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

[88GT]

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

They do? What will you say when children take that "right" and decide they WANT to smoke at age 9?

and therefore a blanket statement like "They are my children... and I get 100% say" can't always hold true.

Why not?

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.

Children don't have liberty. You can't give children the liberty to make choices that you won't let their parents make. It's illogical.

I get your point. It sux that parents make bad decisions, but what is the alternative? Why would someone else's decisions about what's okay for the child be any better than the parents? You're operating on the premise that the new decision-makers will make the "right" ones. What's the guarantee they will?

 

[Bunnykid68]

They do? What will you say when children take that "right" and decide they WANT to smoke at age 9?


Why not?


Children don't have liberty. You can't give children the liberty to make choices that you won't let their parents make. It's illogical.

I get your point. It sux that parents make bad decisions, but what is the alternative? Why would someone else's decisions about what's okay for the child be any better than the parents? You're operating on the premise that the new decision-makers will make the "right" ones. What's the guarantee they will?

You summed that up nicely young lady

I couldn't rep you again so I reported you and asked that the give you some rep points

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Did I list the right safe clean air?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Did I list the right safe clean air?

I don't know

 

[lucky4034]

Why not?

Maybe I'm wrong... I honestly don't have all the answers. Where would something like forcing your child to ingest a meal laced with cyanide fit in? Obviously that would be a no no... yet forcing them to suck down smoke that has been proven to potentially cause long term health problems is ok. You just don't have 100% carte blanche with your childs life and I'm not sure where 2nd hand smoke should fit in.

 

[88GT]

Maybe I'm wrong... I honestly don't have all the answers. Where would something like forcing your child to ingest a meal laced with cyanide fit in? Obviously that would be a no no... yet forcing them to suck down smoke that has been proven to potentially cause long term health problems is ok. You just don't have 100% carte blanche with your childs life and I'm not sure where 2nd hand smoke should fit in.

Use of force standard is a pretty good line. It isn't perfect, but it's better than letting the government pick the winner and losers.

To use your example: cyanide ingestion is fatal, causing immediate, obvious, and irreparable harm. Inhaling 2nd hand smoke only increases a risk. The child may never suffer the ill-effects of having breathed it in. But even if he does, it is at best a contributing factor. It is NOT the single definitive cause. Which begs the question: if exposing children to risk enhancers is enough to control parental decision-making, then feeding my children molasses cookies this evening is sufficient grounds for the state to mandate meal plans for children? The cookie will not cause immediate, obvious, and irreparable harm. But it may increase their risk of diabetes, obesity, or other health issues. But why stop there? Wouldn't children being raised in super dirty cities be at risk? Should the parents be forced to relocate or have their children removed from their custody? What if I let my children ride a bike without a helmet? Or jump together on the trampoline? Or ride with me on the mower?

Parental authority is the one right I believe is absolute 100% completely up to the parents and no one else. And as unsettling as it is to some, I give a lot of leeway to use of force that most people today in America find intolerable. Think of me what you will, but children as chattel is how I view parental authority from a legal standpoint. But before you get too upset, please note that I don't morally condone behavior that harms a child. It's not unlike racial discrimination. By and large I think it's a despicable act of ignorance when based on skin color alone. But I think people should be free to be the slimiest sons of *****es they want to be, up to and including making decisions based on melanin concentration. So it is with children. I know it's not popular. And I can only imagine the neg rep that will be coming my way, but that's how it is.

 

[j706]

So this would go like excuse me sir/ma'am..the reason I stopped you is that I notice you are smoking and you have kids in your car. This may be dangerous for your kids and against the law. Naw I can't see it happening. very often. Not on my shift at least.

 

[onetwoonetwo]

smoke em if you got em. the air we breath, the water we drink, the gmo food we eat.
we need less " this is bad for you", so you shouldn't/can't do/eat/drink/smoke/take /look at, bark towards or in general do anything "we,you,them" don't like.
come on man, when does the boss go home? and when he does, is he smoking somewhere people don't like? or what is he doing?
the liberal nanny state needs to be flushed. after that flush again just to make sure it goes far away.
reality is really changing. the earth will get rid of us when it can no longer stand us, until then "smoke em if you got em".

 

[TheDude]

You know, I think smoking around kids is at the bottom of the list considering some of the stuff I read in the papers and see on TV. Some people just shouldn't have kids.....period.

 

[TheDude]

What is the upside of legally protecting one's ability to force another to consume their discarded carcinogens?

I really don't understand this one. No one should be forced to breath the exhaled smoke of some filthy drug user.

-Paul

Wow, whos the new MOD with like 300 posts?

 

[Birds Away]

Just be careful.

 

[j706]

Wow, whos the new MOD with like 300 posts?

Yea no doubt and then banning someone after engaging the same person in an argument. That is just not right.

 

[Birds Away]

Yea no doubt and then banning someone after engaging the same person in an argument. That is just not right.

But it's okay to call me ugly and a drug user. I wonder if he ever drinks alcohol?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I was watching, and I thought that mod was pretty quick on the trigger. If they start making it a practice of banning folks for no more than that, it's gonna look like a ghost town around here.

 

[j706]

But it's okay to call me ugly and a drug user. I wonder if he ever drinks alcohol?

Don't know about any of that. Hopefully it was just someone having a bad day. I think most folks on here but heads at times with other members. The next day they are back to normal. That is what makes it such a nice place to spend so much time.

 

[Birds Away]

Don't know about any of that. Hopefully it was just someone having a bad day. I think most folks on here but heads at times with other members. The next day they are back to normal. That is what makes it such a nice place to spend so much time.

Except, of course, for those who are banned.

 

[lucky4034]

@88GT I think you are making a very good argument!

Which begs the question: if exposing children to risk enhancers is enough to control parental decision-making, then feeding my children molasses cookies this evening is sufficient grounds for the state to mandate meal plans for children? The cookie will not cause immediate, obvious, and irreparable harm. But it may increase their risk of diabetes, obesity, or other health issues. But why stop there? Wouldn't children being raised in super dirty cities be at risk? Should the parents be forced to relocate or have their children removed from their custody? What if I let my children ride a bike without a helmet? Or jump together on the trampoline? Or ride with me on the mower?

I get your point and questions like these are the "slippery slope" that I mentioned in earlier posts. The issue I have with all of your examples, in comparison to 2nd hand smoke, is positive utility.

(note to self... find a synonym for utility so you don't sound like a broken record)

There are clear benefits to each and every example you provided... even if the benefits aren't perfect or the situation ideal.

House in a dirty city = necessary shelter
Cookie = nutrition/satisfaction to the child
Bike without a helmet/trampoline = exercise/satisfaction to the child
Ride on lawnmower = learning experience/bonding experience/satisfaction to the child

2nd hand smoke exposure = ??????

There simply isn't any benefit of exposing children to "extreme levels" of 2nd hand smoke. Again... I don't know what the solution is, but I'm not convinced that the topic shouldn't be explored.

Hell... even the use of extreme force in the disciplining process has more positive utility than 2nd hand smoke.

 

[Rookie]

Oh...

One. Last. Thing.

Personal insults are not tolerated on INGO. I'll enjoy my new "Hypocrite" status...you enjoy the "Shooter" status you have so clearly earned.

-Paul

This has to be one of the pettiest reasons to ban someone. Reporting your post will do nothing, as you well know.

I'll just be one of the filthy drug users. Thanks.

 

[dross]

This forum has been improved by what I perceived as a policy shift a couple of years ago, when the mods began letting the arguments get a little more heated and the members policed the out of bounds behavior until it get too out of bounds. I hope this doesn't signal a shift back the other way.

 

[danielocean03]

Everyone, this thread is currently under review by the staff.