• 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
I notice that the proponents of this law claim that the evidence of the harm that can be caused by secondary smoking provides prima facie justification for banning smoking in cars. Prima facie evidence points to great health risks of many, many activities that parents oblige their children to participate in, some with far more serious consequences for their wellbeing. In order to argue for this ban isn't there a burden of proof on its proponents to show that other more dangerous practices are being prioritised ahead of this measure?

If this isn't the most serious threat to the health of minors then what is the motivation behind this move? And what justification are its proponents using to shuffle this kind of measure to the top of the list?

Personally I have a problem with using legislation to engineer personal behaviour change amongst the citizenry. Of course that's not a blanket objection, but it does mean that when the law seeks to interfere in the arena of private behaviour the burden of proof of harm needs to be very stingent.

I really would be interested to see any peer-reviewed medical data linking secondary smoking in cars to negative health outcomes.
 
So your argument with me is resolved, then, Bubba, since you've moved on to newer posts?
 
misterman said:
Third fallacy of the thread - the straw man. And your old false dilemma is in there too, with a little slippery slope fallacy peeking out.

Children should not be exposed to any kind of smoke in an enclosed area. If you can't agree with that, you explain why.
Click to expand...

What's the danger? Is it more harmful than say, feeding their kids too much fast food?
 
MadLib said:
Child rape is "personal", using that logic. Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Due to the restrictions of this site, my response must be muted, yet at the same time in context my contempt cannot be denied. A slew of adjectives would normally follow, but in light of the situation I can only express my contempt once again.
 
Meathead said:
Due to the restrictions of this site, my response must be muted, yet at the same time in context my contempt cannot be denied. A slew of adjectives would normally follow, but in light of the situation I can only express my contempt once again.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I express contempt for the contempt in your posts.
 
Wake said:
So your argument with me is resolved, then, Bubba, since you've moved on to newer posts?
Click to expand...
OK, here we go again. look at YOUR post with my added emphasis:
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...
you were excoriating against the effects of second hand cigarette smoke, and as a comparison, YOU noted how the adverse effects of cigarette smoke did not compare to the [implied] milder effects of auto exhaust fumes

your post was foolish then and remains so
your inability to grasp the foolishness of such comparison indicates to me that you are without the ability to comprehend why it should properly be found foolish
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
You can clearly demonstrate through test and data that it has a positive effect on a child's health.

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.

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

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?

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.
Click to expand...

Where's the pro to being allowed to smoke in your car with a child in there? We know the con is potentially exposing your child to dangerous second hand smoke, even if the danger is miniscule. But the only pro is being able to expose your child to that harm to indulge in that addiction. Any harm at all, and we know there is some from just a little exposure to the smoke by children while they are in an enclosed car, should be enough to legitimize such laws.

In fact, I can think of another con, in that smoking, especially lighting that cig, while driving could easily be a distraction to driving. (Personally, I don't think that driving and smoking, without minors in the car, should be against any law though.)
 
Meathead said:
Due to the restrictions of this site, my response must be muted, yet at the same time in context my contempt cannot be denied. A slew of adjectives would normally follow, but in light of the situation I can only express my contempt once again.
Click to expand...
Thank you for not calling me an idiot. And I'm sorry that I'm pointing out the faulty logic in your posts.
 
roguenuke said:
Where's the pro to being allowed to smoke in your car with a child in there? We know the con is potentially exposing your child to dangerous second hand smoke, even if the danger is miniscule.
Click to expand...

It is certainly wise to err on the side of caution in this case. I don't smoke...I don't have kids either. But if both those were true, I would not smoke around my kids. There's no reason in my mind to risk it. But if we're going to call for government force, the government force must be excused. We need information and data to justify the use of government force against the individual.

roguenuke said:
But the only pro is being able to expose your child to that harm to indulge in that addiction. Any harm at all, and we know there is some from just a little exposure to the smoke by children while they are in an enclosed car, should be enough to legitimize such laws.
Click to expand...

"Any harm" is a bit too vague for excusing government force. We need standards and measurable data to make the call. How much, how long, is that realized in a car? Does opening or closing the window make a difference? Things of this nature need to be answered before we use the government. Before that point, the individual must choose for themselves.

roguenuke said:
In fact, I can think of another con, in that smoking, especially lighting that cig, while driving could easily be a distraction to driving. (Personally, I don't think that driving and smoking, without minors in the car, should be against any law though.)
Click to expand...

If you can demonstrate that, you can make the argument.
 
justabubba said:
OK, here we go again. look at YOUR post with my added emphasis:

you were excoriating against the effects of second hand cigarette smoke, and as a comparison, YOU noted how the adverse effects of cigarette smoke did not compare to the [implied] milder effects of auto exhaust fumes

your post was foolish then and remains so
your inability to grasp its foolishness of such comparison indicates to me that you are without the ability to comprehend why
Click to expand...

You erred by thinking I implied that exhaust fumes were milder than cigarette smoke.

Just because I said they were different doesn't mean I think they are worse or better than the other. You see, lemme break this down. If all I said were that green apples and red apples were different, does that mean I think one is better or worse than the others? Or, if you really want a thrill, let's say I said there's a difference between yello and purple spheres. Just because I say they're different doesn't mean I said one is better or worse, as in harmful, than the other.

Oh yeah, I never said car exhaust couldn't cause cancer over enough period of time, either. See, lemme break this down, too. Let's say I'm talking about the Big Mac and some other unhealthy burger. Let's say that I only said they're different.

Factually, they are different. Why? Because they are not the same, right? They're not both Big Macs, riiiight? So, that said, if all I say is that the Big Mac is, say, harmful, then realize that's all I said, and that it's not specific. If you're you, you might think I'm saying that the other burger isn't unhealthy at all, or even worse. What do I really think? Well, you might just have to ask me instead of coming up with it yourself. If you asked me, you'd hear that I also think the other burger is unhealthy, too.

Yeah, I did say that secondhand smoke isn't good. And you know what? That's true. I also said that cigarette smoke was different from exhaust fumes. Guess what? That's true too, because they aren't exactly the same thing, right? I never said exhaust fumes were milder, or that I implied them---YOU assumed that.

So no, my post wasn't foolish then, and it wasn't foolish now. You're adding words and thoughts to my posts, where I put none. If you want to know if I think cigarette smoke is more harmful than exhaust fume, then ASK ME, instead of saying I implied one is more harmful than the other, capiche? That way, I don't have to break this down to a ridiculous level in order to illuminate exactly where and why you're incorrect.
 
Wake said:
You erred by thinking I implied that exhaust fumes were milder than cigarette smoke.

Just because I said they were different doesn't mean I think they are worse or better than the other. You see, lemme break this down. If all I said were that green apples and red apples were different, does that mean I think one is better or worse than the others? Or, if you really want a thrill, let's say I said there's a difference between yello and purple spheres. Just because I say they're different doesn't mean I said one is better or worse, as in harmful, than the other.

Oh yeah, I never said car exhaust couldn't cause cancer over enough period of time, either. See, lemme break this down, too. Let's say I'm talking about the Big Mac and some other unhealthy burger. Let's say that I only said they're different.

Factually, they are different. Why? Because they are not the same, right? They're not both Big Macs, riiiight? So, that said, if all I say is that the Big Mac is, say, harmful, then realize that's all I said, and that it's not specific. If you're you, you might think I'm saying that the other burger isn't unhealthy at all, or even worse. What do I really think? Well, you might just have to ask me instead of coming up with it yourself. If you asked me, you'd hear that I also think the other burger is unhealthy, too.

Yeah, I did say that secondhand smoke isn't good. And you know what? That's true. I also said that cigarette smoke was different from exhaust fumes. Guess what? That's true too, because they aren't exactly the same thing, right? I never said exhaust fumes were milder, or that I implied them---YOU assumed that.

So no, my post wasn't foolish then, and it wasn't foolish now. You're adding words and thoughts to my posts, where I put none. If you want to know if I think cigarette smoke is more harmful than exhaust fume, then ASK ME, instead of saying I implied one is more harmful than the other, capiche? That way, I don't have to break this down to a ridiculous level in order to illuminate exactly where and why you're incorrect.
Click to expand...

ok, then tell us what your point was to compare the difference between second hand smoke and auto exhaust fumes
 
justabubba said:
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?
Click to expand...
I meant the evidence that costs outweigh benefits.
 
MadLib said:
I meant the evidence that costs outweigh benefits.
Click to expand...

the likelihood of potential harm to a toddler by being allowed to stand in the passenger seat of a car is fairly evident to you i would hope
 
justabubba said:
ok, then tell us what your point was to compare the difference between second hand smoke and auto exhaust fumes
Click to expand...

I felt like it. OH, and people were also mildly talking about it earlier.

You know, laying the logical groundwork in a debate. Obviously they're different, and each can lead to cancer over enough time.

The question, though, is which one is worse? I don't know, which is why I didn't imply one was worse than the others.

If you want to volunteer and explain which is worse and why, please be my guest.
 
Wake said:
I felt like it. OH, and people were also mildly talking about it earlier.

You know, laying the logical groundwork in a debate. Obviously they're different, and each can lead to cancer over enough time.

The question, though, is which one is worse? I don't know, which is why I didn't imply one was worse than the others.

If you want to volunteer and explain which is worse and why, please be my guest.
Click to expand...

but you made your post opposed to subjecting children to second hand smoke and then compared that to the different effects of auto exhaust fumes
unless you were making a comparison to present that the exhaust fumes posed a lesser risk there would have been no point to your introducing such a comparison
which is what caused your post to be found so foolish
 
Tobacco is legal and I do not support a ban on smoking in your own car with the windows rolled up. However, if you have children in the car and if there are documented health risks involved with smoking in a car with children (I'm not saying they don't exist, but I would like to see the data) then I would support a ban on the grounds of protecting the children and their health.
 
Who cares if it's legal?

The problem I have with this sort of debate is that the idea that "government shouldn't be involved" is useless on this issue. It's already involved, in many ways. Arbitrarily saying "no because they shouldn't", is not justifiable.

In this case, I'm hearing on the news about the future of healthcare, states may be deciding along with the federal government, what health insurance plans can look like, etc. Well, will they force me if I have insurance, to in effect subsidize smokers and obese people? Because if they do, the damage to my rights in my case *is already done*. And since I don't smoke, and am not obese (and eat healthy and exercise because I'm not a moron), I won't be hindered *at all* by anti-smoking laws, or anti-fatass laws, but I WILL benefit from them. So yeah, I may not want government to dicatate how I live my life, but if they are ALREADY CHARGING ME FOR LIVING, the idea that I can't then promote their dictatation in ways that limit me the least, is absurd.

That's the dillema with significant government involvement, once you start, it's hard to draw any lines because for every line you draw you cross two others.

Don't make me pay for the poor life choices of others, and they are free to make their poor choices all day long.
But - take away my right not to be forced to subsidize bad life choices, and I damn sure am justified in limiting that by whatever means are available. WHen I'm subsidizing their asthmatic 6 year old for LIFE because of the damage of smoking, it is not a simple question of anything so juvenille as "smoking is legal", or "it's their right".
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
but you made your post opposed to subjecting children to second hand smoke and then compared that to the different effects of auto exhaust fumes
unless you were making a comparison to present that the exhaust fumes posed a lesser risk there would have been no point to your introducing such a comparison
which is what caused your post to be found so foolish
Click to expand...

What part of "Cigarette smoke is different than car fumes. Secondhand smoke can still cause cancer, over enough time," was a comparison of secondhand smoke being subjected to children... and the different effects of auto exhaust fumes?

Hey, wait a minute. When did I ever mention "different effects?" Weird man... How did those words get in my mouth...?

Sometimes, Bubba, a statement doesn't have to have a point, so long as it's true. Kinda like the statement: "You misread my posts, read too deeply into them, and are trying vainly to create and combat arguments that I've never made."
 
Wake said:
What should be done if a parent has the car windows up, is smoking, and has two children in the back seat?
Click to expand...
The children should be taken away and given to a liberal family that smokes pot in their car. Pot is safe.
 
American said:
The children should be taken away and given to a liberal family that smokes pot in their car. Pot is safe.
Click to expand...

I don't know any liberals that support marijuana legalization who also advocate driving while high on marijuana because it's "safe."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom