• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking in Cars

What do you think about smoking in cars?


  • Total voters
    41
The problem I have with is that some people think they have the right to dictate to others what is right and what is wrong. My decision was personal. Do not presume to dictate to others what is right and what is wrong. You have neither the moral nor intellectual credentials to do so.
I repeat myself. I also repeat that I have nothing but contempt for those who think they have a high-ground and can dictate acceptable behavior to others. Seriously, these people make me sick!
 
I repeat myself. I also repeat that I have nothing but contempt for those who think they have a high-ground and can dictate acceptable behavior to others. Seriously, these people make me sick!

I will dictate what is acceptable behavior only if your behavior is intentionally or neglectfully harming others who have no choice but to be in that harmful situation, i.e. children.
 
I repeat myself. I also repeat that I have nothing but contempt for those who think they have a high-ground and can dictate acceptable behavior to others. Seriously, these people make me sick!

Well, according to your post you quoted, you'll have to be upset with every person because every person thinks they have the right to dictate to others what is right and what is wrong. If they didn't, we'd follow absolutely no laws, right?

That aside, do you or do you not think it's alright to have children in the back seat, with the windows up, while smoking? Let's refine this a bit and say the driver wants tosmoke a whole pack. Do you have no problem with that?
 
I repeat myself. I also repeat that I have nothing but contempt for those who think they have a high-ground and can dictate acceptable behavior to others. Seriously, these people make me sick!

Oh bull****. Calm down and think. You support plenty of laws that forbid parents, including you, from doing all kinds of evil, harmful things to their children.

This discussion is simply about whether smoking should be one of those things. Stop acting like you oppose all laws whatsoever. You don't, and neither does anyone else.

Nobody wants to let parents do anything they want. Nobody wants to tell parents how to do every little thing. Throwing those extremes around doesn't add to the debate.
 
Oh bull****. Calm down and think. You support plenty of laws that forbid parents, including you, from doing all kinds of evil, harmful things to their children.

This discussion is simply about whether smoking should be one of those things. Stop acting like you oppose all laws whatsoever. You don't, and neither does anyone else.

Nobody wants to let parents do anything they want. Nobody wants to tell parents how to do every little thing. Throwing those extremes around doesn't add to the debate.

Another gem of what I find to be common sense.
 
Really? That's your argument. "Show/tell me your problems."

Of course. If you're going to make claim of detrimental effects, you should demonstrate those effects, yes? Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass and pretending to make proper correlation. I keep asking for quantified data. How much, what exposure time, what concentrations, are these concentrations found in vehicles, how long do you need to aggregate time in that vehicle to start seeing these negative results, etc. This is called data and to make an informed decision, you need data.

I do have asthma and severe sinus problems but there isn't much of a chance of me proving that those were caused by that second hand smoke exposure as a child. But, as a child, I did suffer having to breathe in that smoke and smelling like their smoke while at school. That is not exactly pleasant for a child and easily preventable with just a little inconvenience to a smoking parent (or other adult around the child).

Of course you can't correlate that, there's a lack of data. I have asthma and sinus problems too. I had to have surgery when I was a kid to remove nasal polyps (ewwww) and I still have significant allergies. Yet my time around my grandparents and aunt who smoked was limited. I was in cars with them too, I hate the smell of smoke, I always hated coming back from the bars (this is when I was older of course) smelling like cigarettes. But did I reap demonstrable negative consequence? Can't say that I did. All I know is that I don't smoke, and I think it is VERY wise to not smoke around children either. But is there really enough risk involved which can be demonstrated to excuse government force? That's the real question.
 
I never said car fumes don't pose any medicinal problems.

What, are you saying cigarette fumes and car exhaust are exactly the same?

What were you saying about foolish posts, Bubba?
i was pointing out that your post was absolutely foolish
comparing the effects of second hand cigarette smoke to that of the fumes of car exhaust to assert that cigarette fumes pose a heightened risk
but rather than me explain your own post to you, let's all have a look at it. i will emphasize the salient portion for your reading pleasure:
Cigarette smoke is different than car fumes. Secondhand smoke can still cause cancer, over enough time.

My main problem is smoking in a care, with kids, with the windows "up," not down. Having asthma, when my uncle would smoke with the windows up it was like slow suffocation.

So no, I see no problem with having government fine irresponsible parents who do this sort of crap. If the windows are down, that changes things.
notice how you compared car exhaust fumes to second hand cigarette smoke, excoriating one's subjecting children to cigarette smoke while asserting that "Cigarette smoke is different than car fumes"

again, withdraw your foolish post, which would present that cigarette smoke is harmful while auto exhaust fumes are not
 
What should be done if a parent has the car windows up, is smoking, and has two children in the back seat?

Nothing should be done by you or by the government. My car, my kids, my problem. Not yours. Mind your own business. That's what I say.
 
Nothing should be done by you or by the government. My car, my kids, my problem. Not yours. Mind your own business. That's what I say.

But the health risks associated with smoking do become everyone's eventually, in terms of higher health care costs. So that argument only works in the short run.
 
I was warned by admin about making personal attacks, so I will just leave it at this -. Live and let live. No one is looking to you to be the moral arbiters of morality, health or ethics. In fact, many might think it quite appropriate if you could limit your judgements to yourselves on these matters. I would suggest you'd me doing the rest of us a favor by sparing us your self-righteousness. Thank you.
 
Nothing should be done by you or by the government. My car, my kids, my problem. Not yours. Mind your own business. That's what I say.

I'm border-line this mentality. It's why I believe strongly this decision needs to be made at the state level and would not vote positively on this 'federal level' poll.
 
Of course. If you're going to make claim of detrimental effects, you should demonstrate those effects, yes? Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass and pretending to make proper correlation. I keep asking for quantified data. How much, what exposure time, what concentrations, are these concentrations found in vehicles, how long do you need to aggregate time in that vehicle to start seeing these negative results, etc. This is called data and to make an informed decision, you need data.



Of course you can't correlate that, there's a lack of data. I have asthma and sinus problems too. I had to have surgery when I was a kid to remove nasal polyps (ewwww) and I still have significant allergies. Yet my time around my grandparents and aunt who smoked was limited. I was in cars with them too, I hate the smell of smoke, I always hated coming back from the bars (this is when I was older of course) smelling like cigarettes. But did I reap demonstrable negative consequence? Can't say that I did. All I know is that I don't smoke, and I think it is VERY wise to not smoke around children either. But is there really enough risk involved which can be demonstrated to excuse government force? That's the real question.

Why bother to have car seats mandatory? Why bother to have no open alcohol containers a law? Why bother to have laws against texting and driving?

All these things are laws to prevent harm. But those who do these things are not necessarily going to cause harm just because they do these things or break these laws, especially the open container one.

We do however have solid support for the fact that second hand smoke is harmful, especially to children. Even you admitted that earlier in this thread. If it is harmful to children, then we should try to limit their exposure to that smoke where we can, especially when there is an alternative to the activity. A person does not have to smoke in the car.
 
i was pointing out that your post was absolutely foolish
comparing the effects of second hand cigarette smoke to that of the fumes of car exhaust to assert that cigarette fumes pose a heightened risk
but rather than me explain your own post to you, let's all have a look at it. i will emphasize the salient portion for your reading pleasure:
notice how you compared car exhaust fumes to second hand cigarette smoke, excoriating one's subjecting children to cigarette smoke while asserting that "Cigarette smoke is different than car fumes"

again, withdraw your foolish post, which would present that cigarette smoke is harmful while auto exhaust fumes are not

You misread my post. Both fumes are harmful. I never said one was more harmful than the other.

With your misreading of my post, your responses are invalid.

I said cigarette smoke is different than car fumes. [Notice all I said was "different."] I also said secondhand smoke can still cause cancer over enough time. [Notice that I didn't say car fumes can't, over any period of time.] Thus, my statements are factual, and you misread my posts.

Show me exactly where and how you claim I compared cigarette smoke and car fumes. All I said was that they were different, because they are not absolutely the same in every single regard.

Now, I think it is time you "withdraw" your posts, Bubba.
 
I was warned by admin about making personal attacks, so I will just leave it at this -. Live and let live. No one is looking to you to be the moral arbiters of morality, health or ethics. In fact, many might think it quite appropriate if you could limit your judgements to yourselves on these matters. I would suggest you'd me doing the rest of us a favor by sparing us your self-righteousness. Thank you.
Anyone see the irony here?
 
Nothing should be done by you or by the government. My car, my kids, my problem. Not yours. Mind your own business. That's what I say.

while i am opposed to the new nanny law, i cannot agree with this extreme

allowing toddlers to stand in the passenger seat of a moving car (for example) is stupid parental behavior which should not be tolerated
sometimes we must step in and protect the child from the parent's recklessness
in the matter of second hand smoke, the cost of government intrusion outweighs the potential health benefits which might otherwise accrue
 
I was warned by admin about making personal attacks, so I will just leave it at this -. Live and let live. No one is looking to you to be the moral arbiters of morality, health or ethics. In fact, many might think it quite appropriate if you could limit your judgements to yourselves on these matters. I would suggest you'd me doing the rest of us a favor by sparing us your self-righteousness. Thank you.

You got a mod on you about what you said? Sheesh. To be a personal attack, I would think you'd have to be attacking a person. Attacking a group of people whose opinion (that they should control your decisions in such detail) differs from yours and exclaiming how they make you feel (sick), doesn't seem to be offensive to me (speaking as one of the people who on the state level believe I should have the right to control your decisions in such detail)
 
while i am opposed to the new nanny law, i cannot agree with this extreme

allowing toddlers to stand in the passenger seat of a moving car (for example) is stupid parental behavior which should not be tolerated
sometimes we must step in and protect the child from the parent's recklessness
in the matter of second hand smoke, the cost of government intrusion outweighs the potential health benefits which might otherwise accrue
Show evidence for that please. As said before, it can just be pulling someone over if the behavior is seen.
 
carbon monoxide is deadly. cigarrete smoke is deadly.

and yet, no one wants it to be illegal to expose kids to CO fumes that come from car tailpipes.
 
You got a mod on you about what you said? Sheesh. To be a personal attack, I would think you'd have to be attacking a person. Attacking a group of people whose opinion (that they should control your decisions in such detail) differs from yours and exclaiming how they make you feel (sick), doesn't seem to be offensive to me (speaking as one of the people who on the state level believe I should have the right to control your decisions in such detail)
He was basically saying that Misterman was in idiot in one of his previous posts.
 
carbon monoxide is deadly. cigarrete smoke is deadly.

and yet, no one wants it to be illegal to expose kids to CO fumes that come from car tailpipes.
If any evidence shows that fumes have the same effect as cigarette smoke I could deal with this.
 
Indeed! And I can follow that up by expressing my contempt. The key here my 'progressive friend', is that it is impersonal.
Child rape is "personal", using that logic. Just sayin'
 
Last edited:
Why bother to have car seats mandatory?

You can clearly demonstrate through test and data that it has a positive effect on a child's health.

Why bother to have no open alcohol containers a law?

That's a good one. I think open alcohol containers should be in general allowed so long as the driver is under the legal limit.

Why bother to have laws against texting and driving?

You can produce data demonstrating the unnecessary risk it causes to others on the road.

All these things are laws to prevent harm. But those who do these things are not necessarily going to cause harm just because they do these things or break these laws, especially the open container one.

Yet all (barring the open container one) has data to support the ban. I've merely asked for quantitative measurement and data of the system such that we can know the parameters under which we are operating. Is that somehow a bad thing to ask? Should I not think of the problem, but rather react emotionally to the question posed?

We do however have solid support for the fact that second hand smoke is harmful, especially to children. Even you admitted that earlier in this thread. If it is harmful to children, then we should try to limit their exposure to that smoke where we can, especially when there is an alternative to the activity. A person does not have to smoke in the car.

In what quantities and to what end? People certainly need not smoke in cars or in bars or in home; but is there a line? Second hand smoke does have harmful chemicals, but in a car what are the concentrations? What is the time necessary to realize negative health effects? These things go into deciding whether or not it is proper to elicit government force. That's all I want to know.
 
Show evidence for that please. As said before, it can just be pulling someone over if the behavior is seen.

what, you want evidence that a toddler can be able to stand in the passenger seat of a moving vehicle if the parent does not prohibit it?
do you actually require such evidence?
 
carbon monoxide is deadly. cigarrete smoke is deadly.

and yet, no one wants it to be illegal to expose kids to CO fumes that come from car tailpipes.

Well, considering more and more limits and restrictions are made on CO fumes coming from tailpipes all the time, I'd say that is being addressed.

Plus, there is a difference between being locked in a small space with fumes and those fumes being out in the air and float up (as they will due to their nature).

And, we have mandatory safety inspections of cars in most states that check (or are supposed to anyway) to ensure those fumes from the tailpipe are not entering the people-space of the car in large, harmful amounts.
 
Back
Top Bottom