• 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
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. Safety, as defined as the absence of risk, is unattainable; therefore we can only seek to minimize risk - not eliminate it. Even if you consider yourself as being exactly of median intelligence then half of the drivers that you share the roadway with are dumber than you are - that is a necessary risk. ;)
Click to expand...

I would argue that accidents – which is what we are really talking about – are completely unnecessary; they don’t have to happen. It’s only through negligence that they happen. I’m sure you’d argue that many are just innocent mistakes; but an innocent mistake can result in someone’s death and be severely punished for it. Why do we punish people for making innocent mistakes? Because we really don’t completely believe that these ‘innocent mistakes’ are devoid of negligence. Thus, they are preventable. Thus, they are unnecessary.

My point is… we do not need a law for every living thing in this country in order to create the delusion that we are going to even minimize harm to others. I grew up with both of my parents smoking everywhere: in the house (windows shut), in the car (windows shut), everywhere… I don’t know what effects this will have when I turn 80. If I get lung cancer will I blame my folks? NOPE! I have no certainty that if I got lung cancer from my parents’ smoking or from all the cars I’ve been around all my life. I consider myself to be extremely healthy at the ripe age of 51 despite my parents’ ignorance of smoking. We didn’t need laws back then, and I don’t think we need laws today. What we need is to get educated and make smart decision and stop expecting the government to do that for us.
 
A dog is a person?
 
alsos said:
I would argue that accidents – which is what we are really talking about – are completely unnecessary; they don’t have to happen. It’s only through negligence that they happen. I’m sure you’d argue that many are just innocent mistakes; but an innocent mistake can result in someone’s death and be severely punished for it. Why do we punish people for making innocent mistakes? Because we really don’t completely believe that these ‘innocent mistakes’ are devoid of negligence. Thus, they are preventable. Thus, they are unnecessary.

My point is… we do not need a law for every living thing in this country in order to create the delusion that we are going to even minimize harm to others. I grew up with both of my parents smoking everywhere: in the house (windows shut), in the car (windows shut), everywhere… I don’t know what effects this will have when I turn 80. If I get lung cancer will I blame my folks? NOPE! I have no certainty that if I got lung cancer from my parents’ smoking or from all the cars I’ve been around all my life. I consider myself to be extremely healthy at the ripe age of 51 despite my parents’ ignorance of smoking. We didn’t need laws back then, and I don’t think we need laws today. What we need is to get educated and make smart decision and stop expecting the government to do that for us.
Click to expand...

You can try to deny the harmful effects of second hand smoke all day long, but to no avail. MD passed this dopey law and may even choose to enforce it a bit - the nanny state is here to stay and will continue to increase its power at every opportunity.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can try to deny the harmful effects of second hand smoke all day long, but to no avail. MD passed this dopey law and may even choose to enforce it a bit - the nanny state is here to stay and will continue to increase its power at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

We should definitely enact this law in California. Although the economy is slowly on the mend here we could still use more money for beneficial programs, like child education and health, forest conservation, etc.
 
Last edited:
alsos said:
Is there such thing as a necessary danger?
Click to expand...

The short answer is yes. I drive because I do need to function in society. I need to get to work, to get necessities, so much like when farmers and other professions of old took risks to survive, we do so today. Smoking doesn't fit into that category.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can try to deny the harmful effects of second hand smoke all day long, but to no avail. MD passed this dopey law and may even choose to enforce it a bit - the nanny state is here to stay and will continue to increase its power at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

I don’t deny the effects of smoking any more than I deny the dangers of driving. It’s hit or miss with these things. My dad died of heart disease and had emphysema from decades of smoking. I’m approaching this more from an individual liberty standpoint than the dangers of this or that. I do not encourage smoking around your kids. I don’t even encourage smoking. I hate it with every cell in my body. I know it’s unhealthy and stupid. I don’t need the government to tell me these things.
 
alsos said:
I don’t deny the effects of smoking any more than I deny the dangers of driving. It’s hit or miss with these things. My dad died of heart disease and had emphysema from decades of smoking. I’m approaching this more from an individual liberty standpoint than the dangers of this or that. I do not encourage smoking around your kids. I don’t even encourage smoking. I hate it with every cell in my body. I know it’s unhealthy and stupid. I don’t need the government to tell me these things.
Click to expand...

Your liberty is not being reduced by this law. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Your right to spew tobacco smoke inside your car ends when a child under 8 years of age enters that car.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Your liberty is not being reduced by this law. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Your right to spew tobacco smoke inside your car ends when a child under 8 years of age enters that car.
Click to expand...

But not 9.

Haha.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True. You can blow smoke on them freely after age 8. ;)
Click to expand...

Would love to see the police stop.

Sir, are you aware it is illegal to smoke in a car with an eight year old.

Don't worry officer, the kid is nine.

Sorry to have stopped you, have a good day then.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True. You can blow smoke on them freely after age 8. ;)
Click to expand...

From the article.

The United State Environmental Protection agency says, “Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children exposed to high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those whose mothers smoke, run the greatest relative risk of experiencing damaging health effects.”
Click to expand...

(bold mine)

I couldn't tell you what scientific studies are backing that up, though.

Having little control over their indoor environments is reasonable enough, though I still don't know why eight was the cutoff age.
 
Cardinal said:
Having little control over their indoor environments is reasonable enough, though I still don't know why eight was the cutoff age.
Click to expand...

Easier to pass.
 
scatt said:
Would love to see the police stop.

Sir, are you aware it is illegal to smoke in a car with an eight year old.

Don't worry officer, the kid is nine.

Sorry to have stopped you, have a good day then.
Click to expand...

an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere. Bureaucracy knows best according to many people in the thread.
 
Alyssa said:
What should happen as a result?
Click to expand...

A consequence... like any other law that is broken.

Either a fine (ticket) or 20 years in prison... not sure which yet. ;)
 
Alyssa said:
20 years.. lol any prison time is ridiculous. I'm assuming that you're only kidding. Most i could agree to is a small fine.
Click to expand...

That would be a good assumption... and yeah... a ticket like regular speeding ticket or parking ticket with a modest fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom