Car smoking ban carrying children
- Thread starter theconqueror
- Start date
Smoking isn't an ideology, expressing free speech and trying to prevent the erosion of everyone's rights, is a healthy one.
They sure do. So ban tobacco and stop abusing the Highway Traffic Act, to serve a cause. Then you can stop infringing on people's Charter rights.
And more importantly, the state should stay out of our homes and our rights to raise our kids as we see fit.
You're point?
Only one, one that infringes on the rights and freedoms of the people, one that to be enforced, must abuse a clause in the Highway Traffic Act, one that has far reaching implications.
What? I like a clean pumpkin, that way I don't catch on fire when sparks land on it, lol.
Within reason.
Of course not. Anymore extremes you'd like to try?
Cool, then you fully support me in saying that any house hold that endorses the tenets of Shariah law should have their children removed?
Have a good one bru.
Oh ya!!!
So you think the state should have nothing to do with parents teaching their kids to hate ''niggers'', ''faggots'' and those ''criss d'indiens''?
I think your concern for individual rights is a healthy one. But in the case of smoking in cars, it seems clear to me that the child's right to breathe healthy air simply supersedes one's right to smoke.
There are more non smokers than smokers, so I don't think you can get much opposition to this.
And to adress your point on religion. I think teaching kids hateful religions is much more toxic than any smoke they could breathe and should not be tolerated at all by the state.
Nope, it's called free speech.
And I don't disagree. What I disagree with, is the way in which the Highway Traffic Act is being abused and manipulated to enforce a moral issue. Not a matter of vehicular law.
So then why do you support inequality?
Fair enough. But the right to free speech has its limits, especially when it comes to children.
What inequality do I support?
Agreed. It's when that speech goes from just talk to things like shariah law, that we have a problem. That little compilation of laws is pretty fricken scary. And quite frankly, dangerous. It outright promotes violence. And yes, it is being taught to kids. So why is it, those children are still in those homes?
You'll have to excuse me s_lone, I've been up against some pretty formidable opposition today, I got carried away. I retract that question, and offer an apology.
Seems to me the debate sorta has gone beyond the original topic.
To back track a bit, I understand educating and using common sense towards not smoking in the car while minors are present, especially with windows up..... but creating and attempting to enforce a law against smoking in a car with minors, acting like we're all total morons who need our morals dictated to us through legal punishment, is just a little over the top.
And the reason why I hold the position I do is because of the argument:
"Even with all four windows down, second-hand smoke in a car is higher than in a smoky bar,"
^ I want to know exactly how they came to such a conclusion, considering to have a "Smokey Bar" you'd need a lot more then one smoker, and those people smoking for a good period of time..... yet one person smoking in a car with all the windows down and I am assuming is also moving, is worse?
I'd like to know what kind of Global-Warming Science Mentality was used to come to that conclusion.
To back track a bit, I understand educating and using common sense towards not smoking in the car while minors are present, especially with windows up..... but creating and attempting to enforce a law against smoking in a car with minors, acting like we're all total morons who need our morals dictated to us through legal punishment, is just a little over the top.
And the reason why I hold the position I do is because of the argument:
"Even with all four windows down, second-hand smoke in a car is higher than in a smoky bar,"
^ I want to know exactly how they came to such a conclusion, considering to have a "Smokey Bar" you'd need a lot more then one smoker, and those people smoking for a good period of time..... yet one person smoking in a car with all the windows down and I am assuming is also moving, is worse?
I'd like to know what kind of Global-Warming Science Mentality was used to come to that conclusion.
No problemo!
As a non-smoker, I would have tended to blindly accept this law, but you raise some important issues about individual rights. So fire away!
I haven't read the study but I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that the car is such a small space compared to a bar, with the windows closed of course.
Well yes... I'd agree if the windows were closed, it'd be a higher concentration.... but "Even with all four windows down" a car still equates to being worse then the bar?? :-?
If that's true, why didn't the government ban smoking in cars before they banned smoking in bars?
I've been in cars with three or four people smoking, myself included, and even with the windows just opened a crack, a great deal of the smoke is sucked out the window almost immediately..... with the windows all the way down, even the most rancid fart dissipates in 5 seconds, even if a skid mark was left behind.
I'm just curious if they meant a stationary vehicle with windows down, a moving vehicle with windows down, or either/or.
I'd also like to know how they came to such a conclusion. (How did they study this)
It reminds me of the similar claims against Marijuana, where they claimed smoking a joint has even more tar taken into your body then a cigarette. That depends on if you mix your marijuana with tobacco like most do, if you use a filter, what kind of filter, etc.... since a cigarette's filter is designed to reduce much of the intake, meanwhile a handmade joint tends to only have a rolled up piece of thin cardboard used, which doesn't filter anything except preventing chunks of weed/tobacco being inhaled. If they tested a pipe of pure marijuan against a pipe of pure tobacco, based on the same amounts, then you'd have an accurate answer that'd be hard to refute.
But these type of studies and vague comparisons without anything backing them up seem to not only get the most attention, they also seem to be believed more.
Why? Because people just need any excuse to be afraid or to hate something regardless if it is true?
It's because of things like this that make me oppose laws like the above, because the arguments used are based on vague or exaggerated information we're all expected to simply suck up as fact.
I'm a person who likes to ask questions and understand why something is being done.... if it can't be properly explained or justified, then I see no reason to support it, even if it's "Just to be safe."
Added:
Otherwise, if it's not me challenging it, it'll be someone else who knows even more about the subject, whom may find a major flaw, fight it, and reverse all the work that was done, thus wasting everybody's time and tax money on laws politicians didn't bother to think through first and just tossed out on everybody to shut up one vocal crowd who didn't seem to know any better either.
Do it right the first time, cross your t's, dot your i's, make sure you have a legit and solid argument.... otherwise, don't bother.
Last edited:
Yeah, right, that's the plan. Do drugs on your own and responsibly. Pot is a dangerous substance and should be regulated like TNT and dangerous chemicals.
As far as I know smoking is banned in all public places including restaurants and Tims in Toronto at least and I am sure in a lot of jurisdictions.
For sure (as it should be)...............There's even idiots now who want to ban it on outdoor patios - guess that's one sure way of identifying a control freak.
That's what I'm thinking ... but I've also experienced battle with Ontario. They resort to the ridiculous and will spare no expense to win.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2009/10/08/windsor-trucker-smoking-laws-091008.html
What passenger? Many fleets have that little yellow or red sign - lower right windshield - NO RIDERS
Last edited: