• 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
Erm..yes, you do have to prove that in-car passive smoking is a greater risk than a dozen other potential health risks that parents subject their kids to. If you can't then advocating such measures is tokenistic hypocrisy.

You're right. We should ban all smoking around kids period. There, your objection is resolved.
 
Erm..yes, you do have to prove that in-car passive smoking is a greater risk than a dozen other potential health risks that parents subject their kids to. If you can't then advocating such measures is tokenistic hypocrisy.

Hey, Anda!!! I saw your...ah...aesthetically challenged avatar in the recent posts column. Good to see you (no, really).
 
Gosh...I did a magnificant post on #149, which is a great opportunity to learn some vital facts about second hand smoke.

Spoiler Alter: These scientific studies aren't for addicts in denial. So you might not want to even waste your time glancing at hundred of pages of studies that tell how you...a smoker...are damaging the lives of those around you. Especially don't read the short version by the Center for Disease control on how you are damaging your kids' (or somebody elses kids) health and lives.
 
But there's a limit to that.

Exposing children regularly to pretty much any other harmful substance could be grounds for child abuse charges. Why not smoke?


This is only true to a point, we all expose our children to harmful toxins on a daily basis. Toxins in our carpet, furniture, vehicles, foods, perfumes, cleaning products, the list is endless. I suspect most people that complain about second hand smoke and children conveniently forget about everything that they expose there children to.
 
That's like saying if a parent beats their child with an extension cord and leaves bruises then do nothing and mind your own business.

Kids get beat with belts and switches and such all the time. I suppose if smoking anywhere near a child were actually like physical beating you would have a point. But it's not, so you don't.
 
No, because that's only half the equation. There are different costs and difficulties associated with regulating other risks. It's quite easy to simply say no smoking in the car with kids. There's no good reason to allow it. It's a minor burden on parents, that's all. They need to open a window or don't smoke. Big deal.
We're not arguing here whether smoking in cars with kids is a good or bad idea. I haven't read anyone saying it's a good thing to do. The issue is about legislation; legislating on an issue does not necesarily solve it. The point is that if you are going to legislate on personal health behaviour you should begin with those aspects of behaviour that pose the greatest risk, not those that are just the trendiest. I believe childhood obesity is a FAR, FAR greater risk than passive smoking. Where's the outrage, where's the punitive legislation proposals on this issue?

Oh what the hell...here's a bit of info that is loaded with over 700 pages of scientific study on the effects of second hand smoke. I realize that there are a few in this forum that probably would have difficulty in understanding the reports and will still refute the scientific findings no matter what the studies report. But...that's how denial and ignorance works.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/fullreport.pdf

And for all of you that have little to no respect for the health of children (and probably more so their own kids)...because it interferes with their addiction....

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_in...children/pdfs/protect_children_GenPop_508.pdf

Try this...Obesity In Children And Teens | American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
300,000 deaths a year. Please point to the stats for passive-smoking caused deaths in either of those links you posted. I just went through them and failed to find them.

I'd do that too.
I'm sure you would.
 
You're right. We should ban all smoking around kids period. There, your objection is resolved.

And now we should put cameras in the house, to make sure. I mean, think of the children won't you?
 
And now we should put cameras in the house, to make sure. I mean, think of the children won't you?
Don't go giving them ideas! Some people get off on the idea of omniscience. If it's good enough for God, it's probably good enough for the state.
 
We're not arguing here whether smoking in cars with kids is a good or bad idea. I haven't read anyone saying it's a good thing to do. The issue is about legislation; legislating on an issue does not necesarily solve it. The point is that if you are going to legislate on personal health behaviour you should begin with those aspects of behaviour that pose the greatest risk, not those that are just the trendiest. I believe childhood obesity is a FAR, FAR greater risk than passive smoking. Where's the outrage, where's the punitive legislation proposals on this issue?



Try this...Obesity In Children And Teens | American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
300,000 deaths a year. Please point to the stats for passive-smoking caused deaths in either of those links you posted. I just went through them and failed to find them.

I'm sure you would.

Then you are blind my friend...blind. I know, I know...700 pages on the Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke isn't thorough enough for you...but no surprise there. In fact, I knew you'd be the first to claim there are no relevant stats in either of those reports. You claim there aren't any. I challenge you to go over the reports again.

Frankly I don't give a damn about legislation. I do care about the scientific information that might used to determine legislation.

OHHHHHHHHHH! I get it now... There are so many things parents do to **** up their kids...so just don't do anything about anything to protect their safety, health, and well being. GREAT CRITICAL THINKING and LOGIC, Dude....

You see, I'm gonna do everything in my power to stop you, a smoker, from imposing your addiction on me...which is scientifically proven to be dangerous to my health...and others. That includes children. If that requires me advocating for legislative action to protect myself...then I'll do just that. If I have to sue...I'll do that. It's done frequently and many cases have been and will be won against those who refuse to stop infringing on others.
 
Kids get beat with belts and switches and such all the time. I suppose if smoking anywhere near a child were actually like physical beating you would have a point. But it's not, so you don't.

Smoking near a child can cause damage to their lungs especially in an enclose space just like beating a child with a extension cord can leave marks and damage tissue.
 
And now we should put cameras in the house, to make sure. I mean, think of the children won't you?
Nobody advocates that, Ikari (except maybe Viktyr and Graffias). We haven't needed to put cameras in to catch people doing cocaine and pot, so we wouldn't need it to keep parents responsible.
 
Smoking near a child can cause damage to their lungs especially in an enclose space just like beating a child with a extension cord can leave marks and damage tissue.

It can cause damage. How much, what concentration, over what time period? Is there a minimum exposure limit, if so what sort of density-hours are we looking at? How permanent is the "damage", to what extent is the damage?

Damn, I got spanked and **** when I was kid sometimes, left bruises too. I seem to be better.
 
Nobody advocates that, Ikari (except maybe Viktyr and Graffias). We haven't needed to put cameras in to catch people doing cocaine and pot, so we wouldn't need it to keep parents responsible.

So you're ok with evil parents at home smoking around their kids, causing them to die; and you'll do nothing about it! Smoking around your kids is like injecting them directly with meth! For the children's sake, we cannot allow this behavior to persist any longer.
 
It can cause damage. How much, what concentration, over what time period? Is there a minimum exposure limit, if so what sort of density-hours are we looking at? How permanent is the "damage", to what extent is the damage?

Damn, I got spanked and **** when I was kid sometimes, left bruises too. I seem to be better.

Depending on how the physical discipline happens, it can have psychological scarring that lasts a lifetime. But that's not what this thread is about - it's about second hand smoke affecting harming in a closed space, which has decades worth of scientific evidence proving it to be true. It's why public indoor smoking is banned in virtually every district. If it's harmful to the public in those settings then how can it not be harmful to children in an enclosed car?

I'm reserved about state interventionism and expansion of powers as much as you are, but I have fibrotic scarring on my lungs and reduced intake volume because of the way my parents smoked irresponsibly around me. I will probably have some kind of COPD or emphysema when I'm a senior, even though I never smoked a day in my life. I have the medical proof to demonstrate what it did to me.

The reason why the state gets involved in circumstances like this is because people are too stupid to educate themselves about the harm their habits have on children. If people used their freedom responsibly in this case, we wouldn't be having discussion. And yes, "responsibility" in this case can be CLEARLY defined and not abused by the state. Don't smoke in your car with children present. Do it and you get fined, or worse.

As for what goes on in your home... the right to smoke indoors around your children is maintained for now, but if you were smoking crack or meth the law would detain you immediately. Commercial tobacco can be just as nefarious on your body, and the bodies of the developing children, as that.

I'm more libertarian than most but I don't give ground to smokers. Their habits are toxic and doing it around children is neglectful abuse of their healthy development.
 
It can cause damage. How much, what concentration, over what time period? Is there a minimum exposure limit, if so what sort of density-hours are we looking at? How permanent is the "damage", to what extent is the damage?

I am pretty sure that living in the same house with someone who smokes for 18 years and riding in the same car while someone smokes for 18 years can have an impact,especially if that parent or parents smoke more than a pack a day.


Damn, I got spanked and **** when I was kid sometimes, left bruises too. I seem to be better.

The key word is sometimes as in once in a while.However I am not talking about a spanking I am talking about getting beat with an extension cord.
 
I am pretty sure that living in the same house with someone who smokes for 18 years and riding in the same car while someone smokes for 18 years can have an impact,especially if that parent or parents smoke more than a pack a day.




The key word is sometimes as in once in a while.However I am not talking about a spanking I am talking about getting beat with an extension cord.
then you would want to see a law preventing the parents from smoking in their home, again subjecting their children to second hand tobacco smoke?
 
I am pretty sure that living in the same house with someone who smokes for 18 years and riding in the same car while someone smokes for 18 years can have an impact,especially if that parent or parents smoke more than a pack a day.

Should parents be prevented from smoking until all children are out of the house then? What's your solution. No one has once quantified this problem in the whole of this thread; but we do know certain correlations exist. If we ban smoking in a car, why not a house? And if a house, how do you ensure that the children are being brought up in a safe environment?


The key word is sometimes as in once in a while.However I am not talking about a spanking I am talking about getting beat with an extension cord.

Sometimes, yes. What's your point? Are you saying that smoking around a child is like continuously flogging them with an extension cord for years?
 
So you're ok with evil parents at home smoking around their kids, causing them to die; and you'll do nothing about it! Smoking around your kids is like injecting them directly with meth! For the children's sake, we cannot allow this behavior to persist any longer.

You want to drive up the cost of my health insurance in order to protect your addiction while simultaneously damaging short and long term health of your kids....

Addicts do get touchy when being confronted with the truth about their self-destructive behaviors. It really chaps their ass when being confronted about how their denial regarding how their addiction injures others.
 
Their habits are toxic and doing it around children is neglectful abuse of their healthy development.

Then what about people who overfeed their children, or don't make them go out to play and get exercise? Fines for them? Jail? State takes the kids away? If someone is caught repeatedly smoking around their kids, do you take their kids away? State knows best? They are denying their kids a healthy development.
 
You want to drive up the cost of my health insurance in order to protect your addiction while simultaneously damaging short and long term health of your kids....

Addicts do get touchy when being confronted with the truth about their self-destructive behaviors. It really chaps their ass when being confronted about how their denial regarding how their addiction injures others.

I don't smoke. Nice assumption.
 
This is only true to a point, we all expose our children to harmful toxins on a daily basis. Toxins in our carpet, furniture, vehicles, foods, perfumes, cleaning products, the list is endless. I suspect most people that complain about second hand smoke and children conveniently forget about everything that they expose there children to.

The government regulates plenty of toxins in all those things too.

And some of us go beyond that and want further regulation. And we keep the stuff out of our homes in the meantime.

So yeah, let's add carpets and stuff to our list of harmful chemicals we shouldn't expose our kids to, for no good reason.
 
Should you make it illegal for your kids to go to downtown areas or in front of fireplaces or crowded intersections or anywhere were the air is of less than perfect quality? It's one thing to ban smoking with child passengers in a closed off car due to obvious secondhand smoke issues, but it's another thing to ban someone from smoking in their entire home (that is better ventilated). Parents should be allowed to smoke in their homes while they still have children living with them. A home cannot be compared to a poorly ventilated car, unless of course the family enjoys hanging out in the closet with the door shut while mom and dad enjoy a pack.
 
The government regulates plenty of toxins in all those things too.

And some of us go beyond that and want further regulation. And we keep the stuff out of our homes in the meantime.

So yeah, let's add carpets and stuff to our list of harmful chemicals we shouldn't expose our kids to, for no good reason.

so you're just on some anti-smoking crusade then? There are certainly a lot of factors which can negatively impact the health of growing children; yet smoking is the only one we should consider? Not obesity which is the number one problem currently? Becoming a nation of little piggies; far more impacting than perhaps a small amount of SHS. Childhood diabetes is no laughing matter. What else should we not regulate in your zeal to only regulate smoking? And here I thought you were thinking of the children.
 
Back
Top Bottom