• 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
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.

If you smoke outside and then come inside, you can still expose your children to SHS. The chemicals in it are given to sorption and will outgas over long periods of time.
 
Should parents be prevented from smoking until all children are out of the house then?

No.This is not about telling parents to give up smoking.This is about telling parents not to some in front of their kids. Its not hard to go outside or to go to a designate room in the house that is off limits to the kids to smoke.


What's your solution.No one has once quantified this problem in the whole of this thread; but we do know certain correlations exist.
My friends who have children do not smoke in front of their kids.They smoke outside or smoke in a designated room in the house that is off limits to the kids and they do not smoke in the car while the kids are in the car. I am not saying the parents have to give up smoking. A parent who drinks doesn't make their kids drink whiskey.

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?


I do not think anyone is saying that parents should permanently be banned form smoking in their cars, were just saying they should be banned from smoking in their cars while their kids are in the car.




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?

Floggin would leave long term damage on someone as well as effective. I am pretty sure smoking around a child and practically puffing smoke in front of that child's face would possibly leave long term damage on the child's lungs and greatly put then at risk for cancer and respiratory problems.
 
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control considers lead poisoning the major
environmental health threat to children in the United States

The increased lead in a child’s diet from eating candy increases the lead in the
child’s blood system, which in turn adversely affects their neurological
development, meaning lower IQ scores and the like. In 1999, the Centers for
Disease Control reported that the average blood lead level for children ages 1 to 5
in America was 2.0 micrograms per deciliter (“ug/dl”) of blood; for children ages
6-11, the number was 1.3 ug/dl.3 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
determined that for every microgram of lead that a child consumes, their blood
lead level is increased by 0.16 ug/dl,4 and that a sustained 1 μg/dL increase in
blood-lead concentration results in a loss of 0.257 IQ points in an average child.

Based on the blood lead level data developed by the Centers for Disease Control
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the consumption of just one of
these typical M&M chocolate snacks results in an 18% increase in an average 6
year old child’s blood lead level.

The consumption of a typical Kraft Chocolate Fudge Pudding (2.7 micrograms of
lead) results in a 33% increase in an average 6 year old child’s blood lead level.

The consumption of a typical Nestlé’s Double Chocolate Meltdown Cocoa Drink
(3.67 micrograms of lead) results in a 45% increase in an average 6 year old
child’s blood lead level.

http://www.wcaslab.com/tech/FactSheet.PDF

Clearly we should make it illegal to give children chocolate and charge parents who give their children a chocolate treat with abuse. Clearly the answer to bad parents is more government. One day we can ban all things harmful to children and the world will be a different place!
 
I don't smoke. Nice assumption.
But you love enabling those who infringe on the rights of others via this known addiction of smoking that has scientifically verifiable serious consequences on those who are exposed to effects of this respective addiction.

If someone (legal adult) wants to smoke their brains out and kill or seriously damage themselves WITHOUT cost to me or to those who can't defend themselves from being exposed...then go for it!
 
No.This is not about telling parents to give up smoking.This is about telling parents not to some in front of their kids. Its not hard to go outside or to go to a designate room in the house that is off limits to the kids to smoke.

Why not? Studies show that SHS can be passed even after one has smoked a cigarette. If you smoke outside and come inside, you can still expose your children to SHS. So why not? Ain't we thinking of the children here?

My friends who have children do not smoke in front of their kids.They smoke outside or smoke in a designated room in the house that is off limits to the kids and they do not smoke in the car while the kids are in the car. I am not saying the parents have to give up smoking. A parent who drinks doesn't make their kids drink whiskey.

As I said, smoking outside doesn't help because the chemicals which are of concern in SHS cling to cloths and body and slowly outgas. Meaning that even if you smoke outside, you can still bring your SHS with you. A smoker smells like cigarettes, yes? Guess what that smell is? SHS.


I do not think anyone is saying that parents should permanently be banned form smoking in their cars, were just saying they should be banned from smoking in their cars while their kids are in the car.

Why just cars? Why only enforce with cars? If the health of the children is our main concern, should we not be hitting this issue on every front which poses threat to a child's health?

Floggin would leave long term damage on someone as well as effective. I am pretty sure smoking around a child and practically puffing smoke in front of that child's face would possibly leave long term damage on the child's lungs and greatly put then at risk for cancer and respiratory problems.

So can walking outside. Lots of radiation there. And if you live at higher altitudes....damn! Denver the radiation is significantly higher than at sea level due to a mile less atmospheric interactions.
 
But you love enabling those who infringe on the rights of others via this known addiction of smoking that has scientifically verifiable serious consequences on those who are exposed to effects of this respective addiction.

If someone (legal adult) wants to smoke their brains out and kill or seriously damage themselves WITHOUT cost to me or to those who can't defend themselves from being exposed...then go for it!

I've asked for quantifiable data too and haven't gotten it. All I get is appeal to emotion. Your argument sucks.
 
Why not? Studies show that SHS can be passed even after one has smoked a cigarette. If you smoke outside and come inside, you can still expose your children to SHS. So why not? Ain't we thinking of the children here?



As I said, smoking outside doesn't help because the chemicals which are of concern in SHS cling to cloths and body and slowly outgas. Meaning that even if you smoke outside, you can still bring your SHS with you. A smoker smells like cigarettes, yes? Guess what that smell is? SHS.




Why just cars? Why only enforce with cars? If the health of the children is our main concern, should we not be hitting this issue on every front which poses threat to a child's health?



So can walking outside. Lots of radiation there. And if you live at higher altitudes....damn! Denver the radiation is significantly higher than at sea level due to a mile less atmospheric interactions.

Is any of this actually the same as locking a child in a car and forcing them to breath in the smoke from a couple of cigarettes or more or are you just trying to grasp at straws to try to justify forcing children to breath in cigarette smoke?
 
http://www.wcaslab.com/tech/FactSheet.PDF

Clearly we should make it illegal to give children chocolate and charge parents who give their children a chocolate treat with abuse. Clearly the answer to bad parents is more government. One day we can ban all things harmful to children and the world will be a different place!

Man, after looking at this, it's amazing the human race has even survived this long with all these bad parents running around.

That's it, no one can have kids. Randomly you will have a number called, report to a government facility where your DNA will be extracted and combined with a suitable companion DNA set and the government will handle reproduction and the raising of children. It doesn't seem that humans in general can be trusted with human reproduction.
 
Is any of this actually the same as locking a child in a car and forcing them to breath in the smoke from a couple of cigarettes or more or are you just trying to grasp at straws to try to justify forcing children to breath in cigarette smoke?

Yes. You claim SHS is so horrible it drops kids dead faster than flogging them with a cord (hahaha, ok that was hyperbole). But you only wish to tackle on aspect of it. Smoking in cars. Smoking in the home is just as dangerous. Even if you go outside you don't eliminate the problem, SHS follows you. Why one case and not the other? Are we thinking of the children or aren't we?
 
I've asked for quantifiable data too and haven't gotten it. All I get is appeal to emotion. Your argument sucks.

You're simply avoiding reading the scientific reports on post #149.
 
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.

Anyone who abuses drugs around their children is liable to lose their children. I would say the same about abusive alcoholics. Tobacco smoke scars the lungs of young children. It's not like we are talking about teenagers here. At least if they are 16-18 they could theoretically leave home to avoid the toxins. Children are innocent and can't do anything about it.

The other scenarios you describe... they can cause long-term damage, sure, but that damage can be undone. An obese child can lose weight; an underactive child can grow up and learn the value of exercise. Nothing you do to fibrotic lungs will make them better, I can testify to that, and I live an almost obsessively healthy lifestyle.

Smoking in confined spaces with children present is clear cut child abuse. I don't see how there is room for argument there.
 
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.
Ah, the classic libertarian argument. If it may be hard to enforce, it cannot be enforced! Quit the reductio ad absurdum and engage us in rational debate. It has been shown that secondhand smoke is harmful, and the rights of the smoker stop where the rights of their children begin.
 
Yes. You claim SHS is so horrible it drops kids dead faster than flogging them with a cord (hahaha, ok that was hyperbole). But you only wish to tackle on aspect of it. Smoking in cars. Smoking in the home is just as dangerous. Even if you go outside you don't eliminate the problem, SHS follows you. Why one case and not the other? Are we thinking of the children or aren't we?

Your telling me that a enough SHS hangs around to equal locking a child in the car or some other confined space and forcing the child to breath in cigarette smoke for 5-10 minutes or more? Having grown up with a parent who smokes I can tell you its not the same.
 
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?

I'm thinking maybe it should be illegal to post before reading through a thread.
 
Man, after looking at this, it's amazing the human race has even survived this long with all these bad parents running around.

That's it, no one can have kids. Randomly you will have a number called, report to a government facility where your DNA will be extracted and combined with a suitable companion DNA set and the government will handle reproduction and the raising of children. It doesn't seem that humans in general can be trusted with human reproduction.
Come on! Even the smallest amount of government intervention will be treated as fascism! And it's not all-or-none. The government can protect children without being an Orwellian superpower that libertarians shake in their boots about.
 
Ah, the classic libertarian argument. If it may be hard to enforce, it cannot be enforced! Quit the reductio ad absurdum and engage us in rational debate. It has been shown that secondhand smoke is harmful, and the rights of the smoker stop where the rights of their children begin.

They do correlate. But I want proof. I want data. Give me the density-hours.
 
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.

Um, I think I've made it clear that this isn't the case.
 
Your telling me that a enough SHS hangs around to equal locking a child in the car or some other confined space and forcing the child to breath in cigarette smoke for 5-10 minutes or more? Having grown up with a parent who smokes I can tell you its not the same.

Great! So you have numbers. This is what I'm looking for. What are the numbers. What is the difference between long term, years exposure of SHS having saturated the house vs. the 5-10 minutes of being in the car? Or...do you not have numbers and are just making assumptions off of your one data point? Nah, I'm sure you have numbers.
 
Your telling me that a enough SHS hangs around to equal locking a child in the car or some other confined space and forcing the child to breath in cigarette smoke for 5-10 minutes or more? Having grown up with a parent who smokes I can tell you its not the same.
Tobacco stinks. The smell of it sticks, and it's not pleasant to be around people who even live with chain smokers.
 
Um, I think I've made it clear that this isn't the case.

You've said as much. But you certainly haven't made it clear. You seem to go after only smoking as potential harm for kids. Why not the other things?
 
Come on! Even the smallest amount of government intervention will be treated as fascism! And it's not all-or-none. The government can protect children without being an Orwellian superpower that libertarians shake in their boots about.

Can it? Yes. Will it? People's arguments here don't give confidence. The absolute "Please won't someone think of the children!" arguments do not lead to natural limits on government power. More so than SHS, childhood obesity is the largest health problem facing our kids today. It is one of the leading causes of childhood diabetes, which counter to what some in this thread may think, it's always "reversible". The strain on the heart from being so grossly overweight doesn't heal itself miraculously. The plaque buildup and stress on the cardiovascular system doesn't vanish because someone goes out and runs. The long term affects on joints which lead to future surgery and thus us having to deal with it through healthcare costs isn't always going to fix itself. Are some of the effects of childhood obesity reversible? Yes. Are all? No. Why are we stopping then? SHS is so bad in and of itself that even without knowing fully the dynamics or exposure times necessary to produce measurable harm we have to go after it. But something like obesity which is well more damaging both short and long term....nope. Why? Are we thinking of the children or aren't we?
 
Tobacco stinks. The smell of it sticks, and it's not pleasant to be around people who even live with chain smokers.

That's second hand smoke right there. It's sorption properties cause it to cling, its outgassing properties cause exposure even after long breaks between cigarettes.
 
They do correlate. But I want proof. I want data. Give me the density-hours.
Fine
Short-term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes of exposure is enough to reduce blood flow to the heart.

In the longer term, second-hand smoke exposure has been shown to increase the risk of developing a range of smoking-related illnesses. These include lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, respiratory illnesses, and many childhood illnesses.
Smoking - effects of second-hand smoke on adults - Everybody - Health Information for New Zealanders
 
Last edited:
They do correlate. But I want proof. I want data. Give me the density-hours.

You wear denial really well. Hummmm, or maybe you hate being wrong. You must have studied the failed arguments of the CEO's of all the major cigarette makers' testimony before Congress when they swore on oath that cigs aren't addictive or cause serious injury or death.

Lame argument, but worse, you know the truth and in the face of a truth thats been repeatedly proved and published, you got the balls to demand "Density Hours" stats.
 
Tobacco stinks. The smell of it sticks, and it's not pleasant to be around people who even live with chain smokers.

I lived with a chain smoker for 18 years of my life, you do not notice the smell as much as someone who is not around it a regular basis. It is not the smell that bothered me growing up it was the smoke being in face and breathing in the smoke.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom