• 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
Wake said:
Well, 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.
Click to expand...
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
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
justabubba said:
using slavery as an issue is a very obvious way to exhibit bad law fashioned under the guise of states' rights
Click to expand...

It wasn't fashioned under that guise. State's rights was just used as a means to defend the State's ability to continue having slavery.

State's rights shouldn't be blamed for being used immorally.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

Me> I think this state's right law on smoking is A-OK.
You>> OMG slavery was a state's right law TOO.
Me>>> Ok...?
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
Its not my argument to prove. If you want to make a point, do your own research. Obviously the slavery one epically failed.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I also agree that laws should be passed to deal with the ridiculous nature of fast food.

For me, personally, I would like to see this law spread nationwide. I guess that makes me similar to those who would like gay marriage spread nationwide, but that's a different issue entirely.

Second-hand smoke, to me, is dangerous, if you're exposed to enough of it for enough time. But yeah, I recognize there are other things out there that or or may not be worse than second-hand smoke. There's also third-hand smoke which is also an issue:

Third-hand Smoke: A Bigger Danger Than Perceived? | MedSci Discoveries | Learn Science at Scitable

THIRD HAND SMOKE - old, dried particulates are actually worse than "second" hand smoke

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Concludes that Thirdhand Smoke Causes Lung Damage to the Fetus; Declares Changing Bedsheets a Problem of Global Proportions

Smoke-Free Washington :: Thirdhand Smoke
 
I think the reason this Poll is so lopsided in favor of "No Ban" is because it's another freedom lost in favor of political correctness being forced on people. If you're going to honestly protect children from harmful exposure to socially induced causes, fast food, foods high in sugar content, pipe-cigar and BBQ smoke, pesticides, hormones in cattle and chickens, preservatives and dyes used in food, the list goes on and on. Either make the product illegal like prohibition or not but to keep chipping at public usage is neither honest or fair. I think the real reason is because of the cost to healthcare, which seems that everything is being done for money anymore.
 
Lord Have Mercy...after reading all these rants I need a smoke! I think I'll go for a drive.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Its not my argument to prove. If you want to make a point, do your own research. Obviously the slavery one epically failed.
Click to expand...
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]
MarineTpartier said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
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]
Click to expand...
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
 
MarineTpartier said:
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
Click to expand...

If you offended him/her (which I didn't see) it was he/she who chose to be offended. No need to be sorry for that.
 
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...
Nothing.

We need to get away from making laws to protect everyone from everything.
 
Caine said:
Nothing.

We need to get away from making laws to protect everyone from everything.
Click to expand...
Another great point. I tell you, I am Romneying on this one a lot. Can Romney be used as a verb by the way?
 
grip said:
Please mister, I give up take my smokes...

View attachment 67120614
Click to expand...

kitten_smoking.jpg
 
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.

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****), 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't see anything in the constitution about being free to do what you want as long as its not unpopularly considered dumb.

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.
 
027bc145ab24765f3b142221bbfa51f8.jpg
 
Caine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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****)
Click to expand...
So only immediate harm counts as harm?

, 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.
Click to expand...
It can actually harm people. That's not "dumb".

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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
MadLib said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is Gross Negligence. Deadly weapons are not playthings.


So only immediate harm counts as harm?
Click to expand...
Do we have a way of isolating the long term to one specific cause?



It can actually harm people. That's not "dumb".
Click to expand...
So can many things.

The government needs to get out of the parenting business unless serious intended physical harm is being done.



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!
Click to expand...
It starts that way.... it ends much worse.
 
Caine said:
That is Gross Negligence. Deadly weapons are not playthings.
Click to expand...
Cigarettes are deadly.

Do we have a way of isolating the long term to one specific cause?
Click to expand...
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.


So can many things.

The government needs to get out of the parenting business unless serious intended physical harm is being done.
Click to expand...
If the government's job is to protect its citizens, then the "nanny state" is required here.


It starts that way.... it ends much worse.
Click to expand...
I don't think you need a tinfoil hat for this specific case, Caine.
 
which sock should you put on first in the morning left or right ? i dunno the government should decide.
 
MadLib said:
Cigarettes are deadly.
Click to expand...
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.



If the government's job is to protect its citizens, then the "nanny state" is required here.
Click to expand...
I disagree.



I don't think you need a tinfoil hat for this specific case, Caine.
Click to expand...
I still fail to see why this issue is so important that it requires more government involvement in our lives.
 
Caine said:
The government needs to get out of the parenting business unless serious intended physical harm is being done.
Click to expand...

Though smokers might not be intending harm to children in a vehicle, they still are, like stated above the child is left defenseless to it, and could in turn have a negative health reaction. That in the long run the taxpayers will end up paying for. Smoke all you want, it is not mine or the gov't choice, but when the burden falls on the taxpayer to pay for this neglect is when the line has to be drawn. Waste your life if you want, just don't expect a penny from me to pay for medical bills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom