|
Now they want to ban smoking in cars???? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Im against the seatbelt law too. If you are dumb enough not to wear one its your own damned fault if you go through the windshield. |
By that logic, a 6 year old kid DESERVES to get cancer because hes dumb enough to not know that tobacco has been shown to cause cancer. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Not every minor is dumb, and not every adult is bright.
Come on! In a world where people sue corporations because they "didn't know" that the cigarettes they've been smoking for 10 years would give them cancer even though it says that on the box there should be laws that protect those stupid idiots from their own stupidity.
And besides those that are stupid, there's those that just don't care. Yeah you don't need a law to say that a kid might be taken care of by his parents, its only common sense, but how many deadbeat or abusive parents are there, WITH the law? How many more would there be if there was no consequence to them just leaving the kid?
What about people killing each other? It's common sense that it's wrong, but it still happens. Now how many MORE murders would happen if the state didn't have that law and people who were scared to do it because of the possibility of being caught and prosecuted dind't have ANYTHING to hold them back?
The world doesn't function on common sense. It functions on the "if you do something wrong ill smash your face in" principle. Its not perfect, but its the best weve got so far.
Hell Id go for that no smoking around kids ANYWHERE law, too. Whats wrong with that? Dont you want to protect children from cancer? Of is the convinience of lighting up sitting in front of your TV more important to you than the health of your kid? |
great then dont drive your car near a kid. They are more sensitive to carbon monoxide. Where does it end? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by chanoa
thats great that you wouldn't. many people would agree with u. however not everyone. my brother-in-law smokes in the car with my 5 nieces and nephews with him. They're all under the age of 6, and have yet to understand how bad that is for them. Unfortunately my sister has the attitude "man head of household" and won't tell him to butt out. i've tried, but like he listens to me. According to this genius, its all ok, cuz the windows are opened a crack
maybe a law like this will teach my oh so intelligentbrother-in-law that he doesn't have a choice and to stop smoking in the car.
Someone has to speak on reuben, logan, alayna, sam and norahs behalf. if he won't listen to me, maybe he listen to the cops |
Maybe they should charge him with child neglect?
Laws do exist to go after people who do this. Instead they are taking the easy way out by trampling on people's rights and setting dangerous future precidents. |
|
|
| Cal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
great then dont drive your car near a kid. They are more sensitive to carbon monoxide. Where does it end? |
Thats not a very good analogy because gas fumes are literally everywhere and are unavoidable, while smoking isnt. Also, theres that emission certification thing for cars that is a step in the right direction to prevent pollution.
Once again :
THE ARTICLE IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING SMOKING IN CARS ONLY WHILE A MINOR IS PRESENT IN THE CAR |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
And im talking about the potential to extend this law into every other facet of behaviour behind closed doors.
OK??
I never said that smoking around kids is a good idea. I only said that creating a law like this is very dangerous for civil rights. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
my point is that right or wrong they are REGULATING YOUR PERSONAL SPACE and that sets a dangerous precident. Smoking has nothing to do with driving a car and if they ever do go with that arguement they should ban changing the radio and eating.
I can see why they would want to try this but they are going about it all wrong. If anything they should charge the parents with neglect. Going about it this way is bad news for personal rights and personal space.
PS: im a non smoker who grew up in a family with a car with 2 smoking parents and i ended up fine. Also, most of the smoke DID go out the window. |
1. your title is misleading. they don't want to ban smoking in cars. they want to ban smoking in cars with children.
2. they are not merely "regulating your personal space"...that is a radical oversimplification intended to support your position...you have to accept that they are also protecting the personal space of people too young to regulate their own...children.
3. charging the parents with neglect would be MUCH harder from a legal standpoint than simply banning smoking in cars with children. ask any family lawyer.
4. you turned out just fine. well...there's a debatable conclusion if there ever was one, LOL! j/k ;) seriously...how old are you? how can you say you turned out just fine when cancer and other ailments can take years to manifest? Jeez, until he radically cut down several years ago, my father smoked upwards of a pack a day for about 40 years and his diet remains true to his poor German roots (ie. fat-laden and rather unhealthy)...he's apparently none the worse for wear. yet smoking has still been causally linked to cancer. your remark proves nothing.
5. regulating personal space is nothing new. you can't drink and drive. you can't talk on your cell phone and drive. why? ultimately it's about the safety of others. those examples are others outside the car. this one is about children inside the car.
I support the spirit of this proposal...ie. the protection of children from irresponsible and negligent parents, but I do agree that regulating "personal space" is touchy. If anything, I believe the stronger arguement would be to oppose this taking away of parental "power" (for lack of a better word) rather than oppose the regulation of personal space. The slippery slope there (which I don't agree is logical at all) is that then the gov't would attempt to regulate such behaviour in the home...smoking, what you feed your kids, etc.
so I'm not wholeheartedly behind this one in the same way I am behind the smoking ban in bars, clubs, etc.
The challenge is less about determining what is and what is not healthy, negligent, etc...any jackass can see that parents ought not be allowed to subject their kids to second hand smoke...it's about enforcement and jurisdiction. Is a car truly "personal space". If I drive my car up on someone's lawn, is what happens inside still governed by my "rights" regarding my personal space? The home is clearly personal space...car? debatable.
and I'm not against the seatbelt law...not so long as we have a public healthcare system. someone is thrown through a windshield for not wearing a seatbelt, they should pick up their own ing medical bill. you get into an "accident" (jeez, I hate that word for car crashes...they are crashes NOT ACCIDENTS), and are at fault, and the other fuktard doesn't weat a seatbelt and dies instead of sustaining potentially minor injuries, don't you get charged with the equivalent of manslaughter? Why? Because that dumb disobeyed the law and didn't wear their belt? That's BEYOND ridiculous... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
my participation in yet another bull Jayx1 slippery slope thread begins and end with this post.
1. your title is misleading. they don't want to ban smoking in cars. they want to ban smoking in cars with children. |
Now you are being misleading. They want to ban smoking in cars. I don't care who is present. Children, the queen... its still banning smoking in cars and it's not right.
| quote: |
2. they are not "regulating your personal space". they are protecting the personal space of people too young to regulate their own...children. |
Right... the old "think of the children!!" arguement. I guess kids trump any and all rights to private property rights? Smoking is a legal thing to do and DOES NOT AFFECT DRIVING CAPABILITY.
| quote: | | 3. charging the parents with neglect would be MUCH harder from a legal standpoint than simply banning smoking in cars with children. ask any family lawyer. |
It's also much easier to gather evidence without a warrant but that doesn't mean that law enforcement should be allowed that right now does it? Use the power that is given. Don't abuse power and go against your rights to operate freely in a "free" society.
| quote: | | 4. you turned out just fine. well...there's a debatable conclusion if there ever was one, LOL! j/k ;) seriously...how old are you? how can you say you turned out just fine when cancer and other ailments can take years to manifest? Jeez, until he radically cut down several years ago, my father smoked upwards of a pack a day for about 40 years and his diet remains true to his poor German roots (ie. fat-laden and rather unhealthy)...he's apparently none the worse for wear. your remark proves nothing. |
But yours proves everything. Namely that there are many factors that go into your health history. Genes, diet, environment, etc etc. The fact that your dad is still here today shows that there are far greater forces determining your lifespan than a puff of second hand smoke.
| quote: | | 5. regulating personal space is nothing new. you can't drink and drive. you can't talk on your cell phone and drive. why? ultimately it's about the safety of others. those examples are others outside the car. this one is about children inside the car. |
Because these things affect THE OPERATION OF A VEHICLE. Smoking does not and if you say it does then ban changing the radio and talking to your friends in the car.
| quote: | | I support the flavour of this proposal...but I do agree that regulating "personal space" is touchy. If anything, I believe the stronger arguement would be to oppose this taking away of parental "power" (for lack of a better word) rather than oppose the regulation of personal space. The slippery slope there (which I don't agree is logical at all) is that then the gov't would attempt to regulate such behaviour in the home...smoking, what you feed your kids, etc. |
ive already addressed this and you are right. There are several reasons why this law would be very wrong.
| quote: | | The challenge is less about determining what is and what is not healthy, negligent, etc...any jackass can see that parents ought not be allowed to subject their kids to second hand smoke...it's about enforcement and jurisdiction. Is a car truly "personal space". If I drive my car up on someone's lawn, is what happens inside still governed by my "rights" regarding my personal space? The home is clearly personal space...car? debatable. |
A car is personal space. The police need a warrant to search it. They need probable cause to pull you over and the contents inside are covered under the same laws as your house. Hell your personal home insurance usually covers your car as if its your house. SO yes, id say that your car IS your personal space.
| quote: | | and I'm not against the seatbelt law...not so long as we have a public healthcare system. someone is thrown through a windshield for not wearing a seatbelt, they should pick up their own ing medical bill. you get into an "accident" (jeez, I hate that word for car crashes...they are crashes NOT ACCIDENTS), and are at fault, and the other fuktard doesn't weat a seatbelt and dies instead of sustaining potentially minor injuries, don't you get charged with the equivalent of manslaughter? Why? Because that dumb disobeyed the law and didn't wear their belt? That's BEYOND ridiculous... |
Great. You would do well in debating on the PRO side of a private health care debate. Because those for Private health would use you as an example of how the government is determining people's lifestyles by using public health care as a crutch. Using the "im not paying for it through my taxes" arguement to try and stop someone from living their lives how they see fit is not a wise idea. Because before you know it folks will catch on and public healthcare will go bye-bye! As for the manslaughter. Hey if its your fault for causing the accident then you have to accept the circumstances surrounding it. And if the other guy didnt wear a seatbelt then that is the hand fate dealt both him and you. Next time dont be causing accidents! |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kytracid
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.
|
:D
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
What about people killing each other? It's common sense that it's wrong, but it still happens. Now how many MORE murders would happen if the state didn't have that law and people who were scared to do it because of the possibility of being caught and prosecuted dind't have ANYTHING to hold them back? |
It is pointless to argue this because in society like Canada, the absence of a law against murder is inconceivable. Furthermore, it doesn't relate to the smoking in a car with your clidren situation. It is more likely that someone will restrain themselves from murdering someone than smoke in a car with their children. And don't give me this about how it's the same thing. It isn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Hell Id go for that no smoking around kids ANYWHERE law, too. Whats wrong with that? Dont you want to protect children from cancer? Of is the convinience of lighting up sitting in front of your TV more important to you than the health of your kid? |
There are other things that are causing a lot more damage to our children than second hand smoke in an outdoor enviornment.
| quote: | | Originally posted by MarkT you have to accept that they are also protecting the personal space of people too young to regulate their own...children. |
They may not be "merely" regulating your personal space, but with implementing this law, they are regulating your personal space.
It may be inadvertent, but they are still regulating your personal space "for your own good". Maybe you agree with this law, but just wait till they make another law "for your own good", you may not be so happy about it. How does "no drinking around kids" sound? |
|
|
| MarkT |
who wants to ban smoking in cars? I read that they want to ban smoking in cars with children.
why does a parent's "right to smoke" trump their child's right not to be subjected to PROVEN harmful second hand smoke and not be able to do anything about it?
my point is that "neglect" is difficult to prove in court even when it's rather clearly present. criminal charges require intent. fining someone for violating a bylaw requires only that they committed the action. if you have a bylaw against something, and you do it, it's pretty open and shut. "negligence" is subject to interpretation and generally a useless charge without mounds of supporting evidence, history of behaviour, etc.
my example "proves" that my father is (so far, fingers crossed) one of the people who hasn't developed cancer from smoking. it does not, in any way whatsoever, support your point.
why is whether smoking does or does not affect the ability to operate of a vehicle relevant here??? who is pretending that smoking impairs driving ability (although for some I suspect it does)??? yes, my examples affect the ability to operate a vehicle...but REALLY, the law is not there for YOU as the potential drinker or cellphone talker, it's about protecting OTHERS from YOU. ditto for smoking in cars...it's about protecting CHILDREN from YOU. that was my point.
police, AFAIK, do not always need a warrant to search your car...they require reasonable and probably grounds to believe that you have illegal drugs or weapons in it, or that the car has been used in the commission of a crime (ie. they see you slip a kilo of coke in the trunk, they don't need to go get a warrant to search it). point being? protection of personal space is not absolute.
Jay...I do commend your fierce desire to see individual rights protected. I would agree with MUCH of what you say in terms of gov't interference. The issue I really have is that you think individual rights trump EVERYTHING and that there are few reasonable limits on behaviour. Absolute freedom = anarchy...and even the most ardent anarchists favour some sort of minimal police state to maintain order. As our society moves more and more to a "I don't give a about anyone other than myself", these limits are all the more necessary, IMHO.
this particular one with cars is certainly debateable...but you paint SUCH a distorted image of radical injustice in EVERY SINGLE arguement you present. THAT is really my problem with your posts.
no drinking around kids...ever the slippery slope fallcies with you ;) there is a causal link between second hand smoke, and smoking in general, and negative health affects (not just cancer, but health affects in general). there is no causal link between drinking around kids and any such thing.
And, not in any way to distance myself from my posts, much of what I post in reply to you is to simply show you that this IS in fact a debate. You are not "right". I am not "right". You remind me very much of one of my best friends who argues to win...not to learn. His opinion is always "right" and that's really a poor position to take... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
It may be inadvertent, but they are still regulating your personal space "for your own good". Maybe you agree with this law, but just wait till they make another law "for your own good", you may not be so happy about it. How does "no drinking around kids" sound? |
But it's not for your own good, it's for their (the children's) good. Thus the comparison drawn with out-and-out killing - sure, it's not as severe and much less likely to happen, and nobody is denying that, but when it comes to protecting one of the two fundamenatal inalienable rights of citizens (life and private property), the government is within reason to step in.
Rights are not guarantees of course, and that's why a government would have no basis to deny YOUR property rights in order to protect YOUR life (you are free to waive your right to either). But they are certainly justified in denying YOUR property rights to protect someone ELSE's life, particularly when that "other" is someone who cannot avoid the life-threatening situation, and a child locked in a car with a smoking parent certainly fits the bill there.
Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with this law, I'm only pointing out how your logic is flawed. They're trying to protect the people who DON'T have a choice (the children), not the people who DO. If you want to do damage to your own body, great, nobody is going to try to stop you. |
|
|
| MarkT |
btw...Jayx1...remember...I'm a dirty LIBERAL (capital L and small L).
you'd be surprised at how much I support individual rights.
I'm also a bit of an elitist prick who recognizes that our city/country/world is full of ignorant sheep who are incapable of living harmoneously in a society which TRULY supports and maximizes indvidual rights ;)
oh to dream... |
|
|
| DavusmaximuS |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jayx1
I knew it! Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Next they will ban smoking in homes. You heard it here first! This is your own personal space and this sets a VERY dangerous precident if it goes through.
I agree 100% with you Jayx1. This is the government telling you that you cannot perform a legal act in your own car. Which is as personal a space as your home. It's an outrage! OK, they banned it in the clubs. What can you do but grin and bear it? You are forcing people that wish to have a good time to inhale potentially lethal smoke. I don't like it but I understand it. You don't let strangers into your car, the people that ride in your car choose to be there. If they don't want to inhale smoke well then the ingrates they can walk. When the government governs legal acts in your own personal space there is something to be concerned about. Bear in mind that Bush just passed the USA PATRIOT Act. It's an acronym for something I can't exactly remember but essentially it allows the US government to collect any and all information they care to from residents of the US. Including, confidential emails, bank records, in' library books with little regard for civil rights. Now I know that's a stretch from smoking in your car, but it's a step in the same direction. I'm not saying this is going to happen here but my most obvious question would be, "What's Next?!?!?" |
|
|
|
|
