• 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
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

In extraordinary cases? Possibly. Despite what I've said in this thread I'm actually not unsympathetic to the reality of an understaffed, underfunded DSS. Nor am I unsympathetic to Goshin's point about the remarkable abuse in foster homes. But the matter of child protection services being undermanned and foster homes being terrible does not change my belief that chronic, heavy exposure of cigarette smoke to children qualifies as child abuse. As I said earlier, if the very least this ban achieves is a financial slap upside the heads of those parents, then I can be content with that.
 
Cardinal said:
In extraordinary cases? Possibly. Despite what I've said in this thread I'm actually not unsympathetic to the reality of an understaffed, underfunded DSS. Nor am I unsympathetic to Goshin's point about the remarkable abuse in foster homes. But the matter of child protection services being undermanned and foster homes being terrible does not change my belief that chronic, heavy exposure of cigarette smoke to children qualifies as child abuse. As I said earlier, if the very least this ban achieves is a financial slap upside the heads of those parents, then I can be content with that.
Click to expand...

The law is not about heavy exposure. And it is odd you want to take money from parents with small children.
 
scatt said:
The law is not about heavy exposure. And it is odd you want to take money from parents with small children.
Click to expand...

I might suggest to those parents that they put the money they spend on cigarettes towards their children's future college education instead. Smoking ain't cheap, you know.
 
Cardinal said:
I might suggest to those parents that they put the money they spend on cigarettes towards their children's future college education instead. Smoking ain't cheap, you know.
Click to expand...

Or to the government, yes?
 
Cardinal said:
In extraordinary cases? Possibly. Despite what I've said in this thread I'm actually not unsympathetic to the reality of an understaffed, underfunded DSS. Nor am I unsympathetic to Goshin's point about the remarkable abuse in foster homes. But the matter of child protection services being undermanned and foster homes being terrible does not change my belief that chronic, heavy exposure of cigarette smoke to children qualifies as child abuse. As I said earlier, if the very least this ban achieves is a financial slap upside the heads of those parents, then I can be content with that.
Click to expand...

But you are ignoring the unintended consequences.
 
ChrisL said:
But you are ignoring the unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not. Hence my use of the phrase "extraordinary cases." I'm sure you could imagine a scenario whereby the smoky home environment is so egregious that it at least equals the potential downside of being taken into child services.
 
Cardinal said:
Actually I'm not. Hence my use of the phrase "extraordinary cases." I'm sure you could imagine a scenario whereby the smoky home environment is so egregious that it at least equals the potential downside of being taken into child services.
Click to expand...

But how would you enforce this? Unless a friend or family member is in the home and turns the parents in for smoking, then this is completely unenforceable. The signs of internal damage are not seen by teachers and people outside of the home like the signs of physical abuse or other types of neglect.
 
Cardinal said:
I might suggest to those parents that they put the money they spend on cigarettes towards their children's future college education instead. Smoking ain't cheap, you know.
Click to expand...

So not only should these people be punished and fined for something that isn't illegal, doesn't impact others if done with some consideration (cracked window), the government should also dictate forced savings onto them?

I'm sure that you'd support forced detention and re-training camps with hypnosis and brainwashing for smokers as well (and any other behaviors you don't agree with).

Any freedom for any decisions left for people to make for themselves? Or should all this be the purview of Big Brother Government?
 
ChrisL said:
But how would you enforce this? Unless a friend or family member is in the home and turns the parents in for smoking, then this is completely unenforceable. The signs of internal damage are not seen by teachers and people outside of the home like the signs of physical abuse or other types of neglect.
Click to expand...

What is the current mechanism for determining whether abuse is going on in the home?
 
eohrnberger said:
So not only should these people be punished and fined for something that isn't illegal,
Click to expand...

You can't fine and punish people for doing legal things. If the thing is illegal, then you can. QED.

doesn't impact others if done with some consideration (cracked window)
Click to expand...

Smoker's fantasy.

the government should also dictate forced savings onto them?
Click to expand...

No, I just have no sympathy for parents who lose money in fines when they're already blowing an astronomical amount of money on cigarettes. Their priorities are utterly screwed. In Maryland a pack of cigarettes costs $6.70 (at least that's what the internet tells me). Let's say for the sake of argument that both parents, between the two of them, go through a pack a day. Multiple $6.70 by every day the child is alive to 18 years of age and that comes out to be $44,019. That's half of college, right there. So don't talk to me about taking money from the poor parents with their children.

I'm sure that you'd support forced detention and re-training camps with hypnosis and brainwashing for smokers as well (and any other behaviors you don't agree with).
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. Don't forget "catapulted into the sun" while you're at it.

Any freedom for any decisions left for people to make for themselves? Or should all this be the purview of Big Brother Government?
Click to expand...

If we were talking about people who make poor decisions for themselves you'd have a point there, but that's not what this thread is about.
 
Cardinal said:
No, I just have no sympathy for parents who lose money in fines when they're already blowing an astronomical amount of money on cigarettes. Their priorities are utterly screwed. In Maryland a pack of cigarettes costs $6.70 (at least that's what the internet tells me). Let's say for the sake of argument that both parents, between the two of them, go through a pack a day. Multiple $6.70 by every day the child is alive to 18 years of age and that comes out to be $44,019. That's half of college, right there. So don't talk to me about taking money from the poor parents with their children.
Click to expand...

So ban cigarettes?
 
If an asthmatic kid had to go to they hospital a couple of times....
ChrisL said:
But how would you enforce this? Unless a friend or family member is in the home and turns the parents in for smoking, then this is completely unenforceable. The signs of internal damage are not seen by teachers and people outside of the home like the signs of physical abuse or other types of neglect.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
If an asthmatic kid had to go to they hospital a couple of times....
Click to expand...

That's a good point. A kid repeatedly ending up in the hospital for falling down the stairs tends to raise a few eyebrows.
 
Cardinal said:
You can't fine and punish people for doing legal things. If the thing is illegal, then you can. QED.



Smoker's fantasy.



No, I just have no sympathy for parents who lose money in fines when they're already blowing an astronomical amount of money on cigarettes. Their priorities are utterly screwed. In Maryland a pack of cigarettes costs $6.70 (at least that's what the internet tells me). Let's say for the sake of argument that both parents, between the two of them, go through a pack a day. Multiple $6.70 by every day the child is alive to 18 years of age and that comes out to be $44,019. That's half of college, right there. So don't talk to me about taking money from the poor parents with their children.



Yeah, sure. Don't forget "catapulted into the sun" while you're at it.



If we were talking about people who make poor decisions for themselves you'd have a point there, but that's not what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

Freedom would include the freedom to make what you view as poor choices, as well as being able to decide how to spend the money they earned, and not get punished for it.

WRT cost, yeah, sure, if you go and buy the heavily (some would say over) taxed smokes over the counter. Rolling your own is much cheaper.

It's not for you or the government to decide how one chooses to spend their money. This is beyond the proper role for government.
 
eohrnberger said:
Freedom would include the freedom to make what you view as poor choices, as well as being able to decide how to spend the money they earned, and not get punished for it.

WRT cost, yeah, sure, if you go and buy the heavily (some would say over) taxed smokes over the counter. Rolling your own is much cheaper.

It's not for you or the government to decide how one chooses to spend their money. This is beyond the proper role for government.
Click to expand...

You still seem to be confused as to what this thread is about. I would suggest re-reading the OP, although just taking a look at the thread title alone should catch you up to speed.
 
My ex and my husband were both raised in smoker homes - they both had health issues related to it.

I consider smoking in a confined space with children and elderly who cannot consent to the exposure (home, car, van, bus, church, wherever you want to put the scenario) on a continuous basis to be neglect and abuse.

There's no excuse for it except that some people are selfish and don't actually care about their children like they're supposed to. That offends some smokers - oh well. If a parent / step parent / grand parent can't make the right choices for the betterment of the child then someone else MUST do so. People just don't like being told that what they're doing is WRONG.

Oh well - it's WRONG. Grow up and get over it. Go outside. Too inconvenient? Then quit. Just don't pretend that your foul choices aren't harmful to others - we're not stupid.
 
mak2 said:
If an asthmatic kid had to go to they hospital a couple of times....
Click to expand...

Yes but you can't prove that, and you can't just take kids from their parents like that. That is a serious thing that can potentially mess up a child for life. Imagine being a child and living with your mom and dad and perhaps some siblings, and then being ripped away from them and everything you ever knew and your security to be forced to live with complete strangers!!! You can't just remove children from parents willy nilly like that. It's just wrong.
 
Yea, it is much better for them to struggle to breath.
ChrisL said:
Yes but you can't prove that, and you can't just take kids from their parents like that. That is a serious thing that can potentially mess up a child for life. Imagine being a child and living with your mom and dad and perhaps some siblings, and then being ripped away from them and everything you ever knew and your security to be forced to live with complete strangers!!! You can't just remove children from parents willy nilly like that. It's just wrong.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Yea, it is much better for them to struggle to breath.
Click to expand...

Are you actually wanting to rip children away from their families because their parents smoke cigarettes? Good Lord! That's rotten to the core.
 
ChrisL said:
Are you actually wanting to rip children away from their families because their parents smoke cigarettes? Good Lord! That's rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

And yet so typical of Big Government types wanting the government to intrude and intercede evermore into people's lives, as if government should have no bounds to reign it in.
 
What are you talking about? Do you want a kid to stay with a parent that does not care if the kid can breath or not? I specifically talked about an asthmaitc kid going to the hospital repeated with an asthma attack whose parents smoke, I have seen little kids come in wheezing so you could hear them accross the ER and they reeked of cigarette smoke. Think about Maslow, which is more important Oxygen or family relationships?
ChrisL said:
Are you actually wanting to rip children away from their families because their parents smoke cigarettes? Good Lord! That's rotten to the core.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
Yes but you can't prove that, and you can't just take kids from their parents like that. That is a serious thing that can potentially mess up a child for life. Imagine being a child and living with your mom and dad and perhaps some siblings, and then being ripped away from them and everything you ever knew and your security to be forced to live with complete strangers!!! You can't just remove children from parents willy nilly like that. It's just wrong.
Click to expand...

Extraordinary cases, ChrisL. Nobody's suggesting taking children away "willy nilly." You're ignoring that a home environment could feasibly be so egregious that it could equal or even surpass the downside of being taken by child protection. As for determining that, Mak2 makes a good point. If a doctor finds extraordinary health problems and can reasonably conclude that cigarette smoke is at the heart of it, then you've got a case for moving forward with a more involved investigation.
 
Cardinal said:
Extraordinary cases, ChrisL. Nobody's suggesting taking children away "willy nilly." You're ignoring that a home environment could feasibly be so egregious that it could equal or even surpass the downside of being taken by child protection. As for determining that, Mak2 makes a good point. If a doctor finds extraordinary health problems and can reasonably conclude that cigarette smoke is at the heart of it, then you've got a case for moving forward with a more involved investigation.
Click to expand...

An egregious home environment would have to consist of more than just smoking cigarettes to justify removing children from the home. Like I said earlier, that, at MOST, would be considered a form of neglect and is FAR from the most serious kinds. You really should look into real physical/sexual abuse that children endure and how slow CPS are to move and how they fail a lot of children in their care. Then you would see how ridiculous it would be to overburden that system with parents who smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom