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

[Thiebear]

IF you think they are protecting young children.

Please explain how 6-8 is not o.k.

Please explain how 9-11 is o.k.

we patiently await your response...

[Predicto]

No, the issue is the GOVT passing laws that restrict your personal choices.

Or restricting what you can inflict on your children.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that parents should be legally permitted to give bourbon to their 5 year old children, restrained only by their own parental discretion?

If not, why not?

[Predicto]

IF you think they are protecting young children.

Please explain how 6-8 is not o.k.

Please explain how 9-11 is o.k.

we patiently await your response...

I think that article posed above provides one explanation.

Besides, laws often contain arbitrary restrictions based on our best guess as to appropriate age for allowing things. Why is it legal to bang an 18 year old but you go to prison for banging a 17 year old? We do our best in making laws like this.

[Thiebear]

I think that article posed above provides one explanation.

Besides, laws often contain arbitrary restrictions based on our best guess as to appropriate age for allowing things. Why is it legal to bang an 18 year old but you go to prison for banging a 17 year old? We do our best in making laws like this.

Thats about the lamest attempt to explain it with the word bang in it i've ever seen...

I will agree that its arbitrary ...

[Popeman38]

Or restricting what you can inflict on your children.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that parents should be legally permitted to give bourbon to their 5 year old children, restrained only by their own parental discretion?

If not, why not?

In Virginia, a parent can give their child alcohol in their home as long as the child does not leave the house.

[Predicto]

Thats about the lamest attempt to explain it with the word bang in it i've ever seen...

I will agree that its arbitrary ...

Why is it lame? Just because something has a specific age in it does not mean that it is unreasonably arbitrary. You can drive at 16, you cant drive at 15. You can vote at 18 but not at 17.

They are somewhat arbitrary limitations (all kids are ready at different times), but it's the best we can do.

Am I missing your point somehow?

[TheKurp]

No, the issue is the GOVT passing laws that restrict your personal choices.

So in effect you are defending the personal choice to cause irreparable damage to the health of child 6 years old or younger.

[Predicto]

In Virginia, a parent can give their child alcohol in their home as long as the child does not leave the house.

Really? Well, umm, ok let me try again I think I still have a point.

Do you think that parents should be legally permitted to give cigarettes to their 5 year old children (in their own home), restrained only by their own parental discretion?

[redskins4life234]

It's bad because it's an infringement on a right. Like people have said 'What's next, telling us we can't feed our kids McDonald's?'

Yeah, but what they are saying doesnt even up to second hand smoke. Mcdonalds one night for dinner does no damage. the 2nd hand smoke on the way to mcdonalds.. Does.

[chomerics]

You guys are taking your comparisons way out of line. Inhaling any second hand smoke, espically at such a young age, is a hell lot more sickening[in health] and will affect the kid's future way more then getting a sun burn. Like the article said, one hour is one and a half packs, at 3 4 or 5, thats horrible, and espically at that age, its even worst. One hour in the sun, doesnt give you a better chance of skin cancer. Skin cancer is way less likely, then getting any lung problems from this.

Oh, I COMPLETELY disagree. Statistics show, that if you have one serious sun burn in your life, you are statistically 50% more likely to get skin cancer. If ANYTHING, it is FAR WORSE to expose a child to the sun without sun block then it is to expose a child to second hand smoke.

I'll see what facts I can dig up, but I am willing to bet quite a bit on it. . .

[DeanCollins]

Really? Try this on for size.

Smoking cigarettes is illegal for children under the age of 18.

Consuming alcohol is illegal for anyone under the age of 21.

It is against the law for a parent to give their child alcohol prior to the age of 21.

It is being proposed by California, and is already the law in two other states, for a parent to give a child what is the equivalent of a cigarette via second-hand smoke in a car.

Spare me your "the sky is falling" mantra. Deal with THIS issue.

this bill isn't about smoking under age, it's about the damage that second hand smoke does to a childs respiratory system. Now, how do I know that it does? because my son has bronchitis, scars on his lungs and a smokers cough that won't go away some 6 years after he moved away from his chain smoking mother and step father.

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.

[Predicto]

Oh, I COMPLETELY disagree. Statistics show, that if you have one serious sun burn in your life, you are statistically 50% more likely to get skin cancer. If ANYTHING, it is FAR WORSE to expose a child to the sun without sun block then it is to expose a child to second hand smoke.

I'll see what facts I can dig up, but I am willing to bet quite a bit on it. . .

Did you read the article Kurp posted on page 2? The facts may be changing.

[redskins4life234]

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.

Thats what I been trying to say. Dean is right!

My Parents have no right to harm me. They have the right to tell me to walk the dog, set the table, but they do not have the right to make me breath in second hand smoke in the car.

[Popeman38]

Thats what I been trying to say. Dean is right!

My Parents have no right to harm me. They have the right to tell me to walk the dog, set the table, but they do not have the right to make me breath in second hand smoke in the car.

Actually, they do. Maryland has no law against it. So, are all the parents that used corporal punishment wrong?

[chomerics]

Did you read the article Kurp posted on page 2? The facts may be changing.

Yea, I did read it, but it really didn't say anything in terms of %'s. I look at it this way. People have only begun to understand that smoke causes cancer for the past 30 years or so. Well, prior to that time, people didn't understand the effects of things such as smoking on both children and fetus'. Henceforth, there should be a larger % of the population with problems associated with second hand smoke in our generation, and a much higher rate of asthma in children who were exposed to second hand smoke as children. That would make sense right? I mean if this study is correct in its supposition, then children of smokers who were exposed to high levels of second hand smoke would have a much higher rate of asthma and other respiratory diseases.

As of right now, I have not seen any correlating evidence that this is indeed the case. I had a mother who smoked throughout her pregnancy with me, and I have had absolutely no respiratory problems at all. Many of my friends parents smoked, and they have had no problems either. That doesn;t say much in and of itself, but I would like to see a study done which actually tracks the statistics and demographics of respiratory problems of children of smokers. I just don't see it in everyday life, and especially not at the rates surmised by the research. Because if this was indeed the case, then when the vast majority of people smoked, like in the workplace, in movie theaters, on airplanes etc etc, there should have been a much larger % of the population with asthma.

This test may indeed be valid, but I am skeptical to say the least. I did not read the study, so I don;t know what levels they were exposing the monkey's lungs to. I also don't know if there could have been another explanation or outside factor in the test. I would like to read the study in any case, and better understand the methodology they used, what the control was, how the test was administered etc. The reason for this is because I personally don;t think second hand smoke has THAT much of an effect on infants. If it did, we would have an epidemic of respiratory diseases in our population for being exposed to second hand smoke before people knew better.

[nelms]

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.

No, where to draw the line IS the argument.

I saw a family the other day at a restaraunt where the 2 kids were severely obese. These kids had to have been 11 or 12 years old and were twice my size. Here they were stuffing their faces with wings, steaks, burgers, basically the worse kind of food you can imagine. Heart disease is the number one killer in this country. I felt like going up to the mother and father and asking them if they realize what they were doing to their kids. But, you know what, it's none of my business. And it's none of the government's business either. They need to stay out of our lives. They can search me at the airport if they have to, but don't tell me how to raise my kids.

[chomerics]

this bill isn't about smoking under age, it's about the damage that second hand smoke does to a childs respiratory system. Now, how do I know that it does? because my son has bronchitis, scars on his lungs and a smokers cough that won't go away some 6 years after he moved away from his chain smoking mother and step father.

I would like to see a study which shows the facts and aligns the facts with statistics on the population to prove the theory. I am not convinced that smoke is the issue, as there may be other factors as well (pollution for example).

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.

Not true at all. There is a line. What about parents that don;t give their children sun block for the sun. How about parents that give their children non-hydrogonated polysaturated fats to their children in things like twinkees? There is a definite line, don't kid yourself at all.

[twa]

Did you read the article Kurp posted on page 2? The facts may be changing.

As to the article:

If we truly are concerned with the welfare of infants to the point of restricting parents activities how about

1 Pregnant mothers and (anyone in the vicinity) will be fined for smoking ,drug use,insufficent nutritional input and of course any other irresponsible actions.

The ban will extend upon birth to anyone in close contact with the child.

The study clearly shows harm,and drug and alchohol abuse are proven to endanger children in a home.

2 No intercourse w/o prescreening for drug,alchohol or tabacco use and disease ,unless highly effective birth control is used.

Prevention is paramount and cost effective.

I can live with this how about you

Personaly it's a little strict but we want what's best for the kids .

[The Evil Genius]

I know where the line is.

Its where the state thinks it can reasonable pass a law and enforce it without retaliation.

If this law creates too much heartburn, then the state will be forced to change it. Until then (if then ever occurs), the state will get away with another mandate in its attempt to cut down on children's health problems.

[chomerics]

No, where to draw the line IS the argument.

I saw a family the other day at a restaurant where the 2 kids were severely obese. These kids had to have been 11 or 12 years old and were twice my size. Here they were stuffing their faces with wings, steaks, burgers, basically the worse kind of food you can imagine. Heart disease is the number one killer in this country. I felt like going up to the mother and father and asking them if they realize what they were doing to their kids. But, you know what, it's none of my business. And it's none of the government's business either. They need to stay out of our lives. They can search me at the airport if they have to, but don't tell me how to raise my kids.

You can't have the "the government needs to stay out of our lives" argument, and then argue that they are allowed to listen to our conversations in another thread. It doesn't work like that.

Either you are for government intervention or not, unless of course, you are just a political hack who falls for party statures and does not have ideological beliefs.

:2cents:

[DeanCollins]

No, where to draw the line IS the argument.

I saw a family the other day at a restaraunt where the 2 kids were severely obese. These kids had to have been 11 or 12 years old and were twice my size. Here they were stuffing their faces with wings, steaks, burgers, basically the worse kind of food you can imagine. Heart disease is the number one killer in this country. I felt like going up to the mother and father and asking them if they realize what they were doing to their kids. But, you know what, it's none of my business. And it's none of the government's business either. They need to stay out of our lives. They can search me at the airport if they have to, but don't tell me how to raise my kids.

nelms, your argument is a non-starter. kids have to eat, but they don't have to breathe cigarette smoke. I think that obese childrens doctors should be able to tell the parents that these kids are in serious danger medically and need to go on this diet and avoid these kinds of foods. If the parents go AMA and the children develop a medical condition later, then it's child neglect. Eating has nothing to do with smoking. A parent may not be able to afford healthy food, let's face it cheap food is generally unhealthy. but that excuse doesn't hold for the parents are too lazy to pull over the car to have a smoke or go without for 20 minutes. Smoking in a car is not

"raising your kids" it's killing them.

[chomerics]

nelms, your argument is a non-starter. kids have to eat, but they don't have to breathe cigarette smoke. I think that obese childrens doctors should be able to tell the parents that these kids are in serious danger medically and need to go on this diet and avoid these kinds of foods. If the parents go AMA and the children develop a medical condition later, then it's child neglect. Eating has nothing to do with smoking. A parent may not be able to afford healthy food, let's face it cheap food is generally unhealthy. but that excuse doesn't hold for the parents are too lazy to pull over the car to have a smoke or go without for 20 minutes. Smoking in a car is not

"raising your kids" it's killing them.

How is smoke different from exposing them to the sun unprotected? How about feeding them polysaturated fats which we know cause health problems? Can we say giving a child a "happy meal" is a form of child abuse? Where does it end?

[Thiebear]

Driving at a certain at 16 not 15 or 17/18 is fine.. those are near the age of adulthood.

Were talking the difference between:

6 years old

7 years old

so tell me, whats the difference in secondhand smoke that makes that a good arbitrary number... A GOOD arbitrary number should conform with the other ones

No smoking in a car with a child in it under the age of 16..

They can drive in a non-smoking car behind you at that point .

See my flawed logic at least has something to link it to other than sitting in a safety seat..

[nelms]

You can't have the "the government needs to stay out of our lives" argument, and then argue that they are allowed to listen to our conversations in another thread. It doesn't work like that.

Wrong, AGAIN. I am for the government listening in on the TERRORIST'S conversations. You really think that much of yourself to believe Bush and company have any interest in listening in on your phone conversations. :doh: It amazes me that libs have such a sense of self importance. The world does not revolve around you, chommie.

Even if Bush wanted to listen to your phone conversations and look at your pathetic little bank statement, do you really think the government has the manpower and resources to monitor the calls of several hundred million Americans, each making a dozen calls a day. Please, chommie, think logically for a change. Are you even capable of that?

[DeanCollins]

How is smoke different from exposing them to the sun unprotected? How about feeding them polysaturated fats which we know cause health problems? Can we say giving a child a "happy meal" is a form of child abuse? Where does it end?

Chom, there is already plenty of smoking laws, and bans in many public places, restuarants, and places of employment. why is this new bill, which is more of the same troubling you? eating healthy is hard to measure, so is sun block (not a bad idea though) but smoking in a car is enforceable, like TEG said. It's common sense, simple, cut and dried and it's gona happen, and will spread because it's the right thing to do. I've expressed my opinion previously about absolute political stances in order to keep the "line" as far to the left or right as possible, such as no gun laws, or no abortion laws. If this is why your arguing about this issue then look elsewhere for oposition, because I'm actually concerned about this issue.