|
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
If you read it carefully the guy says "...there should be no smoking WHEN TRANSPORTING CHILDREN"
Are you REALLY against a law that would help prevent retard parents from giving their kids lung cancer?
And as for this precedent thing, you're arguing a "slippery slope", which is a fallacy (look it up). Also, it might surprise you, but the state has been reglating your personal space for a while now *GASP*
Yeah that's right, for example when you wanted to buy smokes or alcohol when underage the state slapped your teenage pimply ass down. And guess what, those precidents have been around for a loooong time. So chill out, TO is not turning into a totalitarian state. |
It's different when you're a minor...you're young and dumb. Of course someone needs to regulate your pimply ass. If your parents can't put the hammer down, then the Guv needs to step in and do it by making it illegal to do certain things like buy cigs and booze.
Should parents refrain from smoking when they are transporting kids -- of course they should, and i bet most parents do. Does it need to be made into a law. No, because it does set a precedent...because then the reason for banning smoking in a household with kids is the next logical step. Think about it. It's basically the same thing. Even if you smoke in a different room to where your kids are, they can still argue it puts the kids at risk. The question isn't what safe for kids, i think the point has been made pretty clear that second hand smoke is injurious to health, but lets give people who credit here. They aren't completely stupid either.
I wouldn't smoke with the windows up if my kids were in the backseat. The same way i wouldn't blow smoke in my kids face if we were sitting next to each other on the couch. I don't need a law to tell me these things.
___________________
"Hell is full of musical amateurs; music is the brandy of the damned."
~ George Bernard Shaw
|