Study: Majority supports ban on smoking in cars with kids present

[Darral27]

What "freedom", exactly, is being threatened? The right to poison those in your car?

What about the rights of the child...(or any other passenger for that matter) the one who has no say in the decision to fill the car with toxic waste, and who has no escape from it?

If you forced your child to consume alcohol, cocaine, or any other street drug you would expect to face legal action, would you not?

Why is nicotine any different? Why should it be?

-Paul

How is smoking in your car different than forcing your child to use cocaine? Seriously? Where is the evidence that "2nd hand smoke" is actually bad for you? I have never seen it. We had this debate not long ago when they banned smoking in the workplace. It was mainly the people who believe that we have private property rights disagreeing with the people who feel they should be able to control our private property and how we use it. I believe the latter is called a communist. You may agree that the gov't should be able to control everything you say and do with laws. I however do not. If you want to tell me what I can and cannot do around my children in my vehicle then please send your bank account information that you can start paying my car payment. While we are at it I will start pulling money out for you to cover health care for my children.
I think you having guns in your home is dangerous for your children. The gov't should make a law stating that you cannot have a gun with 1000' of a child. Even if you have no children your neighbor may have children that choose to break into your home and use your gun improperly. Please turn over all firearms and related accessories at your nearest police dept. within the next 2 business days. It's for the safety of the children.

 

[PaulF]

Where is the evidence that "2nd hand smoke" is actually bad for you? I have never seen it.

Here's 36,000 listings of peer-reviewed scientific medical evidence:
the effects of secondhand smoke - Google Scholar

While we are at it I will start pulling money out for you to cover health care for my children.

I already pay for your children's healthcare...whenever I pay my taxes and my private health insurance. Because you insist on smoking, I'll pay more still.

-Paul

 

[Darral27]

Obviously I am not going to sit down and go over 36.000 listings. Fact is just because it is "peer reviewed scientific medical evidence" does not mean it is fact based. If that was the case I believe we all be under water due to global warming by now.
I would love for you to explain to me how exactly you pay my children's health care? I pay my taxes and my children have private insurance. I have never once seen a check from you.
I do not know you. However I do work in the home health care field. I have seen 1,000's of people with lung cancer, COPD, CHF, every other kind of medical condition you can imagine. Some have smoked their whole lives, some have never smoked and say they have never around smokers. I find the bigger problem to be obesity. So I can say I pay more due to all the fat people. My children will one day have to pay more for all the fat people. I think fat people should be banned. We should ban all fattening foods and drinks and everybody should just eat spinach leaves all day.
It may sound crazy but that is the exact same thing you are saying. If you believe we are free and should have rights then hold that belief. If you choose to be the hypocrite that you obviously are then change that "#1 super guy" to hypocrite so we all know what we are dealing with right away.

 

[PaulF]

Obviously I am not going to sit down and go over 36.000 listings. Fact is just because it is "peer reviewed scientific medical evidence" does not mean it is fact based.

You're a funny guy. How do you think science works?

I would love for you to explain to me how exactly you pay my children's health care?

Insurance is socialized medicine. When you take your child to the doctor and use your insurance it isn't just your money that is being used...everyone who pays into the system pays for that doctor's visit. Me, you, the other communists...all of us.

I think fat people should be banned. We should ban all fattening foods and drinks and everybody should just eat spinach leaves all day. It may sound crazy but that is the exact same thing you are saying.

You are incorrect here, I am saying no one should be allowed to force someone else to breathe their used smoke, not that you shouldn't be allowed to poison yourself...

If you choose to be the hypocrite that you obviously are then change that "#1 super guy" to hypocrite so we all know what we are dealing with right away.

Oh...

One. Last. Thing.

Personal insults are not tolerated on INGO. I'll enjoy my new "Hypocrite" status...you enjoy the "Shooter" status you have so clearly earned.

-Paul

 

[redneckmedic]

i fully support the concept of trying to make childrens lives safer... its the controling avenue I can't stomach.

 

[lucky4034]

I might vote for this....

(no I am not implying purple... yes I'm willing to debate with all comers)

 

[lucky4034]

How are the police to differentiate a cigarette from a sucker, straw, or electronic cigarette? Better pull you over and find out.

How are the police to know if there's a car-seat in the back? Better pull you over and find out.

Good points... but I'm not sure that this would be enough to change my mind. I still think the childs right to clean air should be a factor and am not sure that this argument trumps that.

 

[LANShark42]

You're a funny guy. How do you think science works?



Insurance is socialized medicine. When you take your child to the doctor and use your insurance it isn't just your money that is being used...everyone who pays into the system pays for that doctor's visit. Me, you, the other communists...all of us.



You are incorrect here, I am saying no one should be allowed to force someone else to breathe their used smoke, not that you shouldn't be allowed to poison yourself...




Oh...

One. Last. Thing.

Personal insults are not tolerated on INGO. I'll enjoy my new "Hypocrite" status...you enjoy the "Shooter" status you have so clearly earned.

-Paul

And... Powned!

 

[Bunnykid68]

Good points... but I'm not sure that this would be enough to change my mind. I still think the childs right to clean air should be a factor and am not sure that this argument trumps that.

When they ban abortion they can ban me from smoking in my house with my children that are not your responsibility

 

[level.eleven]

Oh... One. Last. Thing. Personal insults are not tolerated on INGO. I'll enjoy my new "Hypocrite" status...you enjoy the "Shooter" status you have so clearly earned. -Paul

I agree with your position, but you banned someone for calling you a hypocrite? You called smokers filthy drug users and made a comparison to giving a child cocaine...then give a dramatic overview of your decision to ban. What exactly is going on here?

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I agree its a pretty how do I put this logically and clearly.. low move to ban someone for having a different point of view and calling you out for yours.



for the record Tobacco isnt a drug its a plant. I have never heard some farmer say I have to go outside now and water the crack and PCP..


My childs right are the rights I let them have their 1st amendment doesnt allow them to tell mommy to shut up......

 

[parsimonious]

How can we be so close to being a self ruling republic, and yet still allow so many to tell us, what we can put into our bodies, or the bodies of our children, including education.
I can't understand how concerned everyone is about my children. Why is everyone so concerned about what is going on in my automobile, operating safely, between the lines,
within state traffic laws.

Mind your business. Please.

 

[PaulF]

I agree with your position, but you banned someone for calling you a hypocrite? You called smokers filthy drug users and made a comparison to giving a child cocaine...then give a dramatic overview of your decision to ban. What exactly is going on here?

I would have banned him for that language in reference to anyone. Personal insults are not tolerated.

Do you feel my "Filthy Drug User" comment was directed toward a single, individual INGO member posting in this thread? If so, I can understand why you feel there is a double standard at play. As it is, I do not feel I crossed that line...I tried using an ugly truth linked to an ugly stereotype to try to make a point on an internet forum...but, it turned ugly.

If you disagree, or hold my judgement to be suspect, you are free to report me...the other moderators and the admins will review and decide.

-Paul

 

[level.eleven]

I would have banned him for that language in reference to anyone. Personal insults are not tolerated. Do you feel my "Filthy Drug User" comment was directed toward a single, individual INGO member posting in this thread? If so, I can understand why you feel there is a double standard at play. As it is, I do not feel I crossed that line...I tried using an ugly truth linked to an ugly stereotype to try to make a point on an internet forum...but, it turned ugly. If you disagree, or hold my judgement to be suspect, you are free to report me...the other moderators and the admins will review and decide. -Paul

Wow. The old blanket statement defense. So, since you didn't call an individual a filthy drug user and "ugly", but yet implied that all smokers on INGO are filthy drug users and "ugly", you get a pass? I don't know what to say. I am dumbfounded. I did report your post. It wasn't as dramatic as your public banning. I didn't use a period after every word. If someone calls your position hypocritical, defend it. Don't ban them. Learning to defend your positions will only aid your ability to present a cogent argument. The larger point, calling someone a hypocrite is now a personal insult worthy of a ban and the shut-down of discussion?

 

[Mark 1911]

When they ban abortion they can ban me from smoking in my house with my children that are not your responsibility

Definitely appears to be an example of a serious lack of prioritization. There are SO many things going on these days that are much more harmful to children than smoking, legalized murder tops the list. Others examples in our time are the talk of decriminalizing child porn, human trafficking, incest, sodomy (nothing wrong with doing that in the same house as the children according to poplular opinion ). .... As a very well known gentleman succinctly stated it, we do a great job of "straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel".

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

The issue here isn't whether 2nd hand smoking is harmful or not, the issue is one of risk. There is absolute scientific proof that 2nd hand smoke increases the likelihood of health issues, but so what? There is no absolute causal link between 2nd hand smoke and illness, rather there is an increase of RISK.

So some well meaning but woefully misguided folks will say, "Well, that is enough for me. Children shouldn't be exposed to risk, so let's ban parents smoking around children." If we use that as our foundation for government interference in the family then we might as well destroy the family unit entirely, because there is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that a parent does with a child that does not contain some risk. Push a child on a swing, risk of injury. Studies are now finding that many children are injured in sports, so let's ban sports of all kinds. After all, it is for the children.

What about food? Granny cooks up some cookies made with butter, flour and sugar. We'd better be ready to lock up granny because childhood obesity is a growing (no pun intended) concern. I am dead damn serious.

What about church. "Religion is the OPIATE of the masses," so said Karl Marx. And whether or not we agree with his philosophy there are many that consider religion to be backward, narrowminded, and intolerant - all undesirable traits. So let's lock up parents who take kids to church. After all, every church thinks they, and they alone, have the pathway to heaven and do NOT tolerate dissension within the congregation.

Take the kids swimming? Nope, might drown or drink dirty water and get infected. Risk.

Corporal punishment? Gee whiz, we had it for thousands of years and clawed our way out of the dark ages, spawned the renaissance, discovered scientific methodology, math, engineering, and even put a man on the moon without worrying about spanking children who act up. But not today, we may bruise more than their bottoms, we may hurt their precious EGO's and wouldn't that be a shame?

What about letting kids drink alcohol? Works fine in Europe. Only the Americans seem to be the worlds prudes when it comes to this. Other kids around the world in Africa and South America were exposed to other drugs throughout the ages and developed thriving cultures. Darn, silly narrow minded Americans again have to rule out anything we are uncomfortable with.

Now, as to healthy people paying for smokers. It is actually the other way around. First, smokers have paid more for insurance over the years, about 15% more give or take. But that isn't all, oh no! New studies show that it is the smokers and obese who die faster and cost LESS than healthy folks who drag on and weigh down the economy without actually dying quicker. Don't believe me, here is scientific proof: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0

So why should parents be allowed to expose their children to risk? Because, you see, they are the PARENT! They don't always get it right, they make mistakes, they have regrets, just ask them. But it is LOVE that guides most of them to do their DAMNEDEST to be the absolute best for their own children - not some dispassionate bureaucrat sitting behind their desk miles away.

Now, all of that said, do we allow NO interference from the Gov? No. We interfere to the LEAST possible extent only when there is an imminent risk of severe injury or death, such as severe child abuse like beating that breaks bones, as an example. When any person is at severe risk then the State has the interest to intervene, but not before.

As we open the door to legislating risk we diminish freedom and liberty, and these are more important than risk.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Bunnykid68]

Now, as to healthy people paying for smokers. It is actually the other way around. First, smokers have paid more for insurance over the years, about 15% more give or take. But that isn't all, oh no! New studies show that it is the smokers and obiese who die faster and cost LESS than healthy folks who drag on and weigh down the economy without actually dying quicker. Don't believe me, here is scientific proof: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0

Doug as usual, excellent post. I just have one thing to add to that. How many non smokers are paying those billions of dollars in taxes on cigarettes that us smokers pay? None, zero, nada, if the non smokers really cared about the children they would buy cigarettes so that the tax money could be used for them. The government makes 4-10 times as much on a pack of cigarettes than the people making them

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You will never convince some people that forcing others to do something that's good for them is a bad thing.

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug as usual, excellent post. I just have one thing to add to that. How many non smokers are paying those billions of dollars in taxes on cigarettes that us smokers pay? None, zero, nada, if the non smokers really cared about the children they would buy cigarettes so that the tax money could be used for them. The government makes 4-10 times as much on a pack of cigarettes than the people making them

To Bunnykid68,

Thank you sir. Again most kind.

I forgot about the tax on ciggies. As a cigar smoker I don't fool with that too much.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Bunnykid68]

To Bunnykid68,

Thank you sir. Again most kind.

I forgot about the tax on ciggies. As a cigar smoker I don't fool with that too much.

Regards,

Doug

They are not as cheap as they were a few short years ago though either