• 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
If you would risk your kids health over some stupid political philosophy...Oh, are you saying they are just making the argument and dont really smoke around their kids? That makes me feel better. Hope you are right.
Dragonfly said:
How much of the objection to this is the whole "our government is becoming a dictatorship and overstepping their boundaries"

and how much is defending the act of smoking in a closely contained environment, like a car, with small children present?
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
If you would risk your kids health over some stupid political philosophy...Oh, are you saying they are just making the argument and dont really smoke around their kids? That makes me feel better. Hope you are right.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking most don't smoke, but are objecting to "more laws" by a government that's "getting too intrusive".

I'm hoping too.

I'd bet many of those objecting don't have kids either.
 
Dragonfly said:
I'm thinking most don't smoke, but are objecting to "more laws" by a government that's "getting too intrusive".

I'm hoping too.

I'd bet many of those objecting don't have kids either.
Click to expand...

Some of it is that, but most of what I'm seeing is self absorbed addict logic.
 
ChrisL said:
The PROBLEM is that you would have to prove that in court in order to have the child removed. You would have to prove that the cigarette smoke is the definitive CAUSE instead of just an exacerbation of asthma, which some people get quite often due to many, many different factors. Do you realize how difficult that is?
Click to expand...

Even if it doesn't cause a problem - and instead it aggravates something so difficult for a child to deal with like chronic asthma that they've had since birth - it's still negligent.

It's not okay to know that someone has health issues, and then to do the very thing that will aggravate that condition further.

My son has suffered from two near-fatal episodes of croup. We're not sure what the cause is, but because he's had it seasonally it's most likely that it's related to some type of allergy. We're not sure, we haven't figured it out yet. So my job - as a loving parent - is to make his health issue LESS of a problem by keeping the home relatively allergen free and clean.

My job is NOT to place my personal, self-driven desires ahead of my child.

I don't like to clean all the time but I do it anyway.

And I smoke on occasion - but you don't hear me arguing that it's my right and okay for me to smoke in his presence.

Why? Because I respect my son. I don't want to aggravate his condition further by pleasing myself. That would be monstrous - even if that self pleasure only irritates an existing condition and isn't the cause of it.

That's the quintessential element of being humane and respectful toward others = avoiding activities and decisions that make their life more uncomfortable and more miserable.

Seriously - someone can stand up, put their shoes on, and pitter-pat right out that front door. They won't die if they don't get their smoke right now.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Even if it doesn't cause a problem - and instead it aggravates something so difficult for a child to deal with like chronic asthma that they've had since birth - it's still negligent.

It's not okay to know that someone has health issues, and then to do the very thing that will aggravate that condition further.

My son has suffered from two near-fatal episodes of croup. We're not sure what the cause is, but because he's had it seasonally it's most likely that it's related to some type of allergy. We're not sure, we haven't figured it out yet. So my job - as a loving parent - is to make his health issue LESS of a problem by keeping the home relatively allergen free and clean.

My job is NOT to place my personal, self-driven desires ahead of my child.

I don't like to clean all the time but I do it anyway.

And I smoke on occasion - but you don't hear me arguing that it's my right and okay for me to smoke in his presence.

Why? Because I respect my son. I don't want to aggravate his condition further by pleasing myself. That would be monstrous - even if that self pleasure only irritates an existing condition and isn't the cause of it.

That's the quintessential element of being humane and respectful toward others = avoiding activities and decisions that make their life more uncomfortable and more miserable.

Seriously - someone can stand up, put their shoes on, and pitter-pat right out that front door. They won't die if they don't get their smoke right now.
Click to expand...

That's not the point I was arguing. You would have to have read this thread to understand. I am simply arguing against banning or taking children away from parents for smoking. Asthma exacerbations or other such chronic lung diseases can and are caused by secondhand smoke, and I'm not arguing that point, but that cannot be proven in a court of law, and we cannot take children away from families because of some remote connection that a person makes between a smoking habit and an asthma exacerbation, when the cause of an asthma exacerbation and other illnesses are not always easy to pinpoint.

Do you want to take a child away from their family because of an asthma exacerbation?
 
mak2 said:
I dont care even a little bit if you smoke. You know good and well I was talking about you smoking with children in the car with you.

You are king so you gonna smoke in your car with your kids, even though it almost certainly causes the kids harm? I hope their respiratory problems PLEASE you. Unbelieveable.
Click to expand...

Silly hyperbole. I doubt anyone is pleased by a child's respiratory problems. In fact, I'm fairly certain that 99% of people in this thread acknowledge that second hand smoking can be harmful. However, the argument is whether or not there needs to be MORE laws. Aren't there enough laws? Should we make a list of every harmful thing that may affect a child and ban that, as well? Why just smoking?

mak2 said:
If there is even a off chance it harms you kids, why would you do it? You know it might harm them, it is not like letting them play football or some other important life experience, there is no upside to the risk. It is almost certainly harmful to kids. Knee jerk zealots? You are intentionally harming children, and even when it is pointed out to you, you insist on doing it. Yea, that is rational.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The law won't prevent children from being harmed. What it will do is put yet another law on the books that needs to be enforced, and increase the size of an already expanding bureaucracy.

Cardinal said:
And thank Christ for that.



Sure, we all knew a guy who knew a guy who lived to a hundred and smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, but it's not exactly the norm. The fact is a person's genetics can give some people near-Wolverine levels of resistance to disease in certain cases. But the science has been in for years: cigarette smoke is a known, deadly carcinogen. This isn't up for debate. If you deny this then you're denying science.



A common fantasy of smokers. No non-smoker in the car would agree with that.
Click to expand...

Thank Christ for increasing lost freedoms.. :clap:
 
Alyssa said:
Silly hyperbole. I doubt anyone is pleased by a child's respiratory problems. In fact, I'm fairly certain that 99% of people in this thread acknowledge that second hand smoking can be harmful. However, the argument is whether or not there needs to be MORE laws. Aren't there enough laws? Should we make a list of every harmful thing that may affect a child and ban that, as well? Why just smoking?



Nonsense. The law won't prevent children from being harmed. What it will do is put yet another law on the books that needs to be enforced, and increase the size of an already expanding bureaucracy.



Thank Christ for increasing lost freedoms.. :clap:
Click to expand...

Loss of freedom for smokers to force their cigarette smoke onto children = negative zillion sympathy.
 
Let me make sure I am right about this. Basically they are saying children being forced to breath second hand smoke...good. Goobermint bad. Is that basically the point they are trying to make?
Cardinal said:
Loss of freedom for smokers to force their cigarette smoke onto children = negative zillion sympathy.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Let me make sure I am right about this. Basically they are saying children being forced to breath second hand smoke...good. Goobermint bad. Is that basically the point they are trying to make?
Click to expand...

You can't take resources away from CPS for smokers. What don't you get about that? Children will be beaten to death by their parents while YOU are concerned about smoking parents. That is ridiculous.

CPS already has more work than it can handle. They don't have enough funds a lot of times to properly investigate child abuse cases that they have now.
 
ChrisL said:
That's not the point I was arguing. You would have to have read this thread to understand. I am simply arguing against banning or taking children away from parents for smoking. Asthma exacerbations or other such chronic lung diseases can and are caused by secondhand smoke, and I'm not arguing that point, but that cannot be proven in a court of law, and we cannot take children away from families because of some remote connection that a person makes between a smoking habit and an asthma exacerbation, when the cause of an asthma exacerbation and other illnesses are not always easy to pinpoint.

Do you want to take a child away from their family because of an asthma exacerbation?
Click to expand...

If that's what comes from a court hearing on the issue given all these elements, etc.
 
Cardinal said:
Loss of freedom for smokers to force their cigarette smoke onto children = negative zillion sympathy.
Click to expand...


200_s.gif


Shockingly, the point I made continues to elude you. I'll leave you to your freedom-limiting opinions.

Just as a side note, the US has the world's highest rate of incarceration. While i realize that most people don't believe that smokers who expose their kids to second hand smoke should be arrested, many in this thread have claimed that it is child abuse. If you are capable, stop and just consider that for a moment. Thanks.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If that's what comes from a court hearing on the issue given all these elements, etc.
Click to expand...

Okay, but how would you prove something like that, when an asthma exacerbation can be caused by so many different things, and sometimes they don't even know why a person had an exacerbation. I just can't see ripping little children away from their parents like that. I've known several friends growing up who were in foster care, and some of those homes are awful, and it's not always the foster parents are awful or abusive, but a lot of times the other foster kids in the home. And with the other horrible abuses that take place against children, I wouldn't feel comfortable sinking resources into investigating people for smoking.
 
Alyssa said:
200_s.gif


Shockingly, the point I made continues to elude you. I'll leave you to your freedom-limiting opinions.

Just as a side note, the US has the world's highest rate of incarceration. While i realize that most people don't believe that smokers who expose their kids to second hand smoke should be arrested, many in this thread have claimed that it is child abuse. If you are capable, stop and just consider that for a moment. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Your point was never lost on me, it's just that personal freedom isn't a valid argument where actual victims can be shown to exist. Like here. You don't have the personal freedom to take anyone's property and you don't have the personal freedom to kill anybody you want. They are illegal because those actions are violating other people's property and well-being. No matter how much you attempt to make this about personal freedom, you're never going to disguise the fact that there are victims in this case, which is specifically what the ban is addressing.
 
Cardinal said:
Your point was never lost on me, it's just that personal freedom isn't a valid argument where actual victims can be shown to exist.
Click to expand...

Any act that results in a victim should be banned?
 
Cardinal said:
And thank Christ for that.



Sure, we all knew a guy who knew a guy who lived to a hundred and smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, but it's not exactly the norm. The fact is a person's genetics can give some people near-Wolverine levels of resistance to disease in certain cases. But the science has been in for years: cigarette smoke is a known, deadly carcinogen. This isn't up for debate. If you deny this then you're denying science.



A common fantasy of smokers. No non-smoker in the car would agree with that.
Click to expand...



I, of course, do not agree with you.. How is it possible that for decades, people smoked around their children and even in the car with them, yet most of us are not just alive, but well?
 
Juanita said:
I, of course, do not agree with you.. How is it possible that for decades, people smoked around their children and even in the car with them, yet most of us are not just alive, but well?
Click to expand...

There's almost something "If people evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" about your question. Do you reject the science on the health risks of smoking?
 
Cardinal said:
Your point was never lost on me, it's just that personal freedom isn't a valid argument where actual victims can be shown to exist. Like here. You don't have the personal freedom to take anyone's property and you don't have the personal freedom to kill anybody you want. They are illegal because those actions are violating other people's property and well-being. No matter how much you attempt to make this about personal freedom, you're never going to disguise the fact that there are victims in this case, which is specifically what the ban is addressing.
Click to expand...

There will always be victims. The government can't step in and keep everyone safe. More security equals less freedom. It's a simple concept.
 
ChrisL said:
Obviously you are not understanding. You cannot take children from their parents here in America without some type of proof that there is intentional wrongdoing. Do you realize the can of worms you would be opening here? You cannot PROVE that an asthma exacerbation is due to a parent smoking in the home. This is NOT my personal opinion. These are facts. You can't take children away from parents without a DARN good reason and provable reason.
Click to expand...



I wish that you were right about this..Unfortunately, you are not....:(
 
Juanita said:
I wish that you were right about this..Unfortunately, you are not....:(
Click to expand...

There has to be evidence. The state cannot just come into your home and take your child without a good reason.
 
ChrisL said:
There has to be evidence. The state cannot just come into your home and take your child without a good reason.
Click to expand...

Happens all the time. One need only to be reported. No proof is needed, only speculation and conjecture. The state moves in and "investigates" often removing the child from the home in the process.
 
Cardinal said:
There's almost something "If people evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" about your question. Do you reject the science on the health risks of smoking?
Click to expand...



We are not talking monkeys here....Do I believe "all" of the hype about smoking? No, I do not...Do I think that smoking is good for you? Of course not.. Why can't you answer my question?
 
ChrisL said:
There has to be evidence. The state cannot just come into your home and take your child without a good reason.
Click to expand...



They do it everyday in this country.. Do some research and you will be astounded at what you discover....
 
Alyssa said:
Happens all the time. One need only to be reported. No proof is needed, only speculation and conjecture. The state moves in and "investigates" often removing the child from the home in the process.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that varies from state to state, because I knew a girl who had a bitter ex-boyfriend who called on her and made up some stuff. DSS came to her home and looked at things and said that because there wasn't any evidence of any abuse or neglect that they were not going to file a report. I've never heard of a child being taken out of the home where it wasn't warranted, unless those rare cases you hear on the news.

Two of my friends from childhood were in foster care for a time. One was molested by her stepfather and the other was alone all the time because her mother was an alcoholic and always out at the bars or with some guys or whatever she did with her time.
 
ChrisL said:
I wonder if that varies from state to state, because I knew a girl who had a bitter ex-boyfriend who called on her and made up some stuff. DSS came to her home and looked at things and said that because there wasn't any evidence of any abuse or neglect that they were not going to file a report. I've never heard of a child being taken out of the home where it wasn't warranted, unless those rare cases you hear on the news.

Two of my friends from childhood were in foster care for a time. One was molested by her stepfather and the other was alone all the time because her mother was an alcoholic and always out at the bars or with some guys or whatever she did with her time.
Click to expand...



No, it is a nationwide problem...Legally Kidnapped and Kidjacked are two websites to check out, but there are dozens of others...
 
Think the bigger risk to their health is the redneck behind the wheel, smoking or not. So many kids die in car crashes every year that perhaps driving with kids period should be illegal. Oh, but that would kill tourist industry, so won't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom