WillowTheWhisp Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 God didn't ban alcohol consumption with a law or commandment either but it is still illegal to drink and drive.Some people choose to raise their kids by beating them black and blue and I believe we have laws against that too.If something is proven to be harmful to someone else would we be wrong in trying to prevent people from forcing it upon somepne else as with passive smoking or shouldwe just sit back and ignore it? I know I am thankful that smoking in public places isno longer permitted here because now I can go there and enjoy myself without coming home reeking of stale tobacco and feeling sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 God didn't ban alcohol consumption with a law or commandment either but it is still illegal to drink and drive.Some people choose to raise their kids by beating them black and blue and I believe we have laws against that too.If something is proven to be harmful to someone else would we be wrong in trying to prevent people from forcing it upon somepne else as with passive smoking or shouldwe just sit back and ignore it? I know I am thankful that smoking in public places isno longer permitted here because now I can go there and enjoy myself without coming home reeking of stale tobacco and feeling sick.But you're still ignoring the extension of these principles. Where does it stop? How much intrusion into personal decisions do we allow? The examples you cite pose an immediate and acute health and/or safety risk, which second hand smoke does not. They aren't in the same class of stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aharon Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Smoking in a car with kids is bad, but there are things out there just as bad, like feeding them fast food. As far as it being a law, maybe at a local level, if the community wants to do so, but not at a state level and definately not at a federal level. If the law came up to ban cigarette smoking while driving in my town, I wouldn't vote for it, because I believe the less laws the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marts1 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 So no laws would be cool. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aharon Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 I think we should continue to educate people to stop smoking but we should not make it a law. Government is the most vicious force on the planet, and as such should be extremely limited in its power, for laws so easily can be abused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aharon Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 So no laws would be cool. :)Heck yes it would be! If we were all angels, we would need no laws, So we got to work on being angels.. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 And now we'll need to have a government commission decide what constitutes "consistently." And then after that, we'll have to install monitoring devices to keep tabs on what parents are feeding their kids so that they aren't abusing them.CPS: Ma'am, we've received a notice from your KidMinder2000 that little Timmy has exceeded his RDA of simple sugars 4 days in a row.Ma'am: Well you see, his birthday falls on November 3, so with Halloween and his Birthday cake...CPS: Sorry Ma'am, the law is the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marts1 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Implanted monitering devices powered with electric jolts when blood sugars get to high.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Implanted monitering devices powered with electric jolts when blood sugars get to high.:)Wow, you thought that bag of skittles got them hopping before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 I think the unasserted right of children not to have their lungs damaged outweighs a smoker's right to smoke in a confined space. Smokers are damaging their children if they subject them to this confined smoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 You know what the problem with this thread is? It is not second-hand smoke and kids... it is the ignorance of Americans in the function of government. The 9th and 10th ammendments to the Constitution specifically states that any power that is not handed over to the government remains with the people. But, we find that more and more people don't want to be bothered to govern themselves they become "omnipotent moral busybodies" imposing their views on others through legislation. So, somebody sees a parent smoking in the car with 3 kids... first thought - LET'S BAN IT! Give the power to the government! Your first thought should have been - how can I promote education on the perils of smoking around children so that the parent will know not to smoke around children? "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marts1 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Much of this thread reminds me of the huge problems people had with the law of consecration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillowTheWhisp Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 But you're still ignoring the extension of these principles. Where does it stop? How much intrusion into personal decisions do we allow? The examples you cite pose an immediate and acute health and/or safety risk, which second hand smoke does not. They aren't in the same class of stupidity.Wow do you genuinely believe that passive smoking is not a health risk? Especially to children? Not much I can say if you honestly think that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elgama Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 is smoking a health risk yes, but so is crossing the road, we make this child abuse and already stretched systens let more serious forms of abuse are ignored. A very wise poster when I first joined the site said as parents none of us are perfect we all to some measure neglect or abuse out children main prayer is we do them no serious harm. Of all the abuse I can think a parent can heap on a child smoking in the car to me seems very light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Wow do you genuinely believe that passive smoking is not a health risk? Especially to children? Not much I can say if you honestly think that.I'm not sure why you think he thinks that as he didn't say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marts1 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 I'm in for tearing out a lung to see what it looks like.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillowTheWhisp Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 I'm not sure why you think he thinks that as he didn't say that.He said "The examples you cite pose an immediate and acute health and/or safety risk, which second hand smoke does not." - secondary smoking can cause cancer. That seems pretty much a health risk to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) He said "The examples you cite pose an immediate and acute health and/or safety risk, which second hand smoke does not." - secondary smoking can cause cancer. That seems pretty much a health risk to me.He never said it wasn't a health risk, he just classified it in a different category of health risk then the ones previously mentioned. So once again, he didn't say that, why are you attributing it to him? Edited March 6, 2010 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marts1 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 The difference between getting injured by walking across the street or getting injured from tobbaco smoke is one is an accident, the other is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Wow do you genuinely believe that passive smoking is not a health risk? Especially to children? Not much I can say if you honestly think that.He said nothing of the kind. He indicated that although it's reckless behavior, legislating it is not the way to fix it.He said "The examples you cite pose an immediate and acute health and/or safety risk, which second hand smoke does not." - secondary smoking can cause cancer. That seems pretty much a health risk to me.He's exactly right. Secondhand smoke poses neither an immediate nor an acute health and/or safety risk. Long-term exposure is where the problem lies. Otherwise we'd all have cancer from sitting next to the smoking section in restaurants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillowTheWhisp Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) So it's a long-term health risk but it is still a health risk. Some people will tell you that their great uncle Henry smoked like a trooper and lived to be 93 but that doesn't alter the fact that smoking kills people. If someone smokes on a regular daily basis with their kids in the car isn't that repeated long term eposure? Or are we just dismissing this thread because of who it was started by?Maybe I'm biased because I have seen the positive effects such legislation has had in the UK. Edited March 6, 2010 by WillowTheWhisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Or are we just dismissing this thread because of who it was started by?No, why do you think that? I hope it isn't because people aren't agreeing with the OPs premise, I'd find that mildly disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Wow do you genuinely believe that passive smoking is not a health risk? Especially to children? Not much I can say if you honestly think that.MOE didn't say that--go back and re-read what he said. He is opposed to legislating it. As am I. If we begin to legislate when/where adults can smoke, even on/in personal property, where would that end? Can they then say that they shouldn't smoke in the home unless there are no children under 18? How will they enforce that? Cameras in the home/car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassiopeia Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) I was gonna make a similar comment. Also of note, kids spend a lot more time in the home than in the family car, so the justification based on health risk would be even stronger.I'm with Hordak, if that's the case then feeding an obese kid (heck any kid) nutritionally unsound food choices (consistently) would be as well.And we aren't even getting into the people on the road who talk on the phone, text their friends and those parents who let their children run around in the car or have a pet on the loose while they are driving. I don't like that parents are exposing their kids to second hand smoke, but I also don't like all the other things that some parents do like the examples I've given. However, if we keep legislating every little thing, where will it end. And as always, I do not admire the tone of the OP that points out the faults of others as it seems a bit self righteous and self serving to me. Edited March 6, 2010 by Cassiopeia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 And as always, I do not admire the tone of a post that points out the faults of others as it seems a bit self righteous and self serving to me.The post from Dravin that you quoted does no such thing. To what are you referring? If you have a real issue with someone's post, then report it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.