States Ban Smoking With Children In Car

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - ‪Government Control or Child Safety?‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0cufuJEzT4&feature=player_embedded)

[Kregisen]

Atleast it's not a federal law......if Huckabee was president he would try to get a federal one passed.

[libertybrewcity]

not really sure what to think about this. The state definitely has the right to do this. I don't think that smoking is acceptable around children, but a law on the state level is probably pushing it.

[Golding]

The overabundance of traffic laws like this is why the argument focusing on "state rights" is a little less appealing than "individual rights" when talking about overreaching federal government laws. What right does the state have (if not the federal government) to enforce your behavior? They enact laws like these not for anyone's safety. It's to facilitate the robbing of individuals by policemen. The more financially strained states become, the more you'll be seeing police lined up along the highways to make you pay for their worthless existence. That's California for you right now. Two police officers are sitting outside my home right now, ready to pull over anyone that doesn't stop for three seconds at the stop sign.

It's why I fight every traffic ticket I receive -- no overall profit from the theft.

[akforme]

when I was a kid I would have loved this law, because my mom would have never followed it and I could have used that as leverage.

Not so much now, but I hate second hand smoke almost as much as bullshit smoking laws.

[libertybrewcity]

The overabundance of traffic laws like this is why the argument focusing on "state rights" is a little less appealing than "individual rights" when talking about overreaching federal government laws. What right does the state have (if not the federal government) to enforce your behavior? They enact laws like these not for anyone's safety. It's to facilitate the robbing of individuals by policemen. The more financially strained states become, the more you'll be seeing police lined up along the highways to make you pay for their worthless existence. That's California for you right now. Two police officers are sitting outside my home right now, ready to pull over anyone that doesn't stop for three seconds at the stop sign.

It's why I fight every traffic ticket I receive -- no overall profit from the theft.

One could make the argument that smoking near children is damaging to their health. If you give your child cancer at age 3, should you be liable in court? I think so, but it seems pretty much the same as a law.

[aGameOfThrones]

Just in!

State bans eating fast-food with Children in car!!!!!! Amazing, it has had an effect already by decreasing from 91% to 90% the State's obesity problem in Children.


State: 1

Personal Responsibility: 0

[Kludge]

Eh - I can say from personal experience that growing up around chain-smokers, especially while they're driving, really sucked as a kid.

1) Clothes always smelled like smoke, which was embarrassing during school and slightly nauseating.

2) Constant headaches when around them.

3) Set off & exaggerated my already-bad allergies.

With that said, I probably inhaled fumes of about three packs of cigarettes via second-hand smoke a day for ~14 years and have no type of lung damage at all.

With that said, smoking around your kids is an asshole move, especially while in the car with them. But as for the state laws... well - fuck 'em.

[teamrican1]

One could make the argument that smoking near children is damaging to their health. If you give your child cancer at age 3, should you be liable in court? I think so, but it seems pretty much the same as a law.

One could make the argument, but one would be wrong. So it really isn't the same. For example, I could sue my parents for exposing me to red haired people as a child on the grounds gingers cause asthma. But I'd have to prove it in a court of law. The state merely passing a law banning gingers from public would achieve a similar objective, but it wouldn't require any proof that gingers cause asthma, and moreover, even if gingers did cause cancer, it would prevent those willing to assume the risk from socializing with gingers if they so desired.

[Romulus]

I'm actually for this.. I think that states should protect innocent life.

It does make me sick when I see that on hot day, windows rolled up.. mom or dad is smoking and there's a baby in the back seat.

If I'm going to be FOR laws, at least they should fall on the side of protecting life. Just because you have a child does not give you carte blanch to abuse it and use liberty as an excuse.

[Kludge]

One could make the argument, but one would be wrong. So it really isn't the same. For example, I could sue my parents for exposing me to red haired people as a child on the grounds gingers cause asthma. But I'd have to prove it in a court of law. The state merely passing a law banning gingers from public would achieve a similar objective, but it wouldn't require any proof that gingers cause asthma, and moreover, even if gingers did cause cancer, it would prevent those willing to assume the risk from socializing with gingers if they so desired.

1) Being a ginger isn't voluntary. Smoking is.

2) We're talking about kids being forced to "socialize with gingers," not kids socializing at their will.

[MelissaWV]

One could make the argument that smoking near children is damaging to their health. If you give your child cancer at age 3, should you be liable in court? I think so, but it seems pretty much the same as a law.

The problem that several of you are missing is that there are already laws against child abuse. If a police officer saw a parent walking towards a store, and that parent put out their cigarette on their child's arm, they would (hopefully) have something to say about it. If that same officer sees a baby in a vehicle, windows up, with someone smoking... they would (hopefully) have something to say about it. They'd need to justify it in a court of law, but they could certainly make a case for child abuse.

There is absolutely no need to add another law that may or may not catch someone doing something harmful. It doesn't differentiate between someone catching a quick smoke with the windows down, or even in a convertible, or who's putting out their cigarette as their child happens to be getting into the car, or someone who has all the windows up and is chain smoking. In addition, the residue from the ashtray(s) is horrible, too, and the whole car smells like smoke as there is smoke in the seats, and there is smoke on the person in question for sure. Are we also going to ban ashtrays in cars, smoking in vehicles (whether or not there's a child in the car, because the residue will be there)? Perhaps banning a smoking parent from hugging and kissing their children is a good idea? It's "for the children."

The fact of the matter is there are already a LOT of "for the children" laws out there that one can cite if there is an obvious disregard for the life of a child, but it will not be without contraversy. Instead of being out there tasing people and doing stupid crap, police could consider using their discretion in cases such as these... and bringing them to court where they will either stand or fall on their merits.

[Romulus]

Without a clear definition of the law in MANY cases, you open it for wide for frivolous lawsuits that will deter any police from enforcing the law, and only feed the lawyers.

There's no harm in a clearly defined single law, that's more apt to be enforced to protect and foster life.

[Anti Federalist]

Why not stop pussy footing around and ban the stuff already, so I can make some money smuggling, dammit.

If anyone thinks that is not where all this is heading, tobacco prohibition, you're nuts.

[Kludge]

Why not stop pussy footing around and ban the stuff already, so I can make some money smuggling, dammit.

Cigarette smuggling is already popular. Cross from a state with a low tobacco tax - transport to a state with a high tobacco tax.

[MelissaWV]

Without a clear definition of the law in MANY cases, you open it for wide for frivolous lawsuits that will deter any police from enforcing the law, and only feed the lawyers.

There's no harm in a clearly defined single law, that's more apt to be enforced to protect and foster life.

So you are of the opinion that smoking with a "child" (I am guessing a "child" is just a minor; anyone under 18?) in your convertible with you is precisely the same as smoking with the windows up and a baby right behind you?

And you're of the opinion that none of the other contamination I talk about (seats, ashtrays, clothing) pose any threat to the children in question? (There are actually studies which suggest otherwise.)

Lastly, myriad speeding tickets are handed out every year, month, week, day... has it stopped speeding from going on? Handing out tickets doesn't "stop" things. It will just make a person notice a cop is near, and tuck their cigarette down so the police officer can't see it. Most likely, it will cause the person to put it out, and light another one afterwards. That would actually result in longer exposure to smoke for the child, as the adult in question is also likely to begin smoking a whole new cigarette afterwards. It also would result in marginally more cigarettes bought, and marginally more taxes into the coffers.


Why not stop pussy footing around and ban the stuff already, so I can make some money smuggling, dammit.

If anyone thinks that is not where all this is heading, tobacco prohibition, you're nuts.

The Government has learned its lesson on a lot of these issues. As Kludge says, there's already a smuggling market. However, it's "still legal" so people will buy "legally" in order to continue to be law-abiding citizens. They'll pay out the nose, and complain about it, and use those chemically-laden commercial smokes rather than subscribe to some shady, under-the-table deal to get more natural kinds. It's also infinitely more convenient to just buy the ridiculously expensive ones. The Government can hike up the price and justify it as funding things loosely related to "the dangers of smoking." They make a considerable bit of money off of the entire game.

If you think about it, we consider alcohol legal but the Government makes a good deal of money from that as well. It has also given them prime excuse to set up checkpoints and nose into every passing vehicle, and even to extract blood or demand someone prove their innocence.

I don't think smoking will be banned outright anytime soon. It would need to be at least after the Boomers die off. People in my parents' generation grew up around smoking, and it was normal and an "adult" thing to do, and then the bombshell that it was supposedly terrible for you. This even though their parents smoked and smoked and smoked, and drank like fishes, but were still alive and kickin'. Boomers are still a mixed bag, as far as who smokes. We're at the stage where there's a huge chunk of people in my generation who don't smoke, and there are the "lower class" people who smoke nasty stuff, and the "upper class" people who indulge in an occasional cigar, and still a peppering of people throughout all the classes who smoke... but not that many. Once it ebbs out, someone might consider an outright ban, but I still wouldn't hold my breath.

[ChaosControl]

I have no objection to this. You're on public property when you're driving, so a ban does fall under the community/public to decide.

[JackieDan]

If it's state law, why not? It's actually good for that reason.

[Romulus]

So you are of the opinion that smoking with a "child" (I am guessing a "child" is just a minor; anyone under 18?) in your convertible with you is precisely the same as smoking with the windows up and a baby right behind you?

And you're of the opinion that none of the other contamination I talk about (seats, ashtrays, clothing) pose any threat to the children in question? (There are actually studies which suggest otherwise.)

Lastly, myriad speeding tickets are handed out every year, month, week, day... has it stopped speeding from going on? Handing out tickets doesn't "stop" things. It will just make a person notice a cop is near, and tuck their cigarette down so the police officer can't see it. Most likely, it will cause the person to put it out, and light another one afterwards. That would actually result in longer exposure to smoke for the child, as the adult in question is also likely to begin smoking a whole new cigarette afterwards. It also would result in marginally more cigarettes bought, and marginally more taxes into the coffers.

1. Spare the hypotheticals.

2. Facile analogy. Regardless of what you say about speeding, its dangerous to do so on a public road, no matter how people try and dodge getting caught.

3. Yes, any child under 18 would be protected. As far as a convertible, we allow cops to apply and enforce the law in a logical manner. An issuance of a ticket in a said case would probably not hold up in a court of law.

As said, they are public roads, I would gladly defer to the county (rather than the state) to decide such a measure and would fully support it.

[Fredom101]

This is why "states rights" is nonsense. They can be more tyrannical than the feds sometimes. Individual rights or bust!

[Fredom101]

I have no objection to this. You're on public property when you're driving, so a ban does fall under the community/public to decide.

So you like central planning?
This has nothing to do with it being healthy or not.
Should they pull you over if you changed the station on your radio? That's dangerous. What about eating in the car? Very dangerous. Or doing any of those things with kids in your car? The horror! :eek:

Liking this law is just saying you like statism, only you want your brand of it rather than what others may want. It's using violence to enforce your desire to control people's behavior. Think about the deeper moral hazard of letting the government control aspects of our lives, rather than whether something is good for us or not.

[pcosmar]

It is truly disheartening to see how many folks here support this. :(

Sadly, it WILL come back and bite you in the ass.

[MelissaWV]

1. Spare the hypotheticals.

2. Facile analogy. Regardless of what you say about speeding, its dangerous to do so on a public road, no matter how people try and dodge getting caught.

3. Yes, any child under 18 would be protected. As far as a convertible, we allow cops to apply and enforce the law in a logical manner. An issuance of a ticket in a said case would probably not hold up in a court of law.

As said, they are public roads, I would gladly defer to the county (rather than the state) to decide such a measure and would fully support it.

Hypotheticals are used to decide whether or not a law makes sense. If you're going to make a law (in this case, to protect children from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke), you need to ensure it actually does what you want it to do.

I haven't said anything about speeding except to point out that handing out tickets does not stop the activity from taking place. I thought the point of this law was to stop people from endangering their children? How, then, is handing out tickets going to do that? I elaborated my observation and showed you how it would not.

You are depending on the police to "enforce ... in a logical manner." It would be logical to follow the letter of the law, which is what the police currently do on a number of laws. Someone whose BAC is "too high" based on a numerical limit is eligible for a ticket no matter how well they are driving. Likewise, someone smoking with a child in their vehicle would be eligible for a ticket regardless of the type of vehicle, the condition of the windows, or any other factor.

Previously, you said that laws needed to be explicit to avoid any such guesswork on the part of the police. Now it is essential to avoid tickets that you say wouldn't hold up in court. Why wouldn't they? That parent, in a convertible or otherwise, is violating the letter of the law. Courtrooms will very likely uphold such tickets as being in violation. The place to ensure such stupidity doesn't happen is when writing the law itself.

So here we have a law that doesn't actually protect children from smoke, doesn't leave room for discretion, and punishes people who may or may not actually be causing harm. It doesn't sound like a very good law at all.

I will say it again, since you now concede that police can use discretion: There are already laws on the books to protect children from abuse. If an officer sees a dangerous situation, s/he can pull over the vehicle and issue a citation, or even make an arrest for child endangerment. It had better be based on something really good and solid, though, because that's a serious situation, and if it falls apart in court that officer should be scrutinized and, depending on how often this has already happened, disciplined or fired.

That's in an ideal world, though, where actions have consequences.

In our current world, we have laws that purport to do one thing but do something entirely different, so long as it's marketed as being for the "greater good."

:rolleyes:

[Dr.3D]

It is truly disheartening to see how many folks here support this. :(

Sadly, it WILL come back and bite you in the ass.

I'm sure you are correct in this matter. Many will think.... 'I don't smoke, so I don't care if laws are made to keep smokers from doing things I don't do.' It's when a law is made that affects them that they will take objection, but then since other laws had already been made that didn't affect them, those laws will be used as precedence and the laws affecting them will be that much more difficult to challenge.

[pcosmar]

Pointless and without merit.. The entire law, and the concept it is based on.

Protecting children from second hand smoke ? Bullshit. If you were truly worried about it, you would be protecting them from cars. Auto exhaust is provably , far more toxic than cigarette smoke.
These same people will confine children in rooms recycling the air with sick and infectious children, Toxic fumes, while filling their heads with disinformation.

And then ,, throw in buses.
:mad:

Bullshit
:mad:

[ChaosControl]

So you like central planning?
This has nothing to do with it being healthy or not.
Should they pull you over if you changed the station on your radio? That's dangerous. What about eating in the car? Very dangerous. Or doing any of those things with kids in your car? The horror! :eek:

Liking this law is just saying you like statism, only you want your brand of it rather than what others may want. It's using violence to enforce your desire to control people's behavior. Think about the deeper moral hazard of letting the government control aspects of our lives, rather than whether something is good for us or not.

I like decentralized planning. I have no objection to local government. I am a localist above anything else.

This is on public property. When you're on public property, the public has the right to put in place standards that you must follow. When you're in your own home/on private property then of course they cannot tell you what you can or can't do.

I'd have no objection to a smoking ban that covered all public property for that matter, if you want to smoke then go to your private property or someone else's private property that allows you to smoke.

But to me this isn't about whether it is harmful or not, although I would say it very much is and thus one could argue that you shouldn't be able to do it since you're harming a non-consenting party as a child cannot consent, it is simply about the fact that you're on public property and thus subject to the regulations the public puts in place. I oppose the federal government or even state government telling an individual community what regulations they can put in place on public property.

I mean you can personally oppose the law because you just don't want such a law in place and that is fine, but oppose it because you oppose this actual law, recognize that the public has the right to regulate the public area.

[jmdrake]

Pointless and without merit.. The entire law, and the concept it is based on.

Protecting children from second hand smoke ? Bullshit. If you were truly worried about it, you would be protecting them from cars. Auto exhaust is provably , far more toxic than cigarette smoke.
These same people will confine children in rooms recycling the air with sick and infectious children, Toxic fumes, while filling their heads with disinformation.

And then ,, throw in buses.
:mad:

Bullshit
:mad:

Don't worry. Banning fossil fuel cars is already on the horizon. Buses will be kept around because the state runs them. But they'll be run on "alternative fuel" in an effort to fight "global warming".

This is what I don't get. Why whenever their is talk of second hand smoke does nobody ever bring up smokeless ash trays?

http://www.asseenontvguys.com/ProductImages/ionic_smokeless_ashtray.jpg

Sure that doesn't cut out all of the smoke, but it would sure help.

I think future of tobacco is the electric cigarette. No smoke at all.

http://www.garbafest.com/

(And no, I don't use tobacco in any form. Just sayin).

[Petar]

Smoking cigarettes with your kids in the car is child abuse.

Maybe current laws against child abuse are sufficient, or maybe this will help police focus on a specific and common form of it.

Either way, police can still use discretion, and defendants can still argue their cases at trial.

Also, those of you who are crying about "individual rights and responsibilities" are sounding very ridiculous in this case.

If we are going to live in a civilized society, then we are going to need to have some common rules that protect the rights of individuals.

Not everyone wants to live in a jungle, or even a cave.

:p

[Brian Defferding]

I think for me the main concern is the slippery slope. Could this mean that smoking in your own house becomes illegal if children reside there?

What about smoke from campfires, or even street vendors? Would there be citations for them if children are present? I can see what kind of precedent this law can set.

[Fredom101]

I like decentralized planning. I have no objection to local government. I am a localist above anything else.

This is on public property. When you're on public property, the public has the right to put in place standards that you must follow. When you're in your own home/on private property then of course they cannot tell you what you can or can't do.

I'd have no objection to a smoking ban that covered all public property for that matter, if you want to smoke then go to your private property or someone else's private property that allows you to smoke.

But to me this isn't about whether it is harmful or not, although I would say it very much is and thus one could argue that you shouldn't be able to do it since you're harming a non-consenting party as a child cannot consent, it is simply about the fact that you're on public property and thus subject to the regulations the public puts in place. I oppose the federal government or even state government telling an individual community what regulations they can put in place on public property.

I mean you can personally oppose the law because you just don't want such a law in place and that is fine, but oppose it because you oppose this actual law, recognize that the public has the right to regulate the public area.

I don't smoke nor do I have kids so this law doesn't affect me.
It's the principle that's at hand here.

A law is just an opinion backed by a gun. Would you be willing to pull the trigger on the cigarette smoker who is pulled over and tries to defend him/herself? Why do you think violence is the best way to solve society's problems? Surely, you must admit, that there are other ways to protect children outside of government (like, say, better parenting)? Surely, you don't think the government should step in and provide the role of parents?

The problem is, "public property"- it's an oxymoron. Everyone owns it, so no one really owns it. This is at the root of the collectivism that you are advocating here.

Collectivism fails every time, even if it's supposedly "for the common good". Why not think outside the box and find out if there are other ways to solve this problem besides government force?

[Noob]

With Obamacare you can expect smoking to be at right ban in all public places, and in your homes if you have children, provided if your allowed to have children in the first place.

[MelissaWV]

I think for me the main concern is the slippery slope. Could this mean that smoking in your own house becomes illegal if children reside there?

What about smoke from campfires, or even street vendors? Would there be citations for them if children are present? I can see what kind of precedent this law can set.

Keep in mind that, as I said, residue from smoking can also be harmful (there are studies to back this up). This would mean that if you are a smoker selling your home, the person buying could ask for abatement reductions in the price if they have children. Perhaps if you're a smoker but a part-time parent, or a relative, who might have children over... you'd have to do something special to prove you're not endangering them. You might not be allowed to smoke in a car whether or not the child is currently in it.

Now from there, how would they tell which cars usually have children in them? Ah, it's a fast ride down the slippery slope, but you don't even have to go that far.

By the by, what if you pitch the cigarette somehow before the cop pulls you over? "I smell smoke" is enough? "I saw you" is enough? Will there be an air quality meter, like a BAC test, to make sure your child's air quality in the back is good enough?

[Kludge]

Let's quit discussing the law and start discussing the ethics. That's how politics is supposed to work.

[Dr.3D]

So what's next? Are people going to have to start having glass between the drivers area and the back of the car? It seems to work pretty well in a limo. Smokers can be separated from the non smokers. LOL

[Brian4Liberty]

Eh - I can say from personal experience that growing up around chain-smokers, especially while they're driving, really sucked as a kid.

1) Clothes always smelled like smoke, which was embarrassing during school and slightly nauseating.

2) Constant headaches when around them.

3) Set off & exaggerated my already-bad allergies.

With that said, I probably inhaled fumes of about three packs of cigarettes via second-hand smoke a day for ~14 years and have no type of lung damage at all.

With that said, smoking around your kids is an asshole move, especially while in the car with them. But as for the state laws... well - fuck 'em.

You and me both. Nothing like inhaling a lung full of your parents cigarettes, especially when they carelessly hold the damn thing right under your nose. Where are the rights of the kids? Believe me, I complained.

[Southron]

Tobacco has been regulated to death for years now.

Alcohol is fine because the policians and elites use it.

I'm not surprised.

[Wesker1982]

i don't smoke nor do i have kids so this law doesn't affect me.
It's the principle that's at hand here.

A law is just an opinion backed by a gun. Would you be willing to pull the trigger on the cigarette smoker who is pulled over and tries to defend him/herself? Why do you think violence is the best way to solve society's problems? Surely, you must admit, that there are other ways to protect children outside of government (like, say, better parenting)? Surely, you don't think the government should step in and provide the role of parents?

The problem is, "public property"- it's an oxymoron. Everyone owns it, so no one really owns it. This is at the root of the collectivism that you are advocating here.

Collectivism fails every time, even if it's supposedly "for the common good". Why not think outside the box and find out if there are other ways to solve this problem besides government force?

qft

[Romulus]

Hypotheticals are used to decide whether or not a law makes sense. If you're going to make a law (in this case, to protect children from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke), you need to ensure it actually does what you want it to do.

I haven't said anything about speeding except to point out that handing out tickets does not stop the activity from taking place. I thought the point of this law was to stop people from endangering their children? How, then, is handing out tickets going to do that? I elaborated my observation and showed you how it would not.

You are depending on the police to "enforce ... in a logical manner." It would be logical to follow the letter of the law, which is what the police currently do on a number of laws. Someone whose BAC is "too high" based on a numerical limit is eligible for a ticket no matter how well they are driving. Likewise, someone smoking with a child in their vehicle would be eligible for a ticket regardless of the type of vehicle, the condition of the windows, or any other factor.

Previously, you said that laws needed to be explicit to avoid any such guesswork on the part of the police. Now it is essential to avoid tickets that you say wouldn't hold up in court. Why wouldn't they? That parent, in a convertible or otherwise, is violating the letter of the law. Courtrooms will very likely uphold such tickets as being in violation. The place to ensure such stupidity doesn't happen is when writing the law itself.

So here we have a law that doesn't actually protect children from smoke, doesn't leave room for discretion, and punishes people who may or may not actually be causing harm. It doesn't sound like a very good law at all.

I will say it again, since you now concede that police can use discretion: There are already laws on the books to protect children from abuse. If an officer sees a dangerous situation, s/he can pull over the vehicle and issue a citation, or even make an arrest for child endangerment. It had better be based on something really good and solid, though, because that's a serious situation, and if it falls apart in court that officer should be scrutinized and, depending on how often this has already happened, disciplined or fired.

That's in an ideal world, though, where actions have consequences.

In our current world, we have laws that purport to do one thing but do something entirely different, so long as it's marketed as being for the "greater good."

:rolleyes:

Police can enforce and interpret any law however they choose - so lets throw that one out. They will not enforce laws that can be struck down in court easily, so there is a need for a clearly defined law. Otherwise we could all live under 'dont kill and dont steal' and throw out everything else.

And we already have exhaust/emission laws to protect consumers from breathing in dangerous fumes. I think they are valid in most cases.

x2 on ethics.

Is it OK for a child to be subject to a parents negligence?

Children need not to be subject to second-hand smoke under the worst conditions, in a small confined area. I am for local government and I'm for protecting innocent life.

[dannno]

We need to outlaw minors sitting around campfires as well, they might get some smoke in their lungs.....I guess the Boy Scouts will have to go :rolleyes:

Seriously, why does everybody have a stick up their ass about smoke getting into your lungs?! Humans have been sitting around campfires for THOUSANDS OF FUCKING YEARS and here you come along trying to convince us that you can't get any god damn smoke in your lungs!?!

Second hand smoke studies are complete bullshit. Try living in LA for a few months CONSTANTLY breathing in all the pollution, then try and tell me about how bad a cigarette in a car is with the windows down..

There is absolutely not one god damn thing wrong with smoking in your car with the windows down, I don't give a fuck what you think. If you disagree with me, then raise your own god damn kids the way you want and stay out of my life. Stop being such a god damn fascist.

I don't even smoke cigs, btw.

[virgil47]

Smoking cigarettes with your kids in the car is child abuse.

Maybe current laws against child abuse are sufficient, or maybe this will help police focus on a specific and common form of it.

Either way, police can still use discretion, and defendants can still argue their cases at trial.

Also, those of you who are crying about "individual rights and responsibilities" are sounding very ridiculous in this case.

If we are going to live in a civilized society, then we are going to need to have some common rules that protect the rights of individuals.

Not everyone wants to live in a jungle, or even a cave.

:p


Driving with children in the car is child abuse as you are endangering their lives. Taking children to the beach is child abuse for the same reason. If the endangerment of a childs health or life is child abuse then there are many, many practices that "need" to be made against the law.

[dannno]

Driving with children in the car is child abuse as you are endangering their lives. Taking children to the beach is child abuse for the same reason. If the endangerment of a childs health or life is child abuse then there are many, many practices that "need" to be made against the law.

Seriously, people need to mind their own fucking business.

[Kludge]

Driving with children in the car is child abuse as you are endangering their lives. Taking children to the beach is child abuse for the same reason. If the endangerment of a childs health or life is child abuse then there are many, many practices that "need" to be made against the law.

Going to the logical end of your implied argument, firing a gun in the general area of a child (but not intentionally aiming directly at the child) should not be punishable by law.

Lawmakers (or better yet - individuals!) need to decide how much risk is reasonable for children to be exposed to. It's my opinion that the health risks of second-hand smoke is wildly overblown and has been debunked. But this isn't entirely about endangering the childrens' lives - it's also about the unpleasant effects of second-hand smoke kids are being subjected to. That itself could be argued as abuse.

[MelissaWV]

Police can enforce and interpret any law however they choose - so lets throw that one out. They will not enforce laws that can be struck down in court easily, so there is a need for a clearly defined law. Otherwise we could all live under 'dont kill and dont steal' and throw out everything else.

And we already have exhaust/emission laws to protect consumers from breathing in dangerous fumes. I think they are valid in most cases.

x2 on ethics.

Is it OK for a child to be subject to a parents negligence?

Children need not to be subject to second-hand smoke under the worst conditions, in a small confined area. I am for local government and I'm for protecting innocent life.

If the police can already interpret law as they choose, and secondhand smoke really is child abuse (which is the entire premise upon which the law at hand is based), then people could be pulled over on the grounds that they are abusing their children in the vehicle.

Who, precisely, defines negligence? You are saying that the secondhand smoke issue isn't negligence, obviously, because it doesn't fall under existing child abuse statutes, so why is this question even here? If it's negligence, it's already against the law! If it's not negligence, then why do we need a law on the subject?

How small and confined constitutes a hazard? Why aren't you addressing residual exposure? Is smoking with your 17-year-old in the car a bit different than smoking with your baby in it? Oh, I know, NOW the police will exercise common sense (like they couldn't when stopping someone with a coughing five-year-old in the back of their smoke-filled, windows-up vehicle). The law attempts to be one-size-fits-all, rather than enforce the laws already on the books. It's another law that doesn't do what it purports to do, and you haven't proven otherwise.

How does this law actually stop people from smoking with children in the car? How does it reduce exposure to secondhand smoke? How does it save lives?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Ridiculous. I dont condone smoking around children period. Im a smoker and I never light up around kids, especially in a car, but I dont need a law telling me that. Just another reason for Police to pull you over, go all in your shit, and for DSS to take your kids and break up you family.

[ChaosControl]

I don't smoke nor do I have kids so this law doesn't affect me.
It's the principle that's at hand here.

A law is just an opinion backed by a gun. Would you be willing to pull the trigger on the cigarette smoker who is pulled over and tries to defend him/herself? Why do you think violence is the best way to solve society's problems? Surely, you must admit, that there are other ways to protect children outside of government (like, say, better parenting)? Surely, you don't think the government should step in and provide the role of parents?

The problem is, "public property"- it's an oxymoron. Everyone owns it, so no one really owns it. This is at the root of the collectivism that you are advocating here.

Collectivism fails every time, even if it's supposedly "for the common good". Why not think outside the box and find out if there are other ways to solve this problem besides government force?

Wow way to jump to ridiculous conclusions. I support a ban on smoking in public so I must be willing to go pull a gun on smokers.

I'm not really trying to argue whether this particular law is good, although I would support it. I'm just saying that on public property the local residents have a right to put in place the kind of regulations and standards they want. If they want to ban smoking, their choice. If they want to ban indecent dress, their choice. They can do whatever they want in regards to the public domain. It doesn't violate your liberties as you can just go home and smoke or wear what you want or whatever. Dislike the specific law then you can work to get change public opinion or you can move.

Everyone owns it so no "individual" owns it. It is a collective ownership, much like a stock owned company is a collective ownership. People vote on it just like the stockowners of a company vote on what the company does. Same idea, just think of being a resident as being a stockowner in the public land.

But I guess you're an ancap and want to do away with all public property? So there isn't really any point in us discussing this since we disagree on the fundamental point of the issue.

[pcosmar]

I want a law against perfume and other "deodorants". People shouldn't be allowed to wear that shit in public. It makes my nose itch. It's annoying.
I guess I just need to have a "study" done to prove that it is harmful. :rolleyes:

[robert9712000]

Im not a smoker but i completely disagree with this law.

People love to say we only want to protect the children because they cant protect themselves!!

I think the line should be drawn where it might cause harm and where it defiantly will cause harm.If any law on a parent falls under the category of might then its a bad law.The preventive attitude is what oppresses people from free will to live life as they see fit.Smoking will not defiantly harm your health its a maybe.

where would the people that support it draw the line? are you endangering your childs health to let them eat fatty foods? Is it endangering there lives to let them swim in the water? is it endangering there lives to let them play out side and be exposed to the suns uv rays?

So if you people that support it think its child abuse.Then do you think the government has the right to take there children from them if they violate that law?

Just because studies show its a increased danger to smoke doesnt mean its a defanant.If you absolutely have to make a law, make it for when something actually happens .dont charge them for something that might happen

[Vessol]

I'm glad I'm not a smoker. I have a feeling that within a few years, smokers are going to be always paranoid while they take a smoke that they are breaking some new smoking law.

[Philhelm]

The "it's for the children" ploy is the oldest trick in the government's playbook, and people are still falling for it?

[Petar]

Driving with children in the car is child abuse as you are endangering their lives. Taking children to the beach is child abuse for the same reason. If the endangerment of a childs health or life is child abuse then there are many, many practices that "need" to be made against the law.

Life is inherently dangerous, but since banning life is a completely stupid idea, then intelligent people attempt to differentiate between negligent and responsible behavior.

For example, driving with a child is not abuse, unless you are driving recklessly.

Likewise, allowing your child to breathe is not abuse, unless you are poisoning their air with toxins.

I'm sure that you will understand and appreciate the subtlety involved...

[Krugerrand]

Twinkies are unhealthy. Parents who provide twinkies to children should be arrested for child abuse.

[Liberty_Mike]

From a libertarian perspective, I believe that no one has the right to inflict unwanted harm upon anyone else. I feel that this law is OK from a libertarian perspective. When you put some though into this issue, children who are in a car with a smoking adult don't have any other choice, and harm is being inflicted upon them against their will. Let adults smoke in their cars if they want, and even with other adults in the car, but not with children. Children have no other choice than to be in the car with the parent, relative, child sitter, etc, so they should not be forced to sit through the toxic fumes being emitted in the cigarette smoke.
However, no other laws should be made restricting individuals from smoking in their cars when they are by themselves or when they have other adults in the car. Adults have the ability to choose who they ride in a car with, and they have the ability to ask the smoking individual to stop or else find another form of transportation.

[Fredom101]

Wow way to jump to ridiculous conclusions. I support a ban on smoking in public so I must be willing to go pull a gun on smokers.

I'm not really trying to argue whether this particular law is good, although I would support it. I'm just saying that on public property the local residents have a right to put in place the kind of regulations and standards they want. If they want to ban smoking, their choice. If they want to ban indecent dress, their choice. They can do whatever they want in regards to the public domain. It doesn't violate your liberties as you can just go home and smoke or wear what you want or whatever. Dislike the specific law then you can work to get change public opinion or you can move.

Everyone owns it so no "individual" owns it. It is a collective ownership, much like a stock owned company is a collective ownership. People vote on it just like the stockowners of a company vote on what the company does. Same idea, just think of being a resident as being a stockowner in the public land.

But I guess you're an ancap and want to do away with all public property? So there isn't really any point in us discussing this since we disagree on the fundamental point of the issue.

They're not ridiculous but rather, logical conclusions. When you support a law, you are supporting the violence that is used to uphold that law. The reason I asked if you would be willing to pull the trigger is that ultimately, that's what laws and government come down to- the threat of violence. You may be okay with others carrying out these acts, but would YOU actually be willing to enforce these laws you like the way the state enforces them?

What you're advocating is still collectivism, even if it's local.
If the citizens in your state voted 51% to ban stereos in cars, would you be okay with that?

Public land doesn't exist. It's government land. Who owns it? Nobody owns it. It doesn't matter what I call myself or what anyone calls themselves. If you want to ban smoking around kids in your household, that's totally fine. But what gives you the right to order me around with the threat of violence? Lots of bad things are happening right now, the government has no business being involved in them. Think about it- the government itself exists on threats of violence and theft. How in the world can they rightly go around being the moral police?

[Fredom101]

From a libertarian perspective, I believe that no one has the right to inflict unwanted harm upon anyone else. I feel that this law is OK from a libertarian perspective. When you put some though into this issue, children who are in a car with a smoking adult don't have any other choice, and harm is being inflicted upon them against their will. Let adults smoke in their cars if they want, and even with other adults in the car, but not with children. Children have no other choice than to be in the car with the parent, relative, child sitter, etc, so they should not be forced to sit through the toxic fumes being emitted in the cigarette smoke.
However, no other laws should be made restricting individuals from smoking in their cars when they are by themselves or when they have other adults in the car. Adults have the ability to choose who they ride in a car with, and they have the ability to ask the smoking individual to stop or else find another form of transportation.

This is not about the children. Parents can handle their own affairs. This is just another in a long list of state incursions into our personal lives. I can't believe any libertarian in his or her right mind would support such nonsense. This also creates the moral hazard of letting parents off the hook. Mommy & Daddy government will take care of it!

[robert9712000]

Life is inherently dangerous, but since banning life is a completely stupid idea, then intelligent people attempt to differentiate between negligent and responsible behavior.

For example, driving with a child is not abuse, unless you are driving recklessly.

Likewise, allowing your child to breathe is not abuse, unless you are poisoning their air with toxins.

I'm sure that you will understand and appreciate the subtlety involved...

The problem then arises that ,what you see as reckless and irresponsible ,i do not.So who gets to decide whos opinion holds more weight?

What if ,in someones mind they did see letting there child go in the water as dangerous.Just because you think its not irresponsible, again the question is why does your opinion mean more than someone elses.

[Petar]

It all depends on the specific situation.

If you want to use "going into the water" as an example, then I can tell you that there are definitely times when that would be negligent.

For example, I was babysitting my two year old nephew earlier today, and if I had just left him in our backyard with the pool, then that would definitely count as criminal negligence, especially if he had ended up drowning.

If my nephew was 9 years old, and also knew how to swim, then that would not be negligent.

Do we agree with this example?

[Wesker1982]

For example, driving with a child is not abuse, unless you are driving recklessly.


so if you are driving "recklessly" but the child is not harmed in any way, it is abuse?

[Petar]

so if you are driving "recklessly" but the child is not harmed in any way, it is abuse?

Yes.

[Philhelm]

Why doesn't everybody just offer their children to Child Protective Service and call it a day? I'm sure there is something that every parent does that isn't approved of by other people or the government.

[Fredom101]

Who determines what "recklessly" is?

[pcosmar]

so if you are driving "recklessly" but the child is not harmed in any way, it is abuse?

I have to wonder this also. As someone that often rode in the bed of a pick-up, as well as a few "questionable" vehicles.

(I was transported across expanses of ice in a cardboard box behind a snowmobile.)

[virgil47]

seriously, people need to mind their own fucking business.

+10,000

[virgil47]

Going to the logical end of your implied argument, firing a gun in the general area of a child (but not intentionally aiming directly at the child) should not be punishable by law.

Lawmakers (or better yet - individuals!) need to decide how much risk is reasonable for children to be exposed to. It's my opinion that the health risks of second-hand smoke is wildly overblown and has been debunked. But this isn't entirely about endangering the childrens' lives - it's also about the unpleasant effects of second-hand smoke kids are being subjected to. That itself could be argued as abuse.

To my knowledge firing a gun near a child is NOT punishable by law unless you are aiming at the child. Second hand smoke is nothing as compared to the state sponsored pollution children are exposed to on a daily basis. First comes no smoking in your car then comes no smoking in your home then comes no smoking period. By the way I am not a smoker but I am for individual and parental rights.

[ChaosControl]

They're not ridiculous but rather, logical conclusions. When you support a law, you are supporting the violence that is used to uphold that law. The reason I asked if you would be willing to pull the trigger is that ultimately, that's what laws and government come down to- the threat of violence. You may be okay with others carrying out these acts, but would YOU actually be willing to enforce these laws you like the way the state enforces them?

I guess with the extremists who instead of trying to change the opinions of people to get rid of the law or move away and just want to break the local law anyway would eventually result in them getting put into jail, such is their fault for taking the stupidest option they had.


What you're advocating is still collectivism, even if it's local.
If the citizens in your state voted 51% to ban stereos in cars, would you be okay with that?
Would I support the ban? No.
Would I recognize that people have the right to vote that while in public you cannot have your radio on? Yes.

If you dislike the ban, you work to change opinions or you move. That is the beauty of localism. You can have the type of government you want. If town A wants peaceful 1950s style town and town B wants an anything goes town then both towns



Public land doesn't exist. It's government land. Who owns it? Nobody owns it. It doesn't matter what I call myself or what anyone calls themselves. If you want to ban smoking around kids in your household, that's totally fine. But what gives you the right to order me around with the threat of violence? Lots of bad things are happening right now, the government has no business being involved in them. Think about it- the government itself exists on threats of violence and theft. How in the world can they rightly go around being the moral police?
Call it what you want but its still public land. Everyone shares ownership of it just like I already mentioned.

What gives the people the right? The same thing that gives me the right to tell you not to smoke on my land. The people own the land so the people can vote on what is allowable on the land. Don't like it? Don't go on public land or move to a place with laws that suit you more.

There is no one-size-fits-all and that is why it is best to keep things local so everyone can have what most fits their views.

[Romulus]

If the police can already interpret law as they choose, and secondhand smoke really is child abuse (which is the entire premise upon which the law at hand is based), then people could be pulled over on the grounds that they are abusing their children in the vehicle.

Who, precisely, defines negligence? You are saying that the secondhand smoke issue isn't negligence, obviously, because it doesn't fall under existing child abuse statutes, so why is this question even here? If it's negligence, it's already against the law! If it's not negligence, then why do we need a law on the subject?

How small and confined constitutes a hazard? Why aren't you addressing residual exposure? Is smoking with your 17-year-old in the car a bit different than smoking with your baby in it? Oh, I know, NOW the police will exercise common sense (like they couldn't when stopping someone with a coughing five-year-old in the back of their smoke-filled, windows-up vehicle). The law attempts to be one-size-fits-all, rather than enforce the laws already on the books. It's another law that doesn't do what it purports to do, and you haven't proven otherwise.

How does this law actually stop people from smoking with children in the car? How does it reduce exposure to secondhand smoke? How does it save lives?

First you have to throw out the police applying the law wild card. There's no constant there. And actually the 'child endangerment' law is an attempt as a one size fits all law. It is not in this case. If police try it, chances are it'll get thrown out.

About ash trays. I think we can agree that one is actively more hazardous than the other and you can distinguish between the two.

And how does any law stop people from breaking the law? It does not, it's a deterrent to act as our society, be it local, state or national, has deemed to be responsible.

I am still in favor for this as either a local township or county law, for communities to decide.

How about ethics now?

I happen to live in a small town with a lot of smokers. Just yesterday, 4 adults and one 8 yr old child got our of a small car. ALL of them were puffing away with the windows UP. I felt sorry for the girl. But oh well, too bad for her I guess? Since its not against the law, I guess I can go around and blow smoke in all the babies faces at the county fair then? I mean, there's no law telling me I can't , right? Or can I be arrested for child abuse on that one? Or assault? Surely there's a law we could file it under.. or not.

[Fredom101]

To my knowledge firing a gun near a child is NOT punishable by law unless you are aiming at the child. Second hand smoke is nothing as compared to the state sponsored pollution children are exposed to on a daily basis. First comes no smoking in your car then comes no smoking in your home then comes no smoking period. By the way I am not a smoker but I am for individual and parental rights.

What if a cop pulls over a parent smoking in his car with kids in the back, and the parent refuses to go along with the cops demands and the cop eventually pulls out a gun and shoots the dad for "resisting arrest"? As long as we save the kid from 2nd hand smoke that's a perfectly acceptable scenario?

[Petar]

Who determines what "recklessly" is?

State legislators namely.

[Fredom101]

I guess with the extremists who instead of trying to change the opinions of people to get rid of the law or move away and just want to break the local law anyway would eventually result in them getting put into jail, such is their fault for taking the stupidest option they had.


Would I support the ban? No.
Would I recognize that people have the right to vote that while in public you cannot have your radio on? Yes.

If you dislike the ban, you work to change opinions or you move. That is the beauty of localism. You can have the type of government you want. If town A wants peaceful 1950s style town and town B wants an anything goes town then both towns



Call it what you want but its still public land. Everyone shares ownership of it just like I already mentioned.

What gives the people the right? The same thing that gives me the right to tell you not to smoke on my land. The people own the land so the people can vote on what is allowable on the land. Don't like it? Don't go on public land or move to a place with laws that suit you more.

There is no one-size-fits-all and that is why it is best to keep things local so everyone can have what most fits their views.

So then what do you have against the most local government of all, self-government?

[Fredom101]

State legislators namely.

And these are people who will be watching over you as you drive? Yep, sounds like libertarianism to me. :rolleyes:

[ChaosControl]

So then what do you have against the most local government of all, self-government?

I don't have anything against it. You're on your land, do what you want as long as you don't harm a non-consenting party. You're on my land I can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off. You're on public land then the public can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off.

[aGameOfThrones]

That's what parents get for giving up their kids to the state. Don't get mad when the state makes rules concerning babysitters.

There are crappy parents, and smoking with your kid in the back is not the best thing to do, but a "law" for smoking in your "private" property, really?

When will they make a "law" that you cannot smoke in your house because you have children? Will you be OK with that? Some of you seem like you would be.



"It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father". - Thomas Jefferson


"They have taken the care and upbringing of children out of the hands of parents, where it belongs, and thrown it upon a gang of irresponsible and unintelligent quacks." - H. L. Mencken

[virgil47]

What if a cop pulls over a parent smoking in his car with kids in the back, and the parent refuses to go along with the cops demands and the cop eventually pulls out a gun and shoots the dad for "resisting arrest"? As long as we save the kid from 2nd hand smoke that's a perfectly acceptable scenario?

If a cop shoots and kills a parent for smoking the cop should be prosecuted for murder and executed.

[virgil47]

I don't have anything against it. You're on your land, do what you want as long as you don't harm a non-consenting party. You're on my land I can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off. You're on public land then the public can tell you not to engage in certain things or get off.

As long as there are property taxes that are paid to a state agency you do not "own" your land. You rent it.

[Petar]

And these are people who will be watching over you as you drive? Yep, sounds like libertarianism to me. :rolleyes:

No, it's up to cops to enforce the laws that legislators create.

So it's the job of state or local police to ticket/charge you if you drive recklessly.

Of course you at least have the option to go to trial as well, and that relies on the discernment of the judge/jury, relative to the law that legislators have created.

And if the law itself is unfair, then jury nullification is a great way for the community to counter-balance that.

[Fredom101]

No, it's up to cops to enforce the laws that legislators create.

So it's the job of state or local police to ticket/charge you if you drive recklessly.

Of course you at least have the option to go to trial as well, and that relies on the discernment of the judge/jury, relative to the law that legislators have created.

And if the law itself is unfair, then jury nullification is a great way for the community to counter-balance that.

You just described the system as it is. It fails miserably. The cop in fact has to drive "recklessly" in order to pull over the so-called reckless driver! So then you have 2 dangerous drivers on the road.

We're trying to make changes so that we can all have more freedom, not advocate the status quo which is adding more laws and giving us all more tyranny.

[WhiteHaven]

So ignorant. I don't smoke neither does anyone I associate with but this is b.s.

[Petar]

You just described the system as it is. It fails miserably. The cop in fact has to drive "recklessly" in order to pull over the so-called reckless driver! So then you have 2 dangerous drivers on the road.

We're trying to make changes so that we can all have more freedom, not advocate the status quo which is adding more laws and giving us all more tyranny.

Yes, I just described a large component of "the system", but there are of course many more.

Regardless, I do agree that many things need to be changed in "the system", but I do not believe that we need to just completely give up on child-abuse or reckless driving laws.

I do believe that cops should not engage in high-speed chases unless they perhaps have a really good reason, so maybe legislators should create laws against that.

[jmdrake]

If a cop shoots and kills a parent for smoking the cop should be prosecuted for murder and executed.

Except it will never work like that. The cop will say that he thought the dad was reaching for a weapon and so he pulled out what he thought was a taser but really was his gun. At least that fits what happened in the last well publicized police shooting trial.

[ChaosControl]

As long as there are property taxes that are paid to a state agency you do not "own" your land. You rent it.

True unfortunately, but it is still ultimately considered private property rather than public and thus you are able to engage in behaviors that would not be allowed in public.

[dannno]

True unfortunately, but it is still ultimately considered private property rather than public and thus you are able to engage in behaviors that would not be allowed in public.

So the public can vote to arrest anybody of a certain race who appears in public, if that is what the public wants :confused:

You should checkout "Individualism Vs. Collectivism" on youtube to find out what the public is morally allowed to do as far as laws are concerned.

[Dr.3D]

Okay, they claim, second hand smoke kills non smokers. Guess they will have to let kids start smoking. LOL

[libertybrewcity]

So if a child gets lung cancer from being around his or her parents' cigarettes, he or she should be able to sue his them?

[YumYum]

How is it that there are those who are against abortion on the grounds that it violates the rights of an unborn fetus, but then are opposed to a smoking ban which protects a baby's rights?

Do the rights of an unborn fetus take priority over the rights of a defenseless infant?

[MelissaWV]

So if a child gets lung cancer from being around his or her parents' cigarettes, he or she should be able to sue his them?

You'd have to prove it actually came from their smoking. If your parent's abuse caused you harm, you should have a right to compensation or to press charges. Whether or not you win will depend on any number of factors.


First you have to throw out the police applying the law wild card. There's no constant there. And actually the 'child endangerment' law is an attempt as a one size fits all law. It is not in this case. If police try it, chances are it'll get thrown out.

About ash trays. I think we can agree that one is actively more hazardous than the other and you can distinguish between the two.

And how does any law stop people from breaking the law? It does not, it's a deterrent to act as our society, be it local, state or national, has deemed to be responsible.

I am still in favor for this as either a local township or county law, for communities to decide.

How about ethics now?

I happen to live in a small town with a lot of smokers. Just yesterday, 4 adults and one 8 yr old child got our of a small car. ALL of them were puffing away with the windows UP. I felt sorry for the girl. But oh well, too bad for her I guess? Since its not against the law, I guess I can go around and blow smoke in all the babies faces at the county fair then? I mean, there's no law telling me I can't , right? Or can I be arrested for child abuse on that one? Or assault? Surely there's a law we could file it under.. or not.

You keep going back and forth. First you told me that you couldn't lump this under child abuse laws, because police can't use discretion that way. When I bring up the absurdity of pulling someone over for "smoking in a vehicle" that's a convertible, or where the windows are all rolled down, or where the "child" is someone in their late teens... you tell me the police can use discretion. You really need to make up your mind on that.

You're going to go after active smoking, but not all the residue that smoking leaves behind? How selective of you! What if I told you that "third hand" smoke of this kind is harmful, particularly to babies?


Add a new health threat to smoking: In addition to the harm caused by actually smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke, so-called third-hand smoke may also pose a threat, particularly to babies and toddlers.

A new study reveals that the residue of nicotine that lingers on surfaces can react with another chemical in the air to form potent carcinogens — chemicals linked to various cancers. While first-hand smoke is that inhaled directly by the smoker and second-hand is the smoke exhaled (and inhaled by others), third-hand smoke is the residue from second-hand smoke.

...

"Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs," Destaillats said. "TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke."

...

"Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on indoor surfaces, including clothing and human skin, our findings indicate that third-hand smoke represents an unappreciated health hazard through dermal exposure, dust inhalation and ingestion," said lead author Mohamad Sleiman, also of Berkeley Lab.

Since most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartments, tests were also conducted on surfaces inside the truck of a heavy smoker, including the surface of a stainless steel glove compartment. These measurements also showed substantial levels of TSNAs.

Individuals are most likely exposed to these TSNAs through either inhalation of dust or the contact of skin with carpet or clothes, suggesting third-hand smoke might pose the greatest hazard to infants and toddlers.

And the study's findings, detailed in the Feb. 8 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicate that opening a window or deploying a fan to ventilate the room while a cigarette burns does not eliminate the hazard of third-hand smoke.

Smoking outdoors is not much of an improvement.

"Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing," said study co-author Lara Gundel, also of Berkeley Lab. "Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere."

...

In their paper, the authors suggest several ways to limit the impact of third-hand smoke, including the implementation of 100 percent smoke-free environments in public places and self-restrictions in residences and automobiles. In building where high levels of smoking has occurred, replacing furnishings, carpets and wallboard could reduce exposures.

Oopsie! Like I said earlier, it appears there's a serious threat here. Time to prohibit smokers from having any contact with children, or places where children might eat/play/reside, don't you think?


so if you are driving "recklessly" but the child is not harmed in any way, it is abuse?

Perhaps, but it depends on how we're defining "harmed." I'm assuming you mean physically damaged. As Pete said in a later post, kids used to do all kinds of things and not get physically damaged every time. However, have you ever been in a car with a crazy person who won't pull over? Have you ever had them screaming and yelling at you, swerving around, threatening to kill you, or so drunk they're throwing up on themselves as they drive? Oh, nothing's happened yet, but I'm guessing the kid in the back seat is "harmed" by that in other ways. Then again, it'd be up to them to complain.


From a libertarian perspective, I believe that no one has the right to inflict unwanted harm upon anyone else. I feel that this law is OK from a libertarian perspective. When you put some though into this issue, children who are in a car with a smoking adult don't have any other choice, and harm is being inflicted upon them against their will. Let adults smoke in their cars if they want, and even with other adults in the car, but not with children. Children have no other choice than to be in the car with the parent, relative, child sitter, etc, so they should not be forced to sit through the toxic fumes being emitted in the cigarette smoke.
However, no other laws should be made restricting individuals from smoking in their cars when they are by themselves or when they have other adults in the car. Adults have the ability to choose who they ride in a car with, and they have the ability to ask the smoking individual to stop or else find another form of transportation.

You are taking it as gospel that harm is being inflicted. Define "child" and "vehicle" for the purposes of this law. Difficult, isn't it? I come back to the example of a parent driving around in a convertible with their 17-year-old. Is that an adult subjecting a child to secondhand smoke? It is according to the letter of the law, unless you're defining "child" as something else.

Some of you guys really haven't thought this out.

If it's "for the children," then this law isn't accomplishing its goals.

http://www.livescience.com/health/third-hand-smoke-100209.html

[libertybrewcity]

How is it that there are those who are against abortion on the grounds that it violates the rights of an unborn fetus, but then are opposed to a smoking ban which protects a baby's rights?

Do the rights of an unborn fetus take priority over the rights of a defenseless infant?

The standard argument is behavior shouldn't be regulated. So, those against abortion are saying that abortion is not behavior, it is murder. If you subscribe to that then they are two different categories. I say leave it up to the communities to decide.

[ChaosControl]

So the public can vote to arrest anybody of a certain race who appears in public, if that is what the public wants :confused:

You should checkout "Individualism Vs. Collectivism" on youtube to find out what the public is morally allowed to do as far as laws are concerned.

No, that is extreme and creates an undue hardship on an individual. You can discriminate against behavior, but I do not think the state and thus by extension the voter, can discriminate against things like sex or race or any characteristics. They could vote to disallow certain actions, but not just existence due to someone having a characteristic.

[Fredom101]

No, that is extreme and creates an undue hardship on an individual. You can discriminate against behavior, but I do not think the state and thus by extension the voter, can discriminate against things like sex or race or any characteristics. They could vote to disallow certain actions, but not just existence due to someone having a characteristic.

Again, what problem do you have with self-government? Why is it okay for a local group of bureaucrats to make decisions for you but not one further away? Both are collectivistic in nature.

You may want to think about what you're saying when you keep advocating voting. Mob rule has never worked in history. Here's a video explaining exactly why voting is a horrible idea:

YouTube - ‪True News 5: The Truth About Voting‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM)

[libertybrewcity]

Look what just popped up on Drudge:

Smoking in the car is child abuse, GP Steve Field warns

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10896335

Smoking in the car when children are present is now considered child abuse in the UK.

[Dr.3D]

I know when I was a kid, I would rather my father smoke than fart in the car. We had a very small car and it was all I could do to breathe when someone cut the cheese. Smoking didn't really bother me as much.

I guess pretty soon, they will say farting in the car with children present is child abuse.

[virgil47]

True unfortunately, but it is still ultimately considered private property rather than public and thus you are able to engage in behaviors that would not be allowed in public.

For now. Your use of "private" property is totally under the control of the state.

[virgil47]

Look what just popped up on Drudge:

Smoking in the car is child abuse, GP Steve Field warns

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10896335

Smoking in the car when children are present is now considered child abuse in the UK.

Nothing that the U.K. does surprises me anymore. As a country they have gone done the toilet of political correctness to the point that not even Roto Rooter could reach them!

[paulitics]

I was forced to inhale smoke whenever my aunt came over and since I was asthmatic, it almost killed me. In my case, it was a matter of protecting life, but I have mixed feelings about what abuses of power this may lead to down the slippery road.

For instance, I am vehemently against the state taking away a child from their parents for almost any reason, and I don't want this to be another reason for them to do so.

Definately a matter of the states to resolve, and not the fed govt IMO.

[Number19]

The overabundance of traffic laws like this is why the argument focusing on "state rights" is a little less appealing than "individual rights" when talking about overreaching federal government laws. What right does the state have (if not the federal government) to enforce your behavior?...It's not a question of states having a right to enforce such behavior, it's a question of decentralizing Power.

The federal government is all encompassing. With 50 states, and 50 different sets of laws, you can relocate to the one you prefer. Also, the power of the individual state is closer to the citizen and is therefor easier to influence and change.

The general philosophical concept is that the smaller the political unit, the more power can be enforced.

If this is not true, you end up with tyranny at the local level - telling people how they may or may not live their lives - just as confining as tyranny exercised at the federal level.

[Number19]

Eh - I can say from personal experience that growing up around chain-smokers, especially while they're driving, really sucked as a kid.

1) Clothes always smelled like smoke, which was embarrassing during school and slightly nauseating.

2) Constant headaches when around them.

3) Set off & exaggerated my already-bad allergies.

With that said, I probably inhaled fumes of about three packs of cigarettes via second-hand smoke a day for ~14 years and have no type of lung damage at all.

With that said, smoking around your kids is an asshole move, especially while in the car with them. But as for the state laws... well - fuck 'em.Well stated from first hand experience. +1

[Number19]

...I am still in favor for this as either a local township or county law, for communities to decide.

How about ethics now?...You hit the nail square on the head. +1

[YumYum]

From this discussion I have realized that when I have kid, one benefit of my blowing smoke in its face will teach him/her to hold their breath. Many kids do not know how to hold their breath.

[Wesker1982]

Twinkies are unhealthy. Parents who provide twinkies to children should be arrested for child abuse.

this needs more love imo.

seriously. Whats worse, letting your kid inhale second hand smoke in a car or letting them eat McDonalds french fries 5 days a week or more etc? ???

Should there be a law prohibiting poor diets for kids? Laws prohibiting kids from eating deep fat fried foods, bacon, eating too much sugar? If your kids BMI says he is overweight you get slapped with a fine? Kid has bad cholesterol? Oops, looks like a fine for you.

I'm not a doctor but I would guess that what a lot of parents feed their kids is worse than 2nd hand smoke. When you see a family of 5 who are all obese feeding their kids McDonalds and pizza all week its pretty sick imo.

Are you going to make the argument that since these kids cannot provide food for themselves and essentially don't have a choice in what they eat the state should intervene to make sure their parents are not risking the children's health with extremely poor diets?

Or how about instead of giving up the freedom to parent the way we see fit, we just accept the fact that you can't legislate morality or good parenting.

[Golding]

One could make the argument that smoking near children is damaging to their health. If you give your child cancer at age 3, should you be liable in court? I think so, but it seems pretty much the same as a law.One could make that argument, I suppose. But realistically second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer in 3-year olds. Even in people who smoke cigarettes directly, it takes many years for it to happen. And even then, the risk of lung cancer (for example) is still quite low proportionately. It's the relative risk that is several times higher than nonsmoking populations.

So in short, the answer to your question is an emphatic "no". Smoking around your kids doesn't make you liable in court, in my opinion. It's not good parenting, but there's a great deal of more significant forms of bad parenting that I'm more concerned about.

Why would you limit this to just smoking around kids in an automobile? Why not arrest people for smoking in their homes when they have kids? Why not arrest people for having cigarettes in their homes when they have kids? Why not arrest people for having a gun in their home if they have kids?

I'll parent how I want, and you parent how you want. I don't intend to force my parenting skills on you, and you shouldn't force your parenting skills onto me. That's what liberty is about.

[Golding]

It's not a question of states having a right to enforce such behavior, it's a question of decentralizing Power.

The federal government is all encompassing. With 50 states, and 50 different sets of laws, you can relocate to the one you prefer. Also, the power of the individual state is closer to the citizen and is therefor easier to influence and change.

The general philosophical concept is that the smaller the political unit, the more power can be enforced.

If this is not true, you end up with tyranny at the local level - telling people how they may or may not live their lives - just as confining as tyranny exercised at the federal level.I understand the question of decentralizing power, but I think it's important to realize that just stopping at "state rights" leads you with little difference from the current federal oppression. Those in this thread going, "Well, it's the state's right to do it" are missing the point that it's not the state's right to regulate your behavior any more than it's the federal government's right. Neither have jurisdiction over your free will.

"Just relocate" is one of those things that's easier said than done. I intend to move out of California because the state is desperately looking for ways to pay for itself -- inevitably that will lead to gouging the population. It's already happening with accelerated police activity on the road -- a rate of 7 traffic police on a 60 minute drive. The odds are against you no matter what. There are too many traffic laws, and the odds of getting pulled over increase simply by how much you drive. The ability to "just relocate", if I wish to live indoors, won't be possible until next year. And even then it's uncertain. And that's with the ability of being comfortable leaving my family behind. "Just relocate" is asking a lot more than you think it is.

It's also bad advice. Why not apply that suggestion towards arguing against an oppressive federal government and "just relocate" to a less oppressive country? You'll understand it's not so easy, and it doesn't address the problem.

[specsaregood]

Should there be a law prohibiting poor diets for kids? Laws prohibiting kids from eating deep fat fried foods, bacon, eating too much sugar? If your kids BMI says he is overweight you get slapped with a fine? Kid has bad cholesterol? Oops, looks like a fine for you.


I don't see how you could possibly support this law and not think that there needs to be a law about what you feed your kids, how often you take them to the doctor, what clothes they wear, when they go to bed, how much tv they watch, basically everything that kids do or are involved in 24/7.

[Romulus]

You keep going back and forth. First you told me that you couldn't lump this under child abuse laws, because police can't use discretion that way. When I bring up the absurdity of pulling someone over for "smoking in a vehicle" that's a convertible, or where the windows are all rolled down, or where the "child" is someone in their late teens... you tell me the police can use discretion. You really need to make up your mind on that.

I dont know how to be anymore clear for you.. under a current broad vague law of 'child endangerment' chances are it would not be enforced as it would be thrown out in most court cases. As for your convertible car argument you keep holding onto, put in the law terms that outline a closed confined space. (any vehicle with the windows rolled up) There, that protects smokers from being harassed in their convertible with babies in the back seat - because that scenario is SOOOO common!

You're going to go after active smoking, but not all the residue that smoking leaves behind? How selective of you! What if I told you that "third hand" smoke of this kind is harmful, particularly to babies?

Well now, dont you think cracking down on second hand smoke inside of cars with kids just might reduce the presence third hand residues?? Hmmm!

Oopsie! Like I said earlier, it appears there's a serious threat here. Time to prohibit smokers from having any contact with children, or places where children might eat/play/reside, don't you think?

Yes. Unless you think a smoking section inside a McDonalds play land is a good thing. I can see it now. "Hey man, don't be infringin on my liberties and smoker rights man!" :rolleyes:




bold is mine

[ChaosControl]

Again, what problem do you have with self-government? Why is it okay for a local group of bureaucrats to make decisions for you but not one further away? Both are collectivistic in nature.

You may want to think about what you're saying when you keep advocating voting. Mob rule has never worked in history. Here's a video explaining exactly why voting is a horrible idea:

I have no problem with self-government, quit assuming I do. I have said on your own property you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you harm none. That is self government taken to a maximum.

Only on public property may people decide what is allowable and what isn't. It is a pretty simply concept. As I already compared, it is like stock ownership in a company. The stockholders vote on certain things and the winning vote item is what happens. It is owned by all stock holders. A city is essentially where it is owned by all residents and thus they vote on what they want. If you dislike it, sell your share (move), or convince people to vote for your preferred items.

As for the youtube, if you want to comment further then comment in your post, I am not a fan of youtube links in forums.

[johngr]

Everything a normal guy in the 50s liked and didn't like has been inverted.

[MelissaWV]

bold is mine

Yes. So that I can't quote it without a whole mess of annoying backflips and contortions, I suppose, but that's your right.


I dont know how to be anymore clear for you.. under a current broad vague law of 'child endangerment' chances are it would not be enforced as it would be thrown out in most court cases. As for your convertible car argument you keep holding onto, put in the law terms that outline a closed confined space. (any vehicle with the windows rolled up) There, that protects smokers from being harassed in their convertible with babies in the back seat - because that scenario is SOOOO common!

I don't know how it can be any clearer for you. Under the current child abuse/endangerment laws, you can make a case for whatever's actually endangering the child. Does it occur to you that many of the cases would be thrown out of court because there isn't demonstrable or even probable harm? If so, then why make a law?

Okay, good. Now we're in a "closed confined space." That would be any room of any house, or a building, or any number of other areas in addition to a vehicle. If you further define "confined" as being of a certain cubic footage, you get closer to isolating the problem. If you define "child" you're getting closer to the mark you wanted to hit. Of course, none of this actually addresses the problem itself. How does that escape you? If your problem is that smoking causes the air to be unsafe to breathe, then why not measure the air? If it's such a hazard, wouldn't pulling over the vehicle and measuring the air quality be a better measure of who should get a ticket or be arrested? This would quantify the hazard far better than simply seeing someone with a cigarette in their hand, but instead you're gunning for the latter.

So far we've reworded the law entirely to define a closed, confined space; defined how confined one has to be; defined how closed something has to be, of course (vehicles aren't actually closed spaces, otherwise we'd suffocate on long trips); and defined what constitutes a child for the purposes of this law. None of it actually measures health of the air in the vehicle, or the impact of the smoke on the child (all cigarettes are not created equal), but who cares about that? It's only the stated intent of the entire exercise.


Well now, dont you think cracking down on second hand smoke inside of cars with kids just might reduce the presence third hand residues?? Hmmm!

Not really. The two have zero to do with one another. Third-hand smoke, as indicated in the article, is present in things smokers have owned or come into contact with. The person who owned that used car before you bought it and put your baby in the back? Chain smoker. The guy who rented the apartment before you? Cigar afficionado. In order to curb third-hand smoke, you would need to regulate pretty much everything that involves a smoker. Someone not smoking while their kids are in the car, but smoking just before they are, is not any safer than the activity we've been discussing. The difference is that the former activity would be legal, while undertaking the same activity a moment later in the same confines would be illegal, despite the danger of both environments.


Yes. Unless you think a smoking section inside a McDonalds play land is a good thing. I can see it now. "Hey man, don't be infringin on my liberties and smoker rights man!"

If McDonald's wants to put up a smoking section, they very well should be able to. Parents can then decide whether or not they want their children subject to such terrible conditions. Of course, worrying about whether or not your kids are breathing in some smoke while they are inhaling their Happy Meals is a bit silly. One is absolutely full of carcinogens and life-threatening ingredients, setting a terrible example and endangering the child's health if it becomes a habit. It ain't the smoke.

[Krugerrand]

this needs more love imo.

seriously. Whats worse, letting your kid inhale second hand smoke in a car or letting them eat McDonalds french fries 5 days a week or more etc? ???

Should there be a law prohibiting poor diets for kids? Laws prohibiting kids from eating deep fat fried foods, bacon, eating too much sugar? If your kids BMI says he is overweight you get slapped with a fine? Kid has bad cholesterol? Oops, looks like a fine for you.

I'm not a doctor but I would guess that what a lot of parents feed their kids is worse than 2nd hand smoke. When you see a family of 5 who are all obese feeding their kids McDonalds and pizza all week its pretty sick imo.

Are you going to make the argument that since these kids cannot provide food for themselves and essentially don't have a choice in what they eat the state should intervene to make sure their parents are not risking the children's health with extremely poor diets?

Or how about instead of giving up the freedom to parent the way we see fit, we just accept the fact that you can't legislate morality or good parenting.

Thanks for the lovin' Wesker! You've captured the point I was trying to make perfectly.

[Romulus]

I don't know how it can be any clearer for you. Under the current child abuse/endangerment laws, you can make a case for whatever's actually endangering the child. Does it occur to you that many of the cases would be thrown out of court because there isn't demonstrable or even probable harm? If so, then why make a law?
Because assuming 2nd and 3rd hand smoke is harmful, a particular law would make easy to specifically apply, instead of trying to cite someone under a broad, vague charge which in reality would not hold up.


Okay, good. Now we're in a "closed confined space." That would be any room of any house, or a building, or any number of other areas in addition to a vehicle. If you further define "confined" as being of a certain cubic footage, you get closer to isolating the problem. If you define "child" you're getting closer to the mark you wanted to hit. Of course, none of this actually addresses the problem itself. How does that escape you? If your problem is that smoking causes the air to be unsafe to breathe, then why not measure the air? If it's such a hazard, wouldn't pulling over the vehicle and measuring the air quality be a better measure of who should get a ticket or be arrested? This would quantify the hazard far better than simply seeing someone with a cigarette in their hand, but instead you're gunning for the latter.

We are talking about enclosed VEHICLES that travel on public property. You keep adding in absurd, unrelated situations to try and bolster your weak argument that a said law will lead to further laws - sort of like using marijuana leads to injecting heroin OR like "what if I'm camping in a tent and little campfire smoke get in there and uh my kid coughs AHHH POLICE STATE!!!!11111" " No officer the definition of tent is.......!!"


So far we've reworded the law entirely to define a closed, confined space; defined how confined one has to be; defined how closed something has to be, of course (vehicles aren't actually closed spaces, otherwise we'd suffocate on long trips); and defined what constitutes a child for the purposes of this law. None of it actually measures health of the air in the vehicle, or the impact of the smoke on the child (all cigarettes are not created equal), but who cares about that? It's only the stated intent of the entire exercise.

child = 18yrs or under
confined vehicle space = windows up and YES the TOP on. :rolleyes: 6 sides: top bottom left right front back

How that? good lord



Not really. The two have zero to do with one another.
So 2nd and 3rd hand smoke have ZERO to do with one another? We might as well end this discussion now, as you refuse to acknowledge any sort of reality. Carry on with your obfuscation.

[MelissaWV]

Thank goodness we're going to protect 17-year-olds from second-hand smoke (even those who already smoke), but leave babies exposed to third-hand smoke. This law is sure to do precisely what it's supposed to.

"Officer, I had my window cracked, you just couldn't see it."

"Oh."

~Case dismissed~ Vehicle was not enclosed.

[Danke]

Again, what problem do you have with self-government? Why is it okay for a local group of bureaucrats to make decisions for you but not one further away? Both are collectivistic in nature.

You may want to think about what you're saying when you keep advocating voting. Mob rule has never worked in history. Here's a video explaining exactly why voting is a horrible idea:

YouTube - ‪True News 5: The Truth About Voting‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2828304&postcount=7

[Fredom101]

I have no problem with self-government, quit assuming I do. I have said on your own property you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you harm none. That is self government taken to a maximum.

Only on public property may people decide what is allowable and what isn't. It is a pretty simply concept. As I already compared, it is like stock ownership in a company. The stockholders vote on certain things and the winning vote item is what happens. It is owned by all stock holders. A city is essentially where it is owned by all residents and thus they vote on what they want. If you dislike it, sell your share (move), or convince people to vote for your preferred items.

As for the youtube, if you want to comment further then comment in your post, I am not a fan of youtube links in forums.

It's not like stock ownership in a company CC.
The huge difference is, one is voluntary, the other is force, at the barrel of a gun. You may be okay with violence backing the laws you desire, but I am not. To achieve a peaceful, prosperous world, we have to take out state-sponsored violence. You say you are for self government, but then you contradict that by saying you are for laws like this one, and local government controlling part of your (and my) life.

If you don't want to watch the video I post, that's fine, just skip over it, but it's very relevant to our discussion.

[Romulus]

Thank goodness we're going to protect 17-year-olds from second-hand smoke (even those who already smoke), but leave babies exposed to third-hand smoke. This law is sure to do precisely what it's supposed to.

"Officer, I had my window cracked, you just couldn't see it."

"Oh."

~Case dismissed~ Vehicle was not enclosed.

last word.

[ChaosControl]

It's not like stock ownership in a company CC.
The huge difference is, one is voluntary, the other is force, at the barrel of a gun. You may be okay with violence backing the laws you desire, but I am not. To achieve a peaceful, prosperous world, we have to take out state-sponsored violence. You say you are for self government, but then you contradict that by saying you are for laws like this one, and local government controlling part of your (and my) life.

If you don't want to watch the video I post, that's fine, just skip over it, but it's very relevant to our discussion.

They are the same thing. They are both voluntary.
In the company if you dislike the results, you sell your share or you put up with it.
In the community if you dislike the results, you sell your share (your land/move) or put up with it. Yes, if things are federally controlled then that option isn't available, but I oppose federal control.

I am for self government on my land. When I'm on public land I'm subject to public opinion. I can do as I wish when I'm at home, but if I desire to be out in society, I have to give way to society's desires. Just like a society can decide it if wants to be free market capitalism or if it wants to be socialism, a society can decide if it wants a smoking ban in public or if it wants anything goes. You live where you like. Dislike the laws, change opinions or move.

[Wesker1982]

It's using violence to enforce your desire to control people's behavior. Think about the deeper moral hazard of letting the government control aspects of our lives, rather than whether something is good for us or not.



A law is just an opinion backed by a gun. Would you be willing to pull the trigger on the cigarette smoker who is pulled over and tries to defend him/herself? Why do you think violence is the best way to solve society's problems? Surely, you must admit, that there are other ways to protect children outside of government (like, say, better parenting)? Surely, you don't think the government should step in and provide the role of parents?


These are probably the best posts regarding the subject. Of course they get ignored by the supporters of this tyrannical law.

Reminds me of this great article
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/11/14/the-gun-in-the-room/

[Krugerrand]

Another thing to keep in mind, the parent is the party responsible for the well being of the child - not the state. It's for the parents to decide if something is in their child's best interest.

As it relates to smoking ... I remember hearing of parents that caught their kids smoking and made the child smoke an entire pack straight. The kid got sick from smoking them and from then on hated cigarettes.

Consider what happens when the state assumes the responsibility for deciding what is best for children - public schools, 'free' lunch programs, 'free' child health insurance, anti-spanking legislation, mandatory vaccinations. (Others, feel free to add to the list)

I'm not prepared to strip local government from the means to step in and protect a child from gross physical abuse. But, even with the government having its claws in cases of gross physical abuse ... look at the number of families that have been wrongly torn apart because of false accusations, etc. Look at the states that won't release kids out of foster families into adoptive families because it's more lucrative to keep the children in foster families. Read some of the nightmare stories of CYS in the Civil Liberties subforum. People are afraid to take injured kids to the hospital for fear of the CYS stealing their child. I'll type it out again to let it sink in: People are afraid to take injured kids to the hospital for fear of the CYS stealing their child.

We need to drastically cut back the government's influence in raising children. This smoking legislation does the opposite. Don't get snookered into believing "it's for the kids!" If we really care about the kids, we'll let the parents be the parents.

[Fredom101]

They are the same thing. They are both voluntary.
In the company if you dislike the results, you sell your share or you put up with it.
In the community if you dislike the results, you sell your share (your land/move) or put up with it. Yes, if things are federally controlled then that option isn't available, but I oppose federal control.

I am for self government on my land. When I'm on public land I'm subject to public opinion. I can do as I wish when I'm at home, but if I desire to be out in society, I have to give way to society's desires. Just like a society can decide it if wants to be free market capitalism or if it wants to be socialism, a society can decide if it wants a smoking ban in public or if it wants anything goes. You live where you like. Dislike the laws, change opinions or move.

Ok, so you are against the idea of a federal government, we can agree on that. But NO government is voluntary; you don't even have a choice to opt out of your local city government "services"- they are provided to you at the barrel of a gun. "Public" land is just government-owned land. "Society's desires", and government's desires are not the same thing. This is a huge difference.

And no, a "society" can't make decisions. Were you ever asked your opinion on what type of government you would like to have? I know I wasn't. Otherwise, I would have voluntarily opted out of the collectivist democracy we live in.

Wait, you didn't just say "move"? Where am I going to move to? I want true freedom, I do not want part of my life controlled by some bureaucrats who use violence to accomplish their ends. Where should I move to if I want freedom?

What you are advocating is collectivism. It doesn't work on a massive scale or a local scale. It's simply mob rule. And the mob in your town is no better or worse than the mob somewhere else. It's all based on theft and violence, so can you explain to me how this is a moral or just society?

[Fredom101]

These are probably the best posts regarding the subject. Of course they get ignored by the supporters of this tyrannical law.

Reminds me of this great article
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/11/14/the-gun-in-the-room/

Thank you.
Yes, it's pointless to get caught up in debating the merits of whether smoking around kids is good or bad. That's not at all the point. Thanks for the link too. Hopefully people are curious enough to read it!

[Krugerrand]

I am for self government on my land. When I'm on public land I'm subject to public opinion. I can do as I wish when I'm at home, but if I desire to be out in society, I have to give way to society's desires.

Please clarify if that means you are for letting parents decide if they smoke in a car while their child is in the car. Is it dependent on if the car is on your property? Generally the car is understood as an extension of your castle (ie not subject to search w/o warrant.)

[ChaosControl]

Ok, so you are against the idea of a federal government, we can agree on that. But NO government is voluntary; you don't even have a choice to opt out of your local city government "services"- they are provided to you at the barrel of a gun. "Public" land is just government-owned land. "Society's desires", and government's desires are not the same thing. This is a huge difference.
It is voluntary in the sense you can sell your land (your stock) and move.
At the local level, what society wants is what you get. You may still have some, but a lot of the crap you see at the federal level is gone. Easier to replace scummy people with good.


And no, a "society" can't make decisions. Were you ever asked your opinion on what type of government you would like to have? I know I wasn't. Otherwise, I would have voluntarily opted out of the collectivist democracy we live in.
It is called voting, and yes I have been asked if I support X or Y and if I dislike how someone is doing their job I vote out them out or vote out the guy who is in charge of hiring them.


Wait, you didn't just say "move"? Where am I going to move to? I want true freedom, I do not want part of my life controlled by some bureaucrats who use violence to accomplish their ends. Where should I move to if I want freedom?
Move to a place that has a population with views similar to yours. No one should be able to tell everyone in the nation how things must be. Not anarchists or communists or corporatists. Let the individual communities decide.


What you are advocating is collectivism. It doesn't work on a massive scale or a local scale. It's simply mob rule. And the mob in your town is no better or worse than the mob somewhere else. It's all based on theft and violence, so can you explain to me how this is a moral or just society?
Policies, "collectivist" or not, can work on local levels. Whether it be free market capitalism or socialism. It is up to the community to decide what they want. Those who dislike it can find a community that better fits in with their views.

You just want to force your view on the entire nation. You're no better than all the other centralists out there.

[ChaosControl]

Please clarify if that means you are for letting parents decide if they smoke in a car while their child is in the car. Is it dependent on if the car is on your property? Generally the car is understood as an extension of your castle (ie not subject to search w/o warrant.)

I'd say if it is on your property then it'd fall under the same category as smoking in your house.

[tjeffersonsghost]

I cant believe how much you guys are looking into this. Libertarians believe that you have the freedom to whatever you want so long as your freedoms does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

You have the freedom to smoke but your kids have the freedom to not have to inhale your smoke. If you want to smoke then smoke outside away from your kids. Don't smoke in an enclosed car forcing your kids to suffer the consequences of your habits.

That being said Im not sure how police will ever be able to enforce this law. They are already busy enough hiding behind trees trying to catch speeders....

[Krugerrand]

I cant believe how much you guys are looking into this. Libertarians believe that you have the freedom to whatever you want so long as your freedoms does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

You have the freedom to smoke but your kids have the freedom to not have to inhale your smoke. If you want to smoke then smoke outside away from your kids. Don't smoke in an enclosed car forcing your kids to suffer the consequences of your habits.

That being said Im not sure how police will ever be able to enforce this law. They are already busy enough hiding behind trees trying to catch speeders....

Please clarify. Are you suggesting that one should not smoke in an enclosed car with children present?

Or, are you suggesting the power of the state should step in and at the barrel of a gun stop anybody who smokes in an enclosed car with children present?

[Wesker1982]

Libertarians believe that you have the freedom to whatever you want so long as your freedoms does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

You have the freedom to eat extremely unhealthy food but your kids have the freedom to not have to eat extremely unhealthy food. If you want to eat extremely unhealthy food then eat it away from your kids. Don't only provide extremely unhealthy food to your kids forcing your kids to suffer the consequences of your habits.
.

see my post on unhealthy food

I also think you and the others who support this law should read Rothbard's chapter on children's rights in "Ethics of Liberty".

Chapter 14 http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf
Audio: http://mises.org/media/2047

[tjeffersonsghost]

Please clarify. Are you suggesting that one should not smoke in an enclosed car with children present?

Or, are you suggesting the power of the state should step in and at the barrel of a gun stop anybody who smokes in an enclosed car with children present?

I'm suggesting both. You as a parent who cares for your kid shouldn't smoke in an enclosed car. That kid has the freedom of a long and healthy life if he/she so chooses and shouldnt have to bear the consequences of someone elses actions.

And yes if the state feels that the freedoms of that child is being infringed on then the state should step in and protect the freedoms of that child. I would expect the same of the state if an entity was putting harmful waste on my property. I have the freedom to not have someone elses pollution in my space and the state should protect my freedom.

[tjeffersonsghost]

see my post on fast food

I also think you and the others who support this law should read Rothbard's chapter on children's rights in "Ethics of Liberty".

Chapter 14 http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf
Audio: http://mises.org/media/2047

I dont need to read Rothbard's opinion and parrot his thoughts. I like the man but Im a free thinker a think for myself :) . You either believe in freedom, or you don't. Either the kid has the freedom to not have to suffer someone elses consequences or he don't. Either I have the freedom to walk in my backyard without stepping in pollution from a neighbor or I don't.

[Wesker1982]

It doesn't hurt to see another viewpoint, especially if you think there is only one libertarian perspective on it.

I am still curious to what you say about parents feeding their kids extremely unhealthy diets.

[tjeffersonsghost]

It doesn't hurt to see another viewpoint, especially if you think there is only one libertarian perspective on it.

I am still curious to what you say about parents feeding their kids extremely unhealthy diets.

I apologize, I shouldnt of said "libertarian pov" I should of said in my pov. No one has a monopoly on any particular ideology and especially me who although leans libertarian I dont agree with all of the povs.

That being said I get my ideology from the same as being pro life. I think that fetus should have a chance to live. I think the same thing about a child. That child shouldnt have to suffer because of someone elses habits or mistakes. I guess one could make the libertarian argument that its the nature of the beast and its natural selection.

On the food front I would be a hypocrite if I said I didnt feed my kids junk. I do but I also feed them health stuff. Moderation is the key, just like everything else.

[Perry]

oUT OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINTY TWO LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY(sorry caps) that I'm concerned about eliminating this one is about number three hundred and seventy two thousand nine hundred and forty two.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How does this shit happen in the same legislative cycle in multiple states and countries?

AF let me know when you are ready for imports. Specie only :)

[dannno]

You have the freedom to eat extremely unhealthy food but your kids have the freedom to not have to eat extremely unhealthy food. If you want to eat extremely unhealthy food then eat it away from your kids. Don't only provide extremely unhealthy food to your kids forcing your kids to suffer the consequences of your habits.

My parents fed me unhealthy food growing up and I've since changed my ways. There was not much I could do, I tried to augment my diet when I was a kid but it was impossible. What was I supposed to do, go buy my own food? I tried to get my parents to feed me a different diet, that wouldn't last long if at all.

That doesn't mean my parents should have been held criminally liable. I ended up moving out and making my own decisions about what to eat and am much healthier for it.

[Wesker1982]

That child shouldnt have to suffer because of someone elses habits or mistakes.


Why don't you apply this to unhealthy food? Why limit it to second hand smoke?



On the food front I would be a hypocrite if I said I didnt feed my kids junk. I do but I also feed them health stuff.

So whats the difference between feeding your kids junk once a while and kids breathing in second hand smoke once in a while?

Would it matter to you if feeding your kid junk food was worse than second hand smoke?

You just admitted that sometimes you subject your kids to unhealthy things. Do you think the government should step in?

By feeding your kids junk sometimes, you are basically saying that it is OK to subject your kids to unhealthy situations sometimes provided that they are generally well taken care of. Why can this logic not also be applied to second hand smoke?

[Fr3shjive]

Why don't you apply this to unhealthy food? Why limit it to second hand smoke?




So whats the difference between feeding your kids junk once a while and kids breathing in second hand smoke once in a while?

Would it matter to you if feeding your kid junk food was worse than second hand smoke?

You just admitted that sometimes you subject your kids to unhealthy things. Do you think the government should step in?

By feeding your kids junk sometimes, you are basically saying that it is OK to subject your kids to unhealthy situations sometimes provided that they are generally well taken care of. Why can this logic not also be applied to second hand smoke?

I dont think blowing smoke in your child's face is the same as feeding them unhealthy food. Will they both kill you in the long run? Yes, but eating food, healthy or unhealthy, does actually serve the purpose of giving the child some nourishment. Smoking in the face of a child, on the other hand, serves absolutely no purpose except to kill him/her.

I really dont think you can compare unhealthy food to smoking.

What one may consider unhealthy food another may consider completely acceptable, thats debatable. I dont think anybody would argue that smoking is acceptable.

[Wesker1982]

I really dont think you can compare unhealthy food to smoking.


Yeah you are right. Eating McDonalds regularly is way worse than second hand smoke once in a while.


What one may consider unhealthy food another may consider completely acceptable, thats debatable

Right. But when you see someone with a morbidly obese kid its really not debatable that the parents are subjecting their kids to health risks.


I dont think anybody would argue that smoking is acceptable.

I don't think anyone would argue that feeding your kid McDonalds 30 days straight 3 times a day is acceptable either. Does that mean it should be illegal to do so?


Yes, but eating food, healthy or unhealthy, does actually serve the purpose of giving the child some nourishment.

So would you support giving a child a few glasses of red whine a day because it provides some nourishment?

[Romulus]

I dont think blowing smoke in your child's face is the same as feeding them unhealthy food. Will they both kill you in the long run? Yes, but eating food, healthy or unhealthy, does actually serve the purpose of giving the child some nourishment. Smoking in the face of a child, on the other hand, serves absolutely no purpose except to kill him/her.

I really dont think you can compare unhealthy food to smoking.

What one may consider unhealthy food another may consider completely acceptable, thats debatable. I dont think anybody would argue that smoking is acceptable.

This.

2 distinct differences.

Food serves a purpose - it is a need.
Tobacco smoke is a toxin - a recreational drug.

And toxic harmful drugs can and ought to be regulated in regards to exposure to children.

[Wesker1982]

Second hand smoke is bad. Violence is bad. Which is worse?


I don't smoke nor do I have kids so this law doesn't affect me.
It's the principle that's at hand here.

A law is just an opinion backed by a gun. Would you be willing to pull the trigger on the cigarette smoker who is pulled over and tries to defend him/herself? Why do you think violence is the best way to solve society's problems? Surely, you must admit, that there are other ways to protect children outside of government (like, say, better parenting)? Surely, you don't think the government should step in and provide the role of parents?

Collectivism fails every time, even if it's supposedly "for the common good". Why not think outside the box and find out if there are other ways to solve this problem besides government force?

This post pretty much got ignored except the part about what is or isn't public property. This is what it really comes down to.

Would any supporters of this law be willing to walk up to a parent in a car smoking with a kid and try to make them stop? Would you be willing to pull a gun on them to make them stop?

I doubt anyone answered yes. The question then is: if it is not ok for you to do it, why is it ok for a paid gang with fancy uniforms and badges to do it?

If you aren't willing to resort to violence in defense of the kid, then whatever action that is taking place that you feel is wrong is not severe enough to justify violence. This logic doesn't change if you pay a group of people to do it.

Not to mention it also helps expand the police state even bigger than it already is. What is more dangerous to your kids future liberty? Junk food, second hand smoke, too much sun (can cause skin cancer you know!), sitting too close to the tv, or a totalitarian police state?




"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive."

Also,

Put down the gun, and then we'll talk.
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/11/14/the-gun-in-the-room/

[tjeffersonsghost]

Are you pro life or pro choice?

[Romulus]

Second hand smoke is bad. Violence is bad. Which is worse?



A ticket or a fine is not violence. It's a regulation backed up by penalty, like all laws. Pentaltys vary. Yes if you disobey laws, like any law there is a chance for violence against you. This is at the peril of the individual officer.

If you don't protect life of the innocent, then the future of liberty does not stand a chance. Look at who supports true liberty. 15% of us? We need to protect the freedoms of minors, and that's the freedom from authority. A child does have a right to be protected from authority. Just as adults have the same right.

Do you have a child? Would it be ok if a stranger went up to him or her and blew smoke right in their face? Deliberately? Over and over again?

Is it ok for you to serve your own minor alcohol?

[Krugerrand]

...
Do you have a child? Would it be ok if a stranger went up to him or her and blew smoke right in their face? Deliberately? Over and over again?

Is it ok for you to serve your own minor alcohol?

First of all - YES it is okay to serve your own minor alcohol! It is nobody's business but the parents. Why is it any body else's concern if a 14 year old has a glass of wine with dinner. It happens all over the world all the time. That you bring it up is a great point to the government should not overstep a parents authority. They are the people responsible for the child and responsible to make the decisions affecting the child. It does not take a village.

This isn't about what strangers can do. This is about who gets to make the decisions of the well being of the child ... the parent or the state. I say the parent. There are constantly controversial decisions: diet, exercise, vaccines, medical procedures, spanking, sending to bed without dinner, forcing to eat everything on a plate.

Let the parents be the parents.

[Krugerrand]

A ticket or a fine is not violence. It's a regulation backed up by penalty, like all laws. Pentaltys vary. Yes if you disobey laws, like any law there is a chance for violence against you. This is at the peril of the individual officer.


A ticket is a threat of violence. Penalties are threats of violence for somebody who disagrees with them.

[Krugerrand]

Are you pro life or pro choice?

Please explain relevance to discussion.

[Romulus]

First of all - YES it is okay to serve your own minor alcohol! It is nobody's business but the parents. Why is it any body else's concern if a 14 year old has a glass of wine with dinner. It happens all over the world all the time. That you bring it up is a great point to the government should not overstep a parents authority. They are the people responsible for the child and responsible to make the decisions affecting the child. It does not take a village.

This isn't about what strangers can do. This is about who gets to make the decisions of the well being of the child ... the parent or the state. I say the parent. There are constantly controversial decisions: diet, exercise, vaccines, medical procedures, spanking, sending to bed without dinner, forcing to eat everything on a plate.

Let the parents be the parents.

Yes but are suggesting that its ok for parents to get their 6 yr old drunk?

I live in the boonies, and you'd be appalled at how some of these hicks 'parent' their kids. The kids are prisoners to an abusive authority and it does not bode well for the future of our society.

And again, if anyone thinks its ok for me to blow smoke in their kids face, please say aye.

[Wesker1982]

If you don't protect life of the innocent, then the future of liberty does not stand a chance.

Comparing protecting a kid from second hand smoking to protecting their life is a big exaggeration. Using this logic we could justify the outlaw of unhealthy food to protect an innocents life.


Would any supporters of this law be willing to walk up to a parent in a car smoking with a kid and try to make them stop? Would you be willing to pull a gun on them to make them stop?


The question then is: if it is not ok for you to do it, why is it ok for a paid gang with fancy uniforms and badges to do it?

[specsaregood]

And again, if anyone thinks its ok for me to blow smoke in their kids face, please say aye.

Is it ok for me to force feed your kid whatever I want?
The unhealthy diet is a very relevent comparison. Unhealthy diets lead to just as many if not more health problems than 2nd hand smoke. And if you can ban it in the car you can certainly ban it in the house or completely. Obesity and diabetes is a much bigger problem in this country than smoking is, both very closely related to the diets being fed to our kids.

[pcosmar]

Very disheartening. /thread

First, it is sad to see how many people buy into the "2nd hand smoke" bullshit.
a purely emotional response to a widespread propaganda campaign.
:(

Secondly, the number of posters that would support the use of violent force (police) to be used against others to satisfy this emotional response.
:(

Is this still a Liberty Movement?

[tjeffersonsghost]

Please explain relevance to discussion.

It's quite relevant actually. If you are pro life then you believe that the child has freedoms and that child's freedom is infringed on when it is murdered by its mother via an abortion.

If you are pro choice then you believe the mother has the freedom to do whatever the hell she wants with the baby. Babys have no freedoms or no rights its all up to the mother on how she wants to raise or not raise the baby.

So we come to this discussion. Do you think the kid has the freedom to not have harmful chemicals inhaled because of his mothers habits? Why should the mother's choices affect the kids freedom that is the freedom to live a healthy life if he/she so chooses?

Once again either the kid has rights or freedoms or he doesnt. No one would like to walk outside their back yard to a whole lot of pollution given off by their neighbors. Why is this any different?

[tjeffersonsghost]

Very disheartening. /thread

First, it is sad to see how many people buy into the "2nd hand smoke" bullshit.
a purely emotional response to a widespread propaganda campaign.
:(

Secondly, the number of posters that would support the use of violent force (police) to be used against others to satisfy this emotional response.
:(

Is this still a Liberty Movement?

Yes, 2nd hand smoke is 100% for real. Let me guess, cigs dont cause cancer either?
Also Im not advocating for violence, I think a reprimand is in order. Sadly not every can be parents, some need to be taught. If it happens over and over then the parent should be forced into some class.

[Krugerrand]

It's quite relevant actually. If you are pro life then you believe that the child has freedoms and that child's freedom is infringed on when it is murdered by its mother via an abortion.

If you are pro choice then you believe the mother has the freedom to do whatever the hell she wants with the baby. Babys have no freedoms or no rights its all up to the mother on how she wants to raise or not raise the baby.

So we come to this discussion. Do you think the kid has the freedom to not have harmful chemicals inhaled because of his mothers habits? Why should the mother's choices affect the kids freedom that is the freedom to live a healthy life if he/she so chooses?

Once again either the kid has rights or freedoms or he doesnt. No one would like to walk outside their back yard to a whole lot of pollution given off by their neighbors. Why is this any different?

In some ways the pregnant mother is very much not different than the mother in the car comparison.

I very much oppose a mother killing her child before it born. I also support a mother's decision making for the well-being of the child before it is born. PERHAPS there are some negative consequences to second-hand smoke. There may also be negative consequences if a pregnant women eats Twinkies and McDonald's french fries. Yes, the child must LIVE with those consequences. That's simply unfortunate. Much like the many children who were fed formula instead of breast milk because their mothers were told that it was scientifically formulated to be healthier than breast milk have the unfortunate consequence of poorer health.

Parents are responsible for the children not government. It takes parents not a village to properly raise children. To shift responsible decision making from the parents to the state ENDANGERS the children far more than second hand smoke.

[MelissaWV]

Yes, 2nd hand smoke is 100% for real. Let me guess, cigs dont cause cancer either?
Also Im not advocating for violence, I think a reprimand is in order. Sadly not every can be parents, some need to be taught. If it happens over and over then the parent should be forced into some class.

Oh that's good. The police can pull you over, scold you, and send you to be reprogrammed. This would only be used for good, though... right?

[Anti Federalist]

Lot of statism in this thread and a lot of people with a "stick up their ass" (thanks for that danno) about smoking.

One hell of a slippery slope, based on bullshit:

Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

I can see where this heading, decades of work to legalize marijuana only to have the smoking of it banned under public health codes.

You either have the right to eat, smoke, drink or ingest whatever you damn well please into your body or you don't.

Second, third and fourth hand smoke danger is as bullshit an argument as the danger of second hand farts. That's the camel's nose in the tent of accepting the concept that everything you do has some effect on somebody else somewhere, therefore we (government) claim the right to regulate every single aspect of your existence.

[pcosmar]

Yes, 2nd hand smoke is 100% for real. Let me guess, cigs dont cause cancer either?
Cause?
No, I don't buy it at all.
Fish get cancer, and they don't smoke. People died of cancer before cigarettes or the industrial revolution.
NO , I don't buy the hype.


Also Im not advocating for violence, I think a reprimand is in order. Sadly not every can be parents, some need to be taught. If it happens over and over then the parent should be forced into some class.
I disagree. But you are contradictory.

[Wesker1982]

Why should the mother's choices affect the kids freedom that is the freedom to live a healthy life if he/she so chooses?


Apply that question to junk food (which is a HUGE problem today) or sunlight. Both which can have adverse effects on a healthy life.

Pro life/pro choice would be relevant here if we were talking about death. But we aren't. We are talking about something that can potentially cause health problems, not something that instantly ends a life.

You might as well say anyone who is against junk food or sunlight exposure laws is pro choice. Its a strawman.

Once again:


Would any supporters of this law be willing to walk up to a parent in a car smoking with a kid and try to make them stop? Would you be willing to pull a gun on them to make them stop?

How is violence towards something potentially dangerous justified? How is this not excessive force?

Would anyone here support a law regulating the amount of direct sunlight your child can get? Would violence be justified in enforcing such a law?

There are health risks from many different things. The cost of violence that will be required to prohibit these risks GREATLY outweighs the negative impact that these risks might produce.

Put simply: the cost is too high.

[Romulus]

Is it ok for me to force feed your kid whatever I want?
The unhealthy diet is a very relevent comparison. Unhealthy diets lead to just as many if not more health problems than 2nd hand smoke. And if you can ban it in the car you can certainly ban it in the house or completely. Obesity and diabetes is a much bigger problem in this country than smoking is, both very closely related to the diets being fed to our kids.

Poor argument.

Food is necessary so survive. Tobacco smoke is not.

I understand how this could be a camels nose, by all means.

But again, this is nothing new. Minors cannot consume alcohol. We have laws against that to protect them, the same as you cannot buy cigarettes if you're under 18. These are logical laws to protect minors. Now if someone has a beef with how they are enforced, fine - that is another thread.

This one is about protecting those who cant do that themselves.

[Wesker1982]

Food is necessary so survive. Junk food is not.


There. By your standards this is now a valid argument.

[aGameOfThrones]

Poor argument.

Food is necessary so survive. Tobacco smoke is not.

I understand how this could be a camels nose, by all means.

But again, this is nothing new. Minors cannot consume alcohol. We have laws against that to protect them, the same as you cannot buy cigarettes if you're under 18. These are logical laws to protect minors. Now if someone has a beef with how they are enforced, fine - that is another thread.

This one is about protecting those who cant do that themselves.

Those "laws" are from engaging in commerce with a store, not for limiting parents personal responsibilities and the bad decisions they make. Plus, kids can drink and smoke in their house as well as their parents, you want house inspections, too? You know, to comply with the statute.

[REDNECK WOMAN]

I like to drink coffee, smoke my CIGS and cuss, so leave me the hell along and mind your own damn business!!!! Those that think that way.

[Romulus]

There. By your standards this is now a valid argument.


Food is necessary so survive. Tobacco smoke is not.

That is my quote.

Misquoting me is a desperate attempt to validate your weak argument, so I'll stop this discussion with you now. G'day.


Those "laws" are from engaging in commerce with a store, not for limiting parents personal responsibilities and the bad decisions they make. Plus, kids can drink and smoke in their house as well as their parents, you want house inspections, too? You know, to comply with the statute.

No I'm not in favor of any home inspections.

Actually those are not just commerce laws. If a 15yr old is walking down the street with a beer, he can be cited for possession. Also, a policeman can cite a minor on private property if they are smoking and drinking underage. Valid or not, its within the current laws. We are talking about controlled substances here and minors.

[dannno]

That is my quote.

Misquoting me is a desperate attempt to validate your weak argument, so I'll stop this discussion with you now. G'day.


They weren't misquoting you, they were making a logical argument against you. They were making the argument that junk food is in fact detrimental to your health, you don't need junk food to survive.

So you have a person in one car and their kids are chomping down on organic fruits and vegetables, their windows are rolled down and the parent is smoking a cigarette, holding it out the window, blowing out the window, etc.. then in the next car over you have a bunch of kids eating junk food, windows up, a/c on. The junk food is more detrimental to the health of the kids than second hand smoke, which has not been proven to be detrimental to anybody unless they are trapped in smoke filled rooms for years and years and years on end... and it is not detrimental to the kids at all in this car because the windows are down.. yet you think the parents who are harming their kids with junk food should be able to drive off while the parent who is making their kids more healthy with healthful food and fresh air gets pulled over. Ya.. that makes a lot of sense. Would love to hear your explanation.

[Romulus]

No, that was a direct misquote of me by Wesker. Putting words in my mouth, making it look like a said something is a trick, similar to what the mass media will do to try and make a point out of a weak argument.

Once again: Food is necessary to survive. Tobacco is not, it's a drug.

Apples to Oranges.

[specsaregood]

//

[Krugerrand]

No, that was a direct misquote of me by Wesker. Putting words in my mouth, making it look like a said something is a trick, similar to what the mass media will do to try and make a point out of a weak argument.

Once again: Food is necessary to survive. Tobacco is not, it's a drug.

Apples to Oranges.

Again ... good is necessary to survive. Junk food is not necessary to survive. Twinkies are not necessary for survival.

[Romulus]

Ok so if junk food and drugs are the same:

Should we not sell Twinkies to minors?

Or should we sell Beer and Cigarettes to an 8yr old?

[Romulus]

They weren't misquoting you, they were making a logical argument against you. They were making the argument that junk food is in fact detrimental to your health, you don't need junk food to survive.

So you have a person in one car and their kids are chomping down on organic fruits and vegetables, their windows are rolled down and the parent is smoking a cigarette, holding it out the window, blowing out the window, etc.. then in the next car over you have a bunch of kids eating junk food, windows up, a/c on. The junk food is more detrimental to the health of the kids than second hand smoke, which has not been proven to be detrimental to anybody unless they are trapped in smoke filled rooms for years and years and years on end... and it is not detrimental to the kids at all in this car because the windows are down.. yet you think the parents who are harming their kids with junk food should be able to drive off while the parent who is making their kids more healthy with healthful food and fresh air gets pulled over. Ya.. that makes a lot of sense. Would love to hear your explanation.

No Danno, they wouldn't be pulled over because the kids can breath fresh air - windows down = smoke away!

I think that windows up, Mom, Dad and Uncle Fred are all puffing smokes and 3yr Johnny is gagging, they yes, I think a local gov has the right to determine if that is acceptable in their community.

[dannno]

Once again: Food is necessary to survive. Tobacco is not, it's a drug.

Apples to Oranges.

Junk food is NOT necessary to survive, that's complete bologna. It is DETRIMENTAL to long term health. Did you even read my post? Apparently not. There is not logical defense for your position, you aren't even reading what we're saying.


Please read this and come up with one single LOGICAL defense:




So you have a person in one car and their kids are chomping down on organic fruits and vegetables, their windows are rolled down and the parent is smoking a cigarette, holding it out the window, blowing out the window, etc.. then in the next car over you have a bunch of kids eating junk food, windows up, a/c on. The junk food is more detrimental to the health of the kids than second hand smoke, which has not been proven to be detrimental to anybody unless they are trapped in smoke filled rooms for years and years and years on end... and it is not detrimental to the kids at all in this car because the windows are down.. yet you think the parents who are harming their kids with junk food should be able to drive off while the parent who is making their kids more healthy with healthful food and fresh air gets pulled over. Ya.. that makes a lot of sense. Would love to hear your explanation.

You can't, period. There is no logical defense for what you are saying.

[Romulus]

Junk food is NOT necessary to survive, that's complete bologna. It is DETRIMENTAL to long term health. Did you even read my post? Apparently not. There is not logical defense for your position.

A person can live on it on junk food.

A person can't live on cigarettes.

You can't logically can't classify junk food and cigarettes as the same. Food =/= Drug

I read your post and replied.

[dannno]

No Danno, they wouldn't be pulled over because the kids can breath fresh air - windows down = smoke away!

So you don't agree with the law? I could have sworn you were supporting it earlier in the thread.




I think that windows up, Mom, Dad and Uncle Fred are all puffing smokes and 3yr Johnny is gagging, they yes, I think a local gov has the right to determine if that is acceptable in their community.

Does anybody actually do this with their kid in the car? I don't think we need a law for an activity that one out of every 2 or 3 million people at most every actually do.. as Melissa I think was saying you could already get them for child endangerment for forcing them to sit in a smoke filled car, without a law.

[dannno]

The biggest problem I have with this law is that it actually encourages parents to roll up the window if they want to have a cig.. maybe roll down the back window so some smoke can escape.. but when you are flailing your cig out the window and blowing out the window, a cop is much more likely to notice as see if you have a kid in the car... If you keep the window down, you can hide it pretty well.

So the law is actually creating a worse situation for children here, cops should encourage parents who smoke to roll down the front driver side window and keep the bulk of the smoke out of the car to begin with...

[Romulus]

So you don't agree with the law? I could have sworn you were supporting it earlier in the thread.

No. I would not support a law where people could be busted for smoking in a car with their window down. Only in the case I outlined below,


Does anybody actually do this with their kid in the car? I don't think we need a law for an activity that one out of every 2 or 3 million people at most every actually do.. as Melissa I think was saying you could already get them for child endangerment for forcing them to sit in a smoke filled car, without a law.

Yes they do, read the whole thread. I see this all the time in my area. It's pretty sad. Then again, where I live you can't buy Sudafed over the counter because there are so many meth heads here. Some disagree with that law, but it makes the meth heads go out of the county to buy... Fine with me, keep their rif-raf out of here. I am for common sense laws, decided by local communties to protect them and minors. In the case of my hometown, it's definitely needed.

We have house burning, even cars burning and blowing up from Meth labs, mobile meth labs quite often.. within the past year since the law was passed, a lot of the activity has decreased.

[Wesker1982]

That is my quote.

Misquoting me is a desperate attempt to validate your weak argument, so I'll stop this discussion with you now. G'day.


i guess you have never seen a FYP before? it was not a misquote it was a fix your quote (post). it should have been obvious since the part that I changed was bolded. if i was attempting to misquote you i would not have pointed it out...

edit: maybe this will help http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fyp

[Romulus]

The biggest problem I have with this law is that it actually encourages parents to roll up the window if they want to have a cig.. maybe roll down the back window so some smoke can escape.. but when you are flailing your cig out the window and blowing out the window, a cop is much more likely to notice as see if you have a kid in the car... If you keep the window down, you can hide it pretty well.

So the law is actually creating a worse situation for children here, cops should encourage parents who smoke to roll down the front driver side window and keep the bulk of the smoke out of the car to begin with...

Huh? If its against the law with the windows UP, smokers would roll it DOWN when smoking with their children to avoid a ticket..

[Wesker1982]

Now you are going to try to use that as an excuse to continue to ignore these points:

-How is violence towards something potentially dangerous justified? How is this not excessive force?

-The cost of violence that will be required to prohibit these risks GREATLY outweighs the negative impact that these risks might produce.

-Would you be willing to use violence to stop a parent from smoking in a car with a child?

[specsaregood]

Huh? If its against the law with the windows UP, smokers would roll it DOWN when smoking with their children to avoid a ticket..

I have not seen anywhere, where the law in question specifies the status of the windows. http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/07/15/story-washington-court-house-smoking-ban-cars.html?sid=102

It just says no smoking with children in the car. Danno's point, which I can't imagine how you are missing is that: if you ban smoking in the car (regardless of window status) the unintended consequences would be that people looking to break the law would be more inclined to smoke with the windows up as to lessen their chances of getting caught.

[dannno]

Yes they do, read the whole thread. I see this all the time in my area. It's pretty sad. Then again, where I live you can't buy Sudafed over the counter because there are so many meth heads here. Some disagree with that law, but it makes the meth heads go out of the county to buy... Fine with me, keep their rif-raf out of here. I am for common sense laws, decided by local communties to protect them and minors. In the case of my hometown, it's definitely needed.

We have house burning, even cars burning and blowing up from Meth labs, mobile meth labs quite often.. within the past year since the law was passed, a lot of the activity has decreased.

People wouldn't gravitate towards these dangerous substances if laws on supposedly dangerous substances did not exist.. they would gravitate towards safer more natural substances. The laws you are advocating make the situation much worse, though not nearly the detrimental effect when done on a local level, it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you go down to south america, you can still get high on cocaine straight from the coca leaves, that is how many people there still do it. It's not as intense or nearly as dangerous or addictive as doing cocaine, but people there CHOOSE to use this method for consumption. People in the United States are FORCED to use powder cocaine because of black market laws prohibiting the coca leaf, so the most effective way to get the substance into the country is to isolate the drug itself and smuggle it over in pure form. The result is that more people in the US are addicted to cocaine, and recreational use of coca leaves is not a problem at all in South America. If it were legal, people would start growing coca plants and you could safely get high off coca leaves, it would be like having a cup or two of coffee but not as jittery, much smoother feeling.

It is prohibition that leads to the use of dangerous substances, like during alcohol prohibition when people were cooking up moonshine. The vast, vast majority of people don't drink moonshine anymore, they drink beer or wine, maybe a spirit..

[dannno]

Huh? If its against the law with the windows UP, smokers would roll it DOWN when smoking with their children to avoid a ticket..

No, I was saying the law in the OP is bad because it encourages parents to keep the windows down and smoke.

Personally I don't agree with parents who smoke in their car with their kids, and I would yell at a parent doing that, and I encourage others to as well.. as far as initiating violence, I think I have to go with Wesker..

Taking kids from parents should probably be only in extreme circumstances where they are directly in danger of being harmed, not this voodoo pseudo scientific "well.... it MIGHT harm them down the road...."

Fining parents for endangering their kids seems kinda silly.. either they are in eminent danger or they aren't..

[WaltM]

not really sure what to think about this. The state definitely has the right to do this. I don't think that smoking is acceptable around children, but a law on the state level is probably pushing it.

i have no problem using force to protect children from smoke, assuming there's scientific evidence that smoking is detrimental to health, and younger children are more vulnerable.

Unless you believe a parent should allow their children to smoke, I don't see how this isn't logical.

[Wesker1982]

Taking kids from parents should probably be only in extreme circumstances where they are directly in danger of being harmed, not this voodoo pseudo scientific "well.... it MIGHT harm them down the road...."


Exactly.

If I saw a child or an old lady being beaten or otherwise severely abused on the street and I had the means to stop it, violence would be justified in defense of the victim because the level of aggression being used against the victim is extreme. I would not feel guilty in this situation using violence to defend somebody. However, if I used violence to stop second hand smoke, unhealthy diets, or to force parents to put sun screen on their children, I would definitely not feel right about it. Would you?


The level of abuse/neglect of second hand smoke, junk food, poor diets etc, is not serious enough to justify violence. Violence should only be used when in extreme circumstances.

[Wesker1982]

i have no problem using force to protect children from smoke


If you saw a parent smoking in a car with a child and you were armed, would you put a gun to the parents head and make them stop?

If you saw an old lady being mugged/raped/beaten and you were armed, would you try to help the old lady?


There should only be one of the above situations where a non-psychotic person would pull a gun on somebody.

[Kludge]

Have you guys ever smoked around your kids and studied their reactions -- or asked them how they feel when you're smoking? If you can get them to agree - put them in the car, roll up the windows, and light up a few cigarettes. This isn't about some studies suggesting there may or may not be a correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer - it's about what you're immediately subjecting your children to.

[Krugerrand]

Have you guys ever smoked around your kids and studied their reactions -- or asked them how they feel when you're smoking? If you can get them to agree - put them in the car, roll up the windows, and light up a few cigarettes. This isn't about some studies suggesting there may or may not be a correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer - it's about what you're immediately subjecting your children to.

I disagree. I think this is about who gets to decide to what children are subject. And I come down on the side of the parent.

[pcosmar]

Have you guys ever smoked around your kids and studied their reactions -- or asked them how they feel when you're smoking? If you can get them to agree - put them in the car, roll up the windows, and light up a few cigarettes. This isn't about some studies suggesting there may or may not be a correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer - it's about what you're immediately subjecting your children to.

Then don't,, with your kids.
I grew up in a home with smokers. It never bothered me.
I am one of 5 healthy siblings,, that are all presently getting old.

Raise your own children. Mind your own business.
It is this kind of Statist busybody attitude that is responsible for the drug war, was responsible for Prohibition and the Police State we have today.
Mind your own friggin' business.
:mad:

[WaltM]

If you saw a parent smoking in a car with a child and you were armed, would you put a gun to the parents head and make them stop?


Only if
a) it were legal
b) that wouldn't pose a greater risk than the smoke itself




If you saw an old lady being mugged/raped/beaten and you were armed, would you try to help the old lady?


Only if I believed it's wrong to mug, rape and beat an old lady, and it wouldn't cost me more than I can afford to help.




There should only be one of the above situations where a non-psychotic person would pull a gun on somebody.

says you?

[WaltM]

Have you guys ever smoked around your kids and studied their reactions -- or asked them how they feel when you're smoking? If you can get them to agree - put them in the car, roll up the windows, and light up a few cigarettes. This isn't about some studies suggesting there may or may not be a correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer - it's about what you're immediately subjecting your children to.

are you suggesting that seeing the weather is more important than predicting the climate?

[Petar]

Have you guys ever smoked around your kids and studied their reactions -- or asked them how they feel when you're smoking? If you can get them to agree - put them in the car, roll up the windows, and light up a few cigarettes. This isn't about some studies suggesting there may or may not be a correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer - it's about what you're immediately subjecting your children to.

Great idea, now let's also molest some kids for an experiment.

:p

[WaltM]

I disagree. I think this is about who gets to decide to what children are subject. And I come down on the side of the parent.

let's make the case more extreme.

just so there's no dispute about whether smoking is immediate harm, or harm at all.

Is a parent allowed to deliberately beat or kill their child?
I'm not asking you if it's the State's business or whether we should have monitors in every house to prevent it. If you can have it your way, would you allow a parent to kill their child deliberately, or not?

[WaltM]

Great idea, now let's also molest some kids for an experiment.

:p

I don't see how any of these "parents first" people can say why not.

[dannno]

Have you guys ever smoked around your kids and studied their reactions -- or asked them how they feel when you're smoking? If you can get them to agree - put them in the car, roll up the windows, and light up a few cigarettes. This isn't about some studies suggesting there may or may not be a correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer - it's about what you're immediately subjecting your children to.

When I was 5 my best friend lived across the street and his parents smoked. My parents were very much against smoking, and I'd come home and they would smell my hair and be like 'they are SMOKING over there around you' and they would try to get me to play at my house with my friend rather than the other way around.. unfortunately my friend had cooler stuff and a cooler backyard than me, so I ended up over there all the time with the smokers, and it was a constant battle with my parents. Anyways, that's how much I cared about other people smoking when I was a kid.

[dannno]

let's make the case more extreme.

just so there's no dispute about whether smoking is immediate harm, or harm at all.

Is a parent allowed to deliberately beat or kill their child?
I'm not asking you if it's the State's business or whether we should have monitors in every house to prevent it. If you can have it your way, would you allow a parent to kill their child deliberately, or not?

If you read previous posts on this thread you'd know that it is acceptable to use violence to protect others against violence, but that it is not acceptable to use violence to protect against something inherently non-violent.

[specsaregood]

I don't see how any of these "parents first" people can say why not.

And I can't see how you govt first people can justify letting any children be raised by their parents. At some point every parent is bound to do something that many disagree with. Might as well seize all children and raise them by the state.

[Wesker1982]

If you read previous posts on this thread you'd know that it is acceptable to use violence to protect others against violence, but that it is not acceptable to use violence to protect against something inherently non-violent.


ding ding ding ding WE HAVE A WINNER!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

[WaltM]

If you read previous posts on this thread you'd know that it is acceptable to use violence to protect others against violence, but that it is not acceptable to use violence to protect against something inherently non-violent.

so fraud and theft are non-violent, and cannot be prevented or protected by violence?

or, is feeding your child fatal poison violence?

or is lying to your child you're feeding him candy when in fact it's candy coated poison "violence"?

[WaltM]

And I can't see how you govt first people can justify letting any children be raised by their parents.


the fact you think I'm government first is a mistake.




At some point every parent is bound to do something that many disagree with. Might as well seize all children and raise them by the state.

I'm not pro-government or pro-parent in all cases, looks like we both agree there's a line ,we just dont agree where it is.

[Romulus]

I have not seen anywhere, where the law in question specifies the status of the windows. http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/07/15/story-washington-court-house-smoking-ban-cars.html?sid=102

It just says no smoking with children in the car. Danno's point, which I can't imagine how you are missing is that: if you ban smoking in the car (regardless of window status) the unintended consequences would be that people looking to break the law would be more inclined to smoke with the windows up as to lessen their chances of getting caught.

I'm saying that I would not support that law, unless it was specific to it being enforced only for an enclosed vehicle. If the community supports it, then so be it. Each community is different and I believe in local government being able to govern themselves especially to protect the individual rights for minors - be it a baby or a 17 yr old.

Funny, you can't abuse a cat, but you can blow a pack of cigarette smoke in your infants face?

[Romulus]

People wouldn't gravitate towards these dangerous substances if laws on supposedly dangerous substances did not exist.. they would gravitate towards safer more natural substances. The laws you are advocating make the situation much worse, though not nearly the detrimental effect when done on a local level, it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

I am all for the legalization of marijuana, as long as you treat is like alcohol and tobacco in relation to minors. It's still a drug. And am NOT for taxing it!

But to make a blanket statement that all drugs are equal, is absurd.

Sudafed has been a legal over the counter drug to buy here since day one. Finally, our town got some balls, defied threats from the ACLU and made it legal by prescription only - that means NO over the counter sales. We told the ACLU to fuck off, as if they know whats best for our town? Guess what, the residents won here. It worked. Meth heads and their labs incidents are decreasing by a substantial rate.

Common sense says you can legislate ALL drugs with a one size fits all policy. And no law itself is one size fits all, period.

[WaltM]

I'm saying that I would not support that law, unless it was specific to it being enforced only for an enclosed vehicle. If the community supports it, then so be it. Each community is different and I believe in local government being able to govern themselves especially to protect the individual rights for minors - be it a baby or a 17 yr old.

Funny, you can't abuse a cat, but you can blow a pack of cigarette smoke in your infants face?

hypocrisy of animal rights, get it?

http://www.petaindia.com/feat/buttons/SherlynChopraCircusAd.jpg

[specsaregood]

Funny, you can't abuse a cat, but you can blow a pack of cigarette smoke in your infants face?

Are you saying you can't blow a pack of cigarette smoke in a cat's face? I must have missed where that was made illegal but kept legal in regards to infants. Can you source that?

[WaltM]

Are you saying you can't blow a pack of cigarette smoke in a cat's face? I must have missed where that was made illegal but kept legal in regards to infants. Can you source that?

i have no doubt that the same act done on a cat, or a baby, a baby would get you more punishment.

but it is surprising that smoking in a car isn't considered equally deliberate and harmful as blowing smoke.

[Wesker1982]

I'm not pro-government or pro-parent in all cases, looks like we both agree there's a line ,we just dont agree where it is.

Are we allowed to disagree without getting shot or thrown in jail? I would not support you getting shot or jailed over our disagreement.

If we are allowed to disagree on second hand smoke laws, surely those who disagree cannot be forced to fund the enforcement of them? If we are forced to fund them, we are not allowed to disagree.

[dannno]

so fraud and theft are non-violent, and cannot be prevented or protected by violence?

No, those things all require violence because you are taking something from somebody by force.

Even in the case of fraud, if you some how were able to convince me to take my TV away for payment, and that payment wasn't received, then I can use violence to protect my property by taking my property back.. HOWEVER when there is a state, that violence can be transferred and the state can use violent force to retain said property.




or, is feeding your child fatal poison violence?


Yes, that is extremely violent.




or is lying to your child you're feeding him candy when in fact it's candy coated poison "violence"?

Yup.

[dannno]

I am all for the legalization of marijuana, as long as you treat is like alcohol and tobacco in relation to minors. It's still a drug. And am NOT for taxing it!

But to make a blanket statement that all drugs are equal, is absurd.



Here's the problem, if you allow the state to make meth illegal, then what is to say they don't make other safer substances like cannabis illegal, thus leading to more dangerous drug use as we have now?

If you make all drugs legal, then people will gravitate towards the safer substances and you will have less problems.

[WaltM]

Are we allowed to disagree without getting shot or thrown in jail? I would not support you getting shot or jailed over our disagreement.


yes, but not all disagreements are equal.




If we are allowed to disagree on second hand smoke laws, surely those who disagree cannot be forced to fund the enforcement of them? If we are forced to fund them, we are not allowed to disagree.

there's a lot of things I wish the government didn't exist to enforce, trust me, you'd wish people for forced to pay for them.

[WaltM]

Here's the problem, if you allow the state to make meth illegal, then what is to say they don't make other safer substances like cannabis illegal, thus leading to more dangerous drug use as we have now?

If you make all drugs legal, then people will gravitate towards the safer substances and you will have less problems.

so when alcohol is legal, people gravitate towards less harmful substances like organic vegetables and candy?

[WaltM]

No, those things all require violence because you are taking something from somebody by force.


fraud is force? lol

then what isn't?





Even in the case of fraud, if you some how were able to convince me to take my TV away for payment, and that payment wasn't received, then I can use violence to protect my property by taking my property back.. HOWEVER when there is a state, that violence can be transferred and the state can use violent force to retain said property.


correct, what's wrong with that? the state acts as your agent to enforce your property.




Yes, that is extremely violent.


how is that?




Yup.

so what isn't violent??

[dannno]

so when alcohol is legal, people gravitate towards less harmful substances like organic vegetables and candy?

No, when alcohol was illegal many people drank moonshine which can cause blindness. The reason was because it was a more potent form of alcohol so it could be worth more to transport, not because people demanded moonshine.. they drank it because prohibition causes people to extract a pure form of the substance.

Now that alcohol is legal, people tend to drink beer, wine, and occasional spirits. Nobody really drinks moonshine too much anymore.

If drugs were legal, people would gravitate towards the less dangerous, which when processing is involved will mean less potent alternatives (though the purity will also be higher in the sense that processing these substances often leaves them with dangerous residues and secondary substances). Heroin users would largely be using opium which is MUCH safer and less addictive (though still addictive).

[dannno]

fraud is force? lol

then what isn't?

Voluntary transactions which are completed to the satisfaction of both parties are not force.






correct, what's wrong with that? the state acts as your agent to enforce your property.

That's pretty much their only job, protecting your life and property (also contracts, which means protecting us from fraud)





how is that?

Anything that causes injury or death is violent.

There is no proof that second hand smoke from being in a car causes injury.

Now, I've hotboxed closed cars with cannabis before.. actually probably dozens of times. It's a lot of fun. I'm talking like 2 or 3 blunts, which are cigar papers filled with cannabis and at least twice as big as cigs, being passed around between several people until you can't see anything in the car. Of course, there is absolutely nothing dangerous about cannabis as compared to cigarettes, but even if it was cigarette smoke it isn't going to be harmful. Now if the kid was stuck in that car most of the day every day for a few years, that might cause some harm..

Even if somebody here says they see people smoking with the windows up, I'm still skeptical that there isn't some window cracked somewhere.. I really can't imagine anybody doing that with cigs to their kid.. but it's one of those problems that has to be soooo tiny, I just don't see any need for a law.

Last time I checked, going camping with children was still legal. Campfires are still legal. I accidentally inhaled a lot of smoke when I was a kid, just sitting around a campfire. Believe it or not, our lungs are designed to deal with air pollution.

[Romulus]

but it is surprising that smoking in a car isn't considered equally deliberate and harmful as blowing smoke.
It is, but no one wants to admit that. Apparently its ok that I strap my baby to my chest and smoke a pack of cigarettes in her face.

Because its my liberty and all/sarcasm.

[WaltM]

Voluntary transactions which are completed to the satisfaction of both parties are not force.






That's pretty much their only job, protecting your life and property (also contracts, which means protecting us from fraud)





Anything that causes injury or death is violent.

There is no proof that second hand smoke from being in a car causes injury.

Now, I've hotboxed closed cars with cannabis before.. actually probably dozens of times. It's a lot of fun. I'm talking like 2 or 3 blunts, which are cigar papers filled with cannabis and at least twice as big as cigs, being passed around between several people until you can't see anything in the car. Of course, there is absolutely nothing dangerous about cannabis as compared to cigarettes, but even if it was cigarette smoke it isn't going to be harmful. Now if the kid was stuck in that car most of the day every day for a few years, that might cause some harm..

Even if somebody here says they see people smoking with the windows up, I'm still skeptical that there isn't some window cracked somewhere.. I really can't imagine anybody doing that with cigs to their kid.. but it's one of those problems that has to be soooo tiny, I just don't see any need for a law.

Last time I checked, going camping with children was still legal. Campfires are still legal. I accidentally inhaled a lot of smoke when I was a kid, just sitting around a campfire. Believe it or not, our lungs are designed to deal with air pollution.

how is fraud and theft cause injury and death? lol

[DamianTV]

So will blowing smoke in someones face be the new face of Assault & Battery?

[dannno]

how is fraud and theft cause injury and death? lol

Easy.

If i have a tv, and you want it, if it is my property then I won't let you have it unless you pay me. If you want to take it, then you will have to overcome me with violence, and I have the right to return that violence.

Same with fraud, if you defraud me out of my TV, then the TV is still mine and I have the right to defend my property using violence. Therefore you can't steal something without implying violent force to steal said thing.

Stealing requires violence, even if the violence doesn't go down, when libertarians or NAP folks say violence, the threat of violence = violence. It is conceptual. That's why leftists laugh and us libertarians when we say that taxing requires the use of violence. They don't get it, but it absolutely does. Do you get it yet?

[Wesker1982]

It is, but no one wants to admit that.


Kind of like how you won't admit that you would not use violence to stop somebody from smoking with their kid in the car


Apparently its ok that I strap my baby to my chest and smoke a pack of cigarettes in her face.

Another strawman. :rolleyes:

Just because someone does not think something is ok does not mean they support violence to stop it. I do not think its ok that so many people feed their kids terribly unhealthy diets. I would never imagine using violence to intervene, it would not be justified.