Please show me where in the Constitution the govt can say "Look, it says we can". It doesn't say they can. And it says if it is not covered in the Constitution, the power goes to the people. So, I am sure that just like the majority on this board, the overall majority would see that this bill would fail. It is as simple as that.

And your "metaphor" of software engineering is horrible. By this logic, slavery should never haver been abolished because no one would have examined the "side effects" of slavery. Your logic works great for a defined are such as computers, but is SOL in the real world...

[Predicto]

Typical response from a left wing liberal from San Francisco. It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent. What's next, coming up with a law banning parents from letting their kids eat twinkies?

It's scary to think people like you have no problem with giving constitutional rights to terrorists, yet want to micro manage the lives of average Americans.

Oh good god. I already said I have problems with this bill from a "nanny state" persepctive, but it isn't enough for attack dog Nelms.

"It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent."

I'm all for personal responsibility as a parent. The question is what happens when a parent doesn't take personal responsibility? Does the state ever have a role in protecting innocent children from harmful acts by their parents? Does wanting parents to take personal responsibility mean that the children's only protection is whether or not the parent steps up to bat?

Your "personal responsibility" catchphrase doesn't even fit here in this discussion.

[The Evil Genius]

Kurp, you just love thes anti-smoking laws, don't you?

Here is your debate:

Allow the govt to restrict a personal choice that has nothing to do with the govt or the welfare of the US of A. Please show me where in the Constitution the govt can say "Look, it says we can". It doesn't say they can. And it says if it is not covered in the Constitution, the power goes to the people. So, I am sure that just like the majority on this board, the overall majority would see that this bill would fail. It is as simple as that.

And your "metaphor" of software engineering is horrible. By this logic, slavery should never haver been abolished because no one would have examined the "side effects" of slavery. Your logic works great for a defined are such as computers, but is SOL in the real world...

State law, not a Federal law.

Besides, I think promoting the general welfare is in that pesky Constitution somwehere.

[Popeman38]

Oh good god. I already said I have problems with this bill from a "nanny state" persepctive, but it isn't enough for attack dog Nelms.

"It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent."

I'm all for personal responsibility as a parent. The question is what happens when a parent doesn't take personal responsibility? Does the state ever have a role in protecting innocent children from harmful acts by their parents? Does wanting parents to take personal responsibility mean that the children's only protection is whether or not the parent steps up to bat?

Your "personal responsibility" catchphrase doesn't even fit here in this discussion.

While I agree nelms went after it a little too hard, where do you draw the line? If rules like this one keep popping up pretty soon you woun't be raising your children, someone else will...

[The Evil Genius]

Oh good god. I already said I have problems with this bill from a "nanny state" persepctive, but it isn't enough for attack dog Nelms.

"It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent."

I'm all for personal responsibility as a parent. The question is what happens when a parent doesn't take personal responsibility? Does the state ever have a role in protecting innocent children from harmful acts by their parents? Does wanting parents to take personal responsibility mean that the children's only protection is whether or not the parent steps up to bat?

Your "personal responsibility" catchphrase doesn't even fit here in this discussion.

Its the same argument people use against car seats for children and seatbelts for all.

Once it becomes the norm, you will hear less people ****ing about it.

[stevenaa]

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?

How does this extreme example have anything to do with preventing parents from poisoning there children? The problem with politics in this country is that everyone is afraid of making the right decision for fear that a precedent will be set. Preventing children from being subjected to this is not a violation of anyones rights. You don't have a right to force your harmful habit on anyone, including your children. Seems like a no brainer to me. And yes, you shouldn't be able to smoke in any confined spaces with children, including your house. Of course, your response will be to hell with the rights of the children. Their not adults and can't fight for their rights, so screw them.

[Popeman38]

State law, not a Federal law.

Besides, I think promoting the general welfare is in that pesky Constitution somwehere.

Promoting is way different than forcing. I am all for encouraging people not to smoke, especially around small children. As for the state law, California is so touchy with infringing on rights, how can they possibly support this?

[TheKurp]

Kurp, you just love thes anti-smoking laws, don't you?

Here is your debate:

Allow the govt to restrict a personal choice that has nothing to do with the govt or the welfare of the US of A. Please show me where in the Constitution the govt can say "Look, it says we can". It doesn't say they can. And it says if it is not covered in the Constitution, the power goes to the people. So, I am sure that just like the majority on this board, the overall majority would see that this bill would fail. It is as simple as that.

And your "metaphor" of software engineering is horrible. By this logic, slavery should never haver been abolished because no one would have examined the "side effects" of slavery. Your logic works great for a defined are such as computers, but is SOL in the real world...

How is it that you can quote my debate and then proceed to not even acknowledge it and claim it's my debate? In fact, you did exactly what I asked for people not to do.

Slavery? Are you kidding me? Context...Context...Context. Do I need to provide a link to www.dictionary.com?

Logic? We're talking about a lifestyle choice here that has zero redeeming social value and is undeniably a health hazard. You talk to me about logic?

Again, I'll ask two simple questions. It's not that hard folks. All you have to do is answer "Yes" or "No".

1. Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

2. Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?

[Popeman38]

Seems like a no brainer to me. And yes, you shouldn't be able to smoke in any confined spaces with children, including your house.

See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...

[The Evil Genius]

See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...

To quote a few others here...if you have nothing to hide..what's the problem?

[Predicto]

See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...

Not if you are alone in it.

[luckydevil]

I am not sure why so many people are citing the constitution on this topic. It's a STATE law, not a federal law.*

* I am against it

[luckydevil]

See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...

Just curious what is your position on wiretapping? What about flag burning?

[redskins4life234]

I think this law is a great law. Think if you were a 5 yr old kid. Daddy smoking in car, you breathing in the crap. 60 yrs later, at 65 years, you aren't as healthy as you could be, because Daddy smoked with you. This way. Without the smoke, if the kid did everythign else the same, would be healthier at now 65 years. Also, if he was 5, 10 years later at 15, he won;t be able to run around as much due to bad lungs from daddy. Have a hard time playing sports. You all are CRYING about not being to take a smoke in a car where you can do elsewhere anyways, and is nasty as hell anyways, while the kid is getting his future ruined.