• 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
What does those children being hungry have to do with those children who are suffering because of their parents smoking around them?

Sometimes they are the same children. Maybe those parents spending a little less on cigarettes (since they wouldn't be smoking that one in the car when their children are there) might leave enough money to buy some food for the children.

What does one have to do with the other? You're kidding? Maybe if the goody goodies didn't raise the taxes on tobacco through the roof trying to both make more money for the gov and force smokers to quit the kids would have more food. Incongruous is what I call the two situations of taking the money and effort it cost to punish smokers for the sake of the children but not even provide enough food. That's pure hypocrisy to say lets keep smoke out of their lungs but not put food in their bellies. Provide some soup kitchens with the tobacco taxes instead of trying to keep Congress rolling in high salaries, benefits and more money to waste.
 
What does one have to do with the other? You're kidding? Maybe if the goody goodies didn't raise the taxes on tobacco through the roof trying to both make more money for the gov and force smokers to quit the kids would have more food. Incongruous is what I call the two situations of taking the money and effort it cost to punish smokers for the sake of the children but not even provide enough food. That's pure hypocrisy to say lets keep smoke out of their lungs but not put food in their bellies. Provide some soup kitchens with the tobacco taxes instead of trying to keep Congress rolling in high salaries, benefits and more money to waste.

You do realize that most people in the situation you are describing can get food stamps, right? Food stamps pay for food. Pretty sure the people feel that they have set up a plan to put food in those kids' bellies before they started worrying about taking, at least some of, the smoke from their lungs.

Honestly, maybe if companies paid their people more, and their execs a little less, then those workers might be able to afford food for their kids.
 
You do realize that most people in the situation you are describing can get food stamps, right? Food stamps pay for food. Pretty sure the people feel that they have set up a plan to put food in those kids' bellies before they started worrying about taking, at least some of, the smoke from their lungs.

Honestly, maybe if companies paid their people more, and their execs a little less, then those workers might be able to afford food for their kids.

In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children, that's with Food Stamps. The average person who applies for Food Stamps receives $135 per person and even if you got $175 per month for food. That's about $5.83 per day -- less than $2 per meal. How well would you eat on less than $2 per meal? You'd have to live on their level for awhile before you could understand but I have and it's no fun going hungry. Our priorities as a Nation are out of whack because people can't empathize with those who have less opportunities anymore.

I'm not advocating smoking, nor do I think it's a harmless habit. It's simply not other peoples business to over regulate a legal product they don't politically agree with or because of it's cost in healthcare, when there are multitudes of more products with harmful exposure to children. It's strictly a politicized issue that has more to do with if a group can power grab at this freedom, what's next?
 
Last edited:
Other than the fact that this is more government intervention in the people's private lives in "the name of the children!!!!"... What does enacting an unenforceable law really do to change anything?

The law is unenforceable.
 
In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children, that's with Food Stamps. The average person who applies for Food Stamps receives $135 per person and even if you got $175 per month for food. That's about $5.83 per day -- less than $2 per meal. How well would you eat on less than $2 per meal? You'd have to live on their level for awhile before you could understand but I have and it's no fun going hungry. Our priorities as a Nation are out of whack because people can't empathize with those who have less opportunities anymore.

I'm not advocating smoking, nor do I think it's a harmless habit. It's simply not other peoples business to over regulate a legal product they don't politically agree with or because of it's cost in healthcare, when there are multitudes of more products with harmful exposure to children. It's strictly a politicized issue that has more to do with if a group can power grab at this freedom, what's next?

I spent most of my life at that level.

We spend about $500 for groceries a month with a family of 5 (3 adults, 2 children under 5). I can easily stretch our money to get meals for our family that are about $10 or less per day for all three meals plus milk and juice throughout the day for the boys. We even get snacks.
 
Other than the fact that this is more government intervention in the people's private lives in "the name of the children!!!!"... What does enacting an unenforceable law really do to change anything?

The law is unenforceable.

How? If you see someone smoking in a car with a child in it, why can't you pull them over for doing so?

And, would the law itself not cause at least some people to just not smoke with their children in the car? If it stops some from smoking with children in the car who would otherwise do so, then it is helping.
 
Not identical logic.

It certainly is. The primary reason people drive their children around, forcing them in a situation where they are at risk, is convenience.

The only thing that isn't identical is my proposal would actually be effective.



Smoking is a destructive habit of a person with no real proven benefits. And it certainly has no benefits to the child exposed to the secondhand smoke.

Driving, however, can get a person to a place faster. Which, in some cases, can mean life or death. And it doesn't necessarily have to be an emergency at that time. A child that needs certain treatments is going to need those treatments is not going to be able to walk to those treatments, but it doesn't mean that an ambulance could come pick the child up everytime they need that treatment.


That's a very rare situation, but a special license can be granted in those situations, but only to be used in those situations.

The main reason why people drive their children around, however, is simple convenience.

You are not being realistic in your assessment of driving. And I'm pretty sure you know that. The comparison is not equivalent.

I'm being very realistic. I'm willing to make exceptions for actual cases where driving the child is dangerous. But y'all don't want to compromise, despite all the BS about caring about the safety of children.

My theory is that it's only only about their safety when it wouldn't be inconvenient for the one's making the argument. My proposal would be just as inconvenient for me as it would be for anyone else.

Perhaps that is because my logic is not dependent on my own convenience.
 
Last edited:
How? If you see someone smoking in a car with a child in it, why can't you pull them over for doing so?

And, would the law itself not cause at least some people to just not smoke with their children in the car? If it stops some from smoking with children in the car who would otherwise do so, then it is helping.

Helping do what exactly?

Do you know how many people of my and earlier generations had parents who smoked in the car and have lived perfectly normal lives?

I believe the harm done to THE CHILDREN! is not great enough to require government force be used to limit the freedoms of the individual.
 
My car? My Rights! If I own something? I should be able to smoke cigs (which is LEGAL!) anytime I want without having to do to anything. The Car is MINE.

Having said that? Of course I am gonna at least crack a window in the Winter if some little brat is in my car:)

The car is yours, but the child that you are forcing to share the smoke with is NOT your property. That child has rights too, rights you are violating by forcing him/her to inhale your personal poison.
 
Preventable by proper choices of parents. Not the government's business.

It is the government's responsibility to protect the rights of ALL citizens. If parents will wontonly violate the legitimate rights of their children, than the government has the responsibility to step in and protect their rights...
 
Deaths of children due to car accidents are 100% PREVENTABLE.. OMG!!!!! And they are FORCED INTO CARS!!!! They have no choice!!!!! And a hell f a lot more children die from car accidents than second hand smoke. An absurdly larger number. Like the vast majority of children who die under the age of 18 die form car accidents.

And these deaths are 100% PREVENTABLE..

Unlike cigarette smoking, there are many circumstances where to meet the responsibilities of modern society, children are REQUIRED to get into cars in order to do what is expected of them (ie attend school). Comparing it to a parent forcibly subjecting children to smoking is another desparate ploy by those addicted to the weed.
 
I don't have a problem with people smoking in the car. What I DO have a problem with is when they flick their butts out the window. That's a public litter nuisance. If you want to smoke, man up and use your ashtray, don't throw your trash at me.

Nearly got hit in the face a few weeks ago by an idiot smoker who flicked his butt out the car. Caught it on video... he regretted the action a few days later when his butt (his own, not the cig) was hauled into the police station...
 
I spent most of my life at that level.

We spend about $500 for groceries a month with a family of 5 (3 adults, 2 children under 5). I can easily stretch our money to get meals for our family that are about $10 or less per day for all three meals plus milk and juice throughout the day for the boys. We even get snacks.

You spend an average of $1 per meal 3 times a day for 5 people a month, not including snacks or eating out? I eat 1200-1500 calories a day and am very frugal and only spend $2 average per meal and you can beat that? I don't believe it, that's fantasy. Wait till the government makes you spend more money on food for your children, bet you won't like that.
 
Unlike cigarette smoking, there are many circumstances where to meet the responsibilities of modern society, children are REQUIRED to get into cars in order to do what is expected of them (ie attend school). Comparing it to a parent forcibly subjecting children to smoking is another desparate ploy by those addicted to the weed.

You're tilting at windmills with that rationalization. Children can be home schooled and don't need to be forced into a car. Most people don't even own cars in NY City, so there are other means of mobility.
 
Unlike cigarette smoking, there are many circumstances where to meet the responsibilities of modern society, children are REQUIRED to get into cars in order to do what is expected of them (ie attend school). Comparing it to a parent forcibly subjecting children to smoking is another desparate ploy by those addicted to the weed.
No sane parent would forcefully make their child sit in a closed car with them smoking straight in their face. So I absolutely see where that's wrong. If a parent is smoking in their kids face to the point where its unhealthy to the kid, and the kid isnt old enough to fix the situation, I'd consider that to be child abuse.
 
It is the government's responsibility to protect the rights of ALL citizens. If parents will wontonly violate the legitimate rights of their children, than the government has the responsibility to step in and protect their rights...

Can you prove a harm has occurred?
 
Last edited:
Welcome Maddie :mrgreen:

And good point. Parents leave beer in the fridge and alcohol in accessible places but that isn't against the law. Imagine the harm they could do chugging straight liquor? Come on now stop the drugs and booze before we outlaw something that would take years of exposure to have any effect. And who's really going to blow smoke in their kids faces and keep the windows rolled up? Geez, the next thing you'll want to control is bad breath. I've smelt some halitosis that made me want to hurl, so that you can ban. :lol:
 
Thanks! :cool:
Ultimately I don't think that smoking in a car should be illegal considering the only downside would be personal health and the health of others. Theres no distraction on the road, as there is with texting and driving, unless you can't drive with one hand intelligently. I think law enforcement has much more to worry about on the road than someone smoking a cigarette while driving, such as driving under the influence of alcohol, or driving without a seatbelt. Cigarettes don't alter your state of mind other than the addiction aspect. Of course as I said before, the only questionable thing would be if a parent were abusing their child? And if that's the case, then I'm sure there are much more obvious ways to tell of it.
 
Thanks! :cool:
Ultimately I don't think that smoking in a car should be illegal considering the only downside would be personal health and the health of others. Theres no distraction on the road, as there is with texting and driving, unless you can't drive with one hand intelligently. I think law enforcement has much more to worry about on the road than someone smoking a cigarette while driving, such as driving under the influence of alcohol, or driving without a seatbelt. Cigarettes don't alter your state of mind other than the addiction aspect. Of course as I said before, the only questionable thing would be if a parent were abusing their child? And if that's the case, then I'm sure there are much more obvious ways to tell of it.

There you go.... get those priorities straight first. We can't control every aspect of somebody's existence nor should we try. We have to be responsible for our actions in this world and will never learn to grow into mature beings if there's too much interference in our freedoms. Give your neighbor a helping hand but don't smack them in face with it or hold them down.
 
Unlike cigarette smoking, there are many circumstances where to meet the responsibilities of modern society, children are REQUIRED to get into cars in order to do what is expected of them (ie attend school). Comparing it to a parent forcibly subjecting children to smoking is another desparate ploy by those addicted to the weed.

Bull****. There are no laws forcing parents to use cars to transfer their children to school. They do so for their own convenience.

Therefore your claim that children are REQUIRED to get into cars to do things like attend school is pure bull****. There is no requirement. Lazy parents subject them to risk in order to save some of their own time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom