• 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
I am shocked someone wants to smoke around their kids. Unbeliveable. Why would you want to do that if there was even an off chance?
 
How do you KNOW that?

Nobody disagrees (spite is not disagreeing).

Do you have links or studies that you yourself have performed that prove the carcinogens in cigarette smoke do not affect children's lungs while smoking in a confined space?

Do you have links or studies that prove smoking in a car always harms the non-smoker?

I am shocked someone wants to smoke around their kids. Unbeliveable. Why would you want to do that if there was even an off chance?

Bad parenting is common.
 
Nobody disagrees (spite is not disagreeing).



Do you have links or studies that prove smoking in a car always harms the non-smoker?



Bad parenting is common.


Dude - shooting a gun up into the air isn't always dangerous or deadly - so you advocate such things at parties and celebrations?
 
Dude - shooting a gun up into the air isn't always dangerous or deadly - so you advocate such things at parties and celebrations?

First off, that happens already.

There is a difference between supporting something happening, and not supporting state intervention. The fact that I do not support state intervention into this does not mean I want it to happen. Plus state intervention does not eliminate what they are intervening in.
 
Do you have links or studies that prove smoking in a car always harms the non-smoker?

CDC - Fact Sheet - Secondhand Smoke Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:3
Ear infections
More frequent and severe asthma attacks
Respiratory symptoms (e.g., coughing, sneezing, shortness of breath)
Respiratory infections (i.e., bronchitis, pneumonia)
A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

In children aged 18 months or younger, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for—4
An estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually
Approximately 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States
 
Which part says that smoking is always harmful to non-smokers that are somehow near them? This is about actually inhaling the smoke, which study proves that smoke is always inhaled?

Really? If you have your infant child in your car and you are smoking, do you seriously think it isn't going to affect your baby in some way? And with all we know about the special ingredients in cigarettes, don't you think it's dumb to take that kind of risk.

I'm not for the banning of it, but I am for the education of ignorant people who do these things. It's really stupid, can be avoided and when babies DO get sick from it, it costs everyone in the long run.
 
You younguns probably won't acknowledge the fact that people smoked in their cars, with their children for DECADES...We even smoked on airplanes, in restaurants and bars, at the doctor's office, in the hospital and any other place that we dam well pleased.. We have lost these freedoms because of a slippery slope that someone decided to slide down and our other freedoms are flying out the window as we speak... This country has changed so much and is still changing and not for the better....When all is said and done, you will have lost all of your freedoms...

Hear! Hear! Well said.
 
Really? If you have your infant child in your car and you are smoking, do you seriously think it isn't going to affect your baby in some way? And with all we know about the special ingredients in cigarettes, don't you think it's dumb to take that kind of risk.

I'm not for the banning of it, but I am for the education of ignorant people who do these things. It's really stupid, can be avoided and when babies DO get sick from it, it costs everyone in the long run.

Will the smoke always get to them?

It is stupid to smoke, and for weak people. Bad parents are often weak people.
 
Will the smoke always get to them?

It is stupid to smoke, and for weak people. Bad parents are often weak people.

Again, any reasonable person would not take that risk when it comes to their infant's tiny little lungs.

To your second statement, okay, so we basically agree then. If you want to argue about the banning, then do that, but it really doesn't help anyone to argue from the perspective that secondhand smoke in a small enclosed space is not going to be harmful to a baby or small child's lungs. There is clear evidence that it can and does effect their health in a negative way.

I realize that you can't ban stupidity.
 
Will the smoke always get to them?

It is stupid to smoke, and for weak people. Bad parents are often weak people.

Rather presumptuous to assume that any parent that smokes is a weak person and a bad person.
Any CDC studies on that?
 
Again, any reasonable person would not take that risk when it comes to their infant's tiny little lungs.

To your second statement, okay, so we basically agree then. If you want to argue about the banning, then do that, but it really doesn't help anyone to argue from the perspective that secondhand smoke in a small enclosed space is not going to be harmful to a baby or small child's lungs. There is clear evidence that it can and does effect their health in a negative way.

I realize that you can't ban stupidity.

A lot of people, unfortunately, can't play nice with other people, and do in fact require laws to control their behavior.
 
Rather presumptuous to assume that any parent that smokes is a weak person and a bad person.
Any CDC studies on that?

It is subjective.

Again, any reasonable person would not take that risk when it comes to their infant's tiny little lungs.

To your second statement, okay, so we basically agree then. If you want to argue about the banning, then do that, but it really doesn't help anyone to argue from the perspective that secondhand smoke in a small enclosed space is not going to be harmful to a baby or small child's lungs. There is clear evidence that it can and does effect their health in a negative way.

I realize that you can't ban stupidity.

Bad parenting.

It will not absolutely be harmful because it won't always get inhaled by them, although it usually will be harmful if they inhale it (and usually more than once).

A lot of people, unfortunately, can't play nice with other people, and do in fact require laws to control their behavior.

Except laws do not stop what they ban.
 
A lot of people, unfortunately, can't play nice with other people, and do in fact require laws to control their behavior.

Well you and I will have to agree to disagree on the banning issue. I think it is unenforceable and a waste of time, money and human resources.
 
Well you and I will have to agree to disagree on the banning issue. I think it is unenforceable and a waste of time, money and human resources.

Ah, but the state will make more money off these douchenozzles, and that's something I'm absolutely fine with.
 
Ah, but the state will make more money off these douchenozzles, and that's something I'm absolutely fine with.

Losing money is not make money.
 
I cant beleive someone would argue for the right to smoke around there kids cause there is no PROOF it causes medical problems every time. Crazy.
Ah, but the state will make more money off these douchenozzles, and that's something I'm absolutely fine with.
 
Losing money is not make money.

I'm completely happy with smokers in cars with children losing money. Personally, I'd like to see all that money go to a fund for children's education or something equally positive.
 
I cant beleive someone would argue for the right to smoke around there kids cause there is no PROOF it causes medical problems every time. Crazy.

They're drug addicts, and nobody can twist logic to rationalize their behavior quite like a drug addict.
 
I'm completely happy with smokers in cars with children losing money. Personally, I'd like to see all that money go to a fund for children's education or something equally positive.

Nothing better than taking money from parents with small children?
 
Make them donate to a childrens hospital or force them to go on rounds with respiratory threapy at a childrens hospital. surely the only reason someone would want to smoke around children is ignorance. Or they just want to harm children. Is there any other reason?
I'm completely happy with smokers in cars with children losing money. Personally, I'd like to see all that money go to a fund for children's education or something equally positive.
 
Ah, but the city will make more money off these douchenozzles, and that's something I'm absolutely fine with.

As it stands now, there is a HUGE back load of cases that DSS has. They don't have enough people or funding to investigate all cases of child abuse, and I don't want to see serious issues where children's lives are in immediate danger ignored because of parents smoking.

And is it your suggestion that Child Protective Services be involved in such cases? Perhaps even removing children from their parents? Think of that from the perspective of the child.
 
Make them donate to a childrens hospital or force them to go on rounds with respiratory threapy at a childrens hospital. surely the only reason someone would want to smoke around children is ignorance. Or they just want to harm children. Is there any other reason?

Nah, they don't actively want to harm anyone. But every drug addict in need of their fix who's told they can't have it reverts to a six year old state of self absorption that simply can't be reasoned with. You're not dealing with a rational, thinking human here. That's why laws are needed for these people.
 
Last edited:
Nah, they don't actively want to harm anyone. But every drug addict in need of their fix who's told they can't have it reverts to a six year old state of self absorption that simply can't be reasoned with. You're not dealing with a rational, reasoning person here. That's why laws are needed for these people.

But laws do not stop what they ban.
 
Back
Top Bottom