Smoking Ban Considered for Drivers with Child Passengers......

[Fearandloathing]

Mornin' RM. :2wave: I don't disagree that the Smoking is bad for people. But There is no way there should even be writing up this type of Bill. Public Transportation is one thing.....but people own Private vehicles......Deciding for Peoples own Kids, is none of their Business.

Now should people who smoke be aware and do what they can to help with such a problem, yes! But this notion of its the Govenrment's Right to dictate and pass laws for this type of crap, only exists in the Head of those that Believe in the Nanny state. From Cradle to Grave.

You can't allow them to have any more access than what they do now.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree.

You cannot legislate against stupidity and parents who smoke with infants in the car are dooming them to health problems if not nicotine addiction in the future. You wouldn't allow a parent to force feed a kid alcohol and there would be a **** storm for any pothead who fired up a fat one in a car full of teens even though there is NO link to lung disease, cancer and pot is less addictive than coffee.

The law has been in effect here for five years. There are no exceptions - who would want to try to inhale on a motorcycle? - not convertibles, RV's or anything else.


What Are The Most Addictive Drugs? - Blurtit

Infants whose mothers smoked during pregnancy and those exposed to second-hand smoke after birth have an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1

Infants and children exposed to second-hand smoke have a higher risk of developing severe acute and chronic respiratory illnesses as well as ear infections. More frequent and more severe asthma attacks may occur among children with asthma who are briefly exposed to second-hand smoke.

Research has shown that, in 2002, exposure to second-hand smoke alone caused 831 deaths in Canada, including 579 deaths from heart disease and 252 lung cancer deaths.

Second-hand Smoke - Tobacco Product Labelling - Health Canada

Ten years of information campaigns and the most restrictive marketing resulted in nothing. sometimes you have to give up so-called freedoms for the sake of both individual and community health.

But then my view may be skewed in that it took me five years of on again and off again quitting AFTER being diagnosed with chronic bronchitis.

 

[MMC]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree.

You cannot legislate against stupidity and parents who smoke with infants in the car are dooming them to health problems if not nicotine addiction in the future. You wouldn't allow a parent to force feed a kid alcohol and there would be a **** storm for any pothead who fired up a fat one in a car full of teens even though there is NO link to lung disease, cancer and pot is less addictive than coffee.

The law has been in effect here for five years. There are no exceptions - who would want to try to inhale on a motorcycle? - not convertibles, RV's or anything else.


What Are The Most Addictive Drugs? - Blurtit



Ten years of information campaigns and the most restrictive marketing resulted in nothing. sometimes you have to give up so-called freedoms for the sake of both individual and community health.

But then my view may be skewed in that it took me five years of on again and off again quitting AFTER being diagnosed with chronic bronchitis.

Yeah I started working with the E-Cig to quit.....I am not arguing about any detriments of smoking and what it does. Pretty much any can tell one what and why. What I am looking at is the need for a law. Although up until Now.....I didn't know 5 states had passed such laws.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Yeah I started working with the E-Cig to quit.....I am not arguing about any detriments of smoking and what it does. Pretty much any can tell one what and why. What I am looking at is the need for a law. Although up until Now.....I didn't know 5 states had passed such laws.

As well as Canada and many European countries.

The ONLY reason tobacco is not illegal is the billions in tax revenue the states collect. Here, in a pack of $10 cigarettes, $3.62 goes to the distribution channel, including retailers.

We have been lulled into thinking this is not a major killer.

The E-cig has no study which indicates it is even a path to quitting. I tried everything, including accupuncture and the patch together. Finally I found Quit Smoking All Together: the Web's Largest Quit Smoking Community

..and went cold turkey with some great people with whom I am still friends.

If you go, let me know I am Labowski [with an 'a'] there and I will walk you through the early stages of pain and suffering.

My friend, I have worked with alcoholics and drug addicts for nearly 24 years and NOTHING takes the courage as does quitting the nicotine demon. But, with some help it can be done

 

[GottaGo]

Yeah well - if people were respectful to the other people in their lives and weren't so self-centered that they willingly put their own children's health and lives at risk, then I'd agree.

But some people aren't responsible, respectful, or caring when they force their children to smoke by proxy.

This is why I catalog it with 'child abuse and neglect' - My ex husband suffered from a variety of health issues in his child and adulthood directly related to having chimneys for parents. Someone shouldn't be able to ruin another person's future that way.

If you have children, treat them with respect as if they matter.

When you don't - it crosses the lines. Abuse and neglect is not a protected right.

This would be another little step across the line, another foot across the bridge for governing bodies to tell us how to live our lives, what we can or cannot do, eat.....

I agree that some people are irresponsible enough to not care if kids are in the car, or any other place. But where do we draw the line on infringing on personal choices?

 

[Fearandloathing]

This would be another little step across the line, another foot across the bridge for governing bodies to tell us how to live our lives, what we can or cannot do, eat.....

I agree that some people are irresponsible enough to not care if kids are in the car, or any other place. But where do we draw the line on infringing on personal choices?

somewhere between actually infringing on a legitimate "right" and poisoning others.

There is no aspect of the constitution that allows people to put toxic, carginogens in our bodies, nor does it limit any power from preventing people who do use such poisons from poisoning others, especially their own children.

I suppose, though, with 13 years of Bush/Obama, Americans might see this as an incursion of the state into your lives, but I would concern myself with the NSA and spying on journalists, the IRS and the consequences of CIA involvement in places like Ukraine ahead of where you can and cannot kill yourself slowly

 

[Zyphlin]

This would be another little step across the line, another foot across the bridge for governing bodies to tell us how to live our lives, what we can or cannot do, eat.....

I agree that some people are irresponsible enough to not care if kids are in the car, or any other place. But where do we draw the line on infringing on personal choices?

If you draw one big imaginary line and think that's going to cover everything then I think you're fooling yourself.

I can't speak for others, but for myself I view each situation upon it's own merits and make a judgement based on my ideological beliefs of the role of government within our constitutional system.

What I don't do is try and judge a particular issue based on boogy mans of "what could be" in the future, or through an unnecessary fear that giving my support for one thing magically means I must support something else that is entirely different and is not in line with my actual support.

In this particular instance you have something that is known to be hazardous to a child's health. It's something we know is not being done in any fashion specifically for the benefit of the child in some fashion, even if it's a misguided fashion. It's not something that provides some form of tangible, clear, unquestioned benefit to the child. The child is in a situation where one can reasonably believe they can't stop the action from happening and where they can't, under their own will power, seperate themselves from the action occuring.

To me, that presents a situation where the child is a captive audience being subjected to something that has no redeeming or positive affects and does have negatives affects on them without any reasonable means of stopping/preventing/avoiding it...and thus I think it's reasonable for the government to act as a 3rd party defending the child's right to life (IE health) as it comes into conflict with the parents rights regarding their property.

If and when other issues come up with the government attempting to interject itself into the child/parent relationship I'll judge those and issue my support accordingly based on those situations and the fact surrounding them...not some magical line that I'm paranoid will or won't be crossed.

 

[Fearandloathing]

If you draw one big imaginary line and think that's going to cover everything then I think you're fooling yourself.

I can't speak for others, but for myself I view each situation upon it's own merits and make a judgement based on my ideological beliefs of the role of government within our constitutional system.

What I don't do is try and judge a particular issue based on boogy mans of "what could be" in the future, or through an unnecessary fear that giving my support for one thing magically means I must support something else that is entirely different and is not in line with my actual support.

In this particular instance you have something that is known to be hazardous to a child's health. It's something we know is not being done in any fashion specifically for the benefit of the child in some fashion, even if it's a misguided fashion. It's not something that provides some form of tangible, clear, unquestioned benefit to the child. The child is in a situation where one can reasonably believe they can't stop the action from happening and where they can't, under their own will power, seperate themselves from the action occuring.

To me, that presents a situation where the child is a captive audience being subjected to something that has no redeeming or positive affects and does have negatives affects on them without any reasonable means of stopping/preventing/avoiding it...and thus I think it's reasonable for the government to act as a 3rd party defending the child's right to life (IE health) as it comes into conflict with the parents rights regarding their property.

If and when other issues come up with the government attempting to interject itself into the child/parent relationship I'll judge those and issue my support accordingly based on those situations and the fact surrounding them...not some magical line that I'm paranoid will or won't be crossed.

Yeah, what he said!

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This would be another little step across the line, another foot across the bridge for governing bodies to tell us how to live our lives, what we can or cannot do, eat.....

I agree that some people are irresponsible enough to not care if kids are in the car, or any other place. But where do we draw the line on infringing on personal choices?

So you feel that smoking around children is merely a matter of personal choice and not potential abuse or neglect.

If I wanted to fumigate the home would it be abusive to leave the children in it?

I think the issue is immediate ill health: if it's instantaneous or close enough, then people seem more inclined to respond and intervene. If it's long term them - eh - people just care less overall.

It's easy to have a child grow up and then, if they have health issues, ignore the possibility that the parents inflicted it upon them by their living conditions and default to blaming the individual for their possible choices in life.

Never mind that people suffer all the time of 2nd hand smoke related ailments.

 

[grip]

This would be another little step across the line, another foot across the bridge for governing bodies to tell us how to live our lives, what we can or cannot do, eat.....

I agree that some people are irresponsible enough to not care if kids are in the car, or any other place. But where do we draw the line on infringing on personal choices?

Not only do I agree with you about the government imposing their will illegally, but good luck enforcing a second hand, smoke law. Of all the things realistically dangerous and in priority of benefiting children, there are other things far worse.

Though in a car, it is a little concentrated. I hated my parents smoking in the car and used to hide my head under the seat.

 

[theaterofdreams]

You shouldn't be allowed to smoke around kids. They don't have a choice

 

[Dittohead not!]

Why should nicotine be treated any differently from any other addictive recreational drug?

 

[GottaGo]

If you draw one big imaginary line and think that's going to cover everything then I think you're fooling yourself.

I can't speak for others, but for myself I view each situation upon it's own merits and make a judgement based on my ideological beliefs of the role of government within our constitutional system.

What I don't do is try and judge a particular issue based on boogy mans of "what could be" in the future, or through an unnecessary fear that giving my support for one thing magically means I must support something else that is entirely different and is not in line with my actual support.

In this particular instance you have something that is known to be hazardous to a child's health. It's something we know is not being done in any fashion specifically for the benefit of the child in some fashion, even if it's a misguided fashion. It's not something that provides some form of tangible, clear, unquestioned benefit to the child. The child is in a situation where one can reasonably believe they can't stop the action from happening and where they can't, under their own will power, seperate themselves from the action occuring.

To me, that presents a situation where the child is a captive audience being subjected to something that has no redeeming or positive affects and does have negatives affects on them without any reasonable means of stopping/preventing/avoiding it...and thus I think it's reasonable for the government to act as a 3rd party defending the child's right to life (IE health) as it comes into conflict with the parents rights regarding their property.

If and when other issues come up with the government attempting to interject itself into the child/parent relationship I'll judge those and issue my support accordingly based on those situations and the fact surrounding them...not some magical line that I'm paranoid will or won't be crossed.

And each and every time we permit the government to make choices for us, for the protection of 'others', they push that line a little further. Already they've crossed many privacy lines so what's another one? *apply same statement to this event*

No, I don't think people should smoke in cars and houses where children are present, however, do I want other people telling me what I can or cannot do inside my car or house? No. Therefore I apply that across the board.

Smoking is legal. As much as it's a dangerous habit to yourself and others, it is legal, just as alcohol is. Shall we restrict people because second-hand alcohol is just as, if not more, dangerous a substance? How about loud music? Obnoxious music? The list goes on and on....

 

[Cardinal]

Why should nicotine be treated any differently from any other addictive recreational drug?

Do you really need to ask?

 

[Zyphlin]

And each and every time we permit the government to make choices for us, for the protection of 'others', they push that line a little further. Already they've crossed many privacy lines so what's another one? *apply same statement to this event*

So you're arbitrarily deciding RIGHT Now is the farther that imaginary line of yours needs to go? Or shall we start pulling back? And how much should we pull back. Please, enlighten me where you think this arbitrary line should be since you seem to think there should just be a magical universal one across all things regardless of context and situation...so clearly you have a point.

If you want to combat this one on it's own merit, be my guess. IF your only argument is an attempt to leverage fear and paranoia of "OMG they may get worse!" then how can you expect anyone to take the argument seriously?

No, I don't think people should smoke in cars and houses where children are present, however, do I want other people telling me what I can or cannot do inside my car or house? No. Therefore I apply that across the board.

Really? You apply it across the board?

Is it okay to have sex with your child in your own house?

Is it okay to beat your child with a bat in your own house?

Is it okay to forgo feeding your child for a week in your own house?

Can you keep your child locked in a closet for a week in your own house?

Is it fine to give your child mild amounts of poison in your own house?

Since your stating you apply your reasoning "across the board" then all those things are perfectly fine and you don't believe the government has any business or place to take action because it's "in your house".

Let's take it a step further. I have no clue what your feelings on the issue in general are....but if someone wants to have an abortion performed in their house, this is perfectly okay because it's IN their house, right?

This is the problem with imagining that you can have some kind of universal "across the board" line on this rather than applying reason and logic when it comes to ideology and judging an individual case on it's own merits and not based on some boogeyman of big government.

Smoking is legal. As much as it's a dangerous habit to yourself and others, it is legal, just as alcohol is. Shall we restrict people because second-hand alcohol is just as, if not more, dangerous a substance?

Second hand alcohol has no feasible way, what so ever, to directly damage another person so I don't know what you're talking about there. Tell me how alcohol, or the DIRECT byproduct of it's use, harms someone around you?

How about loud music?

Loud music is unlikely to have a significant chance to cause substantial damage to a child without it getting to a point where it'd likely be covered under other laws, so not sure the issue here. See, I took a unique individual situation and judged it on it's own merit

Obnoxious music?

Music being obnoxious does not pose any harmful threat to the listener.

 

[MMC]

If you draw one big imaginary line and think that's going to cover everything then I think you're fooling yourself.

I can't speak for others, but for myself I view each situation upon it's own merits and make a judgement based on my ideological beliefs of the role of government within our constitutional system.

What I don't do is try and judge a particular issue based on boogy mans of "what could be" in the future, or through an unnecessary fear that giving my support for one thing magically means I must support something else that is entirely different and is not in line with my actual support.

In this particular instance you have something that is known to be hazardous to a child's health. It's something we know is not being done in any fashion specifically for the benefit of the child in some fashion, even if it's a misguided fashion. It's not something that provides some form of tangible, clear, unquestioned benefit to the child. The child is in a situation where one can reasonably believe they can't stop the action from happening and where they can't, under their own will power, seperate themselves from the action occuring.

To me, that presents a situation where the child is a captive audience being subjected to something that has no redeeming or positive affects and does have negatives affects on them without any reasonable means of stopping/preventing/avoiding it...and thus I think it's reasonable for the government to act as a 3rd party defending the child's right to life (IE health) as it comes into conflict with the parents rights regarding their property.

If and when other issues come up with the government attempting to interject itself into the child/parent relationship I'll judge those and issue my support accordingly based on those situations and the fact surrounding them...not some magical line that I'm paranoid will or won't be crossed.

Yet, you guessed it would be alright to assume that one would be allowed to let poisons be administered to their children. Based on a statement that begins with overreach of government. Now how redundant was that?

Do you need an Constitutional attorney to explain the basics of Individual Rights as opposed to those of the Government. To understand where the over-reach is?

See those windows being down and Partially down.....would imply that those do smoke with kids in the car. Might be aware and are under the Impression that with the windows being down that the Smoke isn't able to cause harm to any since it is being allowed to escape out the windows.

While it is alright that you can judge each issue that comes up separately.

Then you should be aware of the Process on when Laws are written and then brought into affect.....and that how they don't wait for those separate issues you talk about. Do you think this is clue for you to gather some conceptual thought upon the matter before jumping?

 

[Ikari]

For the record, I too agree that education, as in, arm people with the full breath of knowledge to make an informed decision, is better than laws.... but then again... until you get that... laws are a means to educate people. It's not like it's enforceable in any realistic way, that's the real issue I have with it but without that... I agree that people shouldn't smoke in their own private cars when they have children in it and only with other adults if they consent to that... so yeah... that's where I stand.

Laws are not a means of education, they are a means of exercised government force. Whether or not a law is just, it's stupid to think that laws educate, they do not.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Do you really need to ask?

Perhaps I should rephrase that:

There really is no valid reason to treat nicotine any differently from any other addictive recreational drug.

Other than the tax revenue it raises, of course, but, then, any drug could do the same.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Not only do I agree with you about the government imposing their will illegally, but good luck enforcing a second hand, smoke law. Of all the things realistically dangerous and in priority of benefiting children, there are other things far worse.

Though in a car, it is a little concentrated. I hated my parents smoking in the car and used to hide my head under the seat.

the law has been in force and enforceable here in British Columbia for five years. Police simply pull you over and issue a $560 ticket.

End of story.

It's only $320 for using a cell phone.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Perhaps I should rephrase that:

There really is no valid reason to treat nicotine any differently from any other addictive recreational drug.

Other than the tax revenue it raises, of course, but, then, any drug could do the same.

taxes on the most highly addictive substance known to man....you won't make nearly as much on heroin, they die to quickly, nicotine drags it out in a long, painful process of more and more difficulty breathing, then a walker, then a scooter, then complications from resperatory and circulation issues, hypertension and heart disease, IF the cancer or COPD doesn't get you first.

 

[Fearandloathing]

So you're arbitrarily deciding RIGHT Now is the farther that imaginary line of yours needs to go? Or shall we start pulling back? And how much should we pull back. Please, enlighten me where you think this arbitrary line should be since you seem to think there should just be a magical universal one across all things regardless of context and situation...so clearly you have a point.

If you want to combat this one on it's own merit, be my guess. IF your only argument is an attempt to leverage fear and paranoia of "OMG they may get worse!" then how can you expect anyone to take the argument seriously?



Really? You apply it across the board?

Is it okay to have sex with your child in your own house?

Is it okay to beat your child with a bat in your own house?

Is it okay to forgo feeding your child for a week in your own house?

Can you keep your child locked in a closet for a week in your own house?

Is it fine to give your child mild amounts of poison in your own house?

Since your stating you apply your reasoning "across the board" then all those things are perfectly fine and you don't believe the government has any business or place to take action because it's "in your house".

Let's take it a step further. I have no clue what your feelings on the issue in general are....but if someone wants to have an abortion performed in their house, this is perfectly okay because it's IN their house, right?

This is the problem with imagining that you can have some kind of universal "across the board" line on this rather than applying reason and logic when it comes to ideology and judging an individual case on it's own merits and not based on some boogeyman of big government.



Second hand alcohol has no feasible way, what so ever, to directly damage another person so I don't know what you're talking about there. Tell me how alcohol, or the DIRECT byproduct of it's use, harms someone around you?



Loud music is unlikely to have a significant chance to cause substantial damage to a child without it getting to a point where it'd likely be covered under other laws, so not sure the issue here. See, I took a unique individual situation and judged it on it's own merit



Music being obnoxious does not pose any harmful threat to the listener.

Let's change the substance in a car for a better comparison.

What if the parents were honking back a big fat joint of the most potent BC Bud?

Would our individual rights proponents have an issue with that but not cigarettes and why?

Please, gentlemen, be prepared ahead of time for the argument that the harmful effects of tobacco are very well documented where there are few if any that show marijuana is.

Then we can have a discussion of why, if this is so constitutionally unbearable, there are laws preventing minors from drinking, smoking and why marijuana is even illegal.

The slippery slope kind of works both ways in an ironic sort of way

 

[Fearandloathing]

Why should nicotine be treated any differently from any other addictive recreational drug?

Because it is not classed as a 'recreational' drug. It is in the medical category of theraputic necessity self induced.

Smoking is not a choice.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because it is not classed as a 'recreational' drug. It is in the medical category of theraputic necessity self induced.

Smoking is not a choice.

Surely you jest.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Surely you jest.

No, here in Canada it is classified as an additive substance. Period. There is no "recreation" about it.

I am looking for the document that shows what happens to the human body when it is subjected to the smoke of 1/2 cigarette. I recall only that your blood pressure, everyone's, goes up 20 to 50%. The same Health Canada report documents that the pleasure receptors of the brain are altered - physical addiction - after as little as ten packs of cigarettes inhaled.

It is the single most addictive substance known to mankind

 

[GottaGo]

So you're arbitrarily deciding RIGHT Now is the farther that imaginary line of yours needs to go? Or shall we start pulling back? And how much should we pull back. Please, enlighten me where you think this arbitrary line should be since you seem to think there should just be a magical universal one across all things regardless of context and situation...so clearly you have a point.

If you want to combat this one on it's own merit, be my guess. IF your only argument is an attempt to leverage fear and paranoia of "OMG they may get worse!" then how can you expect anyone to take the argument seriously?



Really? You apply it across the board?

Is it okay to have sex with your child in your own house?

Is it okay to beat your child with a bat in your own house?

Is it okay to forgo feeding your child for a week in your own house?

Can you keep your child locked in a closet for a week in your own house?

Is it fine to give your child mild amounts of poison in your own house?

Since your stating you apply your reasoning "across the board" then all those things are perfectly fine and you don't believe the government has any business or place to take action because it's "in your house".

Let's take it a step further. I have no clue what your feelings on the issue in general are....but if someone wants to have an abortion performed in their house, this is perfectly okay because it's IN their house, right?

This is the problem with imagining that you can have some kind of universal "across the board" line on this rather than applying reason and logic when it comes to ideology and judging an individual case on it's own merits and not based on some boogeyman of big government.



Second hand alcohol has no feasible way, what so ever, to directly damage another person so I don't know what you're talking about there. Tell me how alcohol, or the DIRECT byproduct of it's use, harms someone around you?



Loud music is unlikely to have a significant chance to cause substantial damage to a child without it getting to a point where it'd likely be covered under other laws, so not sure the issue here. See, I took a unique individual situation and judged it on it's own merit



Music being obnoxious does not pose any harmful threat to the listener.

Second hand alcohol is drunk driving, the effects of dealing with an alcoholic parent or sibling or child. I've lost friends to second hand alcohol, yet it remains legal.

To understand what I mean about drawing a line, look back to how far the infringement has come since 20 years ago. How many violations of "rights" and privacy. I've been verbal (or written, as the case may be) for a good 10 years... the constant nudges of this and that further and further into personal choices, all for "the welfare of the people" that people say "but it's for the good of X" when it serves their purpose, until the time comes that suddenly THEY are on the side that is having a personal choice taken away. That line.
You don't have to guess what they will do in the future, you only need to look at the past to see what they have already done.

 

[Cardinal]

Perhaps I should rephrase that:

There really is no valid reason to treat nicotine any differently from any other addictive recreational drug.

Other than the tax revenue it raises, of course, but, then, any drug could do the same.

You've read through these discussions, so do you really need me to tell you what sets this particular recreational drug apart from [most] others?