• 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 Illegal With Children In Car[W:501]

Do you agree with ban on smoking inside cars with children?

  • Total voters
    84
Sounds like another reason to avoid Maryland.
 
ChezC3 said:
I'll defend it. It's my kid, my car, my business, stay your do gooding ass out of my affairs...
Click to expand...

The government can't seem to leave smokers alone. :/
 
Carjosse said:
Here it is under the age of 16 in most provinces but Nova Scotia where it is 19 (the age required to buy cigarettes).
Click to expand...

now you see that is a good idea. It would almost completely eliminate second hand smoke in cars because they will have learned not to smoke in cars for basically a 4th of their lives.
 
JJB3333 said:
now you see that is a good idea. It would almost completely eliminate second hand smoke in cars because they will have learned not to smoke in cars for basically a 4th of their lives.
Click to expand...

The younger generation is learning it anyways. We see smokers in our generation as pathetic losers.
 
Carjosse said:
The younger generation is learning it anyways. We see smokers in our generation as pathetic losers.
Click to expand...

Who is we? :roll: I'm apart of that generation and I don't see smokers as pathetic losers. It's one destructive habit out of many. Pick your poison.

Cardinal said:
Child abuse is a legal definition. The Federal definition is



https://www.childwelfare.gov/can/defining/federal.cfm

This is broad enough to include repeated and extreme exposure of a known cancer-causing carcinogen to children.
Click to expand...

By your ridiculously broad interpretation, parents who allow their kids to be exposed to high fructos corn syrup (directly linked to diabetes) are also abusive. But why stop there? How about contact sports? That can cause permanent injury. hmm where to draw the line.. i mean god forbid something happens to Junior and Big Government isn't there with a band-aid.

WCH said:
Burn your face with that same cig. That might get your attention. 8)
Click to expand...

You first.
 
Alyssa said:
Who is we? :roll: I'm apart of that generation and I don't see smokers as pathetic losers. It's one destructive habit out of many. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

Us kids born in the mid to late 90s at least. It is hard not to refer to them as those dirty smoker kids and the teachers have the same opinion as they are all losers.
 
Last edited:
Alyssa said:
By your ridiculously broad interpretation, parents who allow their kids to be exposed to high fructos corn syrup (directly linked to diabetes) are also abusive. But why stop there? How about contact sports? That can cause permanent injury. hmm where to draw the line.. i mean god forbid something happens to Junior and Big Government isn't there with a band-aid.
Click to expand...

I think there's something to that, actually (the overeating, not the sports). Child diabetes is on the rise, and once you get it, it's for life.

By the way, the body metabolizes hfcs the same as any sugar.
 
Cardinal said:
I didn't actually see that question. A good $300 ticket for smoking in the car with a child in it is fine. Where it is demonstrated that a much larger, chronic problem exists then yes, it should be investigated. This is no different than any other form of child abuse, hitting being a good example: of course it's nonsense to get a child protection officer involved if a kid gets a slap up the head for being an obnoxious scream-monster in public, but where it can be shown that something much more chronic than the isolated slap-up-the-head is going on is where an investigation is legitimate.

In any case, if a parent is chronically exposing the child to deadly carcinogens then a prosecutor could make the case under the definition I pasted that child abuse is going on.
Click to expand...

That is doing nothing but taking resources away from kids who are in dire need.
 
Cardinal said:
I think there's something to that, actually (the overeating, not the sports). Child diabetes is on the rise, and once you get it, it's for life.

By the way, the body metabolizes hfcs the same as any sugar.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong. I'm not here to give you a physiology lesson, but I will say that Type 2 diabetes is reversible.

So you also believe that parents are child abusers if their kids over eat? you'd make a great social worker. They're tripping over their power trying to take kids from their homes and stick them in fostercare. Keeps them employed. And this is the same reason I believe people are being brainwashed into government servitude. More laws mean more government jobs and more control. Junior can keep his diabetes and secondhand smoke. I want liberty.
 
Alyssa said:
Wrong and wrong. I'm not here to give you a physiology lesson, but I will say that Type 2 diabetes is reversible.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say treatable.

Alyssa said:
So you also believe that parents are child abusers if their kids over eat? you'd make a great social worker. They're tripping over their power trying to take kids from their homes and stick them in fostercare. Keeps them employed. And this is the same reason I believe people are being brainwashed into government servitude. More laws mean more government jobs and more control. Junior can keep his diabetes and secondhand smoke. I want liberty.
Click to expand...

I think overfeeding children is abuse, but I wouldn't know how that could be prosecutable as food is not in and of itself a destructive thing, unlike cigarette smoke which is only destructive. If actually attempted to prosecute a parent on the basis of overfeeding, I couldn't imagine what argument they'd use.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
That is doing nothing but taking resources away from kids who are in dire need.
Click to expand...

Nonresponsive. Your opinion that chronic exposure to cigarette smoke merely qualifies as "stupid" and not abuse is an arbitrary line you still haven't qualified, whereas science has for nearly half a century determined that cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen responsible for numerous health problems (and of course deaths).
 
Cardinal said:
Nonresponsive. Your opinion that chronic exposure to cigarette smoke merely qualifies as "stupid" and not abuse is an arbitrary line you still haven't qualified, whereas science has for nearly half a century determined that cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen responsible for numerous health problems (and of course deaths).
Click to expand...

No, my line is drawn because we have limited resources, and there are children in dire need. You have still failed to address that point I notice.
 
ChrisL said:
No, my line is drawn because we have limited resources, and there are children in dire need. You have still failed to address that point I notice.
Click to expand...

All you've done is point to examples you emotionally feel are more abuse-ier. You have not in any way shown that chronic exposure to cigarette smoke is not in fact abuse. I have science to back up my position, while you have, um...what do you have exactly?
 
Cardinal said:
All you've done is point to examples you emotionally feel are more abuse-ier. You have not in any way shown that chronic exposure to cigarette smoke is not in fact abuse. I have science to back up my position, while you have, um...what do you have exactly?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Anyone who cannot understand what I'm saying here must be dense. We have LIMITED RESOURCES. We need to concentrate those on children who are in DIRE NEED. Children of smokers do not qualify, sorry.
 
ChrisL said:
Are you kidding? Anyone who cannot understand what I'm saying here must be dense. We have LIMITED RESOURCES. We need to concentrate those on children who are in DIRE NEED. Children of smokers do not qualify, sorry.
Click to expand...

And still this does not demonstrate that it's not abuse, only that you don't personally feel it's all that big a deal. The health problems are well catalogued by science and you are wrong. Out of curiosity, are you a smoker?
 
Dragonfly said:
Smoking while driving with kids under 8 now illegal in Maryland - NY Daily News


I'm here to say - I can't find fault with this at all, except for wondering why 8 years old is the cut off. Why not 12 or 14? Why 8?

Who here will defend the right of the adult to subject their child to smoke inside a confined space like a car?
Click to expand...

This is one of the few smoking bans that I actually support because it actually has the element of not giving a non-smoker (the child) any choice in the matter. That same element does not exist in any other smoking ban.
 
JJB3333 said:
now you see that is a good idea. It would almost completely eliminate second hand smoke in cars because they will have learned not to smoke in cars for basically a 4th of their lives.
Click to expand...

Only the parents and only when they have kids with them.
 
Dragonfly said:
Smoking while driving with kids under 8 now illegal in Maryland - NY Daily News


I'm here to say - I can't find fault with this at all, except for wondering why 8 years old is the cut off. Why not 12 or 14? Why 8?

Who here will defend the right of the adult to subject their child to smoke inside a confined space like a car?
Click to expand...


I like the ban.I accidentally voted "Yes - I like this ban" instead of "Yes - I like it, but age should be older than 8". My mother smoked when I was growing up and I used to smoke. So I know from experience that rolling down the windows doesn't work and that smokers do not realize how fowl their cigarette smoke is. Children shouldn't be subjected to 2nd hand smoke,especially in a confined space such as a car just because their mom and or dad are selfish inconsiderate ****s.
 
Montecresto said:
Oh this is inevitable, for years I've said that the day comes in America when smoking cigarettes is illegal and smoking marijauna is legal.
Click to expand...

I don't smoke either - but I have found, as I age, that cigarette smoke irritates my breathing far more than it used to - I've never smoked, but I used to have friends and relatives who did - the casual contact with their smoke never irritated me but now, with ever smoker seemingly clustered at the front of every office building, shopping mall, grocery store, etc. I find I'm running the gammut of a cigarette smog almost every public place I try to enter.

As for replacing cigarette smoke with marijuana smoke, I don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana but I wouldn't mind seeing smoking it remaining illegal and just having it used in food or liquid form. If it's for medicinal purposes, for example, ingesting it should be healthier than inhaling it.
 
Carjosse said:
At least cigarette use is falling in this country. Hopefully it will be almost entirely gone in 20 years.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right, but statistics I'd seen recently showed use is rising among young people - I hope that's wrong.
 
I rarely support Govt intervention in personal affairs.... However, I fully support this. The age should be the legal age to purchase tobacco, IMHO.
 
Alyssa said:
Who is we? :roll: I'm apart of that generation and I don't see smokers as pathetic losers. It's one destructive habit out of many. Pick your poison.



By your ridiculously broad interpretation, parents who allow their kids to be exposed to high fructos corn syrup (directly linked to diabetes) are also abusive. But why stop there? How about contact sports? That can cause permanent injury. hmm where to draw the line.. i mean god forbid something happens to Junior and Big Government isn't there with a band-aid.



You first.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize I was just being flippant. [and not talking about 'you' in particular]

I was a smoker for over 30 years and quit cold turkey about 6 years ago after incessant bitching from my Wife and children and being banned to smoking outside.

I was entirely guilty of smoking with my children in the car. There....I said it. 8)
 
Ockham said:
I don't think they need a new law, that one seems relevant and required given the amount of information available about smoking however, is sad. That said, why can't existing child endangerment laws be applied here? My view is the law seems un-necessary. Broaden child endangerment laws and apply it as needed.
Click to expand...

This is a danger in and of itself. CPS or what ever the local equivilant already hass too much power that it abuses. I've seen them bypass parents who are neglecting their kids in favor of harassing gay parents. Or just tick one off not even knowing who they are out in public and next thing you know there's a supposed annoymous report on you and you're being investigated. And there is no way to hit them for harassment or false accusation. No thank you, I'll take this law over a chance of CPS having even more vague rules.

Montecresto said:
Oh this is inevitable, for years I've said that the day comes in America when smoking cigarettes is illegal and smoking marijauna is legal.
Click to expand...

You will note that regardless of what you smoke, you still can't smoke it in the car with a child or in a public place. So it's not like we're seeing a trade of one for the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom