- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,535
- Reaction score
- 47,543
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
and we simply disagreeWell, then why bring slavery up? There's nothing inherently wrong with Arkansas bringing up a smoking law [in cars], that protect children. I don't think Arkansas is getting this one wrong.
If a state gets is wrong, then they do. Oh well. The people can vote the legislature and/or governor out and get it changed. Thats the way it works. BTW, the slavery argument holds no water due to the fact that the Fed will not allow it. I think another example, that could actually be passed, would prove your point better.and we simply disagree
the slavery issue was brought up to point out that under the guise of states' rights, states get it wrong sometimes ... as i believe arkansas did in this instance
If a state gets is wrong, then they do. Oh well. The people can vote the legislature and/or governor out and get it changed. Thats the way it works. BTW, the slavery argument holds no water due to the fact that the Fed will not allow it. I think another example, that could actually be passed, would prove your point better.
using slavery as an issue is a very obvious way to exhibit bad law fashioned under the guise of states' rights
using slavery as an issue is a very obvious way to exhibit bad law fashioned under the guise of states' rights
no one can quibble that such a states' rights slavery provision resulted in sound law in that instance
but if you have a better example, please offer it up
Its not my argument to prove. If you want to make a point, do your own research. Obviously the slavery one epically failed.using slavery as an issue is a very obvious way to exhibit bad law fashioned under the guise of states' rights
no one can quibble that such a states' rights slavery provision resulted in sound law in that instance
but if you have a better example, please offer it up
Yeah, slavery was a bad law. We understand that. However, this smoking law is so harmless it shouldn't even be compared to slavery laws.
State's rights is a separate issue altogether. But someone who supports states right can look at a law like this, disagree with it, but not care all that much because it is not their state.
State's rights allows more people to live in the situation they prefer. I disagree with this law, but I don't live in that state so it doesn't affect me. It's far superior to have such a law at the state level than at the national level because of that. I would oppose such a law in my own state, but I only argue about it's asinine nature when it is employed in another state.
And, for the record, I smoke in my car, but never while my son is in the car. I agree with not smoking in a car that contains children, I disagree with making it a law. If we are going to pass laws like this, we need to start with real problems that cause far more harm than second-hand smoke does, such as fast food being fed to children.
Look at all the fat little ****ers running aro... scratch that, waddling around these days. The little weeble wobbles are too damned fat to run.
That's a hell of a lot more unhealthy than second-hand smoke is.
you were the one who insisted that there were better examples to be used to make my pointIts not my argument to prove. If you want to make a point, do your own research. Obviously the slavery one epically failed.
If a state gets is wrong, then they do. Oh well. The people can vote the legislature and/or governor out and get it changed. Thats the way it works. BTW, the slavery argument holds no water due to the fact that the Fed will not allow it. I think another example, that could actually be passed, would prove your point better.
Understood. You have nothing to back your point other than using an argument about a practice outlawed in 1865 by the Federal gov't. You also have no contemperary example you can use, so you pick the low hanging fruit because you lack the depth and knowledge to make a solid argument based on recent issues. I think that would have been the cordial and honorable way to say it instead of the childish "no, you're it" way you did it.you were the one who insisted that there were better examples to be used to make my point
i invited you to show us the better examples
you failed
[emphasis below added by bubba]
Understood. You have nothing to back your point other than using an argument about a practice outlawed in 1865 by the Federal gov't. You also have no contemperary example you can use, so you pick the low hanging fruit because you lack the depth and knowledge to make a solid argument based on recent issues. I think that would have been the cordial and honorable way to say it instead of the childish "no, you're it" way you did it.
Don't mean to offend you though. If I did, I am so very sorry.:liar
Nothing.What should be done if a parent has the car windows up, is smoking, and has two children in the back seat?
Another great point. I tell you, I am Romneying on this one a lot. Can Romney be used as a verb by the way?Nothing.
We need to get away from making laws to protect everyone from everything.
If I shoot my gun up in the air, and it kills someone accidentally, should I still be tried? The actual event is just as important as the intent.I just noticed I am much too far behind to be responding to some of the earlier posts in this thread. My has this thing taken off in 2-3 days...
Anyways.
I'll put my point out there....
Yes, second-hand smoke can be harmful to children.
No, the intent is not to harm the children..... I don't know anyone who intends to harm someone, but decides they want to do it over the course of 30+years.
So only immediate harm counts as harm?And THAT is where we need to start drawing the line. Intent and Gross Negligence? Sure, make laws against it.
But simple negligence? People are negligent every day.... even negligent in a way that causes IMMEDIATE harm (not this, over a long ****ing period of time bull****)
It can actually harm people. That's not "dumb"., and yet society just shrugs it off. Even going so far as to renaming what it is really called into an "ACCIDENT". Yes Im talking about car crashes, or collisions. We now call them "Accidents". Oops! Did I just T-Bone you sending you to the hospital?
Do we take people's cars and license away for that? No. Do we fine them? Depends on what happened and if the collision was a result of a violation of law (even if the violation was not malicious but unintentional).
Anyways. I got off of the point. The point is that smoking in a car with the windows rolled up is a dumb idea. However, I don'asee anything in the constitution about being free to do what you want as long as its not unpopularly considered dumb.
Oh no, a guy can't smoke in the car with kids if the windows are closed! He might have to - *gasp* - OPEN THE WINDOW!! Oh the oppression, the loss of liberty!As to the arguments about INCREASING HEALTH CARE COSTS!!! OMFG!!
Since when does freedom have a price tag? Since when do we justify removing someone's freedom due to costs? Well.. I shouldn't have asked the question in that manner. Not "since when" anyhow. I should have asked.... "What makes us think the government can do that?" ... "Why did we give the government the authority to take away our freedoms to reduce costs?"
I'm sure I'll come up with some more thoughts on the subject at some point.
That is Gross Negligence. Deadly weapons are not playthings.If I shoot my gun up in the air, and it kills someone accidentally, should I still be tried? The actual event is just as important as the intent.
Do we have a way of isolating the long term to one specific cause?So only immediate harm counts as harm?
So can many things.It can actually harm people. That's not "dumb".
It starts that way.... it ends much worse.Oh no, a guy can't smoke in the car with kids if the windows are closed! He might have to - *gasp* - OPEN THE WINDOW!! Oh the oppression, the loss of liberty!
Cigarettes are deadly.That is Gross Negligence. Deadly weapons are not playthings.
Good point here. Many studies have shown the long-term effects of smoking and second-hand, but not for perhaps specifically smoking inside a car.Do we have a way of isolating the long term to one specific cause?
If the government's job is to protect its citizens, then the "nanny state" is required here.So can many things.
The government needs to get out of the parenting business unless serious intended physical harm is being done.
I don't think you need a tinfoil hat for this specific case, Caine.It starts that way.... it ends much worse.
Don't bait. We aren't advocating anything of the sort.which sock should you put on first in the morning left or right ? i dunno the government should decide.
Scissors are deadly, yet we allow children to use them unsupervised. Its all about the INTENT of the device. Guns are INTENDED as weapons of war/killing/disabling/etc. They are intended to cause harm. Thus playing with one in such a manner as you described would, in my opinion, constitute gross negligence. The same would be said if a parent was encouraging children to stab one another with scissors. Or if a parent was encouraging their child to smoke cigarettes at a young age, and providing it for them.Cigarettes are deadly.
I disagree.If the government's job is to protect its citizens, then the "nanny state" is required here.
I still fail to see why this issue is so important that it requires more government involvement in our lives.I don't think you need a tinfoil hat for this specific case, Caine.
The government needs to get out of the parenting business unless serious intended physical harm is being done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?