• 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
Yeah, my rights are counterbalanced against safety instead of other rights. Nothing backwards about that.

There are many rights that are countered for the safety of others. Heck, just requiring a driver's license to begin with to drive on public roads is a restriction on your right to travel as you wish. Having to register your car. Heck, not being able to ride a skateboard in the middle of the street or walk on freeways. All for public safety, along with many other things. Most things that have laws about them are a matter of one person's rights vs either another person's rights, the good of the public, and/or safety (there are a few exceptions).
 
Arguing for the right to smoke in an enclosed space with your (or any) children and forcing them to breath second hand smoke, knowing it potentially causes all kinds of respiratory ailments, is insainity. Isnt it? What kind of people would really want to do that?
 
So if something is safer then the government should be allowed to force you into it? (this is a very loaded question)

It is a matter of cost/benefit, how the public feels, and whether or not an actual right is being violated by the law. No rights are being violated when it comes to being told that you cannot smoke in your car with children in them or that you cannot have certain things done to your car that could make that car less safe to the public (or public officials). Despite popular belief, you don't have an absolute right to privacy. You have a right to a certain amount of privacy, particularly when you are on your own property, but cars operate on public roads and a certain level of public safety when operating cars must be taken into account.
 
This law doesn't change that. Parents who are going to smoke around their kids are going to smoke around their kids.

Most will not do so in their cars in order to avoid a ticket/fine. Just that little bit might help.
 
There are many rights that are countered for the safety of others. Heck, just requiring a driver's license to begin with to drive on public roads is a restriction on your right to travel as you wish. Having to register your car. Heck, not being able to ride a skateboard in the middle of the street or walk on freeways. All for public safety, along with many other things. Most things that have laws about them are a matter of one person's rights vs either another person's rights, the good of the public, and/or safety (there are a few exceptions).

No, I don't accept that broken logic. Rights counterbalance against other rights. Laws based on safety only lead to the violation of rights.
 
No, I don't accept that broken logic. Rights counterbalance against other rights. Laws based on safety only lead to the violation of rights.

What about laws based on stupidity?
 
"I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject."

I agree. I can never be a traitor to the US since I was never their subject. :D

Let us know how that plays out with the IRS.
 
It is a matter of cost/benefit, how the public feels, and whether or not an actual right is being violated by the law. No rights are being violated when it comes to being told that you cannot smoke in your car with children in them or that you cannot have certain things done to your car that could make that car less safe to the public (or public officials). Despite popular belief, you don't have an absolute right to privacy. You have a right to a certain amount of privacy, particularly when you are on your own property, but cars operate on public roads and a certain level of public safety when operating cars must be taken into account.

There is no danger to public safety when a person smokes in their car. That is not applicable. The concern is that after a kid sits in a house full of smoke for 18 hours a day or more that someone smoking in a well ventilated car is going too far. I understand laws that protect the general public. Such as speeding laws. But a person smoking a cigarette, which is legal, is now being told they cannot do it in their own property. That is going too far.

Also you didn't answer my question. If something is widely considered safer for a person/people should it be mandated? By that same point, should things that are widely considered unhealthy or unsafe be illegal?
 
Most will not do so in their cars in order to avoid a ticket/fine. Just that little bit might help.

No. It will give the government a reason to further take money away from citizens. As far as protecting the child it does nothing. I am certain that hours upon hours of sitting in a smoke filled house is not going to be offset by attempting to get rid of the times when they around it in a well ventilated vehicle. This is more a case of a bunch of whiny people who don't want to see it. The fact is these kids are at no less of a risk. They will still be breathing in smoke.
 
No. It will give the government a reason to further take money away from citizens. As far as protecting the child it does nothing. I am certain that hours upon hours of sitting in a smoke filled house is not going to be offset by attempting to get rid of the times when they around it in a well ventilated vehicle. This is more a case of a bunch of whiny people who don't want to see it. The fact is these kids are at no less of a risk. They will still be breathing in smoke.

I'm perfectly happy if the very least it achieves is a good slap upside the heads of parents who insist through their haze of drug addiction on exposing their kids to deadly carcinogens. Oh, I just weep for their lost freedoms.
 
I'm perfectly happy if the very least it achieves is a good slap upside the heads of parents who insist through their haze of drug addiction on exposing their kids to deadly carcinogens. Oh, I just weep for their lost freedoms.

You mean slap upside the head for exposing their kids only in their car.
 
There is no danger to public safety when a person smokes in their car. That is not applicable. The concern is that after a kid sits in a house full of smoke for 18 hours a day or more that someone smoking in a well ventilated car is going too far. I understand laws that protect the general public. Such as speeding laws. But a person smoking a cigarette, which is legal, is now being told they cannot do it in their own property. That is going too far.

Also you didn't answer my question. If something is widely considered safer for a person/people should it be mandated? By that same point, should things that are widely considered unhealthy or unsafe be illegal?

There is a danger to the safety of the child in the car. (The law here stipulates that a person cannot smoke in a car that a child is in, not just that they can't smoke in their car period.)

Your question is too simple. There are many factors to take into account, not just safety, which is why smoking remains legal to begin with, while other harmful drugs are not legal.
 
No. It will give the government a reason to further take money away from citizens. As far as protecting the child it does nothing. I am certain that hours upon hours of sitting in a smoke filled house is not going to be offset by attempting to get rid of the times when they around it in a well ventilated vehicle. This is more a case of a bunch of whiny people who don't want to see it. The fact is these kids are at no less of a risk. They will still be breathing in smoke.

Just because a person smokes in their car with the child in it doesn't mean they would smoke in their home with their child in it. Certain many do, but not all. My husband doesn't smoke in our house nor in the car with the children in it, but he has no issue smoking with me in the car.

But it also comes to the level of expectation of privacy a person has when it comes to being in public vice their home. It is sort of like the drinking alcohol thing. You are free to drink alcohol in your home to whatever extent you wish, but you cannot drink it inside a motor vehicle even if you are a passenger.
 
... but you cannot drink it inside a motor vehicle even if you are a passenger.

Completely off topic, but I don't see the purpose of that law. It was already proposed that phones should be automatically shut off if the gps found them to be moving at an automobile-like speed in order to decrease driver texting, until it was pointed out that maybe the passenger might like to use the phone for something.
 
Just because something is unhealthy or selfish doesnt mean it should be illegal. To me this isn't a question of should people smoke around others, but rather the government over stepping. Just because something is good for you, or bad for you doesn't mean the government should be able to force it upon you.

The inference of the question isn't whether or not smoking is unhealthy for the smoker but does it compromise the health and by extension the lives of innocent children and if yes is it a legitimate function of government to protect innocent citizens from harm, harm they they did not invite.
 
Last edited:
Completely off topic, but I don't see the purpose of that law. It was already proposed that phones should be automatically shut off if the gps found them to be moving at an automobile-like speed in order to decrease driver texting, until it was pointed out that maybe the passenger might like to use the phone for something.

I actually agree with you. I can see why people feel they should do it but I don't really find it fair to make it completely illegal to drink in a car, even if you are only a passenger. A passenger drinking does not put anyone in danger. It is as if you are assuming the driver will drink simply because there is an open drink in the car. And the phone thing is even worse.

But smoking in the car is absolutely harmful to anyone in the car, so it is different. I was simply pointing out that we do have more privacy in our homes than in our cars. Heck, even search laws are more relaxed for a car than a person's home. The minute a vehicle could be considered a "home" in fact (although it must be stationary and not likely to move anytime soon), then the search laws become more stringent and in line with those of an actual house or apartment.
 
I'm perfectly happy if the very least it achieves is a good slap upside the heads of parents who insist through their haze of drug addiction on exposing their kids to deadly carcinogens. Oh, I just weep for their lost freedoms.


You miss the point. It's the precedent set by more intrusive laws. Hence the "what's next" questions/
 
Let us know how that plays out with the IRS.

Do you only debate with the use of red herrings? Yes, the government forces me to pay them. What of it?
 
You miss the point. It's the precedent set by more intrusive laws. Hence the "what's next" questions/

There are all sorts of laws that are more intrusive when it comes to driving, such as the expanded child safety seat laws that have been happening for a decade or so now and have been set up in almost if not all states. When I was a kid, safety seats were pretty near just a suggestion if not so, especially for children who could walk if not just sit up on their own. And that was only the '80s. Now, children have to be in a child safety seat of some kind in most states til they are 6 or even 8 years old. Sometimes it is based on weight of the child. And sometimes both an age and a weight requirement must be met. (I refer to these as either an "and" or "or" state with what the state laws are, having two sons who are still within these laws.) And in reality these laws are pretty intrusive into a child's privacy, since they could require an exact age, weight, or both.
 
There are all sorts of laws that are more intrusive when it comes to driving, such as the expanded child safety seat laws that have been happening for a decade or so now and have been set up in almost if not all states. When I was a kid, safety seats were pretty near just a suggestion if not so, especially for children who could walk if not just sit up on their own. And that was only the '80s. Now, children have to be in a child safety seat of some kind in most states til they are 6 or even 8 years old. Sometimes it is based on weight of the child. And sometimes both an age and a weight requirement must be met. (I refer to these as either an "and" or "or" state with what the state laws are, having two sons who are still within these laws.) And in reality these laws are pretty intrusive into a child's privacy, since they could require an exact age, weight, or both.

I think it's funny that the authoritarians didn't go after car companies to fix that problem.
 
Does the argument behind this work in the home?

No, I mean the argument that states the child has no choice to be around the smoke. Wouldn't that argument work just about anywhere?

If I recall it's because the smoke will travel throughout the house and the kid has no choice but to be in the home. That is essentially the same argument being made here. The smoke is traveling around the car and the kid has no choice but to be in the car. There is no doubt it is the same argument.

of course it applies, but either that particular concept eludes them, or they want smokers tossed out on their asses.

.would someone... Please... Think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The idiots who came up with this ridiculous, freedom- infringing piece of legislation probably believe they are thinking of the children. But what they don't think about is the lack of freedom these kids will have when they inherit this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom