Study: Majority supports ban on smoking in cars with kids present

[lucky4034]

When they ban abortion they can ban me from smoking in my house with my children that are not your responsibility

But isn't that inconsistent...

You are calling for the ban of abortion (presumably because you propose that a multi-celled fetus has rights)... yet you don't want to recognize that a born child may have the right to clean air?

Abortion -- Unborn child should have rights that the host mother should not be able to trump
Forced exposure to carcinogen -- Mothers rights should trump a born childs right to clean air​

I'm not saying that this law wouldn't be a slippery slope to go down and a large part of me couldn't fully support this law because I can forsee the can of worms it could lead to... but for the life of me... I don't see how any pro-lifer could logically make an argument against it.

Let me ask you this... do you think that a pregnant mother should have the right to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, use prescription drugs etc? Do you think that a mother who gives birth to a crack baby should have their child taken from them?

 

[Bunnykid68]

But isn't that inconsistent...

You are calling for the ban of abortion (presumably because you recognize the right of a multi-celled fetus to have rights)... yet you don't want to recognize that a born child may have the right to clean air?

Abortion -- Unborn child should have rights that the host mother should not be able to trump
Forced exposure to carcinogen -- Mothers rights should trump a born childs right to clean air​

I'm not saying that this law wouldn't be a slippery slope to go down and a large part of me couldn't fully support this law because I can forsee the can of worms it could lead to... but for the life of me... I don't see how any pro-lifer could logically make an argument against it.

Since when did I say anyone had a right to clean air? If we had rights to clean air we would park all the cars and shut all the factories down

 

[buckstopshere]

I would have banned him for that language in reference to anyone. Personal insults are not tolerated.

Do you feel my "Filthy Drug User" comment was directed toward a single, individual INGO member posting in this thread? If so, I can understand why you feel there is a double standard at play. As it is, I do not feel I crossed that line...I tried using an ugly truth linked to an ugly stereotype to try to make a point on an internet forum...but, it turned ugly.

If you disagree, or hold my judgement to be suspect, you are free to report me...the other moderators and the admins will review and decide.

-Paul

As per your suggestion, you have been reported. One thing I've always appreciated about this site is that the Mods were really good, even when a member was disagreeing with them. I think it's weaksauce to ban someone for calling you a hypocrite and then doubling down on that by making a tough guy statement about enjoying your shooter status.

what someone chooses to do in their car is not the business of the state. If this passes, what's to stop the .gov from saying you can't smoke in your own home? They're not your children. You are not responsible for them.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Im gonna throw a blanket statement out.... Non smokers are scared of Tar.


that is all....





Is having a kid around a bonfire bad as well.... smoking some trees?

 

[rambone]

 

[lucky4034]

Since when did I say anyone had a right to clean air? If we had rights to clean air we would park all the cars and shut all the factories down

Thats your answer? Parents should be allowed to subject their children to 2nd hand smoke to any degree they chose? Children don't have right to not be subjected to an unnecessary carcinogen from their parents?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Im gonna throw a blanket statement out.... Non smokers are scared of Tar.

Is that why they are scared of IndyDave?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Thats your answer? Parents should be allowed to subject their children to 2nd hand smoke to any degree they chose? Children don't have right to not be subjected to an unnecessary carcinogen from their parents?

My parents smoked a combined 4-5 packs a day around me growing up(including during the pregnancy) as did half of the kids I grew up with, based on todays science and the fact that I still smoke, I should have died 20 years ago.

But no I guess they shouldn't be around cigarettes, cars, campfires (marshmallows are dangerous), or any number of other bad things

My children get their rights the same way they do their self esteem, when I think they are ready for them or when they can complain about them

 

[rambone]

Surely a traffic ticket will save children from all that abuse.

 

[lucky4034]

My parents smoked a combined 4-5 packs a day around me growing up(including during the pregnancy) as did half of the kids I grew up with, based on todays science and the fact that I still smoke, I should have died 20 years ago.

But no I guess they shouldn't be around cigarettes, cars, campfires (marshmallows are dangerous), or any number of other bad things

My children get their rights the same way they do their self esteem, when I think they are ready for them or when they can complain about them

By your terms...beating a child to near death... or even death if you chose should be allowed? Afterall... they are yours and you can do anything you like to them. They have no rights until you give them rights.

Similar to a fetus not having the right to live...

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Define clean air? is it the same Air filled with car exhaust, flatulence, Radiation, Pesticides (mosquito spray truck), structural fire smoke, rocket exhaust, Gunshot residue, residue from tannerite, aerosolized bacon grease, whatever is in off bug spray, neutra-air or febreeze, CFC's, methane, natural gas, bioiesel, deet, swamp gas, that crap that created swamp thing and honey boo boo, What about water vapor (water is dangerous you can drown), bee's(what is the kid is allergic) solar radiation, Radical freon, burning oil, animal farts and feces, people feces(when you fart poop goes in the air), cologne, body odor, urine from animal and people?


sorry is that the clean safe air you are talking about? or is there 100% O2 somewhere?


[video=youtube;R8eoEygHyho]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8eoEygHyho[/video]

 

[Bunnykid68]

By your terms...beating a child to near death... or even death if you chose should be allowed? Afterall... they are yours and you can do anything you like to them. They have no rights until you give them rights.

Similar to a fetus not having the right to live...

Sure, why not, I should be able to abort them anytime before they become adults

 

[88GT]

Looks like even smokers in the survey agreed with a potential ban.

Which begs the question, why can't they just self-regulate?

But isn't that inconsistent...

You are calling for the ban of abortion (presumably because you propose that a multi-celled fetus has rights)... yet you don't want to recognize that a born child may have the right to clean air?

Abortion -- Unborn child should have rights that the host mother should not be able to trump
Forced exposure to carcinogen -- Mothers rights should trump a born childs right to clean air​

I'm not saying that this law wouldn't be a slippery slope to go down and a large part of me couldn't fully support this law because I can forsee the can of worms it could lead to... but for the life of me... I don't see how any pro-lifer could logically make an argument against it.

Let me ask you this... do you think that a pregnant mother should have the right to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, use prescription drugs etc? Do you think that a mother who gives birth to a crack baby should have their child taken from them?

Two fallacies in your argument. First, rights are not things we should get/be given. Rights are freedom to act. Second, if you ascribe to these children the autonomy to have something/do something, then how can you ignore the most basic right of life? Why are they autonomous beings for one right (that doesn't exist) and not autonomous beings for the most fundamental of rights?

 

[lucky4034]

Sure, why not, I should be able to abort them anytime before they become adults

As long as your consistent, I respect your opinion! Personally don't agree... hell, I personally don't know where the line between a parents rights and a childs rights should lie. I just don't think there is an all or nothing answer.

 

[rambone]

If breathing smoke is tantamount to enduring a beating, how does paying the government a fine fix that injustice?

Is anyone here willing to admit that they think children should be confiscated if parents smoke within nose-reach of children?

And why limit it to cars? How about the other 23-hours a day they are smoking at home?

 

[lucky4034]

Which begs the question, why can't they just self-regulate?


Two fallacies in your argument. First, rights are not things we should get/be given. Rights are freedom to act. Second, if you ascribe to these children the autonomy to have something/do something, then how can you ignore the most basic right of life? Why are they autonomous beings for one right (that doesn't exist) and not autonomous beings for the most fundamental of rights?

I don't know to be honest... Obviously parents are responsible for their children until they are adults and therefore have some authority... but my point is only that children have some say as well and therefore a blanket statement like "They are my children... and I get 100% say" can't always hold true.

And if it can't always hold true... then I don't see a problem with an open discussion as to where that line (between a parents authority and a childs liberty) is drawn.

 

[lucky4034]

g

 

[lucky4034]

If breathing smoke is tantamount to enduring a beating, how does paying the government a fine fix that injustice?

Is anyone here willing to admit that they think children should be confiscated if parents smoke within nose-reach of children?

And why limit it to cars? How about the other 23-hours a day they are smoking at home?

I would agree that a traffic stop isn't the forum for this type of regulation (if any regulation should be implemented... which I'm not clear on). Maybe lawsuits would be a better solution... maybe nothing. I honestly am not sure

 

[Polished515]

I don't smoke. I don't allow others to smoke around my children. If someone lights up around my children I move them away. If someone were to light up in my home I would escort them outside. I wish no one smoked around other children. BUT it is none of my business. Your children can decide for themselves someday if they want to hold that against you. Until they are old enough to make up their own minds about that it is our job as parents/ guardians to decide what we feel is best or OK for them. And as long as the child is not mine I have 0 say in the matter nor do I wish to judge you.
Many people would think I'm a horrible mother for having tattoos and owning guns. But that's my business.

So I understand where both sides are coming from. Smoking isn't healthy. But I'm not willing to risk my rights as an American just to prove a point to another parent. Especially when that person could possibly be an amazing parent despite one bad habit that AGAIN IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

I hope someday they don't tell me I have to have my tubes tied because I decided to get a bunch of stupid tattoos when I was younger and I no longer fit the mold of what a good parent/American should be.

 

[Bunnykid68]

As long as your consistent, I respect your opinion! Personally don't agree... hell, I personally don't know where the line between a parents rights and a childs rights should lie. I just don't think there is an all or nothing answer.

I will always do what is best for my boys, I don't think a little cigarette smoke here and there is going to kill them, I am living proof that a crap ton of it will not kill you, well not me anyway, maybe I am just tougher than most, who knows? I certainly do not want, nor will I accept the government or anyone else putting air meters in my house to make sure I am living up to someone elses standards