Curb on car-smoking
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
Hi, Scott;
you are still alive and breathing... that's what matters. Your brain isn't fogged either, so you are doing good.
Doctors and experts are often disinterested, in a hurry or absent minded. In your grandfather's case it clearly was a misdiagnoses, but since he was already dead, no harm done.
Good doctors are few and far between... unfortunately.
Hysteria? Yes and no. It is the smokers who feel the heat, of course they make noise and complain about all sorts of freedom infractions!
:smile:Bite the bullet, Scott, and be quiet!;-)
Oh wow. I am a smoker and I absolutely approve of this motion, it is not just immoral to smoke in the car with children it is disrespectful to smoke when you have non smokers aboard. I remember when I was a child before I started smoking how sickening the stink was. Do not ask me about why I started smoking.
I agree.
I read in an article (wish I could credit it) that the American EPA had access to 18 reports on second-hand smoke...........and the statistics you read on the matter are all based on the one that found SHS to be the MOST dangerous.......
People do get lung cancer and heart disease without ever smoking, and without ever spending a lot of time inside with smokers.
These folks NEED to get out of our face.......soon I will be banned from spanking, feeding my kids sugar or meat, buying them bicycles, owning guns because there are kids in the house, and on and on and on.
I just heard on the National that an Ontario judge has ruled that "safety trumps religious freedom" in the case of the Sikh that refused to wear a helmet.........I'm on HIS side...........of course his religion should not entitle him to break the law....NONE of us should have to wear helmets.....
Those who would sacrifice their liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety says Benjamin Franklin
And he is RIGHT!
The nanny state is seriously getting carried away with itself....leave it to a bunch of damned Liberals to try and homogenize everyone into Politically Correct Complient Polite Risk-free little sweeties so brain dead, incapable of independent thought that they actually vote Liberal!
Rant of the month.
Last edited:
Perhaps if people that didn't wear seat belts had to pay their own bills for their crashes and medical, they'd smarten up. Same with people that smoke. Then I would be perfectly willing to have gov't keep its nose in its own business.
I thought about that.
I thought about that.
Hello, Colpy;
just stop and think for a moment!!
The government represents the people - the people collectively pay for your heart attack treatment and perhaps disability - the people pay for the secondhand smokeinhalation victims a few years down the road = they pay for the health care of the damaged children!
Tell me now, WHY shouldn't the people = government protect itself from your stupidity????? Our money could be used for better things!
That is a fact smokers don't consider!
Seat belts!! Twice my seatbelt saved me from serious injury, possibly death!! I saved the people lots of money, because I wore a seatbelt.
Think, Colpy!!;-)
I was in an armoured car that left the road at 110 KPH and plunged into a ravine.....we were airborne for about 60 feet, we landed on the roof, we goughed a long trench out of solid rock, and crumpled quite impressively one corner of the ARMOUR....in any other vehicle, the three man crew would all have died. We were all back at work the next day, because we were all belted in.
BUT, the liberty to make decisions for yourself is quicky eroding.........and as we, as a society, make that psychological leap to the place where it is acceptable for the polity to make personal decisions for us, we become increasingly docile and unable or unwilling to challenge the tyranny of the majority.
As for me, if medicare is to be used as a club to beat us into line.....then let's get rid of it.
I BELIEVE in socialized medicine, I'm just not willing to sacrifice my liberty on that, or any other altar.
THINK!
I was in an armoured car that left the road at 110 KPH and plunged into a ravine.....we were airborne for about 60 feet, we landed on the roof, we goughed a long trench out of solid rock, and crumpled quite impressively one corner of the ARMOUR....in any other vehicle, the three man crew would all have died. We were all back at work the next day, because we were all belted in.
BUT, the liberty to make decisions for yourself is quicky eroding.........and as we, as a society, make that psychological leap to the place where it is acceptable for the polity to make personal decisions for us, we become increasingly docile and unable or unwilling to challenge the tyranny of the majority.
As for me, if medicare is to be used as a club to beat us into line.....then let's get rid of it.
I BELIEVE in socialized medicine, I'm just not willing to sacrifice my liberty on that, or any other altar.
THINK!
Fine, you do what you want......But if what you do costs others money you can't blame them for complaining. It is reasonable to want the best medicare we can afford and if people are doing unreasonable things that add costs to the system we have a right to do something about it. We know that smoking causes lung cancer, and we know it is responsible to a large extent for heart disease. This law will be hard to enforce but isn't it reasonable to ask people to not put their kids at risk.
BTW, what the hell was an armoured truck doing traveling at 110 kph....:smile:
I personally think the government already has too much interference in our personal lives and needs to get out. This is getting way way out of hand and I don't want my native land turned into a communist country.
If the government has the final say on this since we have universal heath coverage, well then I say to get rid of our socialized medicare. I surely prefer my freedom versus having my hands cuffed by communist based laws. Not to mention having my taxes go down drastically by not having to support universal medicare. BTW, the feds should step in here, use their power and put a stop to this nonsense.
If the government has the final say on this since we have universal heath coverage, well then I say to get rid of our socialized medicare. I surely prefer my freedom versus having my hands cuffed by communist based laws. Not to mention having my taxes go down drastically by not having to support universal medicare. BTW, the feds should step in here, use their power and put a stop to this nonsense.
I suffered the misfortune of two smoking parents. I remember the nausea I felt as I inhaled their smoke. No child should have to go through that alone, without even mentioning the fact that their lungs are not even fully formed.
I excuse my parents because that was a different time. Nothing was brought to light about the harmful effectas of tobbacco.
But now? Window open or closed, it's still a moving smokehouse. It's a sad, sad day when the government actually has to tell parents not to light up in a car with their children. There is no longer any excuse for "I didn't know". . No loving parent, given a moment to consider the potential effects on their little ones, would consider lighting up around them.
Smkoking with kids in a car borders on abuse.
I excuse my parents because that was a different time. Nothing was brought to light about the harmful effectas of tobbacco.
But now? Window open or closed, it's still a moving smokehouse. It's a sad, sad day when the government actually has to tell parents not to light up in a car with their children. There is no longer any excuse for "I didn't know". . No loving parent, given a moment to consider the potential effects on their little ones, would consider lighting up around them.
Smkoking with kids in a car borders on abuse.
That isn't the point.
I agree smoking around children isn't a good idea and educating parents about the hazard is a good idea. Creating unenforceable laws banning smoking in cars while a child is present is a waste of time. If a parent don't care their smoke is harming their child they sure aren't going to car about a law banning it.
When I was a kid everyone smoked around children but people didn't know the dangers. Now they do and I never see it. There is no need for another damn law. So what is the point in making a law? It seems Hitler knew the answer to that - control.
No, the government only wants to ensure it's aphid population stays alive and working as long as possible so they have a solid tax base. That is no bases for taking peoples rights away which this policy is purely aimed to do. By justifying small incremental steps a population (like the proverbial frog in a pot) can be duped into slowly giving up their freedom (like the frog slowly being boiled to death).
It is simply not the role of nanny government to tell us how to live; nor does a democracy mean tyranny of the majority.
I agree smoking around children isn't a good idea and educating parents about the hazard is a good idea. Creating unenforceable laws banning smoking in cars while a child is present is a waste of time. If a parent don't care their smoke is harming their child they sure aren't going to car about a law banning it.
When I was a kid everyone smoked around children but people didn't know the dangers. Now they do and I never see it. There is no need for another damn law. So what is the point in making a law? It seems Hitler knew the answer to that - control.
No, the government only wants to ensure it's aphid population stays alive and working as long as possible so they have a solid tax base. That is no bases for taking peoples rights away which this policy is purely aimed to do. By justifying small incremental steps a population (like the proverbial frog in a pot) can be duped into slowly giving up their freedom (like the frog slowly being boiled to death).
It is simply not the role of nanny government to tell us how to live; nor does a democracy mean tyranny of the majority.
With what are you gong to pay for your next hernia, your liver failure, your splintered hip, your broken sternum, your heart attack????
Think!!!;-)
Scott, as a non-smoker I am damn glad there is a law that gives me a right to clean air while traveling or sitting in a restaurant or lying in a hospital room!! You as a smoker can't experience the disgusting stink of your cigarette or worse your cigar.
And get this... you don't own your child!! You can't do to him whatever you bloody well feel like doing!! Living in a community, and that is what we are doing, then there have to be rules and regulations to make life somewhat enjoyable including you! If you insist you want to run your own show because any restriction interferes with your "freedom", then I have to say, go elsewhere, I don't want you in my community... you little stinker!
I can envision you and Colpy and no color living in B.C.'s interior bushland!!;-);-):lol::lol:
I think you and everybody else should far more be concerned about our violation of free speech and expression of opinions!!!!! There your Hitler mention would make sense! BUT since that does not affect your addiction to nicotine and/or alcohol and other drugs it is less important perhaps.
I DO believe once a parent gets caught and fined the $200 they will smarten up, and in future get out of the car to take their puffs.
I don't mean to hurt your or anybody else's feelings, but sometimes someone has to talk turkey and rattle the marbles in your heads around a bit!
That is what you don't understand. They are the same issue. Canada is sliding into totalitarianism (control of speech, life style and thought) and free speech, limits on liberty, etc, are all part of the same problem.
Also I never suggested people owned their children! That was a low blow on your part and you know it.
What I said is that people that would smoke around their children won't care if there is a law or not! That is very different than condoning the action! There are all kinds of ways to deal with this problem rather than implementing new unenforceable laws or taking away a minorities rights.
I suppose you think banning handguns is a good idea too? Do you really think a law is going to keep a handgun out of the hands of gang bangers? Well it won't. Just like people who smoke around children these people don't care about laws. So why make a bunch of laws that will only restrict the liberties of good people? Cui bono? Certainly not the children of decent parents or people who follow the laws concerning handguns!
The only benefactor of these retarded laws are the government as they tighten the noose around our necks and turn us into a nation of sheep.
"No, the government only wants to ensure it's aphid population stays alive and working as long as possible so they have a solid tax base."
I struggle to see a co-ordinated movement here. I've never heard a member of parliament stand up and say, "We must pacify the resisters. We will implant them with organic microchips so that they will be our government slaves"
Sorry....sounds a bit too "conspiracy wingnuttish" (excuse the expression) to me.
The "government", as much as we'd like to see it as an orchestrated body, does not get together in dark hoods to discuss how to impregnant women in their sleep to increase the number of taxpayers. Nor does it try to "keep us alive" (through cryogenic means even) to bolster their coffers.
It's a parliamentary system. Laws are debated by people that we elect. It's really that black and white. And now, some level headed politicians have agreed that it's not only irresponsible for parents to smoke in kid filled cars, but further that children, as individual entities are solely at the mercy of their primary caregivers. And if their primary caregivers are a**holes who choose to damage their children's lungs, then it's all of our job, morally, to protect them.
Protecting innocent kids is tax money well spent. They should make the fine steep to reflect what is really happenning...wreckless negligence.
I struggle to see a co-ordinated movement here. I've never heard a member of parliament stand up and say, "We must pacify the resisters. We will implant them with organic microchips so that they will be our government slaves"
Sorry....sounds a bit too "conspiracy wingnuttish" (excuse the expression) to me.
The "government", as much as we'd like to see it as an orchestrated body, does not get together in dark hoods to discuss how to impregnant women in their sleep to increase the number of taxpayers. Nor does it try to "keep us alive" (through cryogenic means even) to bolster their coffers.
It's a parliamentary system. Laws are debated by people that we elect. It's really that black and white. And now, some level headed politicians have agreed that it's not only irresponsible for parents to smoke in kid filled cars, but further that children, as individual entities are solely at the mercy of their primary caregivers. And if their primary caregivers are a**holes who choose to damage their children's lungs, then it's all of our job, morally, to protect them.
Protecting innocent kids is tax money well spent. They should make the fine steep to reflect what is really happenning...wreckless negligence.
There's a big difference between common sense and law. It's for those who don't have one we get stuck with the other.
Woof!
Woof!
I'm inclined to vote with Colpy on this one. Sure, ban smoking in cars that have children in them. Then ban cars, because of all the toxic crap they emit. Then trucks and trains, especially diesels, lots of toxic particulates there. Airplanes next, they put soot into the stratosphere that increase cloud cover. No burning of coal, shut down all the coal burning power plants, too much soot and smoke and carbon dioxide, and more radiation in a year in the form of radioactive carbon 14 than a nuclear plant emits in its lifetime. Kill all the cows, they let out huge amounts of methane, which is a major greenhouse gas even in tiny amounts. Oh, and no eating beans and no farting, toxic sulfur compounds and methane there too.
You want zero risk, it's back to the Stone Age for all of us.
You want zero risk, it's back to the Stone Age for all of us.
Perhaps I don't understand. But, Scott, there is a distinct line between being reasonable or paranoid about government's rulings. I get the impression you are ...
a) a little stubborn and unreasonable, and
b) lean dangerously towards the paranoid state of mind.
I certainly love my freedom, but within certain social borders!
I apologize, Scott. I had no intention to hurt you, just to rattle you and others who might be reading here. Please, forgive me... I am sorry:-(
Here we differ! I believe parents will care, if it's going to hurt them!!! They will also be sensitive to the neighbors seeing what goes on, and fear they could be reported.
No law at all = even less concern!
Like what?
It's not a bad idea. It seems to me that there are to many accidental shootings, and too often kids/teenagers get their hands on these weapons.
No, I don't think so, but the opportunity is not as prevalent.
I dare to disagree!
It doesn't restrict good people at all!! You got that wrong, Scott. You care to explain?
The law is for the benefit of the children from negligent parents!!
:roll::roll: How old are you, Scott? With "smoking-in-the-car-with-children-law" the government is only doing its job ... protecting its youngest and most vulnerable citizens!!! You can't argue with that, if you got your facts straight and your priorities right.You, Papa Scott, take a backseat with your "I can do what I want" attitude!!!;-):lol:
It was a pleasure arguing with you! Anytime again, dear!