The barbecue. Clean, environmentally friendly natural gas. Note the "natural." It's natural, must be good.
Curb on car-smoking
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
I have to get in on this again. Love it. The mere fact that the law will be met with indifference is beside the point. Being so callously unconcerned that one knowingly damages one's children is already against the law. Society has to send a message, and I'll say it again, to willingly force poison into children's lungs is nothing short of child abuse.
The whole, "if they do this argument, and then what" debate is tired to say the least. We should ban cars then cows then, blabla. Certainly pros must outweigh cons. I am dismayed at the number who have posted that are ready to accept six year olds unwillingly imbibing carbon monoxide to serve some blasé argument based solely on hyperbole and nonsensical speculation.
I'm a smoker. I hate it. I'm trying to quit. And when I smoke, I do it as far away from others as possible.
When the debate raged on concerning smoking in public places, the doomsdayers uttered the same apocalyptic caveats. Our rights! They won't stop there!
And what happenned? The sky hasn't fallen. Non smokers are now breathing easier, and smokers have reason to smoke less. And now the government is being it's old draconian self again. Protecting helpless children from derelict parents.
The whole, "if they do this argument, and then what" debate is tired to say the least. We should ban cars then cows then, blabla. Certainly pros must outweigh cons. I am dismayed at the number who have posted that are ready to accept six year olds unwillingly imbibing carbon monoxide to serve some blasé argument based solely on hyperbole and nonsensical speculation.
I'm a smoker. I hate it. I'm trying to quit. And when I smoke, I do it as far away from others as possible.
When the debate raged on concerning smoking in public places, the doomsdayers uttered the same apocalyptic caveats. Our rights! They won't stop there!
And what happenned? The sky hasn't fallen. Non smokers are now breathing easier, and smokers have reason to smoke less. And now the government is being it's old draconian self again. Protecting helpless children from derelict parents.
I'm not stubborn or unreasonable in the face of a good argument.
I have every reason to be suspicious of government. Government has the obligation to explain themselves to the people and healthy suspicion keeps them in line. It seems to me people should be more suspicious considering all the scandals in recent years.
Fine, but we could rely a lot more on social norms then unenforceable laws. If parents smoke around their children they are harming their children and it is a child welfare issue not a legal one IMO.
You didn't hurt me. The medium of a message board is difficult enough to communicate through without the added problem of people twisting and infusing peoples words with obviously unintended meaning to switch the subject. In other words I don't like being made out to be some kind of villain bent on harming children.
I disagree. As I said before this is a child safety issue and there are better ways of handling the problem.
Make smoking an issue in custody cases and assessing the fitness of a parent. Locking parents up or leveling fines at them only harms the child.
Anyone who is a responsible gun owner will have the gun locked up and stored properly. They pose no risk to children or teens whatsoever.
The people your talking about never had the guns stored properly in the first place - they ignored the law; exactly like some smokers and gang bangers will ignore the smoking law and gun laws.
We don't have a gun problem in Canada, we have a gang problem.
We don't need anti-smoking laws, we need better education.
The government is not doing it's job! Every day they pass more and more laws restricting freedom in this country. That is not governments job! Government has a duty to protect our boarders and offer security at home. They are also expected to maintain the infrastructure. Anything else is seriously overstepping their boundaries. Government isn't a parent and we're not children. We are free human beings and some of us would like to remain free.
It was a pleasure arguing with you! Anytime again, dear!
I don't think this was an argument but an emotional plea. I would very much like to hear an argument without the emotional underpinnings. Life is risky but giving up freedom isn't a risk, it's insane, and we all know very well what happens when people start rationalizing their freedom away.
See! Here we go again! Another emotional twisting of my words. Did you even read what I said?
What do you mean here we go again? This is about not allowing parents to intentionally expose kids unnecessarily to cigarette smoke, practically first hand when it's confined in a vehicle, not some imaginative right. Unless it's a constitutionally protected right there is no reason to allow it. The only argument is about the protection of rights and freedoms, which in this case don't exist. If it does I wouldn't mind reading it.
It's perfectly OK for the nanny states(s) to tell Palestinians they will live under Israeli authority....but gosh gee...telling people they can't drive their kids around in a smoke filled car.... The line has to be drawn somewhere...
Just so long as it's not drawn where it affects the lives of .....
Just so long as it's not drawn where it affects the lives of .....
Quoting Kreskin:
"Fine, but we could rely a lot more on social norms then unenforceable laws. If parents smoke around their children they are harming their children and it is a child welfare issue not a legal one IMO"
You're right.
Every person of authority, be it child welfare agent, teacher, bus driver or police officer has a legal duty to act on cases of child abuse.
Again, This is simply recognizing that blowing smoke into your children's lungs is plan and simple just that.
It's not a new law. In spirit, it's just an extension of an old one. In fact, I think it's watered down. This isn't even child neglect. If a parent punished a child by locking them in a car in the garage with a small hose stemming from the tail pipe into in the window for just enough to make them feel ill (over and over again), what would we do? We'd be outraged.
It's too bad the public is so weak kneed that it wouldn't support charging these parents with what they're really duilty of, instead of a minor fine.
"Fine, but we could rely a lot more on social norms then unenforceable laws. If parents smoke around their children they are harming their children and it is a child welfare issue not a legal one IMO"
You're right.
Every person of authority, be it child welfare agent, teacher, bus driver or police officer has a legal duty to act on cases of child abuse.
Again, This is simply recognizing that blowing smoke into your children's lungs is plan and simple just that.
It's not a new law. In spirit, it's just an extension of an old one. In fact, I think it's watered down. This isn't even child neglect. If a parent punished a child by locking them in a car in the garage with a small hose stemming from the tail pipe into in the window for just enough to make them feel ill (over and over again), what would we do? We'd be outraged.
It's too bad the public is so weak kneed that it wouldn't support charging these parents with what they're really duilty of, instead of a minor fine.
Yep.
in the Globe and Mail today there was an editorial...........
Nothing to do with smoking.
The anti-obesity folks are starting.
They DEMAND a ban on the advertising of sugary breakfast cereals.
Sound familiar?
The Tyranny of the Majority gone MAD.
Thanks, all you healthy, no-risk folks, I just LOVE having the gov't so far up my arse they're choking me...............(sarcasm alert)
in the Globe and Mail today there was an editorial...........
Nothing to do with smoking.
The anti-obesity folks are starting.
They DEMAND a ban on the advertising of sugary breakfast cereals.
Sound familiar?
The Tyranny of the Majority gone MAD.
Thanks, all you healthy, no-risk folks, I just LOVE having the gov't so far up my arse they're choking me...............(sarcasm alert)
No risk people? Smoking is stupid more than it is risky and if someone wants to choke their kid in the car with the filth and can't see the harm then I support this law for the dumb.
At least breakfast cereal is food and has a purpose but could someone explain to me the benefits of 5000 chemicals being sucked through a cylinder of death.
In defense however of the anti-obesity crowd we have become quite the pushers of sugar on our kids through advertising with no regard for the effects. With some kids sugar is the same as speed and in many cases poor nutrition causes ADD something that is a growing problem in our schools as well as type 2 diabetes and even type 1.
I know the selfish me me me libertarian types don't like it but occasionally we as whole must save us from ourselves, our weaknesses and our stupidity.
Yes, God forbid we be FREE......the unwashed masses must be instructed, lectured, and if necessary beaten into behaving in the proper manner......
I abandoned the left 30 years plus ago because I finally recognized them as the greatest threat to freedom in the country......
There is no such thing as "collective rights", only individual rights......that is the crux of the argument......so-called "collective rights" are ALWAYS merely a tool to dismantle individual rights...........
This isn't about the smoker, it's about the kid. To harm a kid in the name of freedom in order to appease mom or dad's nic fit is just crazy.
So we should be free to hot box a car with nicotine while our children are in it? Sounds like you want it forced upon someone who has no choice, pot meet kettle.
Look at law the way you see it as intrusive and a slippery slope to complete control a term often used by conspiracy nuts like darbeaver but I see laws as the betterment of something I like to praise......society, something the selfish no nothing about or care about. The type of person that watches their neighbor go bankrupt from an illness and smugly opines that it's not my problem. Libertarians are largely anarchists who love the word mine and me.
Of course you're not 'free'. You live in a society which guarantees others' rights to security of their persons. You aren't allowed to violate that in the name of your own personal wishes.
Hey Colpy obesity in children is a big problem. I personally would ban most of the dry cereals, not just the advertising. Have a look at the ingredients list on any of those stupid cereals. The first thing and the most abundant thing in those cereals is sugar. The little bit of nutrition is not worth having all that sugar and most of that nutrition comes from the milk you put on it.
A simple "no I didn't" would have sufficed.
I said we didn't need another damn law. That there are far better ways of dealing with this issue. I never once advocated exposing children to cigarette smoke!
Let's take this hysterical fit to another level: car exhaust is seven times worse than cigarette smoke so maybe parents should have to get their muffler examined every month? Maybe children shouldn't be allowed to walk down streets where cars might be, that is, after all, much worse than cigarette smoke? Maybe kids shouldn't be allowed within 50 meters of any vehicle or road with running cars on it?
Wood smoke is five times worse than cigarette smoke! Maybe there should be a law prohibiting wood stoves and fireplaces in homes where kids live? Maybe if it is allowed they should be monitored or inspected frequently? Maybe burning anything should be banned? I know! We should ban campfires! No more roasting marshmallows and hot dogs! We need a law!!
Let's get even more hysterical shall we? A recent study showed that towns and cities with country music stations have a higher suicide rate. Let me be the first to say children shouldn't be allowed to listen to country music! WE NEED A LAW!!!! Country music should be banned because that would save lives! It isn't even safe for adults!!
What kind of a heartless insensitive freak would let their children listen to country music! We have to save the children! Ban country music!
seems a little hysterical huh? Well so is a ban on smoking in cars. There are better ways to deal with these issues than emotional tyranny.
And no my examples are not silly. They are very real threats to children's lives.
Last edited:
Avro wrote:
The second half of your statement is grossly exaggerated! People like Scott and Colpy are good to have around as watchdogs (no insult intended, just humor;-)) to wake the rest of us up and make us aware what government is trying to impose on us, often only to give in to the intense lobbying of BIG business, because money is hard to resist. There they are invaluable!!
This smoking law is actually hurting big tobacco industry by telling them your products are so toxic, we have to make laws to protect our children!!!!!!
In this particular case I can not see a sneaky way by the government to cut a piece of our freedom away.... they rather give a bit more freedom (from poison) to our children. Scott, I feel, will grudgingly swallow this little chunk of freedom restriction, because it is truly and honestly meant to benefit his children and grandchildren!
As with so many issues, one has to find the golden middle way. With this tobacco law I agree - with the blanket vaccination law I do NOT!
Avro, sorry I have to take issue with your statements I highlighted. Not all laws are for our betterment!!! THAT has been shown as false throughout history. Governments can be quite selfish and egotistic in pursuing their agendas, and are NOT for the betterment of their people!!
The second half of your statement is grossly exaggerated! People like Scott and Colpy are good to have around as watchdogs (no insult intended, just humor;-)) to wake the rest of us up and make us aware what government is trying to impose on us, often only to give in to the intense lobbying of BIG business, because money is hard to resist. There they are invaluable!!
This smoking law is actually hurting big tobacco industry by telling them your products are so toxic, we have to make laws to protect our children!!!!!!
In this particular case I can not see a sneaky way by the government to cut a piece of our freedom away.... they rather give a bit more freedom (from poison) to our children. Scott, I feel, will grudgingly swallow this little chunk of freedom restriction, because it is truly and honestly meant to benefit his children and grandchildren!
As with so many issues, one has to find the golden middle way. With this tobacco law I agree - with the blanket vaccination law I do NOT!
Oh, I see, so you think killing children is OK if it's done with an apple not an orange?