• 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
You miss the point. It's the precedent set by more intrusive laws. Hence the "what's next" questions/

Slippery slope arguments are irrelevant here since this ban can be defended on its own merits.
 
Do you only debate with the use of red herrings? Yes, the government forces me to pay them. What of it?

Soooo, you're not a subject of the United States, right? You said so yourself. So just tell them that and I'm sure you won't have to pay taxes.
 
Slippery slope arguments are irrelevant here since this ban can be defended on its own merits.

That smoking while pregnant is perfectly fine but not while in a car?
 
That smoking while pregnant is perfectly fine but not while in a car?

As you seem to be primarily focused in on pregnancy issues, it seems the sex/sexuality or abortion sub-forums might be more appropriate places for you.
 
Soooo, you're not a subject of the United States, right? You said so yourself. So just tell them that and I'm sure you won't have to pay taxes.

I think it's cute that you think that brings merit to their actions and makes me their subject.
 
I think it's cute that you think that brings merit to their actions and makes me their subject.

There are still places in the world you can go to where you won't have to pay taxes or accept laws you consider tyrannical. Either move there or quit your bitching. No one cares.
 
Soooo, you're not a subject of the United States, right? You said so yourself. So just tell them that and I'm sure you won't have to pay taxes.

And a ban on smoking in ones own home is not part of this same agenda?

You must know there are laws on the books in California that do this. No cigars, no pipes, no smoking, in your own home.

Perhaps weed has received a pass, since it's apparently good for you, although I don't know.
 
As you seem to be primarily focused in on pregnancy issues, it seems the sex/sexuality or abortion sub-forums might be more appropriate places for you.

I though the discussion was harming another human with cigarettes? Is that not the case?

There are still places in the world you can go to where you won't have to pay taxes or accept laws you consider tyrannical.

Where?
 
And a ban on smoking in ones own home is not part of this same agenda?

You must know there are laws on the books in California that do this. No cigars, no pipes, no smoking, in your own home.

Perhaps weed has received a pass, since it's apparently good for you, although I don't know.

I don't believe in blanket bans. I believe smoking bans should be based entirely on how they endanger others. Admittedly I don't know the law on smoking in your own home (though I'm definitely going to look into it now), but any ban on smoking that is placed where others are not in jeopardy is, in my opinion, completely illegitimate.
 
I don't believe in blanket bans. I believe smoking bans should be based entirely on how they endanger others. Admittedly I don't know the law on smoking in your own home (though I'm definitely going to look into it now), but any ban on smoking that is placed where others are not in jeopardy is, in my opinion, completely illegitimate.

Like any bar or restaurant?
 


Antarctica and Seasteads.

Outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 nautical miles (370 km), which countries can claim according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are not subject to the laws of any sovereign nation other than the flag under which a ship sails. Examples of organizations using this possibility are Women on Waves, enabling abortions for women in countries where abortions are subject to strict laws, and offshore radio stations which were anchored in international waters. Like these organizations, a seastead might be able to take advantage of the looser laws and regulations that exist outside the sovereignty of nations, and be largely self-governing.

Seasteading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Like any bar or restaurant?

I honestly don't know which way to lean on that. On one hand employees who don't smoke may feel coerced to accept the smoky environment because they need the work, but on the other hand they can find a job elsewhere (unless they can't because work is too scarce). Likewise, customers can choose to eat there, but what if it's the only restaurant in town? It's not a slam dunk either way for me.
 
I don't believe in blanket bans. I believe smoking bans should be based entirely on how they endanger others. Admittedly I don't know the law on smoking in your own home (though I'm definitely going to look into it now), but any ban on smoking that is placed where others are not in jeopardy is, in my opinion, completely illegitimate.

Start your search with Pasadena, CA.

So what's next, backyard barbeques? How about cooking of certain foods that are vented outside? Perhaps banning certain plants because they put off a fragrance that some find objectionable?

Slippery slope? Absolutely.
 
Is Antarctica unowned?

You support ownership of the sea?

To my knowledge (I could be wrong) antarctica does not currently have a government which passes its own laws or collects taxes. The seasteads I linked to were created to be experimental libertarian paradises. Either of these possibilities seem likely potential avenues for Henrin, I think.
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't know which way to lean on that. On one hand employees who don't smoke may feel coerced to accept the smoky environment because they need the work, but on the other hand they can find a job elsewhere (unless they can't because work is too scarce). Likewise, customers can choose to eat there, but what if it's the only restaurant in town? It's not a slam dunk either way for me.

There is no coercion when you choose to work somewhere.

Is there a "right" to even have a restaurant in your town, let alone to have a restaurant in your town that bans smoking? The slam dunk this is could not be described as more of a slam dunk.
 
Start your search with Pasadena, CA.

So what's next, backyard barbeques? How about cooking of certain foods that are vented outside? Perhaps banning certain plants because they put off a fragrance that some find objectionable?

Slippery slope? Absolutely.

Something related to this came up earlier in this thread, in which I said that it would be extremely difficult to make an argument against food (or barbecues) because they are in nature nutritional requirements, while cigarettes are only harmful. Your plant reference is nonsense because plant fragrances aren't carcinogenic.
 
There is no coercion when you choose to work somewhere.

Only a person who has never worked a job in her life would say such a thing.
 
There are still places in the world you can go to where you won't have to pay taxes or accept laws you consider tyrannical. Either move there or quit your bitching. No one cares.

I'm not bitching. Your argument assumes that their claims to my property are justified and that the act of them taking my property makes me their subject. Neither half of that argument is correct or logical.
 
I honestly don't know which way to lean on that. On one hand employees who don't smoke may feel coerced to accept the smoky environment because they need the work, but on the other hand they can find a job elsewhere (unless they can't because work is too scarce). Likewise, customers can choose to eat there, but what if it's the only restaurant in town? It's not a slam dunk either way for me.

Towns have borders that can easily be crossed and like it or not you're not forced to work anywhere.
 
I'm not bitching. Your argument assumes that their claims to my property are justified and that the act of them taking my property makes me their subject. Neither half of that argument is correct or logical.

And it's absolutely fine for you to feel that way, so just move where you feel you'll get the treatment you deserve. But if you live here instead then you've clearly made your choice.
 
I don't believe in blanket bans. I believe smoking bans should be based entirely on how they endanger others. Admittedly I don't know the law on smoking in your own home (though I'm definitely going to look into it now), but any ban on smoking that is placed where others are not in jeopardy is, in my opinion, completely illegitimate.

Where exactly can they smoke then? Out in the woods?
 
Towns have borders that can easily be crossed and like it or not you're not forced to work anywhere.

I meant town in a geographical sense rather than a specific municipal border sense, but I think you knew that and are just toying with me. The second part of your sentence is overly simplistic. Keep in mind I'm not defending blanket bans on smoking in restaurants, I just don't think it's black and white.
 
I meant town in a geographical sense rather than a specific municipal border sense, but I think you knew that are just toying with me. The second part of your sentence is overly simplistic. Keep in mind I'm not defending blanket bans on smoking in restaurants, I just don't think it's black and white.

Your arguments here are pretty strange. On the one hand the government taking peoples property by threat of imprisonment is a choice, but on the other, deciding to work or do business at a bar is not a choice. I'm guessing in your world everything is the opposite of reality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom