• 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
There's an old saying: You have the right to swing your fist at my nose...up to the point just before making contact. After that you've infringed on my rights. Same goes with cigarette smoke.

Tobacco is legal. How and where you use it...isn't always legal. Using tobacco products is only legal where permitted...period.

Cigarette/cigar companies have conceded that cigarette smoking is both addictive and dangerous and can cause untold number of lung diseases and up to the point of causing death.

Kids can't defend themselves against harm from their parents. Yes, being a bad parent can be punishable if they put their kid's health and lives in jeopardy. Child protective service organizations in every state have 10s of thousands of kids in their ward because of bad parents.

I have the right to bear arms. I don't have the right to use my weapon anywhere or fire on anything I choose at will. Essentially it's been medically and legally established that second hand smoke has the same potential effects of breathing a bullet discharged from a weapon. The difference is the speed in which the results of the effects are known. In other words, if it doesn't kill you...it can seriously **** you up.
 
digsbe said:
I don't know any liberals that support marijuana legalization who also advocate driving while high on marijuana because it's "safe."
Click to expand...
I doubt you know all liberals, so it's possible.
 
American said:
I doubt you know all liberals, so it's possible.
Click to expand...

It might be possible, but the fact is that a vast majority of liberals would not advocate for smoking marijuana and driving while high.
 
Removable Mind said:
There's an old saying: You have the right to swing your fist at my nose...up to the point just before making contact. After that you've infringed on my rights. Same goes with cigarette smoke.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the same apply to exhaust fumes? Or pesticides you decide to spray on your hedges by the roadside? Or the sugar-laden, trans-fat-laden, salt-laden foods you feed your kids? Unless you can prove that secondary smoking is THE most noxious and dangerous activity you can perform in the company of others you are opening yourself up to claims that you are being tokenistic for purely modish, moralistic reasons.
 
Personally, this bandjumping wagon of going after smokers is getting old. Maybe more effort should be laws about showing young guys that are dorky getting the pretty cheerleader chicks if they pull out a case of Bud Light.
 
Enola said:
Personally, this bandjumping wagon of going after smokers is getting old. Maybe more effort should be laws about showing young guys that are dorky getting the pretty cheerleader chicks if they pull out a case of Bud Light.
Click to expand...

This, I also think it should also apply to Axe commercials.
 
digsbe said:
This, I also think it should also apply to Axe commercials.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think AXE can lead to death.

Unless, of course, you use your imagination. :mrgreen:
 
I grew up with a parent who smoked in the car, and I've had respiratory issues the rest of my life because of it. Smoking around children in this manner is child abuse. It's bad enough to do it in your home, but at least there the kid can go to a different room if they are really suffocating. In a car there is nowhere to go.

If a parent was spraying aerosols onto their kid you would call it abusive, yet it's ok to exhale toxic tobacco smoke into a tiny space where children are? I don't think so.

I don't think a law for this will do much good and I dislike authority more than I dislike smokers, but I really think hot-boxing your car with cigarettes while there are children in there is immoral and it's enough to warrant the involvement of social services.
 
see below. Double post. Sorry. Board burped.
 
Last edited:
:(
I like you anyway, Temporal.

Love,
Smoker-that-smokes-in-the-car-but-never-with-a-kid-in-there.
 
Enola said:
:(
I like you anyway, Temporal.

Love,
Smoker-that-smokes-in-the-car-but-never-with-a-kid-in-there.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with what you choose to do to yourself, and since you don't involve children then I also have no problem!
 
Andalublue said:
Doesn't the same apply to exhaust fumes? Or pesticides you decide to spray on your hedges by the roadside? Or the sugar-laden, trans-fat-laden, salt-laden foods you feed your kids? Unless you can prove that secondary smoking is THE most noxious and dangerous activity you can perform in the company of others you are opening yourself up to claims that you are being tokenistic for purely modish, moralistic reasons.
Click to expand...

Funny comparisons...but whatever trips your trigger. Maybe its time to pull you head out of your cigarette butt and catch up with the latest. Yes, second hand smoke is dangerous and can be deadly to kids and adults.

Uhhhh, where have you been over the last decade Andalublue? The secret is out, dude. I don't have to prove anything. But a lot of folks have. In fact, there are so many links on the subject that my computer almost came to a screeching halt when plugging the topic in. Yes, won lawsuits out the wahzoo...over second hand smoke.

Again, kids can't defend themselves from harms way imposed (or exposed to) by parents. Somebody...namely parents are responsible to protect their lives and health...regardless of the potential cause.
 
n
Removable Mind said:
Yes, second hand smoke is dangerous and can be deadly to kids and adults.
Click to expand...
Proof please.
Uhhhh, where have you been over the last decade Andalublue? The secret is out, dude. I don't have to prove anything. But a lot of folks have. In fact, there are so many links on the subject that my computer almost came to a screeching halt when plugging the topic in. Yes, won lawsuits out the wahzoo...over second hand smoke.
Click to expand...
Proof please. Proof that specifically relates to children and cars. The average car journey is something like 17 minutes, I believe. If you are calling for a ban on secondary smoking in cars, why not in private house where exposure is going to be far higher?

Again, kids can't defend themselves from harms way imposed (or exposed to) by parents. Somebody...namely parents are responsible to protect their lives and health...regardless of the potential cause.
Click to expand...
And, once again, my point is avoided. There are plenty and more serious harms inflicted on kids by parents that are not legislated against. How about ensuring that no one under 18 is allowed to buy or consume a super-size fast food meal. The 20 minutes or so that such a meal takes to consume will do immeasurably more damage to a kid's health than a 20-minute car ride with a smoker. Two of those every working day (commensurate with 2x20 minute smoky school runs) will probably result in Type-2 diabetes before the age of 25. What is the clear and present danger of 2x20-minute smoky school runs? Peer-reviewed evidence please.

The real task here for trigger-happy, behavioural legislators is to identify a list of the greatest health risks and start at the top and work down. Only once such research has been done can one begin to take these passive smoking obsessionists seriously.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
Proof please.

Proof please. Proof that specifically relates to children and cars. The average car journey is something like 17 minutes, I believe. If you are calling for a ban on secondary smoking in cars, why not in private house where exposure is going to be far higher?


And, once again, my point is avoided. There are plenty and more serious harms inflicted on kids by parents that are not legislated against. How about ensuring that no one under 18 is allowed to buy or consume a super-size fast food meal. The 20 minutes or so that such a meal takes to consume will do immeasurably more damage to a kid's health that a 20-minute car ride with a smoker. Two of those every working day (commensurate with 2x20 minute smoky school runs) will probably result in Type-2 diabetes before the age of 25.

The real task here for trigger-happy, behavioural legislators is to identify a list of the greatest health risks and start at the top and work down. Only once such research has been done can one begin to take these passive smoking obsessionists seriously.
Click to expand...

Smoker's denial...clearly. I don't have to prove anything. Proof is on any search engine. Its everywhere.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Nothing should be done by you or by the government. My car, my kids, my problem. Not yours. Mind your own business. That's what I say.
Click to expand...

Like hell. The state can protect your children from abuse. Nobody disputes that. So you're damn right we'll mind your business. Now, back to the question, which is whether smoking is one of those cases where the state should intervene. No more of this silly absolutism.
 
Meathead said:
I was warned by admin about making personal attacks, so I will just leave it at this -. Live and let live. No one is looking to you to be the moral arbiters of morality, health or ethics. In fact, many might think it quite appropriate if you could limit your judgements to yourselves on these matters. I would suggest you'd me doing the rest of us a favor by sparing us your self-righteousness. Thank you.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with morality, unless you consider the fact that it is a moral imperative to protect the health of children.

You're a smoker, so maybe you had such an incredible overreaction because you're used to being attacked for smoking. Well, this has nothing to do with you smoking. Smoke all you want. This is about children being exposed to smoke.
 
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...

I have mixed feelings on this. I do believe parents should be banned from smoking around their kids. I have friends who do not smoke around their kids,so its not that hard for smokers to go outside to light up or to smoke in a designate room in the house. If you want to stick dangerous smoke down your lungs that's your business however you should not force your children to breath in dangerous smoke, especially in an enclosed environment such as a car. If a parent forced her child to drink liquor I am pretty sure the state would consider that child abuse.Forcing a child to breath in cigarette smoke should be no different. My mother smoked around me and my sisters when we were growing up so I know for a fact you are breathing that smoke in and I used to smoke so I am not some anti-smoking nazi obsessed with banning smokes. My main worry with making this illegal is how to do it to make sure its enforced with out having the government another license to infringe on your rights.Doing this might open the door to anti-fast food nazis who want to stick their noses into other people's business.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What's the danger? Is it more harmful than say, feeding their kids too much fast food?
Click to expand...

I don't know. You want to put fast food on the list for the next thread to open?
 
Ikari said:
Nothing, mind your own business.
Click to expand...

That's like saying if a parent beats their child with an extension cord and leaves bruises then do nothing and mind your own business.
 
Meathead said:
Due to the restrictions of this site, my response must be muted, yet at the same time in context my contempt cannot be denied. A slew of adjectives would normally follow, but in light of the situation I can only express my contempt once again.
Click to expand...

Why don't you be an adult and simply discuss the issue? You have no reason for contempt for me. I'm simply saying that it's justified for the state to forbid parents from exposing their children to harmful fumes. So simply explain why you think it shouldn't, using a rational argument.
 
Removable Mind said:
Smoker's denial...clearly. I don't have to prove anything. Proof is on any search engine. Its everywhere.
Click to expand...

Erm..yes, you do have to prove that in-car passive smoking is a greater risk than a dozen other potential health risks that parents subject their kids to. If you can't then advocating such measures is tokenistic hypocrisy.
 
Andalublue said:
Doesn't the same apply to exhaust fumes? Or pesticides you decide to spray on your hedges by the roadside? Or the sugar-laden, trans-fat-laden, salt-laden foods you feed your kids? Unless you can prove that secondary smoking is THE most noxious and dangerous activity you can perform in the company of others you are opening yourself up to claims that you are being tokenistic for purely modish, moralistic reasons.
Click to expand...

No, because that's only half the equation. There are different costs and difficulties associated with regulating other risks. It's quite easy to simply say no smoking in the car with kids. There's no good reason to allow it. It's a minor burden on parents, that's all. They need to open a window or don't smoke. Big deal.
 
Oh what the hell...here's a bit of info that is loaded with over 700 pages of scientific study on the effects of second hand smoke. I realize that there are a few in this forum that probably would have difficulty in understanding the reports and will still refute the scientific findings no matter what the studies report. But...that's how denial and ignorance works.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/fullreport.pdf

And for all of you that have little to no respect for the health of children (and probably more so their own kids)...because it interferes with their addiction....

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_in...children/pdfs/protect_children_GenPop_508.pdf
 
Andalublue said:
Proof please. Proof that specifically relates to children and cars. The average car journey is something like 17 minutes, I believe. If you are calling for a ban on secondary smoking in cars, why not in private house where exposure is going to be far higher?
Click to expand...

I'd do that too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom