• 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 in Cars

What do you think about smoking in cars?

  • Total voters
    41
Thunder said:
tobacco is legal.

until its illegal, folks have the right to smoke in their own home or in their car.
Click to expand...

The issue, is the question of legality when other people are exposed to it, specifically children who are not given a choice. There is no question that its a safety hazard, legal or not.
 
Dpetty said:
The issue, is the question of legality when other people are exposed to it, specifically children who are not given a choice. There is no question that its a safety hazard, legal or not.
Click to expand...

Why should that be a sensible, legal question when children have "no choice" what their adult parents or legal guardians expose them too? We've already discussed other harmful exposure from sugary and high fat, processed fast food, chemical carcinogens in construction materials of homes, clothing, farming and livestock processing, to dangerous transportation, sports and other activities. How many more things are potentially worse and not discussed because of the nonsensical righteous factor?
 
grip said:
Why should that be a sensible, legal question when children have "no choice" what their adult parents or legal guardians expose them too? We've already discussed other harmful exposure from sugary and high fat, processed fast food, chemical carcinogens in construction materials of homes, clothing, farming and livestock processing, to dangerous transportation, sports and other activities. How many more things are potentially worse and not discussed because of the nonsensical righteous factor?
Click to expand...

Seriously man....... more government protects you from "cradle to the grave" thinkers.
 
grip said:
Why should that be a sensible, legal question when children have "no choice" what their adult parents or legal guardians expose them too? We've already discussed other harmful exposure from sugary and high fat, processed fast food, chemical carcinogens in construction materials of homes, clothing, farming and livestock processing, to dangerous transportation, sports and other activities. How many more things are potentially worse and not discussed because of the nonsensical righteous factor?
Click to expand...

Because you refuse to discuss the cost/benefit analysis associated with all those things. That is where the argument goes from something that is potentially harmful but still could have benefit to something that is potentially harmful that has very little benefit.
 
roguenuke said:
Because you refuse to discuss the cost/benefit analysis associated with all those things. That is where the argument goes from something that is potentially harmful but still could have benefit to something that is potentially harmful that has very little benefit.
Click to expand...

The cost benefit analysis argument is bunk. Its an opinion argument to restrict freedom on potential happenings. There is nothing to talk about if you won't ban everything due to the equation because you personally don't see the benefit analysis warranting it. That is an illogical argument, sorry.
 
Henrin said:
The cost benefit analysis argument is bunk. Its an opinion argument to restrict freedom on potential happenings. There is nothing to talk about if you won't ban everything due to the equation because you personally don't see the benefit analysis warranting it. That is an illogical argument, sorry.
Click to expand...

The very fact that the law is based on an analysis is a logical argument.

You guys are basing the argument on all/nothing, which is a more illogical argument than studying the costs and benefits of allowing something as compared to making it illegal or at least unlawful in connection with other actions/people/places.
 
roguenuke said:
The very fact that the law is based on an analysis is a logical argument.

You guys are basing the argument on all/nothing, which is a more illogical argument than studying the costs and benefits of allowing something as compared to making it illegal or at least unlawful in connection with other actions/people/places.
Click to expand...

No, its not. You are saying because the cost is high for whatever group you decide to look at for the example which you decide is high on personal basis that the freedom is forfeit. That is not an accurate way to look at things, nor is it logical.

You say well so and so is dangerous and "could" hurt someone so therefore we are going to ban this or if we decide that we like it more than the other and we "feel" the danger is less than this other activity that is not banned and not regulated even IF it still causes harm and the harm is just as real as the other example. However we have decided its less likely, which may or may not be true, so its fine.

You fail to realize you aren't going to win people over with this trash because other people may or may not even agree with your analysis let alone the premise of your idea of a ban of potentials. You aren't going to convince anyone here.

The fact balancing dangers is illogical anyway regardless. The world is dangerous, things harm people. Trying to avoid it is no way to behave.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Earlier today I heard a conversation about Arkansas, and the illegality of smoking in cars with the windows up. According to them, it's illegal to smoke in a car with children that are, iirc, 6 years of age or younger? I don't know which law this is, and have beeb searching for it to find out exactly what the law entails.

I have this link that seems to support the conversation I heard: Law on smoking in car with children could change Arkansas - The Debate Team - BabyCenter

Assuming this is true, I have no problem with the law.

In fact, I'd like to see smoking in cars with the windows up completely banned, because I've heard 2nd/3rd-hand smoke is pretty dangerous.

Would you like to see this law applied for the whole country? What do you think?
Click to expand...

Banning smoking in a car with kids in it makes a certain amount of sense. Banning smoking in your own car (absent the presence of minors) is ridiculous. If your friends don't like it, they can just tell you that. If it doesn't work, well... maybe you're not very good friends.
 
Henrin said:
No, its not. You are saying because the cost is high for whatever group you decide to look at for the example which you decide is high on personal basis that the freedom is forfeit. That is not an accurate way to look at things, nor is it logical.

You say well so and so is dangerous and "could" hurt someone so therefore we are going to ban this or if we decide that we like it more than the other and we "feel" the danger is less than this other activity that is not banned and not regulated even IF it still causes harm and the harm is just as real as the other example. However we have decided its less likely, which may or may not be true, so its fine.

You fail to realize you aren't going to win people over with this trash because other people may or may not even agree with your analysis let alone the premise of your idea of a ban of potentials. You aren't going to convince anyone here.

The fact balancing dangers is illogical anyway regardless. The world is dangerous, things harm people. Trying to avoid it is no way to behave.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Research says that second hand smoke is dangerous time and again.

Smoking in a car with a child present, on the other hand, provides no real advantages to a person besides convenience to indulge in a destructive habit around others. Voters and politicians have already decided in many places that the dangers of second hand smoke are more important than allowing a person to indulge in their habit anytime they want.
 
roguenuke said:
What are you talking about?

Research says that second hand smoke is dangerous time and again.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter to my point.

Smoking in a car with a child present, on the other hand, provides no real advantages to a person besides convenience to indulge in a destructive habit around others.
Click to expand...

So what? Who cares if it serves on purpose? Why does freedoms have to serve a purpose? If the children feel and can prove a harm was done to them they can prove it. Since I damn well know you can't prove the connection between individual cases of cancer and second hand smoke you have no chickens in the hen house.

Voters and politicians have already decided in many places that the dangers of second hand smoke are more important than allowing a person to indulge in their habit anytime they want.
Click to expand...

People are scared of freedom, and more interested in prevention. I know, big whoop.
 
Henrin said:
Doesn't matter to my point.

So what? Who cares if it serves on purpose? Why does freedoms have to serve a purpose? If the children feel and can prove a harm was done to them they can prove it. Since I damn well know you can't prove the connection between individual cases of cancer and second hand smoke you have no chickens in the hen house.

People are scared of freedom, and more interested in prevention. I know, big whoop.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, people are concerned for the freedom and health of the other person in the car with you, that child.
 
roguenuke said:
What are you talking about?

Research says that second hand smoke is dangerous time and again.

Smoking in a car with a child present, on the other hand, provides no real advantages to a person besides convenience to indulge in a destructive habit around others. Voters and politicians have already decided in many places that the dangers of second hand smoke are more important than allowing a person to indulge in their habit anytime they want.
Click to expand...

And outside of areas that are owned by the government.... they are wrong for doing so.

Just like those "public indoor smoking bans" are also unlawful.
 
roguenuke said:
On the contrary, people are concerned for the freedom and health of the other person in the car with you, that child.
Click to expand...

No, if they were concerned with freedom they would allow it and punish harm when it occurs, not when they could occur. Prevention is not caring for freedom, but being scared of it.
 
Henrin said:
No, if they were concerned with freedom they would allow it and punish harm when it occurs, not when they could occur. Prevention is not caring for freedom, but being scared of it.
Click to expand...

So then preventing people from getting sick from potentially raw, undercooked, or spoiled food through food safety laws is wrong then?
 
Caine said:
And outside of areas that are owned by the government.... they are wrong for doing so.

Just like those "public indoor smoking bans" are also unlawful.
Click to expand...

You are not the only person in those areas. They are areas entered by other people who are affected by what you do in those areas. If you are smoking, you are affecting other people's health.
 
roguenuke said:
So then preventing people from getting sick from potentially raw, undercooked, or spoiled food through food safety laws is wrong then?
Click to expand...

Yes. You are trying to trap me in a train of thought I have thought through thinking that I haven't. Good luck with that.
 
roguenuke said:
You are not the only person in those areas. They are areas entered by other people who are affected by what you do in those areas. If you are smoking, you are affecting other people's health.
Click to expand...

If I own a restaurant.... I should be allowed to allow smoking on my private property if I so choose to do so.
 
roguenuke just answer me this how are you going to enforce that law? Pull over every suspected smoker with kids? I just don't realistically see that happening, so what's the point of even making such nonsense, except to say "you filthy smokers suck!" If the habit is so offensive then make it illegal, then California will sell it in tobacco shops for ailments.
 
roguenuke said:
Because you refuse to discuss the cost/benefit analysis associated with all those things. That is where the argument goes from something that is potentially harmful but still could have benefit to something that is potentially harmful that has very little benefit.
Click to expand...

The cost benefit analysis has been a major component of my arguments. That's why there was an exception for ambulances and other emergency vehicles.

I simply rejected the idea that simple convenience is a "benefit" which outweighs the cost of children's lives.
 
roguenuke said:
What are you talking about?

Research says that second hand smoke is dangerous time and again.
Click to expand...

Research says driving in cars is dangerous time and again.

Smoking in a car with a child present, on the other hand, provides no real advantages to a person besides convenience to indulge in a destructive habit around others.
Click to expand...

Driving in a car with a child present in the car, on the other hand, provides no real advantages to a person besides convenience to indulge in a destructive habit around others.

The logic is identical. You just fail to recognize that the vast majority of driving with children is done for convenience rather than necessity.
 
grip said:
roguenuke just answer me this how are you going to enforce that law? Pull over every suspected smoker with kids? I just don't realistically see that happening, so what's the point of even making such nonsense, except to say "you filthy smokers suck!" If the habit is so offensive then make it illegal, then California will sell it in tobacco shops for ailments.
Click to expand...

They don't have to pull over everyone to get it to work.

Either they can do it as a primary or secondary law, just as seatbelt use is done. It can be a primary offense in which they can pull people over if they see it happening. Not impossible to do. This is the better way to go because people are more likely to get caught doing it and have the punishment curb their use. But, more than that, some people would just stop smoking in their cars while their kids are inside to avoid getting a ticket for doing so. That is mainly what laws against smoking are for to begin with.

How many people do you think smoke in their apartments now in areas that have laws against smoking in apartment buildings? I would say not many, despite very few tickets or evictions ever needing to be made to curb the behavior. Why? Because people don't want to break the law.

And I know what I am saying is true because the no smoking in apartments (although it also included apartment balconies) law went into effect in Hawaii while I was there. My husband and neighbors all smoked. As soon as the law went into effect, they were all going done to the parking area that was designated as the smoking area to smoke. This is the same thing that will happen with no smoking in cars with children laws. They aren't looking to pull over everyone, and they won't have to. Just having the law in place will curb the behavior.
 
Tucker Case said:
Research says driving in cars is dangerous time and again.

Driving in a car with a child present in the car, on the other hand, provides no real advantages to a person besides convenience to indulge in a destructive habit around others.

The logic is identical. You just fail to recognize that the vast majority of driving with children is done for convenience rather than necessity.
Click to expand...

Not identical logic.

Smoking is a destructive habit of a person with no real proven benefits. And it certainly has no benefits to the child exposed to the secondhand smoke.

Driving, however, can get a person to a place faster. Which, in some cases, can mean life or death. And it doesn't necessarily have to be an emergency at that time. A child that needs certain treatments is going to need those treatments is not going to be able to walk to those treatments, but it doesn't mean that an ambulance could come pick the child up everytime they need that treatment.

You are not being realistic in your assessment of driving. And I'm pretty sure you know that. The comparison is not equivalent.
 
roguenuke said:
They don't have to pull over everyone to get it to work.

Either they can do it as a primary or secondary law, just as seatbelt use is done. It can be a primary offense in which they can pull people over if they see it happening. Not impossible to do. This is the better way to go because people are more likely to get caught doing it and have the punishment curb their use. But, more than that, some people would just stop smoking in their cars while their kids are inside to avoid getting a ticket for doing so. That is mainly what laws against smoking are for to begin with.

How many people do you think smoke in their apartments now in areas that have laws against smoking in apartment buildings? I would say not many, despite very few tickets or evictions ever needing to be made to curb the behavior. Why? Because people don't want to break the law.

And I know what I am saying is true because the no smoking in apartments (although it also included apartment balconies) law went into effect in Hawaii while I was there. My husband and neighbors all smoked. As soon as the law went into effect, they were all going done to the parking area that was designated as the smoking area to smoke. This is the same thing that will happen with no smoking in cars with children laws. They aren't looking to pull over everyone, and they won't have to. Just having the law in place will curb the behavior.
Click to expand...

If you keep eliminating where people can smoke there won't be any places left, so why not make it illegal? All the energy wasted on this could be used for something far more immediate like
--36.3 million people--including 13 million children--live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.2 percent). Isn't that a much bigger and more serious problem that should be addressed before wasting one more minute on the long term effects of SHS? Fix the hunger then we'll see.
 
grip said:
If you keep eliminating where people can smoke there won't be any places left, so why not make it illegal? All the energy wasted on this could be used for something far more immediate like
--36.3 million people--including 13 million children--live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.2 percent). Isn't that a much bigger and more serious problem that should be addressed before wasting one more minute on the long term effects of SHS? Fix the hunger then we'll see.
Click to expand...

I could care less if they do make it illegal. Not ideal, because there are still places a person can smoke, including their car as long as kids are not in it with them.

I doubt they will though. Tobacco is still a cash crop. It helps the economy.

People just want the bad side effects the habit to be contained. It isn't much different than having laws on where a person can drink alcohol. There are different laws for the two though because the bad side effects from the two things are different.
 
grip said:
If you keep eliminating where people can smoke there won't be any places left, so why not make it illegal? All the energy wasted on this could be used for something far more immediate like
--36.3 million people--including 13 million children--live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.2 percent). Isn't that a much bigger and more serious problem that should be addressed before wasting one more minute on the long term effects of SHS? Fix the hunger then we'll see.
Click to expand...

What does those children being hungry have to do with those children who are suffering because of their parents smoking around them?

Sometimes they are the same children. Maybe those parents spending a little less on cigarettes (since they wouldn't be smoking that one in the car when their children are there) might leave enough money to buy some food for the children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom