• 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
My contempt is greater than yours. I simply cannot express it!:lamo
That's not anyone else's problem. Me and misterman have challenged you with logical debate, and you responded by talking about how angry you are that someone has dared to challenge your beliefs. This is a debate forum. Get used to this. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
 

K, so what is "long term"? What is the exposure time? Short term has philological responses, but are those damaging or temporary? What are the concentrations required? Does walking through a cloud of smoke have the same potential of harm as being in a car with a smoker? What is the realized increase in risk? 1%, 10%, 56%? How does that realized increase in risk correlate to exposure time? Is there a graph? That would be helpful.
 
I lived with a chain smoker for 18 years of my life, you do not notice the smell as much as someone who is not around it a regular basis. It is not the smell that bothered me growing up it was the smoke being in face and breathing in the smoke.
I've never really lived around smoke, so the smell bothers me.
 
exposure to VOCs from cleaning products

Children are at particular risk for health problems from inhaling VOCs, because they breathe in more air with respect to their body mass than adults and thus have greater exposure to indoor environmental pollutants.

10 percent (27.5 million people) of the US population at risk for health problems, such as coughing, eye irritation, headaches, asthma, allergies, and in rare cases Legionnaire’s disease, carbon monoxide poisoning and cancer.

http://www.aerias.org/uploads/Inhalation Risks From Cleaning Products.pdf

While my posts may be a bit off topic I just wanted to point out that our children's health is constantly in harms way by the products we use yet I have seen smoking brought up many many times while everything else is largely ignored. I believe in large it simply comes down to how people perceive things and how it personally affects them and not about the issue of children's health. Non smokers are much more likely to view smoking in a negative light while never considering their own actions. It is to easy to attach a stigma to things that a person has a negative view on while it is much harder to do so with things you may support (like cleaning).

If you are against placing children in an environment where second hand smoke is present that is fine and understandable however, do not be bias or short sighted and ignore things that you may do that is also harmful. When you consider all the things that can harm children would you also support laws making them illegal when children are present or is smoking the only thing that should be? I think the answer to that question will show a lot about where people really stand on the issue.
 
you got the balls to demand "Density Hours" stats.

Why? That would be an exceedingly helpful metric. Everyone says it increases risk this and that; but no one says BY HOW MUCH. If there is this much research, there must be some graphs, yes? Let's see them. I like graphs.
 
K, so what is "long term"? What is the exposure time? Short term has philological responses, but are those damaging or temporary? What are the concentrations required? Does walking through a cloud of smoke have the same potential of harm as being in a car with a smoker? What is the realized increase in risk? 1%, 10%, 56%? How does that realized increase in risk correlate to exposure time? Is there a graph? That would be helpful.
Long term would probably be defined as being with a smoker for months and even years on end.

Short-term effects are likely temporary, but restriction of blood flow to the heart can be damaging, especially (and this is just educated guessing on my part) if someone has heart conditions.

Logically, the probability of effects would increase when in a closed or near-closed area. Inhalation of smoke is damaging, and closed areas contain the smoke, which would increased the amount of smoke inhaled. The increase may not be that much larger (although I'm guessing it is), but it is there. If A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C. Simple logic.

I don't have the exact numbers, but, as before, the more smoke inhaled would logically increase the amount of damage to one's health.
 
Now it's your turn, Ikari. Show the cost of preventing smoking in the car as opposed to the benefits. Show why the government's involvement in such matters would lead to a communist dictatorship. I want graphs and statistics ;)
 
Now it's your turn, Ikari. Show the cost of preventing smoking in the car as opposed to the benefits. Show why the government's involvement in such matters would lead to a communist dictatorship. I want graphs and statistics ;)

I never said communist dictatorship. But if we want to excuse the increase in government force, there must be proof and reason for it. And if these are all "won't somebody please think of the children" arguments; why just smoking?
 
Why? That would be an exceedingly helpful metric. Everyone says it increases risk this and that; but no one says BY HOW MUCH. If there is this much research, there must be some graphs, yes? Let's see them. I like graphs.

Probably comic books work better for you. Again, in the face of an ongoing truth about secondhand smoke on humans of all ages...you dump sheer nonsense and ridicous stat demand as proof.

You apparently have no regard for other peoples rights....despite not being a smoker.

Your logic in this matter is - its okay to drop an atomic bomb in the next city west of mine. My city is out of range of the explosion. The problem will be for your city is the radiation fallout. The effects of that radiation will last for eons. You and your fellow citizens will experience a range of serious effects that you can't escape. The fallout will exist in various places where you spent accumulative "density hours", which I take that term to mean exposure time in each environment.

Okay, you can go back to reading "Fantasy World".
 
Last edited:
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.

It may not stop everyone, but just having the law in place discourages some who would otherwise do it without thinking.

I've watched my husband get into the car by himself many times, and the first thing he does before he even starts the engine, is light a cigarette up. It never fails, when he is alone in the car. Even when I am in the car with him. But he restrains from this habit when the boys are going to be with us. He consciously thinks about getting that cigarette in before he gets into the car.

The punishment for smoking in the car should just be a ticket with a small fine, like not wearing your seat belt or not having your children properly restrained.
 
I never said communist dictatorship. But if we want to excuse the increase in government force, there must be proof and reason for it. And if these are all "won't somebody please think of the children" arguments; why just smoking?
Both me and Removable Mind have provided reason for it. You just chose to ignore it. And yes, you never said dictatorship, but you were talking about cameras around the house. And I'm perfectly willing to promote regulations about food standards and auto emissions, but libertarians such as yourself will fight these regulations every step of the way.
 
tobacco is legal.

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

i do not mind people wanting to smoke in the car, when i do care is when they are putting a child at risk, smoke is bad for a person, and the children do not have a choice, they have to take it even if they do not want it. I do not see why anybody would ever not like this law, unless they enjoy putting children in danger.
 
i do not mind people wanting to smoke in the car, when i do care is when they are putting a child at risk, smoke is bad for a person, and the children do not have a choice, they have to take it even if they do not want it. I do not see why anybody would ever not like this law, unless they enjoy putting children in danger.

They probably haven't been locked in a small space with a smoker blowing smoke on them forcing them to breath it in.
 
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?

Before reading the thread: It should be banned in cars with children 18 and under. If there are no children in the car, then it is up to the smoker if he/she wishes to kill him/herself with cancer sticks...
 
Why do I care what you do to your kids? There are legal restrictions on age of smoking and blah blah blah. But I don't see how forcing kids to smoke follows from the argument. Rather it seems like an absurd hyperbole to deflect from the topic.

if you are smoking in your car with your children in the back seat, you are forcing them to take in your poison...
 
Yes. Lots of people say this and that is bad; but aggregate it. It has harmful chemicals, how much are actually inhaled as second hand? If a kid is in 1 car ride with an adult who smokes 1 cigarette, quantify the damage done. I've seen kids raised in the house of smokers, been in cars when I was a kid with smokers. I ain't dead. And I ain't any more or less healthy than I would have been without that exposure.

How do you know this? It may be hard for some to believe because I was an elite athlete when I was younger, but I sufferred childhood asthma due to my parents both smoking. One of the reasons I got into sports in the first place was to get out of the house so I didn't have to be subjected to the smoke. Fortunately, my parents allowed it and I lived close enough to both my schools and the public library to pull it off. Not everyone is so fortunate.
 
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.

You do not have the right to subject your children to cancer causing cigarette smoke. They are not your property; they are your responsibility and the government has a legitimate interest in protecting their rights as it has the same interest to protect the rights of ANY citizen.
 
tobacco is legal.

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

True, but they don't have the right to subjugate others to their terrible life threatening habit at all...
 
err...how many kids have died due to second-hand smoke?

The depth of medical issues that people face due to second hand smoke, as well as the medical costs to individuals as well as our nation, is so extreme that if we eliminated all people that died from second hand smoke the issue would still be staggering. Truly you still need to do some research in order to appreciate the gravity of the issue.
 
How do you know this? It may be hard for some to believe because I was an elite athlete when I was younger, but I sufferred childhood asthma due to my parents both smoking. One of the reasons I got into sports in the first place was to get out of the house so I didn't have to be subjected to the smoke. Fortunately, my parents allowed it and I lived close enough to both my schools and the public library to pull it off. Not everyone is so fortunate.

It always pissed me off when smokers would light up during our meets and/or matches... disgusting.
 
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.

Your car, your kids... MY MONEY BEING WASTED into rising health care costs by selfish people causing health problems to others or to themselves out of ignorance, sloth or lack of education, to name a few.
 
Back
Top Bottom