I agree, so we also need laws banning cars, campfires, little league hockey and baseball, industry, country music, wood stoves etc...
If you really want to save children's lives then these should be banned too, right? :roll:
Curb on car-smoking
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
I agree, so we also need laws banning cars, campfires, little league hockey and baseball, industry, country music, wood stoves etc...
If you really want to save children's lives then these should be banned too, right? :roll:
Another hysterically irrelevant statement. Unfortunately having a highway system and a home heating system are facts of life. The dangers they present are managed by existing laws where everything possible is done to reduce the risk without throwing society into complete chaos. Stopping some dumb **** from smoking inside a car with his kids inside isn't exactly an Earth changing event, nor is it provoking the country music police or any other non-issue the defenders want to dream up.
I think you'll find that wood smoke, while probably not good for you, is likely less harmful than tobacco smoke. We have suffered forest fires for eons and we must be at least a bit hardened to it.
Here is a comparison of diesel car exhaust and cigarette smoke.
http://tinyurl.com/323qyk
Don't be silly, Scott!!:roll:
There is quite the difference between confining a child in a closed container of about 2m long x 1.5m wide x 1.5m high pumped full with second-hand smoke which is more toxic than diesel exhaust, than a wood stove in a much larger space that vents outside!
Wanna fight, Scott???:lol: I'm leaving now to find something to eat.... some sugar-coated-drenched stuff!!!;-);-)
That's quite an hypothesis, do you have any evidence that we have evolved a defense to wood smoke because our ancestors occasionally breathed in smoke from a forest fire?
This is a silly report and just more hysterical propaganda because it doesn't say what the particulates consisted of. Sure diesel might produce fewer particulates but if you sat in a closed room with an idling diesel engine for half an hour you would definitely get brain damage and it might even kill you. The same thing can't be said if you sat in the same room while someone smoked 3 cigarettes.
The report said nothing about toxicity only particulates, so your making an assumption, nor was the issue diesel vehicles. The vast number of vehicles on the road burn gasoline anyway which was what I originally stated as dangerous to children.
My original point was that stoves that didn't properly exhaust their fumes, also camp fires and other sources of smoke should, using your logic, be outright banned or regularly inspected (in the case of wood stoves).
Why? I've proved my case, or is that why you want to fight?
I was trying to have a debate but it's pretty difficult when people misconstrue my words.
Maybe you should try a rational argument before picking fights? Just a thought.
It has been my experience that people who are victims of unauthentic experience (Erich Fromm) resort to emotional and violent retorts because when faced with a logical argument (or any argument) they have no bases for their thinking. They just know they're right (emotional response) but don't know why they are right (they didn't arrive at their understanding themselves). They feel like they have come to their conclusions logically but when they can't articulate a reason for their view (because they don't have one, since they never actually arrived at the though, it was placed there). This is a classic TV victim response.
I recommend reading May Man Prevail by Erich Fromm.
I say "victim of unauthentic experience" because when people are bombarded with propaganda (like on TV) they have no idea what is being done to them. They have no idea that thoughts are being placed in their heads by teams of professionals (the professionals know it though). There is absolutely no defense against it. Everyone that watches TV is a victim because it is being done deliberately but people think they are making up their own minds (the professionals count on this or their message wouldn't work), but they most definitely are not making up their minds! This is why I don't watch TV. It is a vile poison and can (does) ruin peoples lives though they don't know it and will deny it vehemently.
BTW, I am not trying to fight or pick on anyone.
Last edited:
Let me put it this way to you two:
If someone took their child camping and built a campfire in their tent without proper ventilation the proper authorities would intervene for the child's safety. The same is true if someone left their child in a small room with a diesel truck running. There is no need for a law.
If Child Services announced to the public that smoking in a vehicle with a child present was now considered child abuse they could intervene to save the child (they do anyway).
So do we need a law saying you can't build a campfire in your tent or that you shouldn't leave children in a room with an engine running? No, because it is common sense since people have been educated about the dangers. That is how it should be in a free society. We don't need unenforceable laws. Social norms work much better.
Such laws serve a different purpose (just research Hitlers war on cancer) but education would stop the problem (except for the most deluded of people).
I never once said people should smoke in cars with children present.
Thanks for playing.
If someone took their child camping and built a campfire in their tent without proper ventilation the proper authorities would intervene for the child's safety. The same is true if someone left their child in a small room with a diesel truck running. There is no need for a law.
If Child Services announced to the public that smoking in a vehicle with a child present was now considered child abuse they could intervene to save the child (they do anyway).
So do we need a law saying you can't build a campfire in your tent or that you shouldn't leave children in a room with an engine running? No, because it is common sense since people have been educated about the dangers. That is how it should be in a free society. We don't need unenforceable laws. Social norms work much better.
Such laws serve a different purpose (just research Hitlers war on cancer) but education would stop the problem (except for the most deluded of people).
I never once said people should smoke in cars with children present.
Thanks for playing.
Last edited:
Common sense, if it was universal, would be great but it isn't. You would think common sense would dictate that it is not wise to drive on a busy thoroughfare while holding a cell phone to your ear but people still do it. Just yesterday I watched a driver make a right hand turn into the wrong lane while yakking on a cell phone, and narrowly missed taking out another car and a pedestrian.
Since this topic was posted, I have noticed that quite a few people smoke in their car with their children in it, so common sense is not doing it. A two hundred dollar fine is about what you would get for speeding in a school zone. Better than leaving it up to common sense, because we know that doesn't work.
While I certainly agree that smoking with children in the car with closed windows is VERY wrong and even at home while smoking in the house with non-smoking guests is very rude, I don't see a really big issue if say my nephew in sitting in the back seat and I'm smoking out the window in the drivers seat at 140km/h (120 if I'm in Canada) with all of the smoke being sucked out.
What I really believe is much more important is actually forcing the provinces to force drivers to actually learn how to drive properly before a license is issued!! Canadian streets are dangerous as hell and highways make me nervous when you have 17 year olds weaving at 150kmh or parents with an SUV with 2 kids in the back yaking away on their mobile at 120kmh.
Smoking anywhere with any non-smoker present in a confined area is uncalled for, but creating laws to enforce it is going way too far.
What I really believe is much more important is actually forcing the provinces to force drivers to actually learn how to drive properly before a license is issued!! Canadian streets are dangerous as hell and highways make me nervous when you have 17 year olds weaving at 150kmh or parents with an SUV with 2 kids in the back yaking away on their mobile at 120kmh.
Smoking anywhere with any non-smoker present in a confined area is uncalled for, but creating laws to enforce it is going way too far.
I personally feel that cell phones are a menace. Often you see someone driving erratically and discover that he/she is talking on the cell phone. I am an ex-smoker and I am probably a little hyper-sensitive to smoking in the car. I think all provinces are going to have the smoking law so we are going to have to learn to live with it. I would prefer a law regulating cell phones in cars.
Oh Hell.... In the past two weeks, I have got into heated debates with TWO of those super great drivers. Both are convinced they have the right-of-way over anything on the highway simply because they're so damned great. Maybe before a learners' permit is even considered, it might be a thought to do some psychological assessment of candidate drivers - because it's to that person laws don't apply - whether it be speeding, tailgaiting, cell phone use, smoking with kids in the car or even gravity....
Woof!
You know what guys, you're probably right. Increasingly smoking with children in confined spaces is being defined as endangerment and abuse, thus we really don't need a 'new law' for it. We have tons of old ones to break out on morons who hot box kids in vehicles.
Same with talking on cell phones... why a new law? Why not use the existing one of 'driving with undue care and attention'? Simple. Enforce the laws you have instead of writing new ones.
Same with talking on cell phones... why a new law? Why not use the existing one of 'driving with undue care and attention'? Simple. Enforce the laws you have instead of writing new ones.
Making new laws makes the politician/lawyers look like they're actually doing something....
Woof!
Agreed. I am sick of people thinking the government is doing it for the good of the people; it is all just another form of control. If the government were really concerned for the people, i.e. women and children, then why are we the only country in the world where the foods we eat have the highest level of transfats? How many cancers have we seen since transfats were introduced into our foods? Leukemia, anyone? Personally, I don't know anyone who has gotten cancer from second hand smoke. Damn, some people will believe anything the government throws at them.