SFGate: Senate votes to ban smoking in cars carrying young kids

[Mooka]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/28/state/n193817D14.DTL&hw=smoking+cars+children&sn=001&sc=1000


(08-28) 20:51 PDT SACRAMENTO, (AP) --Californians who smoke in motor vehicles carrying young children could be slapped with $100 fines under a bill approved Monday by the state Senate.

But a measure to force automakers to produce more lower-polluting, alternative-fuel vehicles fell four votes short of passing.

The smoking ban, in a bill by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, would cover vehicles carrying children who were required to ride in a child safety seat.

Under current law, that would be children who were younger than 6 or who weighed less than 60 pounds. But a bill on the governor's desk would require children younger than 8 years to ride in child seats unless they were at least 4-foot-9.

Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, said the Koretz bill was an attempt to "protect the health of children who cannot protect themselves."

"We all know that secondhand smoke is hazardous," she said, particularly for young children whose lungs are still developing. "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."


I think they may be taking things a bit too far...

[The Evil Genius]

Personally, I am glad this made it through, although I am sure Arnie will smite it.

[rictus58]

And they say conservative are in our bedrooms? Pretty soon the Gov't will be telling people they can't smoke in their homes. :doh:

think not? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=566

[twa]

Personally, I am glad this made it through, although I am sure Arnie will smite it.

Then I hope you are pleased when the rest of the choices in life are removed.

BTW how is your diet, and what activities do you engage in?

Are you living in a area with good air quality?

[BAFGA]

I can't believe this bill actually made it through. If I were a liberal, I would be embarassed.

[Thiebear]

Make smoking ILLEGAL or STFU.....
take the tax dollars in one hand while waving your finger at the people with the other...
very nice....

[The Evil Genius]

I guess I don't see what the big deal is.

Why should be ok to constantly subject your children to toxins?

[twa]

I guess I don't see what the big deal is.

Why should be ok to constantly subject your children to toxins?

Are we to allow the goverment to choose thier diet at home also?

If the goverment were to take and support my children,THEN they would be entitled to make choices related to them.

Are we gonna fine for promiscuity or alchohol abuse ? It affects our health and the well being of those around us...How about aids or other sexualy transmitted diseases?

[The Evil Genius]

Are we to allow the goverment to choose thier diet at home also?

If the goverment were to take and support my children,THEN they would be entitled to make choices related to them.

Are we gonna fine for promiscuity or alchohol abuse ? It affects our health and the well being of those around us...How about aids or other sexualy transmitted diseases?

Done building your straw man? :rolleyes:

[Midnight Judges]

Done building your straw man? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure he's using the straw man tactic so much as he's asking you to draw the line of where you think Government intervention stops. Is it a hard line or is it relative to the times?

[rictus58]

Done building your straw man? :rolleyes:

It's hardly a strawman TEG. At what point will the gov't stop invading our lives in an effort to "improve" the lives of children. This issue is but a stepping stone for something larger.

[The Evil Genius]

Forcing kids to inhale toxins isn't a liberty you enjoy in being a parent.

If you are willfully harming your kid, I personally think the government has every right to come in and mandate that you stop.

[rictus58]

Forcing kids to inhale toxins isn't a liberty you enjoy in being a parent.

If you are willfully harming your kid, I personally think the government has every right to come in and mandate that you stop.

How about forcing them to ingest them via poor diet?

[rincewind]

Yeah TEG, I think I have to go with the bad guys on this one. Is it smart to smoke in a closed car with little kids? No. Should it be illegal? HELL NO.



Problem with common sense is that it isn't that common. Stupidity isn't against the law.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think parents should be allowed to make their kids smoke if they want.

[Fergasun]

How about killing pedophiles and getting rid of 10 year back-logs on death row?

Bullthis politicians!

[Cdowwe]

Not healthy, but it should not be illegal. Next comes houses. Then smoking within a certain distance of anyone else. Then smoking altogether.

[twa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Evil Genius
Done building your straw man?

It may be to you,however when does the goverments power stop?

Is it simply the idea of children being endangered?

Should we outlaw sports, swimming,...Baths?

[The Evil Genius]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Evil Genius
Done building your straw man?

It may be to you,however when does the goverments power stop?

Is it simply the idea of children being endangered?

Should we outlaw sports, swimming,...Baths?

Some of the same people here have no problem with government intervention when it comes to safety (of the country, aka Patriot Act).

And yet, someone tells you that you cannot poison your kids with secondhand smoke and it pisses you off?

Give me a break.

[twa]

Yeah TEG, I think I have to go with the bad guys on this one. Is it smart to smoke in a closed car with little kids? No. Should it be illegal? HELL NO.



Problem with common sense is that it isn't that common. Stupidity isn't against the law.

On that ,I could see (somewhat) fining someone for smoking in a "closed "car.

But are we gonna fine for sitting in traffic? The exhaust fumes are toxic as well,especialy the MTB(the goverment required) and particales from soot.

The idea of personal responsibility is lost with the nanny goverment.

[The Evil Genius]

Ironic, "nanny government" is the arguments that were used when seatbelts and then, car seats were deemed mandatory.

[PokerPacker]

why i'm glad to be a libertarian.

[twa]

Some of the same people here have no problem with government intervention when it comes to safety (of the country, aka Patriot Act).

And yet, someone tells you that you cannot poison your kids with secondhand smoke and it pisses you off?

Give me a break.

Glad you brought that up :laugh:

The goverments JOB is to provide national security,it is NOT to micro-manage your life...But I guess you missed that in the constitution :rolleyes:

Yet I suppose you cannot recognize the difference.

Added

You obviously are one of the ones whining about goverment spying and you cannot see the distinction?
You should be in the head of the pack cheering the NSA on :D

[twa]

Ironic, "nanny government" is the arguments that were used when seatbelts and then, car seats were deemed mandatory.

As long as I pay the insurance and healthcare for myself and kids it IS a intrusion on my rights.

I can understand recomending use or actions, but fines for non-compliance is BS

[portisizzle]

Paging Mr. Kurp......paging Mr. Kurp.

[Taylor 36]

The fact that the government can make it a law telling me I have to wear my seatbelt, which I should do on my own for my own safety anyway, but because of the insurance dollar signs that were/are being put out every year due to deaths and severe injuries caused by people not wearing seatbelts set the precidence here.

People SHOULD be wise enough to not endanger their own children to the toxins of unfiltered, second-hand smoke, but we know they're not. Now comparing insurance payouts from car accidents and those medical insurance payouts for children with asthma and other medical conditions brought on by second-hand smoke, there is no contest. Subjecting children, espcially insmall, confined areas such as a car, to second-hand smoke causes many physical and mental developmental problems, diseases, relapses that can last for life.

For me, I think that this bill does serve a great purpose. People shouldn't be asking should the government do this, but why is that the government has to be the one to make people do what is in the best interest of their own flesh and blood. :2cents:

[JohnLockesGhost]

Y'know, I hear breastfeeding is good for babies. The government should make women breastfeed. For the kids, of course.

[twa]

Taylor36

Do you wish them to set the diet for you and your children?

How about a BFI target,since heart disease and diabetes are the next major threat? A $100 fine a month for non-compliance sounds about right.

Or will it stop with the evil smokers? :rolleyes:

[The Evil Genius]

Y'know, I hear breastfeeding is good for babies. The government should make women breastfeed. For the kids, of course.


:cheers: Agreed.

[portisizzle]

The fact that the government can make it a law telling me I have to wear my seatbelt, which I should do on my own for my own safety anyway, but because of the insurance dollar signs that were/are being put out every year due to deaths and severe injuries caused by people not wearing seatbelts set the precidence here.

People SHOULD be wise enough to not endanger their own children to the toxins of unfiltered, second-hand smoke, but we know they're not. Now comparing insurance payouts from car accidents and those medical insurance payouts for children with asthma and other medical conditions brought on by second-hand smoke, there is no contest. Subjecting children, espcially insmall, confined areas such as a car, to second-hand smoke causes many physical and mental developmental problems, diseases, relapses that can last for life.

For me, I think that this bill does serve a great purpose. People shouldn't be asking should the government do this, but why is that the government has to be the one to make people do what is in the best interest of their own flesh and blood. :2cents:

Man oh man, I need to stop taking my children out camping. The campfire smoke is dangerous.

[twa]

Y'know, I hear breastfeeding is good for babies. The government should make women breastfeed. For the kids, of course.


Well it is proven to be better for both the mother and child.

How about we outlaw divorce as well, since it contributes to depression and other health risks as well.

We can solve all the worlds problems if we fine em enough. :2cents:

added

Paging Kilmer

We need the accuary tables on risk behavior to really nail this down, wouldn't want to miss anything ;)

[Duncan]

For me, I think that this bill does serve a great purpose. People shouldn't be asking should the government do this, but why is that the government has to be the one to make people do what is in the best interest of their own flesh and blood. :2cents:

I doubt you will find anyone who supports some idiot that wants to smoke in the car with small children. What scares me, and what I'm sure others are arguing against, is the further government intrusion into our lives. It is a slippery slope into diet, exercise requirements, mandated sunscreen, etc. If you want the government protecting your children why stop at smoking?

[Redskins Diehard]

Man oh man, I need to stop taking my children out camping. The campfire smoke is dangerous.

You definitely shouldn't build the campfire inside a tent. I hope someone would stop you from that

[michael_33]

Let's see here?You can't smoke in the car with a child in the carseat behind you...because it's hazardous to the child health and safety....(even with the windows down)

But you CAN talk on a cellphone while driving...

Nah.....This world ain't screwed up!

[artmonkforHOF]

I'm a smoker and whenever I have kids in the car- my nephew, girlfirends realitives whatever, I dont smoke in the car, in fact I try not to smoke around any kids who might look up to me in any way.

But this anti smoking thing is getting a bit ridiculous.I'm affraid if this passes it will set a precidnece (sic) that could be used to furhter impose on the rights of smokers. Here in Canada some lady is trying to get outdoor smoking to be considered as a public nuisance like loud music, smelly garbage etc. Her reasoning is she had a neighbour who smoked on HIS porch and the smoke would blow into her house though the windows she left open.......EVEN IN THE WINTER!

One of the scientist who worked with professor who studied and published the paper on second hand smoke that has been used as the main argument in most anti-smoking laws, has now admitted that he report has been taken out of context and used irresponsibly by anti smoking groups lobbying for more by-laws.

Most peole still believe taht any exposer to second hand smoke has a negative effect on their long term health. It has been proven that in the short term (read: immediatly after being exposed) that the lungs are effected to a small degree, BUT that minute amount they are exposed to and any health ramifications are completely and 100% reversable, usually within a few days. The healing process can be sped up signifiacntly if the affected person engages in some form of cardiovascular activity.

So if your a health nut, or not, and someone blows smoke in your face, dont worry that 40 years from now you'll have to have your diseased lung removed, go out and jog or to the gym. And if you really want to be a prick about it, then send the smoker the bill for your personal trainers time.:2cents:

[Thiebear]

Let's see here?You can't smoke in the car with a child in the carseat behind you...because it's hazardous to the child health and safety....(even with the windows down)

But you CAN talk on a cellphone while driving...

Nah.....This world ain't screwed up!

No its talk on the blue tooth cell, while drinking a 32 ounce Coke and eating your McGriddle with extra bacon...in the rain... at dusk to the 12hr daycare.

[The Evil Genius]

Let's see here?You can't smoke in the car with a child in the carseat behind you...because it's hazardous to the child health and safety....(even with the windows down)

But you CAN talk on a cellphone while driving...

Nah.....This world ain't screwed up!


Actually, CA has passed (or is it passing? I forget the timeline!) legislation that will take effect very soon banning talking on handheld cellphones while driving (unless its for emergency purposes). You could still use hands free devices though.

Also, Prop 86 on this year's CA election ticket will add another $2 or so onto the cost of cigarettes making them over $6 a pack.

[nelms]

What do you expect from the Peoples Republic of California.

[Teller]

Hey, go ahead and kill your own kids if you want to. It's called Natural Selection, and those are genes we probably don't need anyway. :2cents:

[Thiebear]

Hey, go ahead and kill your own kids if you want to. It's called Natural Selection, and those are genes we probably don't need anyway. :2cents:

Yep nobody smoked in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.
They way some of you talk I'm surprised anyones here to talk about it.

[endzone_dave]

Hey, go ahead and kill your own kids if you want to. It's called Natural Selection, and those are genes we probably don't need anyway. :2cents:

:laugh:

If governments would stop trying to keep idiots from harming themselves, man would actually have the chance to evolve. That's why I'm against helmet laws, against making drugs illegal, against seat belt laws...

[nelms]

There are a few things (very few) that the government is good for, but micro-managing our lives isn't one of them. I don't mind them trying to make our nation more secure, especially with the current threat of terrorism. But, I don't want them telling me what, where, and when I can smoke, drink, eat, fart, burp. If someone is stupid enough to smoke around their kids, that's their problem.

[Teller]

:laugh:

If governments would stop trying to keep idiots from harming themselves, man would actually have the chance to evolve. That's why I'm against helmet laws, against making drugs illegal, against seat belt laws...

And don't forget doing away with welfare altogether. Sink or swim, dammit! ;)

[Predicto]

There are a few things (very few) that the government is good for, but micro-managing our lives isn't one of them. I don't mind them trying to make our nation more secure, especially with the current threat of terrorism. But, I don't want them telling me what, where, and when I can smoke, drink, eat, fart, burp. If someone is stupid enough to smoke around their kids, that's their problem.

Yeah - those three year olds should know better than to ride in a car with a parent that smokes. Stupid bastages have no one to blame but themselves. :laugh:

[Predicto]

Most peole still believe taht any exposer to second hand smoke has a negative effect on their long term health. It has been proven that in the short term (read: immediatly after being exposed) that the lungs are effected to a small degree, BUT that minute amount they are exposed to and any health ramifications are completely and 100% reversable, usually within a few days.


Link please.

I am genuinely curious about this.

[twa]

Yeah - those three year olds should know better than to ride in a car with a parent that smokes. Stupid bastages have no one to blame but themselves. :laugh:

So how far do we go to protect them from risk? seriously?

[Predicto]

So how far do we go to protect them from risk? seriously?

Honestly, I don't know. It's a hard question. I think I agree with most of you that this law is probably over the line into too much "nanny state."

But not so far over the line as some here seem to think. It's not like child endangerment laws are that new and unusual. None of us have any problem with criminalizing certain parental behavior, like say, starving your kids or leaving them alone in a hot car with the windows rolled up, or whatever. This law is not that far removed from that.

I was just struck by how many people ridiculed the law by mocking the parents. This law is about protecting the child not punishing the parent, something that we as a society do quite often.

[twa]

Let me give you a example.

Where I live the air and water and ground is likely more of a hazard than 2nd hand smoke, not too mention the usual crime and pedo's ect.

Shouldn't there be priorities?

It is nice they are concerned for the infants,but aren't there more pressing problems to address?

[TheKurp]

Benefit verses risk. Example: exhaust fumes verses the elimination of vehicles

Lifestyle choice that negatively impacts those who cannot yet decide for themselves whether to share in that lifestyle, or those who expressly decide not to engage in that lifestyle. Example: Smoking.

Those are the two deciding factors on whether a law should be passed and enforced.

[Predicto]

Let me give you a example.

Where I live the air and water and ground is likely more of a hazard than 2nd hand smoke, not too mention the usual crime and pedo's ect.

Shouldn't there be priorities?

It is nice they are concerned for the infants,but aren't there more pressing problems to address?

Like I said, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about this law. I just don't think it is as ridiculous as some posters here were saying.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Benefit verses risk. Example: exhaust fumes verses the elimination of vehicles

Those are the two deciding factors on whether a law should be passed and enforced.

For the strict utilitarian, I suppose.

But by this logic you could also argue that it was ok to round-up Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. I mean, espianage clearly was a danger and by rounding them up we could definitely avoid that danger. But some benefits aren't quite as material as you suppose. Example: freedom.

[TheKurp]

For the strict utilitarian, I suppose.

But by this logic you could also argue that it was ok to round-up Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. I mean, espianage clearly was a danger and by rounding them up we could definitely avoid that danger. But some benefits aren't quite as material as you suppose. Example: freedom.

So based on your logic then being Japanese is a lifestyle choice?

[Zguy28]

I can't believe this bill actually made it through. If I were a liberal, I would be embarassed.Actually the opposite, traditionally Democrats have been in favor of Big gov't. Lately its been both parties.

[Thiebear]

You know its going to become law soon:

It began in America, as so many trends do, but for years no one in Europe took any notice. American tourists wearing helmets around the streets of London first drew media attention. And although public response to walking helmets was initially amusement, the appeal of extra safety drew some pioneers to the habit, especially academics and competitive walkers.

The first case-control study of about 2000 injuries to pedestrians in Britain (180 of whom had worn helmets) concluded that the risk of serious head injury was reduced by 75% when a good walking helmet was worn. Safety campaigners used the slogan "walkers need helmets" to encourage parents to send their children to school in helmets. Several high profile accidents focused public attention on the dangers of walking. A well known television presenter was severely head injured by a police van answering an emergency call. Doctors concluded that her injuries would have been "substantially reduced" had she worn a helmet.

[TheKurp]

I love how people attempt to denigrate these types of issues by going off on a wild tangent or crying about the erosion of freedoms.

How about addressing the particulars of this topic without the hyperbole for a change?

Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?

Debate the law within that context, because that's exactly what the law is addressing. Nothing else. Nada. Zip.

[rictus58]

I love how people attempt to denigrate these types of issues by going off on a wild tangent or crying about the erosion of freedoms.

How about addressing the particulars of this topic without the hyperbole for a change?

Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?

Debate the law within that context, because that's exactly what the law is addressing. Nothing else. Nada. Zip.

:doh: How dare we discuss the possible side effects of such a law being passed. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

[nelms]

Yeah - those three year olds should know better than to ride in a car with a parent that smokes. Stupid bastages have no one to blame but themselves. :laugh:
Typical response from a left wing liberal from San Francisco. It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent. What's next, coming up with a law banning parents from letting their kids eat twinkies?

It's scary to think people like you have no problem with giving constitutional rights to terrorists, yet want to micro manage the lives of average Americans.

[TheKurp]

:doh: How dare we discuss the possible side effects of such a law being passed. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

I see you didn't answer within the context.

In my world of software engineering it's called analysis paralysis. I.e., $hit will never get done if you analyze the requirements to death. In fact, the longer you take to analyze the requirements chances are by the time you build the thing the requirements will have changed.

Get it? You can't approach every bill up for a vote by delving into "what ifs". Argue the merits of the bill within the intended context and deal with the "what ifs" if and when they arise. It's called making progress.

[TheKurp]

Typical response from a left wing liberal from San Francisco. It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent. What's next, coming up with a law banning parents from letting their kids eat twinkies?

It's scary to think people like you have no problem with giving constitutional rights to terrorists, yet want to micro manage the lives of average Americans.

Are you saying that there are no parents out there who will smoke in a car with small children? Rhetorical question.

And when those small children, who cannot make rational health-related decisions on their own, come down with a chronic respiratory disease, who is held accountable for that life? The same parent? What a lucky child!

Personal responsibility goes hand in hand with repercussions for irresponsibility. What are the repercussions for that parent who abuses the lungs of their young children by smoking in confined quarters?

[rictus58]

I see you didn't answer within the context.

In my world of software engineering it's called analysis paralysis. I.e., $hit will never get done if you analyze the requirements to death. In fact, the longer you take to analyze the requirements chances are by the time you build the thing the requirements will have changed.

Get it? You can't approach every bill up for a vote by delving into "what ifs". Argue the merits of the bill within the intended context and deal with the "what ifs" if and when they arise. It's called making progress.

To equate "software engineering" with politics is asinine.

You probably shouldn't try to circumvent the profanity filters.

[TheKurp]

To equate "software engineering" with politics is asinine.

You probably shouldn't try to circumvent the profanity filters.

It's not an equation. It's a metaphor. I see now it was above your level of thinking.

[Popeman38]

I love how people attempt to denigrate these types of issues by going off on a wild tangent or crying about the erosion of freedoms.
How about addressing the particulars of this topic without the hyperbole for a change?
Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?
Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?
Debate the law within that context, because that's exactly what the law is addressing. Nothing else. Nada. Zip.
Kurp, you just love thes anti-smoking laws, don't you?
Here is your debate:
Allow the govt to restrict a personal choice that has nothing to do with the govt or the welfare of the US of A. Please show me where in the Constitution the govt can say "Look, it says we can". It doesn't say they can. And it says if it is not covered in the Constitution, the power goes to the people. So, I am sure that just like the majority on this board, the overall majority would see that this bill would fail. It is as simple as that.
And your "metaphor" of software engineering is horrible. By this logic, slavery should never haver been abolished because no one would have examined the "side effects" of slavery. Your logic works great for a defined are such as computers, but is SOL in the real world...

[Predicto]

Typical response from a left wing liberal from San Francisco. It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent. What's next, coming up with a law banning parents from letting their kids eat twinkies?

It's scary to think people like you have no problem with giving constitutional rights to terrorists, yet want to micro manage the lives of average Americans.

Oh good god. I already said I have problems with this bill from a "nanny state" persepctive, but it isn't enough for attack dog Nelms.

"It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent."

I'm all for personal responsibility as a parent. The question is what happens when a parent doesn't take personal responsibility? Does the state ever have a role in protecting innocent children from harmful acts by their parents? Does wanting parents to take personal responsibility mean that the children's only protection is whether or not the parent steps up to bat?

Your "personal responsibility" catchphrase doesn't even fit here in this discussion.

[The Evil Genius]

Kurp, you just love thes anti-smoking laws, don't you?
Here is your debate:
Allow the govt to restrict a personal choice that has nothing to do with the govt or the welfare of the US of A. Please show me where in the Constitution the govt can say "Look, it says we can". It doesn't say they can. And it says if it is not covered in the Constitution, the power goes to the people. So, I am sure that just like the majority on this board, the overall majority would see that this bill would fail. It is as simple as that.
And your "metaphor" of software engineering is horrible. By this logic, slavery should never haver been abolished because no one would have examined the "side effects" of slavery. Your logic works great for a defined are such as computers, but is SOL in the real world...

State law, not a Federal law.

Besides, I think promoting the general welfare is in that pesky Constitution somwehere.

[Popeman38]

Oh good god. I already said I have problems with this bill from a "nanny state" persepctive, but it isn't enough for attack dog Nelms.

"It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent."

I'm all for personal responsibility as a parent. The question is what happens when a parent doesn't take personal responsibility? Does the state ever have a role in protecting innocent children from harmful acts by their parents? Does wanting parents to take personal responsibility mean that the children's only protection is whether or not the parent steps up to bat?

Your "personal responsibility" catchphrase doesn't even fit here in this discussion.
While I agree nelms went after it a little too hard, where do you draw the line? If rules like this one keep popping up pretty soon you woun't be raising your children, someone else will...

[The Evil Genius]

Oh good god. I already said I have problems with this bill from a "nanny state" persepctive, but it isn't enough for attack dog Nelms.

"It's called taking personal responsibility as a parent."

I'm all for personal responsibility as a parent. The question is what happens when a parent doesn't take personal responsibility? Does the state ever have a role in protecting innocent children from harmful acts by their parents? Does wanting parents to take personal responsibility mean that the children's only protection is whether or not the parent steps up to bat?

Your "personal responsibility" catchphrase doesn't even fit here in this discussion.

Its the same argument people use against car seats for children and seatbelts for all.

Once it becomes the norm, you will hear less people bitching about it.

[stevenaa]

Taylor36

Do you wish them to set the diet for you and your children?

How about a BFI target,since heart disease and diabetes are the next major threat? A $100 fine a month for non-compliance sounds about right.

Or will it stop with the evil smokers? :rolleyes:


How does this extreme example have anything to do with preventing parents from poisoning there children? The problem with politics in this country is that everyone is afraid of making the right decision for fear that a precedent will be set. Preventing children from being subjected to this is not a violation of anyones rights. You don't have a right to force your harmful habit on anyone, including your children. Seems like a no brainer to me. And yes, you shouldn't be able to smoke in any confined spaces with children, including your house. Of course, your response will be to hell with the rights of the children. Their not adults and can't fight for their rights, so screw them.

[Popeman38]

State law, not a Federal law.

Besides, I think promoting the general welfare is in that pesky Constitution somwehere.
Promoting is way different than forcing. I am all for encouraging people not to smoke, especially around small children. As for the state law, California is so touchy with infringing on rights, how can they possibly support this?

[TheKurp]

Kurp, you just love thes anti-smoking laws, don't you?
Here is your debate:
Allow the govt to restrict a personal choice that has nothing to do with the govt or the welfare of the US of A. Please show me where in the Constitution the govt can say "Look, it says we can". It doesn't say they can. And it says if it is not covered in the Constitution, the power goes to the people. So, I am sure that just like the majority on this board, the overall majority would see that this bill would fail. It is as simple as that.
And your "metaphor" of software engineering is horrible. By this logic, slavery should never haver been abolished because no one would have examined the "side effects" of slavery. Your logic works great for a defined are such as computers, but is SOL in the real world...

How is it that you can quote my debate and then proceed to not even acknowledge it and claim it's my debate? In fact, you did exactly what I asked for people not to do.

Slavery? Are you kidding me? Context...Context...Context. Do I need to provide a link to www.dictionary.com?

Logic? We're talking about a lifestyle choice here that has zero redeeming social value and is undeniably a health hazard. You talk to me about logic?

Again, I'll ask two simple questions. It's not that hard folks. All you have to do is answer "Yes" or "No".

1. Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

2. Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?

[Popeman38]

Seems like a no brainer to me. And yes, you shouldn't be able to smoke in any confined spaces with children, including your house.
See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...

[The Evil Genius]

See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...


To quote a few others here...if you have nothing to hide..what's the problem?

:D

[Predicto]

See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...

Not if you are alone in it.

[luckydevil]

I am not sure why so many people are citing the constitution on this topic. It's a STATE law, not a federal law.*


* I am against it

[luckydevil]

See, I don't want big brother in my house, period. You can invite him in yours, but not mine. By passing a law such as the one you propose, you woulod be not inviting but forcing big brother into my private property. Same applies to a car...

Just curious what is your position on wiretapping? What about flag burning?

[redskins4life234]

I think this law is a great law. Think if you were a 5 yr old kid. Daddy smoking in car, you breathing in the crap. 60 yrs later, at 65 years, you aren't as healthy as you could be, because Daddy smoked with you. This way. Without the smoke, if the kid did everythign else the same, would be healthier at now 65 years. Also, if he was 5, 10 years later at 15, he won;t be able to run around as much due to bad lungs from daddy. Have a hard time playing sports. You all are CRYING about not being to take a smoke in a car where you can do elsewhere anyways, and is nasty as hell anyways, while the kid is getting his future ruined.

[chomerics]

I am against it just because i can't stand the "nanny" form of government. it drives me up a wall. I do see Predicto's point though, and yes, there are "nanny" state rules such as child abuse and what not.

For example, i think if you have a child in the car and you are caught driving drunk, you should be also charged with endangering the life of a child. That is not the nanny state, but stricter enforcement. With smoking, I think it is a bit too far over the line. Should you charge parents for not putting sun block on their children? Where does it end? I think it is a bit ridiculous, but then again, to each his own I guess.

[Popeman38]

How is it that you can quote my debate and then proceed to not even acknowledge it and claim it's my debate? In fact, you did exactly what I asked for people not to do.

Slavery? Are you kidding me? Context...Context...Context. Do I need to provide a link to www.dictionary.com? (http://www.dictionary.com/?)

Logic? We're talking about a lifestyle choice here that has zero redeeming social value and is undeniably a health hazard. You talk to me about logic?

Again, I'll ask two simple questions. It's not that hard folks. All you have to do is answer "Yes" or "No".

1. Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to smoke in a vehicle?

2. Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from smoking in a vehicle when there are passengers 6 years old and under?
You can not pass laws by passing your test! There are consequences and ramifications that go with laws. 1) They set precedence - precedence is referenced many times in courts. 2) You have written a "blank check" for the govt to deem something dangerous and then pass a law regarding. To answer your questions: 1) No and 2) No. Let us take those same questions and apply them to something else:

1) Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to 5 hours of video games a day?

2) Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from allowing any child 6 years old and under to play 5 hours of video games a day?

Now, substitute: twinkies, soda, toy guns.... for video games. Do you see the problem with allowing the govt to make decisions for you? And for whoever said that after a while, the bitching will go away? Place a frog in a covered pan in cold water, place pan on stove, turn stove on to low. Allow stove to warm, gradually increasing water to a boil. Guess what, the frog never moves or coomplains, but he is no longer alive....

[TheKurp]

Let's try this. http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7836

Study Shows How Secondhand Smoke Injures Babies' Lungs
August 15, 2006

UC Davis researchers today described in unprecedented biochemical and anatomical detail how cigarette smoke damages the lungs of unborn and newborn children.

The findings illustrate with increased urgency the dangers that smokers' families and friends face, said UC Davis Professor Kent Pinkerton, and should give family doctors helpful new insight into the precise hidden physical changes occurring in their young patients' lungs.

"Smoke exposure causes significant damage and lasting consequences in newborns," Pinkerton said. "This research has a message for every parent: Do not smoke or breathe secondhand smoke while you are pregnant. Do not let your children breathe secondhand smoke after they are born."

Pinkerton added that the results from this study are further proof that secondhand smoke's effects on children are not minor, temporary or reversible. "This is the missed message about secondhand smoke and children," he said. "Parents need to understand that these effects will not go away. If children do not grow healthy lungs when they are supposed to, they will likely never recover. The process is not forgiving and the children are not going to be able to make up this loss later in life."

The 2006 Surgeon General's Report on secondhand smoke estimates that more than 126 million residents of the United States age 3 or older are exposed to secondhand smoke. Among children younger than 18 years of age, an estimated 22 percent are exposed to secondhand smoke in their home; estimates range from 11.7 percent in Utah to 34.2 percent in Kentucky.

To get the word out to parents about the dangers of secondhand smoke, two states (Arkansas and Louisiana) have made it illegal to smoke in a car with young passengers. In California, a similar bill, AB 379, is currently under consideration in the state Legislature.

The new UC Davis research is reported in today's issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The lead author is Cai-Yun Zhong, a former UC Davis graduate student now working at ArQule Biomedical Institute in Boston; the co-authors are Ya Mei Zhou, also a former UC Davis graduate student and now investigating breast cancer signaling pathways at Buck Research Institute in Novato, Calif.; Jesse Joad, a UC Davis pediatrician who studies children's lung development and cares for sick children in the UC Davis Health System; and Pinkerton, a UC Davis professor of pediatric medicine and director of the UC Davis Center for Health and the Environment.

The Pinkerton research group is one of the few groups in the nation capable of studying the effects of environmental contaminants on unborn and newborn animals. Their 15 years of studies on mice and rats have yielded greater understanding of how air pollution affects human lungs and health through experiments that attempt to reproduce true exposure conditions to environmental air pollutants.

The new study was done with rhesus macaque monkeys, in order to obtain the best possible understanding of what happens in people. Pregnant macaques were exposed to smoke levels equal to those that a pregnant woman would breathe if someone in her home or workplace smoked. Newborn macaques were exposed to secondhand smoke levels similar to those a human baby would breathe if it was cared for by a moderate-to-heavy smoker.

What the researchers found is that environmental tobacco smoke wreaks havoc in babies at a critical time in the development of lungs -- when millions of tiny cells called alveoli (pronounced al-VEE-o-lye) are being formed.

Alveoli are the place where oxygen passes from the lungs into the bloodstream. Human infants are born with only about one-fifth of the 300 million alveoli they will need as adults. They construct almost all those 300 million alveoli between birth and age 8.

Pinkerton's group had previously shown that rats exposed to secondhand smoke while in the womb and after birth developed hyper-reactive, or "ticklish," airways, which typically occurs in children and adults with asthma. The airways in those rodents remained hyper-reactive even when the secondhand smoke exposure stopped. Thus, this early exposure to environmental tobacco smoke created a long-lasting and perhaps permanent asthma-like condition.

In the new study, the researchers analyzed step-by-step how the alveolar cells' inner workings reacted to cigarette smoke. They found the normal orderly process of cell housecleaning had gone haywire.

In healthy people, cells live and die on a schedule. Programmed cell death, called apoptosis (a-pop-TOE-sis), is regulated by genes that increase or decrease various chemical reactions in the cell.

But in this study, when baby monkeys were exposed to cigarette smoke before and after birth, apoptosis went awry. Critical cellular controls regulating cell death turned off. Alveolar cells died twice as fast as they should have.

"If you are killing cells at a higher rate during a critical developmental stage, when they are supposed to be proliferating in order to create new alveoli, the lungs may never be able to recover," Pinkerton said.

Funding for the study, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke Suppresses Nuclear Factor Kappa B Signaling to Increase Apoptosis in Infant Monkey Lungs," was included in a five-year, $1.5 million research grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and $450,000 from taxes on sales of tobacco products in California.

[redskins4life234]

With smoking, I think it is a bit too far over the line. Should you charge parents for not putting sun block on their children? Where does it end? I think it is a bit ridiculous, but then again, to each his own I guess.
You guys are taking your comparisons way out of line. Inhaling any second hand smoke, espically at such a young age, is a hell lot more sickening[in health] and will affect the kid's future way more then getting a sun burn. Like the article said, one hour is one and a half packs, at 3 4 or 5, thats horrible, and espically at that age, its even worst. One hour in the sun, doesnt give you a better chance of skin cancer. Skin cancer is way less likely, then getting any lung problems from this.

[TheKurp]

You can not pass laws by passing your test! There are consequences and ramifications that go with laws. 1) They set precedence - precedence is referenced many times in courts. 2) You have written a "blank check" for the govt to deem something dangerous and then pass a law regarding. To answer your questions: 1) No and 2) No. Let us take those same questions and apply them to something else:

1) Does anyone believe it's a good thing for children 6 years old and under to be exposed to 5 hours of video games a day?

2) Does anyone believe it's a bad thing for adults to refrain from allowing any child 6 years old and under to play 5 hours of video games a day?

Now, substitute: twinkies, soda, toy guns.... for video games. Do you see the problem with allowing the govt to make decisions for you? And for whoever said that after a while, the bitching will go away? Place a frog in a covered pan in cold water, place pan on stove, turn stove on to low. Allow stove to warm, gradually increasing water to a boil. Guess what, the frog never moves or coomplains, but he is no longer alive....

Are you even reading what I've written. I'm not here to debate anything but the topic of this thread. Get it?

[Popeman38]

Are you even reading what I've written. I'm not here to debate anything but the topic of this thread. Get it?
You are over-simplifying the issuie in the thread. Get it?
Edit- These are the issues. Once you cross the line with this law, there will be more.

[TheKurp]

You are over-simplifying the issuie in the thread. Get it?

No, the issue is protecting young children, those who are not in a position to protect themselves, from the effects of second-hand smoke. THAT is the issue.

[redskins4life234]

Another thing to this, you may have the right to smoke, but in no way, do you have the right to hurt your kids via second hand smoke and that is what this law is protecting. It is protecting your kids and their rights!

[rincewind]

You guys are taking your comparisons way out of line. Inhaling any second hand smoke, espically at such a young age, is a hell lot more sickening[in health] and will affect the kid's future way more then getting a sun burn. Like the article said, one hour is one and a half packs, at 3 4 or 5, thats horrible, and espically at that age, its even worst. One hour in the sun, doesnt give you a better chance of skin cancer. Skin cancer is way less likely, then getting any lung problems from this.



If this was true, there would be more cases of lung cancer than skin cancer.

[redskins4life234]

If this was true, there would be more cases of lung cancer than skin cancer.
Im not saying that noones gets it, what I was saying to that is, Put a kid in a car for an hour with people smoking, or a kid outside at the ebach for an hour with so sun screen. Which is more likely to hurt the kid. [excluding sunburns]

[TheKurp]

You are over-simplifying the issuie in the thread. Get it?
Edit- These are the issues. Once you cross the line with this law, there will be more.

Really? Try this on for size.

Smoking cigarettes is illegal for children under the age of 18.

Consuming alcohol is illegal for anyone under the age of 21.

It is against the law for a parent to give their child alcohol prior to the age of 21.

It is being proposed by California, and is already the law in two other states, for a parent to give a child what is the equivalent of a cigarette via second-hand smoke in a car.

Spare me your "the sky is falling" mantra. Deal with THIS issue.

[The Evil Genius]

BTW - the CA legislature approved the ban of handheld cellphones being used while driving (unless its an emergency).

Hands free devices will be allowed.

Not sure the exact date it will go into effect.

[Predicto]

BTW - the CA legislature approved the ban of handheld cellphones being used while driving (unless its an emergency).

Hands free devices will be allowed.

Not sure the exact date it will go into effect.

New York has had this law for a while now. Maybe other states too.

[Predicto]

If this was true, there would be more cases of lung cancer than skin cancer.

Well, skin cancer is usually not as serious as lung cancer (unless it is melanoma).

However, the point here is more specific to the increased problems when infants' developing lungs get exposed to smoke. According to that study quoted above, it is a bigger deal than ordinary secondhand smoke, and may lead to other problems than just cancer.

[rincewind]

Im not saying that noones gets it, what I was saying to that is, Put a kid in a car for an hour with people smoking, or a kid outside at the ebach for an hour with so sun screen. Which is more likely to hurt the kid. [excluding sunburns]



That's an illogical argument. In your life you will be trapped in a car with a smoker X amount of hours and you'll be out in the sun Y amount. I guarantee everybody in the world's Y is at least 1,000 times their X. So the two don't compare very well.


Plus, it can only take sitting in the sun one summer to get skin cancer. The same is not true for smoking - lung cancer.

[rincewind]

Well, skin cancer is usually not as serious as lung cancer (unless it is melanoma).



I know - I just thought it was an odd, cumbersome argument to make.





Also - skin cancer is one of the most deadly cancers if not caught early enough.

[redskins4life234]

That's an illogical argument. In your life you will be trapped in a car with a smoker X amount of hours and you'll be out in the sun Y amount. I guarantee everybody in the world's Y is at least 1,000 times their X. So the two don't compare very well.


Plus, it can only take sitting in the sun one summer to get skin cancer. The same is not true for smoking - lung cancer.
But most people use sun screen, while 5 yr olds have no defense again second hand smoke except not breathing, which you willf iant and end up breathing anyways or not being exposed to it. And at such a young aage like that, it affects them more then you or me, and still I would be more affected then you. I personally want to have healthy lungs at an older age. You have to see where im coming from too on my views. I am 15, still a kid, still growing. Still have a future ahead of me. I want to keep that future bright and healthy, not full of problwems because my parents smoked wiht me in the car. [ They don't smoke really though, thank God!] Really and at age 15, I feel I can stick up to my parents and say, Mom/Dad don't smoke around me if they really did. While a 4 year old would never say that to a parent, as one, they don't know the harm of it, and too, they just aren;t rebelious in that sort of way at that age. This alw is protecting the rights and health of young kids more then taking away the rights of adults.

[Predicto]

Also - skin cancer is one of the most deadly cancers if not caught early enough.

Yes - if it is melanoma. My uncle died from it (he was a surfer beach boy) and we learned all about it.

Most skin cancer is not melanoma and is not as serious. The doc will just snip a piece off you with the scissors and you are good to go. My dad had several cancers removed that way.

Lung cancer is not the same. It got my grandma and my wife's grandma, and neither of them had a chance.

[rincewind]

But most people use sun screen, while 5 yr olds have no defense again second hand smoke except not breathing, which you willf iant and end up breathing anyways or not being exposed to it. And at such a young aage like that, it affects them more then you or me, and still I would be more affected then you. I personally want to have healthy lungs at an older age. You have to see where im coming from too on my views. I am 15, still a kid, still growing. Still have a future ahead of me. I want to keep that future bright and healthy, not full of problwems because my parents smoked wiht me in the car. [ They don't smoke really though, thank God!] Really and at age 15, I feel I can stick up to my parents and say, Mom/Dad don't smoke around me if they really did. While a 4 year old would never say that to a parent, as one, they don't know the harm of it, and too, they just aren;t rebelious in that sort of way at that age. This alw is protecting the rights and health of young kids more then taking away the rights of adults.


Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I don't think people should smoke in cars with kids - I just don't think it should be illegal. Personally, I think people should be smart enough to realize that they're ****ing up thier kid. But, stupidity is not against the law.

[redskins4life234]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I don't think people should smoke in cars with kids - I just don't think it should be illegal. Personally, I think people should be smart enough to realize that they're ****ing up thier kid. But, stupidity is not against the law.
Your right. But people are dumb, and so the goverment is feelign what is their job to protect kids from dumb ones by taking away smoking in cars with kids. I don't see it as a big deal. Protecting people, espically those will no voice at all at their age, why is that bad?

[Thiebear]

Kids at 5 have no defense against the sun without a parents help either.
Both my parents smoked *I do not*... I have a 7/4 year old girls...
So whats the age its o.k.: 9? 10 makes it magically o.k. to be in the car for secondhand smoke?
If the windows are open and or airconditioner going how much smoke is getting to the child in an average car? They've done the studies not based on passive bar smoke but a vehicle right?

Being a state law your going to end up having to conform or move... It will be enforced only when a quota is needed to be met for money. As is the speed/red light camera's in D.C. are used.

[rincewind]

Yes - if it is melanoma. My uncle died from it (he was a surfer beach boy) and we learned all about it.

Most skin cancer is not melanoma and is not as serious. The doc will just snip a piece off you with the scissors and you are good to go. My dad had several cancers removed that way.

Lung cancer is not the same. It got my grandma and my wife's grandma, and neither of them had a chance.


Yeah, my mother-in-law seems to get skin cancer every other year. She has a place at the shore and barely ever wears any sunscreen. I understand what your saying about the types though - lung is bad no matter what, while skin can be pretty easy.



Sorry about your grandmothers. My mom is a survivor (she had colon - which is easy to beat early but VERY hard to beat once it's in the third stage), and we're about to lose a cousin (they've given him less than a week). He's 62 and has lukemia. :(

[Popeman38]

No, the issue is protecting young children, those who are not in a position to protect themselves, from the effects of second-hand smoke. THAT is the issue.
No, the issue is the GOVT passing laws that restrict your personal choices.

[Predicto]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I don't think people should smoke in cars with kids - I just don't think it should be illegal. Personally, I think people should be smart enough to realize that they're ****ing up thier kid. But, stupidity is not against the law.

Stupidity isn't, but hurting your kids can be against the law, depending on the circumstances.

[rincewind]

Your right. But people are dumb, and so the goverment is feelign what is their job to protect kids from dumb ones by taking away smoking in cars with kids. I don't see it as a big deal. Protecting people, espically those will no voice at all at their age, why is that bad?



It's bad because it's an infringement on a right. Like people have said 'What's next, telling us we can't feed our kids McDonald's?'

[Thiebear]

IF you think they are protecting young children.
Please explain how 6-8 is not o.k.
Please explain how 9-11 is o.k.
we patiently await your response...

[Predicto]

No, the issue is the GOVT passing laws that restrict your personal choices.

Or restricting what you can inflict on your children.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that parents should be legally permitted to give bourbon to their 5 year old children, restrained only by their own parental discretion?

If not, why not?

[Predicto]

IF you think they are protecting young children.
Please explain how 6-8 is not o.k.
Please explain how 9-11 is o.k.
we patiently await your response...

I think that article posed above provides one explanation.

Besides, laws often contain arbitrary restrictions based on our best guess as to appropriate age for allowing things. Why is it legal to bang an 18 year old but you go to prison for banging a 17 year old? We do our best in making laws like this.

[Thiebear]

I think that article posed above provides one explanation.

Besides, laws often contain arbitrary restrictions based on our best guess as to appropriate age for allowing things. Why is it legal to bang an 18 year old but you go to prison for banging a 17 year old? We do our best in making laws like this.

Thats about the lamest attempt to explain it with the word bang in it i've ever seen...
I will agree that its arbitrary ...

[Popeman38]

Or restricting what you can inflict on your children.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that parents should be legally permitted to give bourbon to their 5 year old children, restrained only by their own parental discretion?

If not, why not?
In Virginia, a parent can give their child alcohol in their home as long as the child does not leave the house.

[Predicto]

Thats about the lamest attempt to explain it with the word bang in it i've ever seen...
I will agree that its arbitrary ...

Why is it lame? Just because something has a specific age in it does not mean that it is unreasonably arbitrary. You can drive at 16, you cant drive at 15. You can vote at 18 but not at 17.

They are somewhat arbitrary limitations (all kids are ready at different times), but it's the best we can do.

Am I missing your point somehow?

[TheKurp]

No, the issue is the GOVT passing laws that restrict your personal choices.

So in effect you are defending the personal choice to cause irreparable damage to the health of child 6 years old or younger.

[Predicto]

In Virginia, a parent can give their child alcohol in their home as long as the child does not leave the house.

Really? Well, umm, ok let me try again :silly: I think I still have a point.


Do you think that parents should be legally permitted to give cigarettes to their 5 year old children (in their own home), restrained only by their own parental discretion?

[redskins4life234]

It's bad because it's an infringement on a right. Like people have said 'What's next, telling us we can't feed our kids McDonald's?'
Yeah, but what they are saying doesnt even up to second hand smoke. Mcdonalds one night for dinner does no damage. the 2nd hand smoke on the way to mcdonalds.. Does.

[chomerics]

You guys are taking your comparisons way out of line. Inhaling any second hand smoke, espically at such a young age, is a hell lot more sickening[in health] and will affect the kid's future way more then getting a sun burn. Like the article said, one hour is one and a half packs, at 3 4 or 5, thats horrible, and espically at that age, its even worst. One hour in the sun, doesnt give you a better chance of skin cancer. Skin cancer is way less likely, then getting any lung problems from this.

Oh, I COMPLETELY disagree. Statistics show, that if you have one serious sun burn in your life, you are statistically 50% more likely to get skin cancer. If ANYTHING, it is FAR WORSE to expose a child to the sun without sun block then it is to expose a child to second hand smoke.

I'll see what facts I can dig up, but I am willing to bet quite a bit on it. . .

[DeanCollins]

Really? Try this on for size.

Smoking cigarettes is illegal for children under the age of 18.

Consuming alcohol is illegal for anyone under the age of 21.

It is against the law for a parent to give their child alcohol prior to the age of 21.

It is being proposed by California, and is already the law in two other states, for a parent to give a child what is the equivalent of a cigarette via second-hand smoke in a car.

Spare me your "the sky is falling" mantra. Deal with THIS issue.

this bill isn't about smoking under age, it's about the damage that second hand smoke does to a childs respiratory system. Now, how do I know that it does? because my son has bronchitis, scars on his lungs and a smokers cough that won't go away some 6 years after he moved away from his chain smoking mother and step father.

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.

[Predicto]

Oh, I COMPLETELY disagree. Statistics show, that if you have one serious sun burn in your life, you are statistically 50% more likely to get skin cancer. If ANYTHING, it is FAR WORSE to expose a child to the sun without sun block then it is to expose a child to second hand smoke.

I'll see what facts I can dig up, but I am willing to bet quite a bit on it. . .

Did you read the article Kurp posted on page 2? The facts may be changing.

[redskins4life234]

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.
Thats what I been trying to say. Dean is right!

My Parents have no right to harm me. They have the right to tell me to walk the dog, set the table, but they do not have the right to make me breath in second hand smoke in the car.

[Popeman38]

Thats what I been trying to say. Dean is right!

My Parents have no right to harm me. They have the right to tell me to walk the dog, set the table, but they do not have the right to make me breath in second hand smoke in the car.
Actually, they do. Maryland has no law against it. So, are all the parents that used corporal punishment wrong?

[chomerics]

Did you read the article Kurp posted on page 2? The facts may be changing.

Yea, I did read it, but it really didn't say anything in terms of %'s. I look at it this way. People have only begun to understand that smoke causes cancer for the past 30 years or so. Well, prior to that time, people didn't understand the effects of things such as smoking on both children and fetus'. Henceforth, there should be a larger % of the population with problems associated with second hand smoke in our generation, and a much higher rate of asthma in children who were exposed to second hand smoke as children. That would make sense right? I mean if this study is correct in its supposition, then children of smokers who were exposed to high levels of second hand smoke would have a much higher rate of asthma and other respiratory diseases.

As of right now, I have not seen any correlating evidence that this is indeed the case. I had a mother who smoked throughout her pregnancy with me, and I have had absolutely no respiratory problems at all. Many of my friends parents smoked, and they have had no problems either. That doesn;t say much in and of itself, but I would like to see a study done which actually tracks the statistics and demographics of respiratory problems of children of smokers. I just don't see it in everyday life, and especially not at the rates surmised by the research. Because if this was indeed the case, then when the vast majority of people smoked, like in the workplace, in movie theaters, on airplanes etc etc, there should have been a much larger % of the population with asthma.

This test may indeed be valid, but I am skeptical to say the least. I did not read the study, so I don;t know what levels they were exposing the monkey's lungs to. I also don't know if there could have been another explanation or outside factor in the test. I would like to read the study in any case, and better understand the methodology they used, what the control was, how the test was administered etc. The reason for this is because I personally don;t think second hand smoke has THAT much of an effect on infants. If it did, we would have an epidemic of respiratory diseases in our population for being exposed to second hand smoke before people knew better.

[nelms]

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.
No, where to draw the line IS the argument.

I saw a family the other day at a restaraunt where the 2 kids were severely obese. These kids had to have been 11 or 12 years old and were twice my size. Here they were stuffing their faces with wings, steaks, burgers, basically the worse kind of food you can imagine. Heart disease is the number one killer in this country. I felt like going up to the mother and father and asking them if they realize what they were doing to their kids. But, you know what, it's none of my business. And it's none of the government's business either. They need to stay out of our lives. They can search me at the airport if they have to, but don't tell me how to raise my kids.

[chomerics]

this bill isn't about smoking under age, it's about the damage that second hand smoke does to a childs respiratory system. Now, how do I know that it does? because my son has bronchitis, scars on his lungs and a smokers cough that won't go away some 6 years after he moved away from his chain smoking mother and step father.

I would like to see a study which shows the facts and aligns the facts with statistics on the population to prove the theory. I am not convinced that smoke is the issue, as there may be other factors as well (pollution for example).



Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.


Not true at all. There is a line. What about parents that don;t give their children sun block for the sun. How about parents that give their children non-hydrogonated polysaturated fats to their children in things like twinkees? There is a definite line, don't kid yourself at all.

[twa]

Did you read the article Kurp posted on page 2? The facts may be changing.

As to the article:

If we truly are concerned with the welfare of infants to the point of restricting parents activities how about

1 Pregnant mothers and (anyone in the vicinity) will be fined for smoking ,drug use,insufficent nutritional input and of course any other irresponsible actions.
The ban will extend upon birth to anyone in close contact with the child.
The study clearly shows harm,and drug and alchohol abuse are proven to endanger children in a home.



2 No intercourse w/o prescreening for drug,alchohol or tabacco use and disease ,unless highly effective birth control is used.
Prevention is paramount and cost effective.


I can live with this how about you :D

Personaly it's a little strict but we want what's best for the kids .

[The Evil Genius]

I know where the line is.

Its where the state thinks it can reasonable pass a law and enforce it without retaliation.

If this law creates too much heartburn, then the state will be forced to change it. Until then (if then ever occurs), the state will get away with another mandate in its attempt to cut down on children's health problems.

[chomerics]

No, where to draw the line IS the argument.

I saw a family the other day at a restaurant where the 2 kids were severely obese. These kids had to have been 11 or 12 years old and were twice my size. Here they were stuffing their faces with wings, steaks, burgers, basically the worse kind of food you can imagine. Heart disease is the number one killer in this country. I felt like going up to the mother and father and asking them if they realize what they were doing to their kids. But, you know what, it's none of my business. And it's none of the government's business either. They need to stay out of our lives. They can search me at the airport if they have to, but don't tell me how to raise my kids.

You can't have the "the government needs to stay out of our lives" argument, and then argue that they are allowed to listen to our conversations in another thread. It doesn't work like that.

Either you are for government intervention or not, unless of course, you are just a political hack who falls for party statures and does not have ideological beliefs.

:2cents:

[DeanCollins]

No, where to draw the line IS the argument.

I saw a family the other day at a restaraunt where the 2 kids were severely obese. These kids had to have been 11 or 12 years old and were twice my size. Here they were stuffing their faces with wings, steaks, burgers, basically the worse kind of food you can imagine. Heart disease is the number one killer in this country. I felt like going up to the mother and father and asking them if they realize what they were doing to their kids. But, you know what, it's none of my business. And it's none of the government's business either. They need to stay out of our lives. They can search me at the airport if they have to, but don't tell me how to raise my kids.

nelms, your argument is a non-starter. kids have to eat, but they don't have to breathe cigarette smoke. I think that obese childrens doctors should be able to tell the parents that these kids are in serious danger medically and need to go on this diet and avoid these kinds of foods. If the parents go AMA and the children develop a medical condition later, then it's child neglect. Eating has nothing to do with smoking. A parent may not be able to afford healthy food, let's face it cheap food is generally unhealthy. but that excuse doesn't hold for the parents are too lazy to pull over the car to have a smoke or go without for 20 minutes. Smoking in a car is not
"raising your kids" it's killing them.

[chomerics]

nelms, your argument is a non-starter. kids have to eat, but they don't have to breathe cigarette smoke. I think that obese childrens doctors should be able to tell the parents that these kids are in serious danger medically and need to go on this diet and avoid these kinds of foods. If the parents go AMA and the children develop a medical condition later, then it's child neglect. Eating has nothing to do with smoking. A parent may not be able to afford healthy food, let's face it cheap food is generally unhealthy. but that excuse doesn't hold for the parents are too lazy to pull over the car to have a smoke or go without for 20 minutes. Smoking in a car is not
"raising your kids" it's killing them.

How is smoke different from exposing them to the sun unprotected? How about feeding them polysaturated fats which we know cause health problems? Can we say giving a child a "happy meal" is a form of child abuse? Where does it end?

[Thiebear]

Driving at a certain at 16 not 15 or 17/18 is fine.. those are near the age of adulthood.
Were talking the difference between:
6 years old
7 years old

so tell me, whats the difference in secondhand smoke that makes that a good arbitrary number... A GOOD arbitrary number should conform with the other ones ;)

No smoking in a car with a child in it under the age of 16..
They can drive in a non-smoking car behind you at that point :).

See my flawed logic at least has something to link it to other than sitting in a safety seat..

[nelms]

You can't have the "the government needs to stay out of our lives" argument, and then argue that they are allowed to listen to our conversations in another thread. It doesn't work like that.
Wrong, AGAIN. I am for the government listening in on the TERRORIST'S conversations. You really think that much of yourself to believe Bush and company have any interest in listening in on your phone conversations. :doh: It amazes me that libs have such a sense of self importance. The world does not revolve around you, chommie.

Even if Bush wanted to listen to your phone conversations and look at your pathetic little bank statement, do you really think the government has the manpower and resources to monitor the calls of several hundred million Americans, each making a dozen calls a day. Please, chommie, think logically for a change. Are you even capable of that?

[DeanCollins]

How is smoke different from exposing them to the sun unprotected? How about feeding them polysaturated fats which we know cause health problems? Can we say giving a child a "happy meal" is a form of child abuse? Where does it end?

Chom, there is already plenty of smoking laws, and bans in many public places, restuarants, and places of employment. why is this new bill, which is more of the same troubling you? eating healthy is hard to measure, so is sun block (not a bad idea though) but smoking in a car is enforceable, like TEG said. It's common sense, simple, cut and dried and it's gona happen, and will spread because it's the right thing to do. I've expressed my opinion previously about absolute political stances in order to keep the "line" as far to the left or right as possible, such as no gun laws, or no abortion laws. If this is why your arguing about this issue then look elsewhere for oposition, because I'm actually concerned about this issue.

[twa]

this bill isn't about smoking under age, it's about the damage that second hand smoke does to a childs respiratory system. Now, how do I know that it does? because my son has bronchitis, scars on his lungs and a smokers cough that won't go away some 6 years after he moved away from his chain smoking mother and step father.

Parents do not have the right to harm thier children, otherwise molestation and other forms of physical abuse would be legal. It's already the courts' responsibility to protect children, so the "drawing the line somewhere" argument is out.

First I an sorry to hear about your son.

However obviously the childs legal guardian had the right to harm him,assuming of course they were not jailed for it.

The fact is abuse is subject to a threshhold when it comes to parents rights.

That may be hard to take,and I certainly would question the Judge's reasoning in awarding her custody...But the fact remains parents(or legal guardians) have a right to endanger thier child.

It is a integral part of parenting or guardianship .

[redskins4life234]

Actually, they do. Maryland has no law against it. So, are all the parents that used corporal punishment wrong?
Yes! A good old spanking is fine, it hurts, the kid cries, an hour later its all over. But people who make their kid smoke a whole pack after catching them trying a cig, as all people will most likely try one. I say they are discusting and I don't want to smoke, but most likely somewhere in my life, I will try one. At age 3 4 or 5, your kid has no say. They are being harmed by this which could affect your whole life. If I went liek this every day for 5 yrs an hour of day, chances are I'd be very sick, not be able to play basketball or football with my friends, hell walk across my school in the 5 minutes I have to do to get to my next class sometimes!

First I an sorry to hear about your son.

However obviously the childs legal guardian had the right to harm him,assuming of course they were not jailed for it.

The fact is abuse is subject to a threshhold when it comes to parents rights.

That may be hard to take,and I certainly would question the Judge's reasoning in awarding her custody...But the fact remains parents(or legal guardians) have a right to endanger thier child.

It is a integral part of parenting or guardianship .
And to your conversation, I find what you said horrible. So its not ok to beat someone else, but its ok to beat your kids your saying? Your Kids are jsut as equal as you. The Smoker chjosoes ot smoke, the kid didn;t, they kid diodnt make you, why have the kid suffer because of the parents choices. Like I said,ut can affec ttheir health n the long turn. And people say things about fat kids. Many facotrs go into a obese kid. Slow matablaism. What if the kid has never walked a step in his life, he may not get the exercise he needs. Having no friends. Now you ar eprobably saying what the hell does that have to do with anything. If a kid has no friends, he may not get a chance to go play ball with friends which is a huge way kids get exercise. He is stuck inside, watching tv, and jsut doesnt have the motive to go running or biking. And you say, well maybe joina sport and make friends there and get exersise doing that, Maybe hes not good at one? Maybe because he doesn't have friends he was never introduced to it untila later age where its hard to devolaope the skills. Peoples analagies are no where close to what smoking really does!

[DeanCollins]

First I an sorry to hear about your son.

However obviously the childs legal guardian had the right to harm him,assuming of course they were not jailed for it.

The fact is abuse is subject to a threshhold when it comes to parents rights.

That may be hard to take,and I certainly would question the Judge's reasoning in awarding her custody...But the fact remains parents(or legal guardians) have a right to endanger thier child.

It is a integral part of parenting or guardianship .

that's an incorrect assumption based on what parents get away with due to
law's ostacles over privacy. a road block so to speak. theres a diffence between endangerment and abuse/neglect.

My son is going to be ok, it was just so unnecesary. I take some of the responsibility for not filing for a change of custody over the smoking, but back then, I probably wouldn't have won. Now I think that there's a chance for others. Most laws are not retro-active however that doesn't mean that the lack of a law can be used as a precident either. beating your wife and children to excess was legal for centuries but we don't tolerate it now. Child labor law were hotly debated but noone talks of them now.

[twa]

Quote;

And to your conversation, I find what you said horrible. So its not ok to beat someone else, but its ok to beat your kids your saying? Your Kids are jsut as equal as you. The Smoker chjosoes ot smoke, the kid didn;t, they kid diodnt make you, why have the kid suffer because of the parents choices. Like I said,ut can affec ttheir health n the long turn. And people say things about fat kids. Many facotrs go into a obese kid. Slow matablaism. What if the kid has never walked a step in his life, he may not get the exercise he needs. Having no friends. Now you ar eprobably saying what the hell does that have to do with anything. If a kid has no friends, he may not get a chance to go play ball with friends which is a huge way kids get exercise. He is stuck inside, watching tv, and jsut doesnt have the motive to go running or biking. And you say, well maybe joina sport and make friends there and get exersise doing that, Maybe hes not good at one? Maybe because he doesn't have friends he was never introduced to it untila later age where its hard to devolaope the skills. Peoples analagies are no where close to what smoking really does!
......................


Yes it is OK(according to the law) to beat your kids,and neglect them or even starve them up to a point.

As to the obese kids; you are correct there are many variables ,just as in secondhand smoke or any other risk factor.

I'm sorry you find what I said horrible and your probably not alone.

It is simply the Responsibility of parents to decide risk unless it is grave enough for society to remove the child from them.

Does 2nd hand smoke rise to that level? Not in most cases.

[chomerics]

Wrong, AGAIN. I am for the government listening in on the TERRORIST'S conversations. You really think that much of yourself to believe Bush and company have any interest in listening in on your phone conversations. :doh: It amazes me that libs have such a sense of self importance. The world does not revolve around you, chommie.

Even if Bush wanted to listen to your phone conversations and look at your pathetic little bank statement, do you really think the government has the manpower and resources to monitor the calls of several hundred million Americans, each making a dozen calls a day. Please, chommie, think logically for a change. Are you even capable of that?

No Nelms, you argued for NO oversight, so the president can listen to who ever he wants when ever he wants and he doesn't need to have a warrant. At least have the sack to admit what you stand for, then at least be a man and admit you WANT nanny government in that instance, but not in this one.

[twa]

Quit going OT Chom...I liked having you on my side for once. :D

[chomerics]

Chom, there is already plenty of smoking laws, and bans in many public places, restuarants, and places of employment. why is this new bill, which is more of the same troubling you? eating healthy is hard to measure, so is sun block (not a bad idea though) but smoking in a car is enforceable, like TEG said. It's common sense, simple, cut and dried and it's gona happen, and will spread because it's the right thing to do. I've expressed my opinion previously about absolute political stances in order to keep the "line" as far to the left or right as possible, such as no gun laws, or no abortion laws. If this is why your arguing about this issue then look elsewhere for oposition, because I'm actually concerned about this issue.

No, not at all, personally, I don;t think the government should intervene in these matters. I don't think they should be involved in abortion, or in telling people what they can and can not do in their homes. Unfortunately if people want to smoke in front of their kids they will, but I don;t think the government should punish people for their own stupid behavior. I disagree with the nanny form of government almost across the board, and I don;t think this is any different.

I personally think the government is ALREADY TOO involved in personal matters, and they should be less involved with peoples personal lives. Things like the seat belt law, while they make sense, shouldn't be on the books. I will admit though, where the argument can be made is on an economical one and that is where the key is to getting any legislation to pass. In this case, I think a correlation study would be needed to show exactly the % of kids exposed to second hand smoke, and what the health costs are. Then you can make a valid argument and I could change my mind, but until it makes sense monetarily, I think it should not be in the governments hands.

I think this is a very good fundamental question for people to ask themselves. How much government do they want in their lives. For myself, it is less government, but that is a personal choice. I want to be able to make choices myself, but there are people who want the government to make choices for them. I prefer to be of the free thinking variety, and even though something may hurt society in the long run (ie smoking, drugs, foods etc) they should not be banned or made illegal. It is a personal freedom issue for me, but it may be different for others.

[redskins4life234]

Yes it is OK(according to the law) to beat your kids,and neglect them or even starve them up to a point.

If it is, then please inform me what child abuse is please. If I;m correct, I believe its the beating of a child. I think forcing your kid to breath in second hand smoke is a beating to their lungs which is almost just as bad. Too abd broken bones heals and cuts go ahead, while damaged lungs, you will always have!

[nelms]

No Nelms, you argued for NO oversight, so the president can listen to who ever he wants when ever he wants and he doesn't need to have a warrant. At least have the sack to admit what you stand for, then at least be a man and admit you WANT nanny government in that instance, but not in this one.
Yes, I want "NANNY" government when it comes to national security and protecting me and my family. That is a role government MUST play. Protecting us is not intruding into our private lives. It is actually protecting us to have a free and private life. Too bad your deep hatred of Bush (along with too many bong hits) clouds your mind.

[chomerics]

Yes, I want "NANNY" government when it comes to national security and protecting me and my family. That is a role government MUST play. Protecting us is not intruding into our private lives.

The old Franklin quote works well here. . .

He who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security (Although I believe Franklin was not the one who said it, but that's neither here nor there)

And thus I am point out the hypocrisy of your position. You AGREE with the NANNY form of government when it comes to some things, but not others. It is a political platform with you, not an ideological one. Thanks for playing ;)

[twa]

If it is, then please inform me what child abuse is please. If I;m correct, I believe its the beating of a child. I think forcing your kid to breath in second hand smoke is a beating to their lungs which is almost just as bad. Too abd broken bones heals and cuts go ahead, while damaged lungs, you will always have!

As I said " up to a point".

Does second hand smoke rise to that level? Not from what I have seen.

Would you support removing a child from a home where it is exposed to smoke?

If not it is not enough of a danger to fine.imo

There are too many other risks that should be addressed first.

Just for the record :rolleyes: I am against smoking around infants or pregnant women.

[twa]

The old Franklin quote works well here. . .

He who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security (Although I believe Franklin was not the one who said it, but that's neither here nor there)

And thus I am point out the hypocrisy of your position. You AGREE with the NANNY form of government when it comes to some things, but not others. It is a political platform with you, not an ideological one. Thanks for playing ;)


Dang it I can't help myself ;)

Your argument is faulty in that National security is the Executive branch's RESPONSIBILITY in the constitution. It is the most important charge to it.

Now if you can show evidence of them using surveilance for other uses other than national security, then I will agree.

BTW: The quote you used was a condemnation of those that were hesitant to give up the security of the British empire for the chance of Freedom, and it is annoying to see your usage in that way. .

The founding fathers would be appalled :moon: :nana:

[nelms]

Dang it I can't help myself ;)

Your argument is faulty in that National security is the Executive branch's RESPONSIBILITY in the constitution. It is the most important charge to it.

Now if you can show evidence of them using surveilance for other uses other than national security, then I will agree.

BTW: The quote you used was a condemnation of those that were hesitant to give up the security of the British empire for the chance of Freedom, and it is annoying to see your usage in that way. .

The founding fathers would be appalled :moon: :nana:
:owned: Ownage on several levels, especially the misuse of the quote. :laugh:

Btw, chommie and co. (see Larry) don't like conservatives talking about the constitution. It usually doesn't fit with their INTERPRETATION of it.

[nelms]

And thus I am point out the hypocrisy of your position. You AGREE with the NANNY form of government when it comes to some things, but not others. It is a political platform with you, not an ideological one. Thanks for playing ;)
Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that. So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are the ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.

[Popeman38]

Yes! A good old spanking is fine, it hurts, the kid cries, an hour later its all over. But people who make their kid smoke a whole pack after catching them trying a cig, as all people will most likely try one. I say they are discusting and I don't want to smoke, but most likely somewhere in my life, I will try one. At age 3 4 or 5, your kid has no say. They are being harmed by this which could affect your whole life. If I went liek this every day for 5 yrs an hour of day, chances are I'd be very sick, not be able to play basketball or football with my friends, hell walk across my school in the 5 minutes I have to do to get to my next class sometimes!!
Now for an education, which you are still getting. I smoked all the way through high school. No problems playing any sport (basketball, baseball and SOCCER). I joined the army for 8 years, running 4 miles each on Mon Wed and Fri, with a 6.25 mile ruck on Thurs. Yes, smoking is not good for you, but the results you cite above are just a tad over the top. Not being able to get to your next class. Please...:rolleyes: I will not argue over a parent smoking witha child. I have a problem with the gov stepping in and making a law...

And to your conversation, I find what you said horrible. So its not ok to beat someone else, but its ok to beat your kids your saying? Your Kids are jsut as equal as you. The Smoker chooses to smoke, the kid didn't, the kid didn't make you, why have the kid suffer because of the parents choices. Like I said,it can affect their health in the long turn. And people say things about fat kids. Many facotrs go into an obese kid. Slow matabalism. What if the kid has never walked a step in his life, he may not get the exercise he needs. Having no friends. Now you are probably saying what the hell does that have to do with anything. If a kid has no friends, he may not get a chance to go play ball with friends which is a huge way kids get exercise. He is stuck inside, watching tv, and jsut doesnt have the motive to go running or biking. And you say, well maybe joina sport and make friends there and get exersise doing that, Maybe hes not good at one? Maybe because he doesn't have friends he was never introduced to it untila later age where its hard to devolaope the skills. Peoples analagies are no where close to what smoking really does!
The bolded part of your post above is crap. "Let's now have the gov step in and make laws to regulate the amount of exercise each child gets, the amount of caloric intake per day, and mandate that if a friend is not available the gov designate someone to be a friend so the child never has to be alone or make anydecision by themselves." See, I can throw crap down too. This is not even a worthy argument. The issue is supposedly a childs health, but in actuality it is a privacy issue.

[Popeman38]

Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that. So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.
Both way off topic...

[nelms]

Both way off topic...
No, it's very much on topic. I'm talking about the government's role in our lives.

[TheKurp]

As of right now, I have not seen any correlating evidence that this is indeed the case. I had a mother who smoked throughout her pregnancy with me, and I have had absolutely no respiratory problems at all. Many of my friends parents smoked, and they have had no problems either. That doesn;t say much in and of itself, but I would like to see a study done which actually tracks the statistics and demographics of respiratory problems of children of smokers. I just don't see it in everyday life, and especially not at the rates surmised by the research. Because if this was indeed the case, then when the vast majority of people smoked, like in the workplace, in movie theaters, on airplanes etc etc, there should have been a much larger % of the population with asthma.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke - ETS) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992)
Key findings:

In adults:

ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.

In children:

ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.
ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.
ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.
ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

[twa]

Kurp, can I ask a question of your opinion as it relates to the first study cited?

Do you feel a fine would be in order for pregnant women that smoke or drink?

Please keep in mind no one is forcing them to bear the child.

If not why?

Anyone else is free to answer, of course.

[TheKurp]

TWA,

It's a question that hits close to home. My mother smoked and drank when she was pregnant with me and both my sisters smoked, and one drank when carrying their children. Of my three nieces and nephews, two have asthma.

On an ideological level, I don't think some people should ever be allowed to have children. The irony in that is that I'd include my mother - which of course means I wouldn't be typing this at the moment. However in my mother's defense I don't know that she would have smoked and drank during her pregnancy had she known what is known today about the effects of both on the fetus. My sisters have no such excuse other than perhaps their addictions were passed on from my mother. And if you recognize addiction as a disease than can you really hold someone accountable?

Statistics indicate that women of low-income and low-education backgrounds are more likely to drink and smoke during pregnancy. I don't know that you can fix the low-education dilemma but perhaps instead of levying a fine some sort of incentive program might better deter them from smoking and drinking. One would think that shouldn't be necessary because women should instinctively want the best for their unborn child. Those that don't, or those that don't care about the fetus, well, they fall into my category of women who shouldn't be allowed to have children. But that's Orwellian type thinking and not very practical.

To answer your question. A fine? No, because I don't think it would deter the type of woman who would drink and smoke during pregnancy. But I don't think that should preclude government involvement because there is a cost to society as a whole for the actions of women who don't put the health of their fetuses above their drinking and smoking.

[Larry]

Kurp, can I ask a question of your opinion as it relates to the first study cited?

Do you feel a fine would be in order for pregnant women that smoke or drink?

Please keep in mind no one is forcing them to bear the child.

If not why?

Anyone else is free to answer, of course.

I think I'd oppose it, but I could see the reasoning behind it. (Which about summs up my opinion of this law.)

(Although, frankly, I could also see the reasoning for an outright ban on tobacco. Out of all of the nasty habits listed by the "what if?" crowd, tobacco is about the only one that's seriously harmfull, spreads itself to bystanders, and is addictive. Again, I'd vote against it, but I could see the reasoning.)

My question would be: Do these activities do enough harm to justify government use of force? And I don't think they do. To me, the right balance with tobacco is about where it is now.

[twa]

Thanks Kurp, a well reasoned response which I agree with.

I would extend the same thinking to the law in question and doubt fines are appropriate or really effective.
Education and incentives would be much more reasonable and effective.

Larry I also like yours, as if it matters. ;)

Good night

[luckydevil]

Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that. So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are the ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.

He has never claimed to be a libertarian.

[Thiebear]

The study is nice but is a study about Second hand smoke in the home? Why would you then ban smoking in the car? (shouldn't it be in the home)? Can they do a study of smoking in the car and then make a decision based on that?

Maybe come up with the: If you smoking in a compact with the windows up 100$, A Hummer with the child in the non-smoking section and the window open a crack 10$.
;)

[nelms]

He has never claimed to be a libertarian.
Who asked you to stick your beak in this. This is between me and Comrade chommie (Captain America vs. Captain Commie).

[Thiebear]

Who asked you to stick your beak in this. This is between me and Comrade chommie (Captain America vs. Captain Commie).

Well, he's not a libertarian ... lets let the facts actually get in the way...

[nelms]

Well, he's not a libertarian ... lets let the facts actually get in the way...
Of course he isn't, but he pretends to be. His comments about not letting the government intrude into our lives is a joke, considering his support of a socialistic federal government.

[Larry]

Who asked you to stick your beak in this. This is between me and Comrade chommie (Captain America vs. Captain Commie).

1) You may observe, this is a thread about a California law, dealing with smoking in cars.

2) It is not a thread about how many personal insults you can sling.

3) lucky didn't "stick his beak into this". You did. (And yeah, so did chom.)

4) This chip on your shoulder isn't between you and "Captain Commie". It's between you and about half of the world. And it wasn't cute when you were 12.

[chomerics]

Dang it I can't help myself ;)

Your argument is faulty in that National security is the Executive branch's RESPONSIBILITY in the constitution. It is the most important charge to it.

Now if you can show evidence of them using surveilance for other uses other than national security, then I will agree.

TWA, that is a faulty analogy and you know it. How can I show you when they won;t allow any oversight into the program? They are disobeying the law by not going before a judiciary to get warrants, this is a direct violation of the law as it is constituted. Now, you may well be correct, they may NOT be listening to people in cases other then of national security interest, but how do we know? You seem to have a "trust them" approach, when they have ALREADY lied to the American citizens on the issue. I, OTOH, don't trust them at all.

This question was never answered by anyone in the administration, and I believe it exposes ulterior motives: What can they do differently by ignoring the FISA statute when it comes to warrants then if they obey it? What extra power does it give them in terms of national security that can not be done within the FISA laws? If ANYONE can successfully argue WHY national security is BETTER without FISA then I am all ears, but in 6 months, I have not seen even a half hearted attempt to answer the question.




BTW: The quote you used was a condemnation of those that were hesitant to give up the security of the British empire for the chance of Freedom, and it is annoying to see your usage in that way. .

Really? Is the point valid or isn;t it? You see, quotes like this expose the massive hypocrisy in the neo-con cult agenda. Things like freedom and security are used as political tools, not as they should be. We invaded Iraq, and in essence gave them their freedom and made them less secure as a country. Iraq now is a MUCH MUCH more dangerous place for the average Iraqi then under Saddam. So who is to say Iraqi's want freedom over security? The neo-cons keep arguing that security is more important then freedom, and they try to strip freedoms away when ever they can, either through written law (ie Patriot Act 1 & 2) or through illegal means (wiretapping). So who are they to say what is more desirable for a population? What gives them the right to tell US as citizens that security is more important, and to tell Iraqi's that freedom is more important?

You see, the quote works VERY well with both the ludicrous arguments posed here in blatant hypocritical fashion about NANNY government, and also when looked at in more general terms of the Iraq war and our freedoms here at home.



The founding fathers would be appalled :moon: :nana:
I agree, the founding fathers would be completely appalled with the way our country is run right now! ;)

[chomerics]

Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

Evidently you never read your own posts, because I would fathom a guess that your radical viewpoint has posted quite a bit more outlandish things then saying you are a hypocrite when it comes to NANNY government.



You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that.

Really? So tell me how SSI is telling people what they can and can not do with their bodies. Tell me how SSI removes a freedom from people. Tell me how the SSI program is the government telling me what I can and can not do with my life. You see, social programs aren'y NANNY government any more then the military, or schools are. They are a form of operation by a governing class on how to spend tax money. You may not like the fact that some of your tax money goes to welfare, as I may not like the fact that some of my tax money goes to the Iraq debocle. It doesn;t mean government is NANNYing us, they are chosing how to spend their money.

When they decide what I can do with my body, what i can eat, what I can drink, and personal choices I make, then that IS a definition of the NANNY form of government. Just because you have a hypocritical stance does not mean you are wrong. No, instead it means that you are nothing more then a partisan who can't discern your OWN ideology from your parties.



So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are the ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.

Really, when have I EVER claimed to be a libertarian? You OTOH have claimed it quite a bit, and you have been called out for your own hypocrisy. Do you even know what an ideology is? Do you even understand what a libertarian is? The funny thing is that I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system, and I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. You, OTOH, try to pass yourself off as one because you are ashamed of your party. Well, on that account, i can;t really blame you.

[nelms]

Evidently you never read your own posts, because I would fathom a guess that your radical viewpoint has posted quite a bit more outlandish things then saying you are a hypocrite when it comes to NANNY government.



Really? So tell me how SSI is telling people what they can and can not do with their bodies. Tell me how SSI removes a freedom from people. Tell me how the SSI program is the government telling me what I can and can not do with my life. You see, social programs aren'y NANNY government any more then the military, or schools are. They are a form of operation by a governing class on how to spend tax money. You may not like the fact that some of your tax money goes to welfare, as I may not like the fact that some of my tax money goes to the Iraq debocle. It doesn;t mean government is NANNYing us, they are chosing how to spend their money.

When they decide what I can do with my body, what i can eat, what I can drink, and personal choices I make, then that IS a definition of the NANNY form of government. Just because you have a hypocritical stance does not mean you are wrong. No, instead it means that you are nothing more then a partisan who can't discern your OWN ideology from your parties.



Really, when have I EVER claimed to be a libertarian? You OTOH have claimed it quite a bit, and you have been called out for your own hypocrisy. Do you even know what an ideology is? Do you even understand what a libertarian is? The funny thing is that I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system, and I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. You, OTOH, try to pass yourself off as one because you are ashamed of your party. Well, on that account, i can;t really blame you.
Uh, the government telling me how to fund my retirement years is intruding in my personal life. :doh: Why do they have to take my money and make my decisions on how I am going to live my retirement years? You really need to put the bong down, chommie.

As far as "I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system", let me just say bwhahahahahahhahhahahhahhahahahaha! What a complete joke.

[PokerPacker]

Of course he isn't, but he pretends to be. His comments about not letting the government intrude into our lives is a joke, considering his support of a socialistic federal government.
he is defintatly not a libertarian (nor does he pretend to.) he is easily playing in left field,

[PokerPacker]

Uh, the government telling me how to fund my retirement years is intruding in my personal life. :doh: Why do they have to take my money and make my decisions on how I am going to live my retirement years? You really need to put the bong down, chommie.

As far as "I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system", let me just say bwhahahahahahhahhahahhahhahahahaha! What a complete joke.
you do realise that 50 percent of each liberal and conservative views match up with those that are libertarian, right?

so the fact that he is the resident liberal of this board, it shouldn't be surprising that he agrees with many libertarian views.

[twa]

Quote Chom
"TWA, that is a faulty analogy and you know it. How can I show you when they won;t allow any oversight into the program? They are disobeying the law by not going before a judiciary to get warrants, this is a direct violation of the law as it is constituted."

:laugh: Works both ways huh? Niether of us can supply enough facts to settle the issue. We will have to agree to disagree , and with the issue in the courts perhaps the issue will finaly be resolved.

Though I'm sure someone will be unhappy. ;)

Now can we get back to working together against the goverment overeaching in private lives?

[nelms]

you do realise that 50 percent of each liberal and conservative views match up with those that are libertarian, right?

so the fact that he is the resident liberal of this board, it shouldn't be surprising that he agrees with many libertarian views.
But he passes himself off as defender of the individual against the "Nanny" government. Yet, he supports a beheemoth social security progam, as well as other bloated social programs, but can't see that they are "Nanny" programs. He's either being dishonest or dense or most likely both.

[PokerPacker]

But he passes himself off as defender of the individual against the "Nanny" government. Yet, he supports a beheemoth social security progam, as well as other bloated social programs, but can't see that they are "Nanny" programs. He's either being dishonest or dense or most likely both.
as i said, he's a liberal, not a libertarian. those are liberal ideals, just like how conservatives are against big government programs, but turn around and support the government's right to intervene in your personal life. both parties share libertarian ideals, but the each just happen to carry a different half of them.

[chomerics]

But he passes himself off as defender of the individual against the "Nanny" government. Yet, he supports a beheemoth social security progam, as well as other bloated social programs, but can't see that they are "Nanny" programs. He's either being dishonest or dense or most likely both.

No Nelms, social programs are NOT nanny government. They are how government spends THEIR money, not your money THEIR money.

SSI falls into the same boat as the military, a government funded industry. It isn't a law restricting a freedom on someone. You want to try to change the argument to suit your purposes and mask your hypocrisy, but I won't let you. I will point out to everyone else here that you think government stepping on one aspect of privacy is ok, but not another one.

For me, SSI is nothing more then a safety net for the less fortunate people when they retire. It is NOT your money any more then it is MY money, anymore then the money going to Haliburton is MY money. It is the GOVERNMENT's money, and they decide what to do with it. You may not like the way they spend their money, but it is not the same thing as the "NANNY" government.

You see, NANNY government has to do with personal freedoms, and what you can and can not do. If you want to take the SSI analogy and say financial freedom, well then, you have to do the same thing for the military, police, firemen and every other service governments provide us. If you don;t like the distribution of funds, you can change them by voting in people more along your beliefs. But that is not the same thing as NANNY government, because neither is telling you how you HAVE TO live your life, and what you can and can not do with yourself and your body. There is a very distinct difference, and only people who are complete hypocrites can't see why.

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/28/state/n193817D14.DTL&hw=smoking+cars+children&sn=001&sc=1000




I think they may be taking things a bit too far...

For the people who have forgotten

[Popeman38]

Here is the important bill that was passed, and was tucked WAY at the bottom of the article:

IMMIGRANT LICENSES — By a 42-34 vote, the Assembly approved legislation that would let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses.



The measure by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would overturn a 1993 law that prohibits the state from issuing licenses to drivers who cannot prove they are in the country legally.



Supporters said giving licenses to illegal immigrants would make the roads safer by ensuring that all drivers go through state testing and get insurance. But critics charged that giving licenses to illegal immigrants would reward those who break the law.



The bill now goes to the Senate.

[nelms]

No Nelms, social programs are NOT nanny government. They are how government spends THEIR money, not your money THEIR money.
:doh: You really aren't that dense are you? THEIR money? :doh: :doh: Last time I checked, that money came out of MY paycheck. :doh: :doh:

[Predicto]

Here is the important bill that was passed, and was tucked WAY at the bottom of the article:

IMMIGRANT LICENSES — By a 42-34 vote, the Assembly approved legislation that would let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses.

The measure by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would overturn a 1993 law that prohibits the state from issuing licenses to drivers who cannot prove they are in the country legally.

Supporters said giving licenses to illegal immigrants would make the roads safer by ensuring that all drivers go through state testing and get insurance. But critics charged that giving licenses to illegal immigrants would reward those who break the law.

The bill now goes to the Senate.

This is actually a bill I support. Not because I support illegal immigrant rights, but because I want to make sure that as many people as possible who are driving on the roads near me have actually passed a driving test.

IMO, the DMV is about road safety only.

[Predicto]

I feel the same way about, say, allowing illegal immigrant kids to get vaccination shots. It's not for their sake - it's for MY sake and the sake of my kids.

[TheKurp]

For the people who have forgotten

I haven't forgotten. I'm still trying to get over the callousness of those who view the damaged lungs of little children as little more than a casualty of war over what they deem to be a fight over the government infringing on their personal choices.

[chomerics]

:doh: You really aren't that dense are you? THEIR money? :doh: :doh: Last time I checked, that money came out of MY paycheck. :doh: :doh:

And YOU do not have a say as to where the money goes now do you? So it really isn't YOUR money to begin with. It is money you never saw, and it is money you owe the government simply for being a citizen of this country, so no, again you are wrong. The tax money you pay is not YOUR money any more then it is my money. You have no right to the money, do not get to decide how it gets spent, or anything. If it was YOUR money, then is the money you pay the mortgage company YOUR money as well?

[nelms]

And YOU do not have a say as to where the money goes now do you? So it really isn't YOUR money to begin with. It is money you never saw, and it is money you owe the government simply for being a citizen of this country, so no, again you are wrong. The tax money you pay is not YOUR money any more then it is my money. You have no right to the money, do not get to decide how it gets spent, or anything. If it was YOUR money, then is the money you pay the mortgage company YOUR money as well?
Dude, you have some serious issues if you really think this way. Serious mental issues. Please stop hijacking this thread any further.

[Popeman38]

I haven't forgotten. I'm still trying to get over the callousness of those who view the damaged lungs of little children as little more than a casualty of war over what they deem to be a fight over the government infringing on their personal choices.
Nice guilt trip Kurp. I am against this because I do not want the gov making my decisions fro me. Like, say end of life decisions? I had to make the decision to remove life support to my son. What happens to the people in the future who are placed in this unfortunate situation if the gov tells them they can not remove life support because it would be damaging to their child? (see Terry Schaivo case) So maybe there is more than callousness behind some of the opposition.:2cents:

[The Evil Genius]

Guys, lets not forget - this is regulating what happens inside of an automobile.

It's in the same legal mode that the state DMV can make you wear a seatbelt (or be fined) or force you to put your 6 year old or younger kid in a car seat (or be fined).

Not sure why this opposition would be any different than the opposition mentioned above. They are all about safety of either you or your kids.

[Popeman38]

Guys, lets not forget - this is regulating what happens inside of an automobile.

It's in the same legal mode that the state DMV can make you wear a seatbelt (or be fined) or force you to put your 6 year old or younger kid in a car seat (or be fined).

Not sure why this opposition would be any different than the opposition mentioned above. They are all about safety of either you or your kids.
Your laws mentioned above is to keep the child safe from the automobile i.e: slamming into the dashboard, through the windshield, and suffering disfiguring or deadly physical injury. There is a difference.

[chomerics]

I haven't forgotten. I'm still trying to get over the callousness of those who view the damaged lungs of little children as little more than a casualty of war over what they deem to be a fight over the government infringing on their personal choices.

Kurp, the paper you cited still does not conclude that asthma is a result of second hand smoke. It even offers a counter-intuitive statistic which says the opposite of the argument position.


Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general.

Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general. In other words, there is no statistical correlation between second hand smoke and asthma in children. This is why I said I wanted to look at the study, and why i said I was skeptical to say the least. The initial test proves nothing, and the back up test proves that there is no statistical difference if children are exposed to ETS or not, as to if they get asthma.

Again, i am not arguing that it is right, but there is nothing that I have seen which tells me difinitively that second hand smoke is any MORE dangerous to a child then normal environmental factors. And with that being said, I would err on the side of the government staying OUT of my personal life. It would need to be a very strong argument, with a pretty tight case for me to change my mind about this as well.

[JohnLockesGhost]

:doh: You really aren't that dense are you? THEIR money? :doh: :doh: Last time I checked, that money came out of MY paycheck. :doh: :doh:

No, no. You only THINK it's your paycheck. You really are just working for the government. But they let you keep a little.

[waterwagen]

Hey govt, get out of our lives already!

[rictus58]

Kurp, the paper you cited still does not conclude that asthma is a result of second hand smoke. It even offers a counter-intuitive statistic which says the opposite of the argument position.


Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general. In other words, there is no statistical correlation between second hand smoke and asthma in children. This is why I said I wanted to look at the study, and why i said I was skeptical to say the least. The initial test proves nothing, and the back up test proves that there is no statistical difference if children are exposed to ETS or not, as to if they get asthma.

Again, i am not arguing that it is right, but there is nothing that I have seen which tells me difinitively that second hand smoke is any MORE dangerous to a child then normal environmental factors. And with that being said, I would err on the side of the government staying OUT of my personal life. It would need to be a very strong argument, with a pretty tight case for me to change my mind about this as well.

For once I agree with Chom. Wow.


When I was a fetus my mother smoked. When I was a child my mother AND father smoked. I didn't end up with with any sort of lung ailment as a child. Nor did my siblings. I'm not advocating FOR secondhand smoke here, BUT,
People against second-hand smoke seem to think its a forgone conclusion that esposure to second hand smoke WILL hurt you until the day you die.

[TheKurp]

Kurp, the paper you cited still does not conclude that asthma is a result of second hand smoke. It even offers a counter-intuitive statistic which says the opposite of the argument position.



Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general. In other words, there is no statistical correlation between second hand smoke and asthma in children. This is why I said I wanted to look at the study, and why i said I was skeptical to say the least. The initial test proves nothing, and the back up test proves that there is no statistical difference if children are exposed to ETS or not, as to if they get asthma.
Again, i am not arguing that it is right, but there is nothing that I have seen which tells me difinitively that second hand smoke is any MORE dangerous to a child then normal environmental factors. And with that being said, I would err on the side of the government staying OUT of my personal life. It would need to be a very strong argument, with a pretty tight case for me to change my mind about this as well.


Huh? Nice of you to read the entire article, which is why I posted the link, but did you miss this entire section? You know, the one I actually posted in this thread?


In children:

ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.
ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.
ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.
ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

[TheKurp]

For once I agree with Chom. Wow.


When I was a fetus my mother smoked. When I was a child my mother AND father smoked. I didn't end up with with any sort of lung ailment as a child. Nor did my siblings. I'm not advocating FOR secondhand smoke here, BUT,
People against second-hand smoke seem to think its a forgone conclusion that esposure to second hand smoke WILL hurt you until the day you die.

How about going back to the UC Davis findings. You know, the one that demonstrated that the alveolar cells died twice as fast after exposure to second-hand smoke.

Ever had your lung function tested? I, like you, had a mother that smoked during pregnancy and around me when I was growing up. My lung function has been tested and I fall into the lower average range. No, I've never had asthma, although I once had bronchitis. You think maybe my lung function might be a whole lot better, especially considering the fact that I am in great aerobic shape, if my mother hadn't smoked? I do.

People survive on one lung just fine. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't be a whole lot healthier with two.

How about you? Get winded quickly after running a mile? Go have your lung function tested and then come back here and report to us how you were immune to your childhood ETS exposure.

[TheKurp]

Nice guilt trip Kurp. I am against this because I do not want the gov making my decisions fro me. Like, say end of life decisions? I had to make the decision to remove life support to my son. What happens to the people in the future who are placed in this unfortunate situation if the gov tells them they can not remove life support because it would be damaging to their child? (see Terry Schaivo case) So maybe there is more than callousness behind some of the opposition.:2cents:

It's a freakin cigarette. You're defending the personal choice of being able to smoke a freakin cigarette in a car with children whose lungs are still developing.

[No_Pressure]

The whole thing is a good theory, you take the smoke out of cars with kids, eliminate the kids getting second hand smoke, etc. before they are at an age to make a mature choice whether they want to smoke or not...making a law out of it however is absolutly absurd. How will they enforce it? Who is to say you cant smoke in your own property child or not? Sure it isnt a good thing to be neglegent of your child's health and choices and it is wrong to expose kids to that kind of stuff, but it is equally wrong to take away people's freedoms like this. Two wrongs dont make a right, shouldnt the Senate be solving more important problems than an almost unenforcable freedom restricting law on smoking?

[rictus58]

How about you? Get winded quickly after running a mile?

No. never tested. winded after a mile? YOU BETCHA! But, i was a smoker for 10 years.

[chomerics]

Huh? Nice of you to read the entire article, which is why I posted the link, but did you miss this entire section? You know, the one I actually posted in this thread?

Yes Kurp, I did read the article, and nowhere does it attribute asthma to second hand smoke, nowhere. Here is what they cite. . .




ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.
ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.
ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.
ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

With absolutely no scientific correlation to their findings at all. They state arbitrarily that these are the effects of second hand smoke, yet they ALSO state that there is no correlation between generating asthma and not having asthma.

Here are the "effects" of second hand smoke.



Edit: my mistake, I read (1.) wrong.


2. ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.

Really? how much, what is the "prevelance" of fluid, does it increase i miniscule amount, which can be attributed to noise in the data, or is it a significant amount? My bet would be that it is very low and within the noise, because of course they never mention a % to you or give you any real numbers. An increase of 1% is still an increase, but it can be attributed to noise in the data Kurp, they can say this and STILL be correct, while making you think something oposite.


3.ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Really? By how much? What is the requirement for their condition to be "worsened"? how do they arrive at this number, or do they just go under the assumption that it "increases risk" so thus "worsens" their condition without any statistical facts surrounding their case. Then, to make it seem even worse, they take the average number of households with smokers, and correlate that with the average number of children and come up with an outrageous large error bar of 500% (from 200K to 1000K). In essence, the study STILL has told us absolutely nothing at all. Only that kids with asthma shouldn't be around smokers. . . well duh. How much dammage does it do, what is the frequency of hospital visite etc. etc. My best bet would be that there is NO statistical evidence that proves their point, that is why they leave out the %'s and don;t delve into more in depth statistics. Things like 25% of households who have children with asthma AND smoke have children that go to the hospital because of asthma complications 45% more frequently. because this statistic is missing, I can only assume it was never there!


4. ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

Really? How so? How much of a risk is it? Within 3 sigma limits? If so then why not publish the INCREASE of risk? why leave it as it just increases risk? Again look at my above argument. . .


FINALLY, we get to the point of the study, which of course is one of the absolute LAST things mentioned in the study. . .


Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general.

Which of course, as I already explained earlier, says that basically the test is moot and there IS NO correlation between second hand smoke and asthma.

This is a GREAT example of WHY you need not only to READ the studies, but also understand the methodology behind them and what they are trying to prove from the onset. It is very similar as to polling questions, and how to get a polling person to say what you want them to say by rephrasing the question. Read about Frank Luntz and his linguistic studies and polling. He is a mastermind at things like this, and if you understand it, you can see the truth behind the utter BS in a majority of studies, such as the one you used as a reference.

:2cents:

[chomerics]

It's a freakin cigarette. You're defending the personal choice of being able to smoke a freakin cigarette in a car with children whose lungs are still developing.

And you have yet to show me that there is any consequences from being exposed to the smoke. Again, prove to me there is a significant factor which stunts a childs development, and thus is monetarily costly for joe taxpayer in the long run, and I may change my mind, but as of this point, the only studies I have read have reinforced my opinion that I am right. There is no threat to the development of a childs lungs, and it IS an invasion of privacy IMHO.

[Predicto]

For once I agree with Chom. Wow.


When I was a fetus my mother smoked. When I was a child my mother AND father smoked. I didn't end up with with any sort of lung ailment as a child. Nor did my siblings. I'm not advocating FOR secondhand smoke here, BUT,
People against second-hand smoke seem to think its a forgone conclusion that esposure to second hand smoke WILL hurt you until the day you die.

It's a percentage thing, not a guarantee. Anedoctal stories mean nothing.

[Predicto]

Yes Kurp, I did read the article, and nowhere does it attribute asthma to second hand smoke, nowhere. Here is what they cite. . .

LOTS OF STUFF



Chom, are you debunking the study itself, or are you dissecting the article written about it that was linked above? I think you may be finding inconsistencies that are due to the reporting rather than to the scientific methodology. If so, your assumption that this is bad science may be premature.

I have not read the study myself, so I cannot weigh your assertions on their merits.

[twa]

Krup the studies cited are simply for exposure, so how far do we go?

If the risks are truly substantial why not a complete ban on smoking around infants or pregnant women ?? (which would include the mother)

You know it's because it is not important enough to affect that many people.

It is callous , but fact.

[Predicto]

Krup the studies cited are simply for exposure, so how far do we go?

If the risks are truly substantial why not a complete ban on smoking around infants or pregnant women ?? (which would include the mother)

You know it's because it is not important enough to affect that many people.

It is callous , but fact.

Or because as a society, we draw a different line between what you do in your house and what you do out on the road in a car. Automobile driving is already heavily regulated, and it feels less intrustive to further regulate in that area than to tell me what to do inside my home.

[twa]

Or because as a society, we draw a different line between what you do in your house and what you do out on the road in a car. Automobile driving is already heavily regulated, and it feels less intrustive to further regulate in that area than to tell me what to do inside my home.

In short, because they feel they can get away with it. ;)

[TheKurp]

And you have yet to show me that there is any consequences from being exposed to the smoke. Again, prove to me there is a significant factor which stunts a childs development, and thus is monetarily costly for joe taxpayer in the long run, and I may change my mind, but as of this point, the only studies I have read have reinforced my opinion that I am right. There is no threat to the development of a childs lungs, and it IS an invasion of privacy IMHO.

Chom,

This isn't even hard. Google "secondhand smoke" + "children" and you'll get all the studies you can read in a week.

I'll even help you out. Start here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

How about this?
http://kidshealth.org/research/asthma_associated.html

Early Childhood Asthma Associated With Mothers' and Grandmothers' Smoking Patterns
Children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk for developing asthma, a respiratory disease that causes wheezing, chest tightness, and airway inflammation. In addition, the risk of asthma also appears to be elevated in children whose grandmothers smoked during their pregnancies, say researchers from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

The mothers of 338 children under 5 years of age with asthma reported how many cigarettes they'd smoked during pregnancy, whether they'd quit smoking after giving birth, and whether there were other smokers in the household. In addition to answering questions about their own smoking habits, moms answered the question "Did your mother smoke when she was pregnant with you?"

Several factors were associated with an increased risk of asthma. Being born prematurely and having family members with asthma increased a child's risk of developing the disease before 5 years of age.

Exposure to smoke also affected a child's risk of developing asthma. Most moms who smoked at the beginning of pregnancy continued to smoke throughout pregnancy. Twenty-three percent of moms smoked before pregnancy, 19% of moms smoked during the first trimester, 13% of moms smoked during the second trimester, and 12% of moms smoked during the third trimester. And after birth, about 30% of the children were exposed to secondhand smoke at home.

Children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy had an increased risk of asthma. In addition, mothers of children with asthma were more likely to have been exposed to smoke during their own mothers' pregnancies - compared to the moms of kids who didn't have asthma. Even kids whose moms didn't smoke - but whose grandmothers did - had an increased risk of developing asthma. Although it's not exactly clear why this happens, the researchers in this study think that somehow exposure to tobacco products may alter DNA patterns in a developing fetus. This alteration could affect immune system function and increase a future generation's susceptibility to asthma.

There's good news for women who quit smoking prior to pregnancy, though: Researchers found that the children of mothers who quit smoking before pregnancy had an asthma risk similar to children whose mothers never smoked.

What This Means to You: According to the results of this study, children whose mothers or grandmothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of developing asthma. Fortunately, reducing your child's exposure to smoke is something you can control. The best way to protect your baby's health - and your own - is to avoid smoking before, during, and after pregnancy. If you do smoke, talk to your doctor or obstetrician about how to quit.

You have yet to address the UC Davis study I posted earlier in this thread.

This is not about personal choice. One does not have the right to exercise a personal choice when by doing so, they force that choice on someone else at their peril.

This is about science. DDT was banned. Lead in paint was banned. Asbestos was banned. These are all substances that at one time were used widely until science proved them to be hazardous to one's health.

Not one of you can argue that cigarettes do not contain carcinogens which are directly responsible for the leading cause of cancer deaths. Not one of you can prove that every one of those carcinogens stays in one's lungs and are not present in secondhand smoke. Not one of you can argue that there is one redeeming value in smoking a cigarette.

The fact is, everyday there is mounting evidence that there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke, and the evidence is even more clear about the effects on the lungs of small children.

Personal choice? If you want to protect your personal choice of polluting your bodies, then the onus is upon YOU to prove you aren't forcing others to share in that suicidal behavior when they inhale the carcinogens spewing from the holes in your face.

[zoony]

I think they should ban smoking in cars period. Just because of all the damn cigarette buts on the side of the road in this country. it's disgusting.

....

[DeanCollins]

Even if you take the other passengers out of the equation, smoking while driving is a distraction and lessens the visablility of the driver. from getting one to your mouth, to lighting it, flicking the ashes, and throwing it out the window (which many times lands on the windshield of the car behind, it's a constant distraction. I'd like to see accident figures that include number of drivers smoking or lighting up at the time. Also while smoking, you're talking about reducing the amount of oxygen to the brain, raising blood presure, and I would bet that it affects vision as well. And how about this one, nicotine is a drug, so we're talking about using drugs while driving and driving under the influence of a drug. Should just outlaw smoking while driving while they're at it.

[twa]

Seems to be a trend...no slippery slope here.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18967
California Considers Smoking Bans for Cars, Apartments


Board May Stretch Authority

Upon declaring a substance a toxic air contaminant, CARB is authorized to enact measures to restrict exposure to the contaminant. California already prohibits smoking in offices and restaurants, and many California communities additionally ban smoking in open-air parks and on beaches.

The lone speaker at CARB's January 26 hearing, Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association, called on CARB to make it unlawful for people to smoke in hotels, motels, and even their own apartments. Additionally, Knepprath argued, CARB should make it a crime for a person to smoke in his or her own car.

[chomerics]

Chom,

This isn't even hard. Google "secondhand smoke" + "children" and you'll get all the studies you can read in a week.

I'll even help you out. Start here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

How about this?

You have yet to address the UC Davis study I posted earlier in this thread.

This is not about personal choice. One does not have the right to exercise a personal choice when by doing so, they force that choice on someone else at their peril.

This is about science. DDT was banned. Lead in paint was banned. Asbestos was banned. These are all substances that at one time were used widely until science proved them to be hazardous to one's health.

Not one of you can argue that cigarettes do not contain carcinogens which are directly responsible for the leading cause of cancer deaths. Not one of you can prove that every one of those carcinogens stays in one's lungs and are not present in secondhand smoke. Not one of you can argue that there is one redeeming value in smoking a cigarette.

The fact is, everyday there is mounting evidence that there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke, and the evidence is even more clear about the effects on the lungs of small children.

Personal choice? If you want to protect your personal choice of polluting your bodies, then the onus is upon YOU to prove you aren't forcing others to share in that suicidal behavior when they inhale the carcinogens spewing from the holes in your face.


Kurp, that was a much beter study then the previous one quoted, and I will say the evidence as I see it is more on the side of your argument. Like I said before, if you pose a good enough argument to me I could be pursuaded and I would be able to understand the method to your madness. In this case, you have pursuaded me to the side of neutral now. I was much more on the side of personal freedom earlier in the day, but after reading the latest study you posted, I can see some merits to what you are advocating. This is more along the lines of what I was lookng for when I stated that I wanted to see more evidence. Good work :cheers:

[Predicto]

Seems to be a trend...no slippery slope here.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18967
California Considers Smoking Bans for Cars, Apartments


Board May Stretch Authority

Upon declaring a substance a toxic air contaminant, CARB is authorized to enact measures to restrict exposure to the contaminant. California already prohibits smoking in offices and restaurants, and many California communities additionally ban smoking in open-air parks and on beaches.

The lone speaker at CARB's January 26 hearing, Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association, called on CARB to make it unlawful for people to smoke in hotels, motels, and even their own apartments. Additionally, Knepprath argued, CARB should make it a crime for a person to smoke in his or her own car.

Ummm, I don't see anything there to say that the Board is considering any such regulation.

I see that a single speaker at a CARB event suggested such a thing. That is very different.

ps - the smoking ban in restaurants and offices has worked out pretty well for us out here.

[twa]

Ummm, I don't see anything there to say that the Board is considering any such regulation.

I see that a single speaker at a CARB event suggested such a thing. That is very different.

ps - the smoking ban in restaurants and offices has worked out pretty well for us out here.

Added: They are examining the issue ,but cannot recomend any action at this time...Of course with reasoning such as this senator, it is abuse and they will find a way.

Give them a little while ;)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/california-senate-committee-approves.html
Senator Deborah Ortiz, chair of the Senate Health Committee (which approved the bill) defended the legislation by arguing that smoking around young children is a form of child abuse: "There's no excuse in today's society for any mother of any age, or any level of education, to do something which I consider akin to child abuse."



http://santa-monica.org/cityclerk/council/agendas/2006/20060725/s2006072508-A.htm
6. Multi-unit residential common areas.

To date there has been no legislation at the state or local level governing smoking inside residences. However, at least eight cities have prohibited smoking at indoor common areas of multi-unit residential buildings. (Staff’s position is that these areas already are covered by state law.) In addition, two cities (Davis and Calabasas) have banned smoking at outdoor common areas as well. The City of Arcata prohibits smoking within 20 feet of windows of residential units. Moreover, Thousand Oaks recently adopted a resolution that one third of future publicly funded housing units in the city be maintained as non-smoking.
....
8. The Calabasas law

Effective March 17, 2006, the city of Calabasas adopted the strongest outdoor smoking restrictions in the nation. Calabasas prohibits smoking in all public places, indoor and outdoor, with two exceptions: certain designated locations in shopping areas; and in cases where no non-smokers are present and there is no reason to believe that anyone will arrive (e.g., due to time of day). Calabasas provides both criminal and civil remedies for the City Attorney’s Office; and a private civil right of action for the general public.

...

[portisizzle]

It's a freakin cigarette. You're defending the personal choice of being able to smoke a freakin cigarette in a car with children whose lungs are still developing.


Damn, damn, DAMN! I am taking my kids out camping this weekend. Should I light a campfire? Or not?

Man that oak and hickory campfire burning with marshmallows and hot dogs right on top. I can even envision the kids clothing smelling like campfire smoke.

Do I listen to a hypocrite and keep my children safe from campfire?


One word.......tool. Blunt one at that. (Pun intended)

[twa]

Well ,as long as you don't let them near a pool you might be alright.PS

http://swimming.about.com/od/allergyandasthma/a/cl_pool_problem.htm
eanwhile, investigators in Belgium presented research showing that exposure to such chloramines greatly increases permeability of the lung epithelium, a condition associated with smoking cigarettes. In a study presented by Dr. Simone Carbonnelle, of the industrial toxicology and occupational medicine unit at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels, 226 otherwise healthy school children, mean age 10, were followed to determine how much time they spent around swimming pools, and the condition of their lung epithelium. The children in Dr. Carbonnelle's study were exposed to air around the school swimming pool for a mean of 1.8 hours per week.

[portisizzle]

Well ,as long as you don't let them near a pool you might be alright.PS

http://swimming.about.com/od/allergyandasthma/a/cl_pool_problem.htm
eanwhile, investigators in Belgium presented research showing that exposure to such chloramines greatly increases permeability of the lung epithelium, a condition associated with smoking cigarettes. In a study presented by Dr. Simone Carbonnelle, of the industrial toxicology and occupational medicine unit at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels, 226 otherwise healthy school children, mean age 10, were followed to determine how much time they spent around swimming pools, and the condition of their lung epithelium. The children in Dr. Carbonnelle's study were exposed to air around the school swimming pool for a mean of 1.8 hours per week.


DAMN. Better keep my kids in the closet. They will be safer.

[Predicto]

Look, I know you guys are having fun with this and all, but you have to admit that there is some role for for the government in protecting the health of children. We are all just trying to figure out where the line is.

Or do you think the government went overboard when they banned lead paint too? ;)

[twa]

"Or do you think the government went overboard when they banned lead paint too? "

Certainly not... we all were exposed to it, Though as someone who has painted for 30 yrs(w/lead based and others) the new formulas are simply different hazards....Isocyanate poisoning from the improved formulas is a ***** too, along with nerve,kidney,nuerological problems ect,ect. ;)

Moral of the story ?

Lifes full of risks,but the goverment still allows it.

[Larry]

Give them a little while ;)

http://santa-monica.org/cityclerk/council/agendas/2006/20060725/s2006072508-A.htm
6. Multi-unit residential common areas.

To date there has been no legislation at the state or local level governing smoking inside residences. However, at least eight cities have prohibited smoking at indoor common areas of multi-unit residential buildings. (Staff’s position is that these areas already are covered by state law.) In addition, two cities (Davis and Calabasas) have banned smoking at outdoor common areas as well. The City of Arcata prohibits smoking within 20 feet of windows of residential units. Moreover, Thousand Oaks recently adopted a resolution that one third of future publicly funded housing units in the city be maintained as non-smoking.
....
8. The Calabasas law

Effective March 17, 2006, the city of Calabasas adopted the strongest outdoor smoking restrictions in the nation. Calabasas prohibits smoking in all public places, indoor and outdoor, with two exceptions: certain designated locations in shopping areas; and in cases where no non-smokers are present and there is no reason to believe that anyone will arrive (e.g., due to time of day). Calabasas provides both criminal and civil remedies for the City Attorney’s Office; and a private civil right of action for the general public.

...

Just to toss an analogy in the water and watch the ripples:

So, if those same two cities had passed laws prohibiting dumping garbage in the same two locations, would you be complaining about the government infringing on people's right to litter, and claiming that they'll soon be prohibiting littering in your own home?

Granted, (if you'll pardon the use of chemical warfare terminology), cigarette smoke doesn't have the "persistance" that a Big Mac wrapper does. OTOH, if the person in the hall in front of me tosses his wrapper in the hallway, the wrapper doesn't jump off of the floor and insert itself into my lungs, either.

[PokerPacker]

DAMN. Better keep my kids in the closet. They will be safer.
you wouldn't want them to come out of the closet, would you? :silly:

[Larry]

Damn, damn, DAMN! I am taking my kids out camping this weekend. Should I light a campfire? Or not?

Man that oak and hickory campfire burning with marshmallows and hot dogs right on top. I can even envision the kids clothing smelling like campfire smoke.

Do I listen to a hypocrite and keep my children safe from campfire?


One word.......tool. Blunt one at that. (Pun intended)

How many parents you know of who expose their children to campfire smoke four times a day, every day, for their entire childhood?

[JohnLockesGhost]

Just to toss an analogy in the water and watch the ripples:

So, if those same two cities had passed laws prohibiting dumping garbage in the same two locations, would you be complaining about the government infringing on people's right to litter, and claiming that they'll soon be prohibiting littering in your own home?

Granted, (if you'll pardon the use of chemical warfare terminology), cigarette smoke doesn't have the "persistance" that a Big Mac wrapper does. OTOH, if the person in the hall in front of me tosses his wrapper in the hallway, the wrapper doesn't jump off of the floor and insert itself into my lungs, either.

I don't understand the analogy. Your assumed "right to litter" would require one to violate another's property rights. I certainly wouldn't argue against anyone's right to regulate their own property, be they a private company OR the government. However, I do draw a line when the government tries to regulate MY property. This bill is a further regulation of property that is not the government's, yet they still assume the rights of the property's owner.

[twa]

I'll play :D

The city passes a ordinance against me dumping garbage,however there is confetti and leaflets scattered by the city and others on my property.

Simply garbage by another name. ;)

quote
"How many parents you know of who expose their children to campfire smoke four times a day, every day, for their entire childhood?"

If someone did would it be correct to fine them?

[Larry]

I'll play :D

The city passes a ordinance against me dumping garbage,however there is confetti and leaflets scattered by the city and others on my property.

Simply garbage by another name. ;)

So you're saying that, since the city's limitations against littering aren't 100% effective, then littering must be legalised?

Or that, since, on very rare occasions, the city itself "litters", therefore they must allow people to throw garbage in the street all the time. (Or, to go to another analogy, you're saying that any city that has fireworks on the Fourth cannot regulate air polution?)

[twa]

I'm saying the city and others on the roads are putting out toxins comparable to smoking...yet they wish to fine the smoker.

[Larry]

I don't understand the analogy. Your assumed "right to litter" would require one to violate another's property rights. I certainly wouldn't argue against anyone's right to regulate their own property, be they a private company OR the government. However, I do draw a line when the government tries to regulate MY property. This bill is a further regulation of property that is not the government's, yet they still assume the rights of the property's owner.

Valid point. AFAIK, cities don't prohibit littering in apartment building hallways, apartment owners do (with the city simply imposing on the owner a requirement that the owner is responsable for cleaning up litter).

Would the city have the right to demand that apartment owners either ban smoking in public areas, or install smoke removers in all hallways? (In effect, littering's OK, as long as the owner cleans it up quickly?)

-----

(And on that subject, I want a law prohibiting people from putting advertising materials on my car while I'm shopping.) :)

[Larry]

I'm saying the city and others on the roads are putting out toxins comparable to smoking...yet they wish to fine the smoker.

Oh, I get it. You're saying that any city that doesn't ban all cars can't regulate air polution.

[twa]

Larry, cities already ban smoking in public areas of private apartments.

So they obviously feel they have that right.

[twa]

Oh, I get it. You're saying that any city that doesn't ban all cars can't regulate air polution.

:laugh: No, I'm saying the city can't burn trash on my lawn and then fine me for having a BBQ.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Valid point. AFAIK, cities don't prohibit littering in apartment building hallways, apartment owners do (with the city simply imposing on the owner a requirement that the owner is responsable for cleaning up litter).

Would the city have the right to demand that apartment owners either ban smoking in public areas, or install smoke removers in all hallways? (In effect, littering's OK, as long as the owner cleans it up quickly?)

-----

(And on that subject, I want a law prohibiting people from putting advertising materials on my car while I'm shopping.) :)

Well, I would fine such a law unnecessary. I'd just leave it to the market. If the tenants want to smoke in public and the landlord doesn't mind, then they can smoke. If a few tenants complain and say they'll leave if it doesn't stop, the landowner could decide to put a stop to it. Or maybe he won't, it'd be up to him. Same argument could (and has) been made against the recent movement to ban smoking in bars. If people don't like it, don't go out. The market will solve it.

And another thing: why do we insist on the government fighting our battles for us? If I'm so bothered by someone smoking near me, I'd ask him if he could go somewhere else.

[portisizzle]

Look, I know you guys are having fun with this and all, but you have to admit that there is some role for for the government in protecting the health of children. We are all just trying to figure out where the line is.

Or do you think the government went overboard when they banned lead paint too? ;)

This from the man living in the state that would pump a mouse full of water until it is dead and say Aquafina can kill a human. :D

[portisizzle]

How many parents you know of who expose their children to campfire smoke four times a day, every day, for their entire childhood?

Most people who lived before the days of heating by means other than fireplace....... :) Smells GOOD

[Larry]

Well, I would fine such a law unnecessary. I'd just leave it to the market. If the tenants want to smoke in public and the landlord doesn't mind, then they can smoke. If a few tenants complain and say they'll leave if it doesn't stop, the landowner could decide to put a stop to it. Or maybe he won't, it'd be up to him. Same argument could (and has) been made against the recent movement to ban smoking in bars. If people don't like it, don't go out. The market will solve it.

And another thing: why do we insist on the government fighting our battles for us? If I'm so bothered by someone smoking near me, I'd ask him if he could go somewhere else.

Uh, how about because if people are smoking in the apartment hallway, I can't leave. I've got a lease. Am I forced to tolerate something that's not only offensive (to some. And yes, offensive doesn't mean "ought to be illegal".), but it's also a health hazard, for a year, so that then I can go in search of a (non-existant) apartment that isn't a health hazard?

(BTW, I think I'd actually oppose a law covering apartment hallways. I'm not saying that such a law is needed. I'm just trying to come up with some evidence that it's not a commnuist takeover, either.)

[Larry]

Most people who lived before the days of heating by means other than fireplace....... :) Smells GOOD

And roughly what percentage of people in the 19th century developed lung cancer in their 60s?

[portisizzle]

And roughly what percentage of people in the 19th century developed lung cancer in their 60s?


My point. Thank you.

[Larry]

This from the man living in the state that would pump a mouse full of water until it is dead and say Aquafina can kill a human. :D

Hey. Granted some of the experiments that've been used to declare something as hazardous do at least appear to be rather goofball.

But don't you have a response to the man's post that somewhat more relevant than making fun of his address?

I mean, it's not like he's in France or Dallas or something. :)

[portisizzle]

Hey. Granted some of the experiments that've been used to declare something as hazardous do at least appear to be rather goofball.

But don't you have a response to the man's post that somewhat more relevant than making fun of his address?

I mean, it's not like he's in France or Dallas or something. :)

If we are going to start legislating against stupidity...... well.....wow :)

[Larry]

My point. Thank you.

Your point is that once upon a time, people were exposed to a completely different kind of smoke, under different conditions, and 99% of them died before the smoke could damage them (if it did), and even if it did, then nobody knew about it, and therefore people should expose themselves to a different kind of smoke, even after it's known to be poisionous? Have I got it?

[portisizzle]

Your point is that once upon a time, people were exposed to a completely different kind of smoke, under different conditions, and 99% of them died before the smoke could damage them (if it did), and even if it did, then nobody knew about it, and therefore people should expose themselves to a different kind of smoke, even after it's known to be poisionous? Have I got it?

If government really cared about the kids they would ban cigarettes.

If the government really cared about the kids they would go after the same law but make it illegal to smoke in the house where the kids live.

This legislation has been put together by activist politcal hacks that sit behind a desk and dream stupid **** up just to dream it up. Why go after the mom in the car when you could go after the entire industry? Oh wait they already have. And it wasn't for the kids.....

[JohnLockesGhost]

Uh, how about because if people are smoking in the apartment hallway, I can't leave. I've got a lease. Am I forced to tolerate something that's not only offensive (to some. And yes, offensive doesn't mean "ought to be illegal".), but it's also a health hazard, for a year, so that then I can go in search of a (non-existant) apartment that isn't a health hazard?

(BTW, I think I'd actually oppose a law covering apartment hallways. I'm not saying that such a law is needed. I'm just trying to come up with some evidence that it's not a commnuist takeover, either.)

Well, I'd say if you have people hanging out in the hallway smoking, walk past them. I guess it could be a nuisance, but, as the old saying goes, you don't have to make a federal case out of it.

I'll concede a little bit: I certainly don't mind reasonable building codes, labor laws and zoning. But, I guess, I get a bit annoyed at the constant erosion of what used to be sacred. For example, the Kelo v. New London decision, where the City of New London was allowed by the Supreme Court to expropriate private homes for private development. I guess, I'm touchy on property rights. Probably obvious from my handle. :)

[Larry]

1) Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if the things don't get banned in 10-20 years. The political strength to do it is building. (Although, political movements sometimes trigger backlashes. For an example, gay rights were making a lot of progress untill people started talking about getting married.)

(And when they get banned, organised crime will be standing right there to make money off of it.)

2) If your point is "politicians are lieing crooked scum", then I think you'll get a lot of support.

[Larry]

I'll concede a little bit: I certainly don't mind reasonable building codes, labor laws and zoning. But, I guess, I get a bit annoyed at the constant erosion of what used to be sacred. For example, the Kelo v. New London decision, where the City of New London was allowed by the Supreme Court to expropriate private homes for private development. I guess, I'm touchy on property rights. Probably obvious from my handle. :)

And every time that subject gets brought up, I feel obligated to point out: The reason the court gave for their decision is that it's been going on for over 100 years. It's how the railroads got built. A city would force the sale of land specifically for the purpose of giving that land to a railroad.

[JohnLockesGhost]

And every time that subject gets brought up, I feel obligated to point out: The reason the court gave for their decision is that it's been going on for over 100 years. It's how the railroads got built. A city would force the sale of land specifically for the purpose of giving that land to a railroad.

OH NO, Larry! I thought you were such a good guy too. :silly:

Don't get me started on the railroads. Not ALL of them were pork-barreled subdized boondoggles, abusing eminent domain. There were actually guys like James J. Hill who actually PAID for the property needed to build his Great Northern. He didn't take the subsidies the others did that led to tremendous waste and poor quality.

[Larry]

I thought that, Out West, the way the government "encouraged" (read: subsidised) the railroads was by land grants. I seem to remember that the deal was that for every mile of rail laid, they'd get a square mile of land (in "alternating sections", or some such). From what I've heard, the smart railroads never sold the mineral rights to the land they got for free, and some of the railroads, today, make more money from renting their mineral rights than they get from the railroad business.

But I'd suspect that the western railroads didn't need emminent domain as much as the eastern ones did, simply because Out West, the railroads preceeded the towns. (Whereas, say, if Cleveland couldn't force people to sell, then the town died from "lack of railroaditis".)

-----

Remembering scene from For a Few Dollars More(?): Eastwood is talking to old codger who's telling him about how he stood strong and wouldn't sell his land to the railroad. Aparantly, the railroad's solution was to build the railroad about a foot away from the guy's shack.

[cadets08]

I hope it makes it through.

[portisizzle]

I hope it makes it through.
why?

[Larry]

And I'm not saying that I'm a big fan of the government deciding that Big Business doesn't have enough power, so the government will get on their side, too. And yes, I'm aware of the verb "railroaded".

OTOH, to use the example of, say, Cleveland. It's a big city, and they need a railroad to keep growing. but the railroad is just like a road (or the interstate). It needs a strip of land yards wide running completely through town, in a relatively straight line. If the only way the deal gets done is to find a group of sellers who are unanimously willing to sell, then the deal doesn't get done.

And if the deal doesn't get done, then the entire city dies.

(Although maybe there could have been another method. Maybe the city could build a railroad out to the city limits (to Dulles, so to speak). Any railroad that wants to serve Cleveland can build a rail line to "Dulles", and then use the city's rail to get downtown. The city can make their rail available to all commers at a fixed fee. That way, the city's not using domain to sieze land for a private company.

(Problem with that method is: I don't see any of the railroad barrons being willing to run trains on rails they don't own. The railroads would've simply refused to deliver to Cleveland.)

To me, one requirement that has to be met to have a government project is that it has to be impossible to do at any lower level. And I suspect that the railroads might fit in that category. (Getting a Wal-Mart supercenter does not.)

[JohnLockesGhost]

Unfortunately, the government's "encouragement" led to railroad builders throwing up track as fast as possible (poor quality) with no regard to land usage(meandering routes), since they were paid PER MILE. The conventional wisdom dictates that railroads to the West would never have been built without these subsidies, but reality would suggest otherwise.

[DeanCollins]

DAMN. Better keep my kids in the closet. They will be safer.


you wouldn't want them to come out of the closet, would you? :silly: :laugh: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=26#):rotflmao: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=26#):laugh: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=26#):rotflmao: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=26#)