Should adults be fined for smoking cigarettes in cars w/ children present?

[kerouac]

I just saw a woman smoking a cigarette while driving a minivan (with the windows down) and there were 4 or 5 children in the back seats that looked to be between 3 and 5 years old.

I think this is deplorable and see subjecting infants and children to automobile-confined second hand smoke as endangering the welfare of a child -- and adults that do it should be fined. I'd even take it further by adding a 3-strikes rule that results in a 3-month suspended license for violaters.

I'm curious as to how y'all feel, so should adults be fined for smoking in cars with children along with a 3-strikes rule that results in a 3-month suspended license?

[BiggJawn]

1. When tobacco is outlawed, fine, do it. Until then....

F*** off.
I'd be more concerned with her obviouse inability to practice birth control.

Nobody NEEDS "4 or 5 children" these days. Especially Mother Earth.

[kerouac]

2. who says they're her kids?

I didn't say they were all her kids. She may have had pickup duty today or something. Either way, those kids had no control over the situation and were being subjected to scads of cigarette smoke.

If talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal in some states, then why not smoking with children in the car?

[Djinn]

166. NO

apart from the can of worms that would be opened by something like this: do we fine parents for feeding crap food to their kids, do we fine them for letting sit in front of the TV getting fat, do we fine them for using excessive amounts of fly spray???

the fact that she had the windows opened means the exposure was negligent, in fact if she'd been driving in a reasonably built up area the ingestion of Carbon Monoxide from OTHER cars was probably more dangerous then second hand smoke.

The moral outrage over smoking is getting a tad much - in 5-10 years when obesity overtakes smoking as the leading cause of heart disease and the leading drain on health resources will people walk past McDonalds and tut tut at the parent's ordering a large cheeseburger meal?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Two posts

The original and yours, and BOTH offend me.

No, parents should not be fined because you don't like what they do.

Nor should we critique them if they wish more children than we do.

[kerouac]

7. Adults, not just parents.

I said adults, not parents. Should bus drivers also be allowed to smoke as they drive kids around?

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. That is a job question

As such, OSHA can get involved, so probably not. Ordinary citizens are not covered by OSHA in their everyday lives.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

52. well gee should parents who take there children to the beach be fined

especially if they are fair-haired, fair-eyed children.....fucking parents like this are "unfit"and should be fined! these children will grow up and develope skin cancer or worse for parents day of ""fun-in-the-sun! ...take the kids away damn it!!!

[liberalhistorian]

20. So, if we see a kid being physically or

emotionally abused and we don't like it, we should just stay out of it, right? WRONG! And smoking around kids is, quite simply, a form of child abuse.

My son's father and his fiance have chosen to smoke rather than to see him, that's how important their fucking cigarettes are to them. I had had enough last summer of my son getting sick whenever he'd visit them because of their endless, constant smoking. And what really infuriated me was that he wasn't permitted to say anything about it to them, either, even if it was really causing him problems, which it was. I finally put my foot down and said they weren't seeing him unless they didn't smoke around him. They didn't like that, but tough shit, this is my son's health I'm talking about. They haven't seen him since, but that's their own choice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Oh come on

Smoking is NOT a form of child abuse. I don't like it. I don't smoke, but I limit my daily dose of hyperbole.

[liberalhistorian]

35. Oh, really?

Ask any pediatrician, and they will fully agree with me. My son has asthma, which is greatly aggravated by that shit, but do his father and fiance care? Hell, no! Children exposed to constant smoke have far more respiratory and immunity problems than children who aren't, that's a medical fact, and it is NOT hyperbole!

My son's pediatrician backs my position fully, and is prepared to do so in court for me should the occasion ever arise.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Your son is ill

He is NOT a typical child. You would attempt to make a blanket rule for all children because of the specific illness of one.

That is ludicrous.

[liberalhistorian]

51. And exposure to smoke

GREATLY INCREASES the chance of illness in a child, so to smoke around them is, I repeat, child abuse, whether you like it or not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. I don't like it, but it's legal behavior and not abuse

If you wish to change the law, go for it. Your crusade will be the latest lampooned in the media as the left gone wild.

They will be correct this time.

[liberalhistorian]

70. It's legal behaviour

for ADULTS, but NOT FOR CHILDREN! THAT'S the difference? Would you advocate parents pouring alcohol down their kids throats, because, after all, THAT'S legal, too, isn't it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. And adults are ALLOWED TO SMOKE

Sorry you are trying to take a pet peeve and make national legislation out of it. From such well meaning gestures are rights losts.

Perhaps, instead, you should simply worry about parenting your child and let the rest of us parent ours.

[liberalhistorian]

221. Yes, adults are allowed

to smoke, and to make the decision to smoke. But children are NOT allowed to smoke, with very good reason, and adults do not and should not have the right to expose them to secondhand smoke. Parents who give alcohol to their underage children are held legally accountable, so it should be with smoking. Adults have a choice, but the children they live with don't.

[Pithlet]

66. Should I be fined

For allowing my children around their smoking grandparents?

I hate that they smoke around my kids. And while I do not allow it in my house, and they do comply, they smoke everywhere else. I hate it. But, the relationship my kids have with their grandparents is very important to me. If they had the health issues that your son has, believe me, it would be different. I've made the choice not to make it an issue that separates them, since they don't get to see them often.

I understand what you're saying. But I do have a problem with the law stepping in and making choices that I feel should be left up to me. I do not condone smoking around kids, and don't think anyone should do it. I just fear what other choices might be taken out of my hands, albeit with good intentions.

[Shoedogg]

201. Support this, please...

I don't know if you are right or not but I'd like some evidence for this claim.

[Djinn]

170. No they wouldn't

there is actually very little data on second hand smoke and your paediatrician is only expressing his personal opinion - opinion within the medical community varies greatly. None will say "it's good for you" but the jury is still most definetly out on second hand smoke. If when with his father a window was opened the amount of chemicals ingested is likely to be less than the car fumes inhaled as he walks to school

[Shoedogg]

203. Perhaps

You should have mentioned that he was SICK in your first post.

[cheezus]

73. WHAT THE HELL?

I don't like parent's who beat their kids. I guess I should just mind my own business

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. THAT is abuse

And should be reported. Smoking is not abuse. It is simply the pet peeve of many, including the original poster.

[veganwitch]

132. im not sure why im even doing this

but second hand smoke has been shown to be just as determental as first hand smoke. children of smokers have higher rates of respitory problems and asthma.

smoking is a health hazard for all involved and people should do everything they can to quit when and if they ready to and keep from smoking around children and other people with compromised health.

[Muddleoftheroad]

137. Virtually everything is hazardous

All the acts parents do can be seen as potentially harmful to their kids.

* Driving too fast.
* Feeding them -- not enough, too much, too many bad things, too much salt, too much sugar.
* TV -- too much, too little, not enough quality.
* Sports -- too much, too little, too dangerous.

And the list goes on and one. Would you control every action of every parent?

[veganwitch]

141. i didnt say that. i did not say that i support fining parents

however, your use of the word "pet peeve" dimisses the fact that smoking and second hand smoke is very determental to peoples, especially children's health. and your exchange with liberalhistorian shows your disregard when parents attempt to protect the health of their children.

what i would personally do if i knew this woman would be to offer to car pool (provided i had a minivan) and then tell her that there was no smoking in my car.

[Muddleoftheroad]

144. Parents should protect their children

But it is up to THEM to do so, not up to the state.

As is the case with liberalhistorian and the son in question.

We are talking about a pet peeve here. Thousands of things endanger children. Parents can't possibly protect them from them all. Nor do we know the circumstances here. Perhaps the woman in question (who HAD the windows down) had a particularly stressful day and was trying desperately to cope. Who knows. That's why, short of actual real abuse, we need to let parents handle things.

[Djinn]

171. NO it hasn't

please show the studies you're talking about - there has been no studies that have even come near to conclusively proving this theory.

[veganwitch]

179. ok

-The developing lungs of young children are also affected by exposure to secondhand smoke.
-Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
-Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheeze.
-Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation.
-Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may also cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year.

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html

i wont post all of it but
"Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking"
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html

summary:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a major assessment of the respiratory health risks of passive smoking (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders; EPA/600/6-90/006F). The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.

The nation institute on health's secondhand smoke website (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html)
including a link to a report about blood vessel damage in children from secondhand smoke. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3006684

really, must i go on.

[Djinn]

192. can you post anything which isn't disputed

by atleast another 2 studies?

BTW - I hate the tobacco companies - see them as no better than any other drug dealer - I'm not suggesting it's FUN to be exposed to second hand smoke - I'm not even saying it's safe - just that the moral outrage is OTT given a lack of PROVEN studies. Ask the EPA how heavy the carcinogen exposure is when one stands by a medium busy road - why no huge "wont somebody pleaaaase think of the children" there - answer not everyone smokes pretty much everyone drives. The exhaust from cars will hurt your kids FAR more than the occasional puff

[Shoedogg]

212. ...

"but second hand smoke has been shown to be just as determental as first hand smoke."

No. It hasn't. Those are opinions.

[liberalhistorian]

222. Oh, really?

Tell that to all the kids that get respiratory illnesses or have their respiratory illnesses greatly aggravated by smoking. My parents had friends, a couple with three kids, who both smoked like chimneys. The kids were always getting sick with bronchitis or colds or other respiratory problems, and were constantly being told by their pediatrician that they MUST STOP SMOKING AROUND THE KIDS! Did they listen? Hell no, all they whined about was how often their kids were sick and how it was a "violation of their rights" if they couldn't smoke. Now, as far as I'm concerned, that's child abuse and I won't apologize for believing that way.

And my pediatrician says he sees things like that ALL THE DAMN TIME. Smoking is NOT an innocuous, harmless little amusement, and I'm sick of smokers whining about their "rights." And I'm an ex-smoker, I know how addicting smoking is, but I also know how important my health and that of those around me, especially my son, is, and I consider that far more important than being able to smoke cancer sticks whenever and wherever you want.

[sallyseven]

10. Maybe she was driving a group

of kids. I had to do that when my kids were small.

[Pithlet]

15. You know what?

I've heard you talk about how you hate it that people at DU love to dump on smokers.

Yet you feel it's perfectly okay to dump on those who have children.

That's nice.

[lovedems]

21. Thanks. From a mother of 4 kids who are my entire life. n/t

[populistmom]

219. Me too!

I hate when people stereotype people who have more than a couple of kids are somehow ignorant. Perhaps, we have greater levels of patience and capacity for giving if you want to look at it that way. I don't talk a lot about my children here on DU (frankly, at the end of the day, I'm tired of kid stuff, that's why I'm here not on parentsoup.com) and most people don't know I have four, but I love every one of them and I am raising intelligent, socially-conscious, wonderful human beings, yet I am still an attractive, smart, and multi-faceted woman myself. I'll be damned if I put up with someone else's knee-jerked judgments!!! :mad:

[Rainbowreflect]

36. Alcohol is legal for adults,

but it is illegal to give to children. Subject children to second hand smoke is child abuse.

[pnb]

38. You can't possibly be serious...

...can you?

People are supposed to have children because they "NEED" them?!? You don't know any circumstances either on top of that so your judgment should is totally useless besides being ridiculous.

[kerouac]

50. BTW - it is outlawed for minors.. nt

[Nevernose]

158. Depends on the state

When I was a kid in TX, it was enforced. In NV, n oon ein authority really gives a shit.

[Llewlladdwr]

76. CRIPES! Sometimes this place really scares me.

Not only do some of the folks around here want to decide for me what kind of gun I need, or vehicle I need, or food I need, but now you want to decide whether and how many children I need? When the revolution comes will I be allowed to decide anything for myself?

[sendero]

143. and these people...

... wonder why the right had such an easy time of kicking Dems out of power.

The "police state" attitude of many leftists is only slightly less distasteful than the reich-wing form.

There is so much blatant misinformation in this thread, and so muc PC run amok it is no wonder folks RUN THE OTHER WAY.

[liberalhistorian]

223. Well, then,

nobody NEEDS to smoke, either, but you have no problem defending those who put that shit into their lungs 24/7, day after day, so what's the difference? Who are you to decide how many kids someone should have or that they don't "need" them? There are plenty of DUers who have 4 or 5 or more kids, and they're doing just fine.

[hippiechick]

4. I think parents should be fined for

... having their car stereos thumpin' loud when there are kids in the car ... contributes to deafness and ADD which in turn makes it harder for the children to learn, which in turn creates problems for the schools and the community.


Ok, well maybe not but I really really really really HATE thumpin' loud car stereos and seeing a vehicle with a mom and 4-5 kids in it, bumpin' 'Back that Ass Up' really pisses me off.


:hippie:

[kerouac]

13. Stereos aren't prohibeted for minors, are they?

If children aren't allowed to smoke, then why should it be okay for them to be subjected to second-hand smoke in a confined space for an indefinite amount of time by an adult..

[lolly]

106. Been on the other side of this

One of my parents smoked 2-3 packs a day while I was growing up.

The house was always miserable, but the car was really awful when she was smoking. She would get angry if any of us complained and claim we were making it up.

Until I was about 8 or so, I ended up hospitalized 2-3 times a year with athsma attacks. Usually spent about a week in an oxygen tent. Lotsa fun.

I don't think she should have been fined or arrested, but I think she should have been confronted with the danger of what she was doing. We have PSAs on this now; there should have been more then. It's more socially unacceptable to subject your children to smoke, and it should be.

[ldf]

218. another child of another smoker

i can still remember getting into the truck (we lived in the country, had a farm, truck was for farm use) to go to church. dad would light up with all windows up. if i was next to the door (four in the seat) i would have to crack the vent just to get some breathable air.

not to highjack a thread, but its all because they have a goddamn addiction. they don't get high from it, they get NOTHING from it, other than keeping from going into withdrawal. not going through a week of withdrawal is more important than the health of their family members.

sorry, not an ounce of sympathy for the smokers from me. it is complete and total selfishness.

and it IS child abuse. but so many forms of child abuse are acceptable, this is just another one. don't even get me started on those (obviously so well meaning) parents who are constantaly cursing at their small children.

yeah, some of you heteros REALLY shouldn't have children.

(stepping back to avoid exploding heads....) :-)

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

5. More laws

yeah, that's the ticket

[MrSlayer]

No, mind your own business.

This is what I hate about Republicans. Stay out of other people's lives.

[liberalhistorian]

14. Forgive me, but

BULLSHIT! The freedom to swing your fist ends when it hits someone's nose, and that's the way it is with smoking and kids. It is very, very, very, very, VERY bad for children and is, frankly, a form of child abuse. No one has a problem disciplining someone who's abused their children, well, this is the same thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Not abuse

Next thing people will do is use that logic to insinuate themselves into every decision parents make -- what food they feed their kids, how much TV they watch, WHAT TV they watch, how much they read, how much they sleep, how many activites they belong to.

Your argument isn't just the nanny state argument, it's the uber state.

[Pithlet]

40. That is why I have a problem

with imposing a fine for such a thing. While I think it is a very bad parenting choice, I don't know if it's one that the state should step in on.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

59. the car exhaust kills more than her cigs will

the amount of chemicals released from her cig is minuscule compared to the POUNDS of the SAME chemicals being released from her car exhaust....your concerns for her children health need to be PRIORITIZED

[JohnOneillsMemory]

184. Imagine turning the exhaust pipe into the car! That's smoking inside it!

And if you did that, you'd certainly be up for endangering the safety of the children or attempted murder.

My folks smoked in our small apartment and car. It made me very sick until the day I moved out as a teenager. After that I've been healthy.

I was sick so much living with my parents that it interfered with my education and I could not go to college. Their smoking will affect me for the rest of my life.

To this day, if I'm exposed to smoke, I get a horrific respiratory infection and have to rush to the doctor like a hazmat victim.

Cigarette smoke is poisen that affects millions of helpless children.

[Speed8098]

80. You know not of what you speak

I am giving you a link to a study:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

This is only one of many.

Hey, I don't like it when parents swear around children, but I wouldn't suggest we arrest that parent for swearing.

It's my choice to smoke. It's my responsibility to find out if my smoking harms others. I've done the research, it doesn't. Now you do the research.

When you find what I've found, come back and read your posts.

If this study isn't good enough for you, let me know, I'll send you to others.

[Pithlet]

81. There's an unbiased source for you

FWIW, I'm against such a fine, but to suggest that second hand smoke is completely harmless is ridiculous.

[Speed8098]

97. If you need more documentation

Just do a google search.

I am not claiming anything, I'm only pointing out a study.

FWIW, to ridicule something without researching it, is more than ridiculous.

[Pithlet]

131. To assume

I've done no research is ridiculous ;)

There is no way you can ever convince me that smoking does not affect others. It is an irritant that can aggravate existing health problems in others, and is just plain irritating to everyone else. I also happened to find some studies that DO point to a link between second hand smoke and cancer when I googled. Quite a few, in fact. But, to me, it is irrelevant, when making laws about public places. I have the right to breath air that doesn't make me cough, my eyes water, and my clothes and hair stink, when out in public. The exceptions, to me, would be bars, and restaurants in smoking sections.

I'm against the measures that the OP brought. I do not think parents should be punished or fined for smoking. But to suggest that smoking is a harmless pastime that doesn't affect others is wrong.

[liberalhistorian]

224. Fine. Then

YOU deal with my son when he's gotten sick and can't breathe after being at his father's house, there's nothing scarier than watching that happen to your own child and knowing that it was caused by someone selfish enough to smoke and not give a damn about how it affected his own son.

And YOU tell all the people whose family members have died due to cancer caused by secondhand smoke, and YOU deal with all the kids who become ill with constant respiratory illnesses from the parent's smoking (I've personally witnessed WAY too much of that!). You want to be horribly selfish and self-centered and smoke, go right ahead, but don't bury your head in the sand as to the true affects of it on others around you.

[PVnRT]

94. Could we cut the hyperbole, please?

Smoking around a child is the equivalent of pounding him or her with your fists? Bullshit.

Funny how all of you people who think that marijuana should be decriminalized absolutely HATE anyone who smokes - will you feel that way about people smoking pot next to you at the bar?

[Indiana Democrat]

119. Let me guess...

...you don't think abortion is child abuse, do you?

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

225. Fine, you want to be selfish

enough to believe that, go right ahead. Then YOU can deal with my son when he becomes ill and is unable to breathe after visiting his father's house, aka the smoke factory. Be my guest.

[PVnRT]

227. Yes, we want your son to die

Yeah, that's exactly what we're arguing. You've got us nailed down perfectly! :eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

228. What else am I supposed to think when

people make the absurd claim that secondhand smoke is not a problem for many people and doesn't cause respiratory illnesses in children?

[liberalhistorian]

6. DEFINITELY YES!

No question. I have no patience at all with people who smoke around their children, and I'm an ex-smoker myself. It is very, very, very bad for children and I consider it child abuse to smoke around your children, especially if they have a respiratory condition such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, etc.

My son's father and his fiance smoke like chimneys, even around their three-year-old son. My son, who's 12, hates smoke and has always reacted badly to it. Whenever he'd visit them, he'd come home sick from all of the smoke and would cough for a couple of days afterwards. I finally had enough last summer. They wanted to see him more, so we worked out a schedule where he'd be there for a week, wait a couple weeks, then go back for another week (they live about an hour away).

I told them, though, that they absolutely could NOT smoke around him, that that was a major condition, along with them learning how to handle his Asperger's Syndrome (a type of high-functioning autism) better because they had no idea how to do so and simply would not listen to any advice I gave them on what they should do in handling it. I was especially firm on the smoking, though, which really infuriated them. Well, tough shit. They want to fill up their son's young lungs with all that gunk and poison, that was their prerogative. I had no say over that, but I did have a say over whether or not they did that to my son, and if they wanted to see him they were absolutely NOT to smoke around him, PERIOD. And, being a paralegal, I know the law backs me up on this point.

They were furious, and haven't spoken to me since, and haven't seen my son since. But that's their choice. If they'd rather smoke than see him, if cigarettes are that important to them, then so be it. I'm standing firm on it. And my son supports me on this, too, he HATES smoke.

[Blue Gardener]

101. I agree with you completely

The adults are responsible for the safety, heatlh and well being of the children in their care. I grew up having to breath cigarette smoke in the car and in the home, and I had no choice in the matter. Smokers are welcome to ruin their own health with that crap if they choose, but keep the smoke away from the kids. It obviously is not healthy for them.

[ComerPerro]

8. No

Its a terrible thing to do (smoke with kids in the car), I agree. But I really don't want to give cops yet another reason to pull people over and write tickets.

[sadiesworld]

9. No. This is the kind of issue demagogued by the right until we wake up

without jobs, healthcare, democracy, etc.

[Bandit]

33. Amazing you list health care as one of your priorities and yet wish

for children to be poisoned by their parents. It is in fact poison no matter how much you live in denial.

[PVnRT]

99. MMmmmmm, love that absurd logic

So...

The poster disagrees with the idea of a fine on philosophical grounds, and that is tantamount to advocating parents poisoning their children? Could you maybe try making an actual point instead ridiculous garbage like this?

[Bandit]

113. You are suggesting tobacco is not poison?

There are more carcinogens in one cigarette than in asbestos, arsenic, mustard gas, and anthrax combined.

[PVnRT]

128. There you go with extremism again!

Jeez, is the entire world just black and white for you? Where did I even SUGGEST that cigarette smoke is not poisionous?

Oh, and those comparisons are just plain stupid. Arsenic is one compound. Anthrax is one bacteria. Asbestos is dangerous because of the fibers, which are made out of one material. Mustard gas - again, one compound. Yes, we all know cigarettes have more than four bad things in them. Nice scare tactic.

[camero]

159. link please

You made the statement. Now prove it. I had to. :)

[Djinn]

175. where on earth did you get that claim from

There are more carcinogens in one cigarette than in asbestos, arsenic, mustard gas, and anthrax combined.

it doesn't even make logical sense - more than in a spec of anthrax or more than is in a tonne of athrax? does one cigarette have more carcinogens than a roof lined with asbestos? or just a wee spot of it?

I'm NOT suggesting it's not poisonous to the person smoking it and maybe people stuck with smokers in confined spaces for long periods of time - but the above claim is patently ridiculous

[Breezy du Nord]

11. No

I think people have taken this smoking issue a little too far. If she wants to do something that endangers he health, fine. She shouldn't gt fined for it!

[Pithlet]

18. But what about the kids?

I don't know if fines are the answer, but what she is doing is arguably unhealthy for her kids. What about them?

[kerouac]

19. then why have motor vehicle laws?

like seat belts for children in the back or car seats for infants?

The welfare of the child/children is the issue.

[Deja Q]

16. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn straight! And why, you ask?

If a person can go to jail for pulling out a child's fingernail or fondling their undeveloped sexual organs, then it's damn straight that a person should go to jail for exhaling that cancer causing filth in front of a child.

'nuff said.

[liberalhistorian]

24. Thank you!

Finally, a voice of reason backing me up!

[Djinn]

177. A question for Liberhistorian and Hynotoad

do you really think smoking in front of a kid is akin to sexual abuse? that's pretty fucked up...ask a child who's been in that situation "would you have preferred it if your mum/dad/uncle/cousin had a ciggie in front of you rather than raping you?" I think you'll see how completely bizarre and frankly offensive the comparison is

[mike1963]

41. What about the exhaust from a thousand cars? Jeezus...

:eyes:

[Rainbowreflect]

60. I think having the exhaust pumping into a closed car

with children in it would be illegal.

[mike1963]

105. The first poster said the windows were DOWN.

And even if they are not, if there's a vehicle in front of you, some of its emissions are going to get in unless you're driving a hermetically sealed car.

[PVnRT]

100. Yes! I love police states!

Let's lock up everybody for everything! Except, of course, for those vices that you yourself are into, because THOSE are OK, right?

Video games may inspire kids to be violent - jail the parents that let their kids play them!

McDonald's is unhealthy - jail the parents that buy a Happy Meal for their kids from McDonald's!

I love how so called liberals love demonizing smokers but take pity on heroin addicts and crack addicts, acknowledging that their ADDICTION is a FUCKING DISEASE.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

215. I will have some sympathy for smokers

when they stop believing they have a right to smoke. Their right to smoke stops when their poisonous stench reaches my nose.

That said, I think fining them might be a bit overboard.

[bluedeminredstate]

17. Don't know

I smoke a little - only outside in my garage and never in the car with or without my kids. But slapping a fine on someone... What if they serve their kids lots of saturated fats? Live near an oil refinery? Let them stay up late?
I saw this lady driving a car one day that had a bumpersticker that said "The most dangerous place for a baby in America is a woman's uterus"
It pissed me off to no end and as I was passing her, trying hard not to give her the finger, I saw that her car was cloudy with smoke, all the windows were up, and she had an infant in a car seat in the back.
Now, I would have said to her that her CAR was the most dangerous place for a baby, but I think it would have gone over her head. If you asked me then, I would have said a fine was a great idea.

[damnraddem]

22. Prohibition never works. But laws against child endangerment ...

can and do. We already enforce seat-belt laws, especially regarding the seat-belting of children. And while I would be reluctant to support laws against smoking in homes with children present, the time might come that some legal sanction might be necessary even there. Certainly a law against smoking in vehicles with children present could work.

Now, should it mater whether or not the windows of the vehicle are open?

[DrWeird]

23. There's one thing worse than people who whine about smoking...

That's smokers who whine about their civil rights being violated by people who whine about smoking.

Hey, if you don't want to get shunned by the rest of society, quit stinking the rest of society up with your carcinogenic lack of self control.

[Mari333]

25. Should adults be fined for stuffing McDonalds down their kids throats?

Bring that up and then watch every one say NO..
and I say
NO
should adults be fined for stuffing Prozac and Ritalin down their kids throats?
I can think of a few more....

[kerouac]

31. McDonalds is not illegal for minors.

Kids can't buy smokes and adults can't sell them smokes. This is an automobile and, as such, is subject to laws and rules -- many of which take the welfare of others into consideration. Infants have no control over this type of situation (confined in a car purposely filled with smoke).

[Mari333]

58. McDonalds-should it be illegal for parents to feed it to their kids?

and its not illegal for parents to smoke with kids in the car either.

[davsand]

26. New laws are not a solution.

Education is.

I smoke, as does my husband. Having admitted to that I will also say that we don't smoke in front of our child, nor do we smoke in the house or car. It is bad enough that we are addicts, I don't feel we should destroy her health as well.

You can pass all the laws you want to--but the bottom line is a lot of people either have no idea about the serious dangers of second hand smoke, and some just don't care.

I think they would begin to care if they realized just how serious the impact of second hand smoke is on kids... Maybe it will even take an explanation of how much time off work they have to take due to the increased colds and ear infections their kids will have. It might even take a lesson in how awful an asthma attack is...

Either way, a new law is not an answer.

Laura

[MountainLaurel]

107. Education: My Thought Too

Maybe authorities could handle it like they do the car-seat spot checks, where parents aren't fined, but are given information and assistance in installing the seat correctly and tips on where to go if they need help buying a car seat.

Likewise, if the enforcement agency sees a parent smoking with kids in the car, they get some pamphlets about how detrimental it is to their child's health, increases healthcare costs, a list of resources for quitting, etc.

ML, whose lungs are perpetually fucked up from spending too much time in enclosed spaces with my chain-smoking grandmother.

[stopthegop]

28. if you disallow smoking with kids in the car..

by what principle do you allow smoking in the home with kids around...or would that be the next step? (non-smoker btw)

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Of course it's the next step

Then food. Then TV. Then books or movies. Then activies.

Sieg heil.

[kerouac]

37. Homes can be stepped out of..

A child can step outside of a home or move to a different room of a home while someone is smoking.

[stopthegop]

42. a six month old can't...

and a twelve year old may not be able to in the winter...same concept..

[kerouac]

53. true, but houses are less confining than autos. nt

[liberalhistorian]

49. Well, I, for one,

refuse to allow my son to visit his father and his father's fiance (and their little boy) if they insist on smoking around him, which is, as I've said above, very bad for him and affects him a lot.

I never said they had to quit, I simply said they were not to smoke around him if they wanted to see him and especially if they wanted him for overnight visits (they live about an hour away). My son had complained about their smoking for years until he came home sick from a visit and couldn't stop coughing. I finally put my foot down, something I should have done years before. THEY are the ones who've decided their fucking cigarettes are more important than seeing him.

I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY STANCE. I put up with their shit long enough, long after I should have, long after my son begged me to do something because he couldn't stand being around all that smoke all the time.

Again, I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY STANCE! I'm doing what a mother should do, looking out for the best interests of her child.

[stopthegop]

55. I dont' care if you apologize for your stance..

I care whether it becomes a legal issue...as opposed to your situation, a disagreement between the adults responsible for the child.. or if you have sole custody, a decision you make...

[OhioStateProgressive]

29. I'll pass on fascism(nt)

[Solly Mack]

30. No..

There are a lot of things I see parents doing that I disapprove of (and feel harm the child and the world at large) but it's not in my place to "fine" them over it.

Just to name a few-if I had the power to remove children from homes , the following would lose their kids:

Those homes with sexism
Those homes with racism
Those homes who encourage coloring within the lines.
Those homes who never say the words "question authority"
Those homes where religion is imposed (not just simply lived) and encourages imposing it on others



What a dictator I would be!

[kerouac]

44. Not a home, a car. Do you question affect of smoke?

Don't drag this into the home, we're talking about a car filled with children being subjected to smoke inhalation at the hands of an adult. If their safety is an issue in a crash (car seats, seatbelts), then why not secondhand smoke.. or do you question the affects of secondhand smoke on infants?

[Solly Mack]

57. lololol I don't question the effects of secondhand smoke nor

did anything I write imply as such..so let's not pretend it did, k?

Good.

Home environment..car environment..what difference does it make IF the concern is secondhand smoke? They get it either way.

My only point..and I made it clearly once before, though I'll repeat it again for the cheap seats...

There are many things I find harmful to children...racism in the car or house...sexism in the car or house..see? wherever it's taught-it's harmful to the child. However, I still have no right to go after the parents for it..and I shouldn't want that power either....it would snowball into all kinds of new little laws attacking parents for all manner of pet issues. But hey...you live like you want to live...

[Bandit]

65. Then you would not object if a parent gave drugs to their children?

Your argument is apples and oranges. While ideas do tend to cause concern they don't cause physical harm. Smoke does that. Physical harm compared to some convoluted thought process. Remember Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me. Same logic. You are talking about names and we are talking about physical damage. Tobacco products are nothing more than drugs and I feel it is wrong to give your children drugs either directly or second-hand.

[Solly Mack]

72. You're right, racism never caused any harm...what was I thinking

No child that grew up in a house filled with hatred as ever brought physical harm to another. See..and here I thought it started with the idea of hate and spread into actions. But you've shown me it doesn't.

Now, if we could address my original point without going off halfcocked because you think you understood what I typed....

I said NO-because it would have a snowball effect into other areas. Music? Clothes? Ideas? Food? ..all kinds of things. See? People are generally stupid...the individual can be smart but groups tend to take a good thing and run with it until it becomes a danger to everyone.

Once you go after those who smoke in front of kids..some group will go after those who don't pray with kids...like or not..this is America and in America..there are some really dumb people just waiting for the chance to make their opinion into law. So while I may not approve of people smoking (or practicing racism/sexism) around their kids, I must temper that with the fact that I live around some truly ignorant people who will take a well intentioned (mice and men, and all that) law and use it to make bad things happen.

The sarcasm of both my other post should have made this crystal clear...I guess not.

[Bandit]

89. You still want to dismiss actual physical harm and say prayer or racism

is the same thing. They are not. I may call you a racist name like nig*%# or WOP or Kike or whatever but you haven't really been injured. Maybe your feelings got hurt. If I fed your dog rat poison would you consider that the same thing as me calling it a cur? Granted people using convoluted logic can cause harm but the logic itself does not do anything until it is applied by someone. The person then becomes the object doing the harm not the idea. Poison on the other hand does the harm all by itself. There is no doubt. Tobacco is a poison and quite detrimental to one's health. You seem to want to say if we try and protect our children from injury or harm by establishing rules and regulations that we will want to keep you from dying your hair because it could drive someone to a crazy act. If I see you with blue hair I may want to pray at you. Not quite the same as placing one in a gas chamber which is what an enclosed automobile is when it's filled with tobacco smoke. Apples and Oranges.

[Solly Mack]

92. Wrong. Utterly and completely wrong

I never once dismissed the harm of secondhand smoke. It is a ah.."untruth" (shall we say) to suggest I did. None of my post make that claim..either directly or indirectly.

It would appear it wasn't my feelings that got hurt. lolololol

You must be white ..you have to be white..to ever make the remark that being called a nigger doesn't injure the psyche(soul, spirit). It hurts, trust me..to a child and even an adult, it hurts and it causes harm (injury).

My entire point is...a law isn't always the answer. Laws aren't the answer for every single solitary ill of society...if they were..the war on drugs would work. I can't support a law of fining adults knowing as I do that laws aren't always the answer. Let's look to other measures first.

[thebigidea]

74. quick, better crack down on all that Adddderalll - its just meth!

[kerouac]

69. it was a question -- duh..

I simply asked if you questioned the affects of second hand smoke. Some people do not. That's why there was a ? after it, k?

We are talking about something (cigarettes) that are illegal for minors. I'm talking about a car, not a home, and it is a very confined space.

Also, there are many, many auto laws in place to protect children, like carseats and seatbelts up to a certain age (in the back seat). Should they be lifted?

[Solly Mack]

75. You know, I stopped playing the sophomoric word game back in

kindergarten. It was tedious then and it's tedious now. You were hoping to make a point with your question..making it not a case of "simply asked you a question"-I just cut through the bullshit and got back to the point.

Try reading what I typed. ...really reading it.

[kerouac]

83. You change the issue.

The actual poll question referred to:

- ADULTS, not just parents

- an automobile, not a home

and deals with

- something illegal for minors (smoking)

- a license granted to adults that already has provisions and rules that are aimed at protecting children passengers.

- a health concern that has already been used to initiate laws (workplace) due to negative health affects.

Lots of people do not believe second hand smoke is dangerous -- maybe even the woman I saw in the car today -- and I asked you whether or not you did. You got snotty when presented with a question instead of answering it simply. Bravo, how clever.

Everything -you- may find harmful to children may or may not be, but smoking AND second hand smoke is harmful -- and there have already been laws passed because of it. It is far from a pet issue, it is a current issue.

If you're so worried about snowballing laws, then maybe we shouldn't pass ANY new ones out of sheer FEAR. After all, all of those pesky workplace laws really have taken the fun and cost-savings out of child labor, haven't they?

[Solly Mack]

88. lolol I did not change the issue

You are talking about making a law against people that do things that are harmful in front of children. Specifically ..smoking... in your example

And don't latch on to the adult/parent argument-that's belaboring the minor and a fallacy of logic.

Do you not agree that teaching a child to be sexist or racist is harmful? See, I happen to believe it is..and there is tons of evidence out there that backs my belief up. However, do I fine people for using the n-word in front of their kids? It certainly pollutes the mind and produces children who perpetuate hate and hate leads to violence.

But all that is beside the point...I will not advocate or support a law that sets a fine for people doing something I don't approve of ...You would. So be it. You accuse me of being snotty yet you couldn't live with the answer I gave ..you asked for opinions, got them and then didn't like what you got. That isn't snotty? lolol

Make your laws..but when they bite you in your ass..don't whine.

Free Speech Zones were considered wonderful, by some, when they kept abortion protestors at bay...but now that they are being used against some of the same people who supported them..well, suddenly..they are very bad.

This is a prime example of a well intentioned law being used by those who would exploit the law to cause harm.

We have to be mindful of the laws we make...and maybe while we do need to do something about smoking around children..maybe, just maybe...the answer isn't a law. Maybe it's re-education. Maybe it's classes in just how harmful it can be...laws to regulate any and all actions aren't always the answer.

[kerouac]

133. issue was cigarette smoke, not coloring or religion at home

you:
"You are talking about making a law against people that do things that are harmful in front of children. Specifically ..smoking... in your example. And don't latch on to the adult/parent argument-that's belaboring the minor and a fallacy of logic.

No -- not just doing "things" in front of their children. Subjecting children confined to a small space to a substance known to be harmful to their health (smoke) - the use of which is something regulated in a number of ways. And the distinctions between CAR and HOME, ADULT and PARENT are not minor.

you:
"But all that is beside the point...I will not advocate or support a law that sets a fine for people doing something I don't approve of ...You would. So be it. You accuse me of being snotty yet you couldn't live with the answer I gave ..you asked for opinions, got them and then didn't like what you got. That isn't snotty? lolol"

Seatbelts for children in back seats, car seats for infants, minors buying smokes or alcohol, speed limits..yeah, I support plenty of laws that set fines for things I don't approve of. You don't? So be it.

I can appreciate a case made against unneccessary laws, but I cannot accept a fear of all laws because of the possibility of a snowball affect.

Also, I asked if you questioned the affects of second hand smoke on infants. Very simple. You said "did anything I write imply as such..so let's not pretend it did, k? Good." Very simple question, a bit of a snit in response without an actual answer. Whatever.


You:
"Do you not agree that teaching a child to be sexist or racist is harmful? See, I happen to believe it is..and there is tons of evidence out there that backs my belief up. However, do I fine people for using the n-word in front of their kids? It certainly pollutes the mind and produces children who perpetuate hate and hate leads to violence."

Yep, it can be harmful. You brought up being racist, sexist, homes that encourage coloring within the lines, and some other things. That was your list of things that, if you were a dictator, would result in removing children from their homes. Do you not support hate crimes? Those are relatively new laws. Are you fearful that it may snowball into other laws, some that may be based on interpreting a person's thoughts.

I was talking about physical affects of cigarette smoke on children and the fact that there are already laws about second hand smoke AND protecting children as passengers in CARS.


you:
"We have to be mindful of the laws we make...and maybe while we do need to do something about smoking around children..maybe, just maybe...the answer isn't a law. Maybe it's re-education. Maybe it's classes in just how harmful it can be...laws to regulate any and all actions aren't always the answer."

I agree we must be mindful of the laws we make - as well as those we rescind. I believe smoking is addressed in our schools in health class. Maybe ammending the warning on cigarette packs to include 2nd hand smoke and children would help. But so would the threat of a fine or suspended license.

Still, restricting cell-phone use, CO2 emission regulators, and requiring seatbelts are laws meant to protect people's lives as a result of CAR use, and adding the protection of a child in a licensed vehicle from smoke is not that far of a leap.

Regardless, I think it is a topic worthy of discussion and it worked pretty damn good as a DU poll today.

[Solly Mack]

147. Uh, no...the issue was about supporting a law (your question, in fact)

My answer was, No. I would not support such a law.

The law in question, or at issue, happened to concern cigarette smoke and it being harmful to children. (which, btw, I never denied-not once-for all that point having registered)

It is a worthy poll question..thats why I bothered to respond. (but one trust you don't look to DU solely for your feelings of validation about the question(s) you ask "it worked pretty damn good as a DU poll today")...I don't recall saying it wasn't a "worthy poll question"..but then, I don't recall saying several things I have been accused of saying.

I'm not attacking your question. I just don't agree with the need for a law. Which really seems to bother you a great deal. Oh fucking well...

[kerouac]

149. I didn't say you did.

I said it was a worthy question today, big deal. You looked into that way too much (validation? please.). I didn't say you attacked the question either, so chill out.

So you wouldn't support a law on THIS issue. Fair enough. I have no problem with that. Never did. Lots of people had the same opinion and I've enjoyed talking about it. Lots of people agreed with what I said and others took it even further. Glad to hear it - a discussion, that is.

Hey, maybe a law's over the top but it is an issue I believe is serious. Like I said, it's worthy of discussion and made for a pretty good one today.

[Solly Mack]

152. It is worthy of discussion..for children are harmed

it causes a wide range of health related issues for them. Constant earaches (infections/irritation), for one...and that is serious because of the potential for going deaf. It can cause low birth weight-and low birth weight brings with it it's own set of problems.
It affects a child's sinus cavity. It's causes lung irritation in children.

I smoke-I refrain from smoking around children. I wish others would as well.

But I would rather educate people than impose my will upon them.

I know my smoking could lead to all manner of health issues for me..but I'm 40, well insured, and able to decide for myself. So I see both sides...it's the (seemingly) rush to law making that bothers me.

Peace? And I'm terribly sorry for any offense I've made.

[kerouac]

156. Peace out. bit of an error, too.

Someone just pointed out that I messed up the question anyway. All of the minivan windows were up, not down. I wonder if it would have changed anyone's votes..

Peace out Solly Mack. No hard feelings and hopefully none given.

[smirkymonkey]

163. To add to your post, I would like to

point out that in many states there are now laws in effect banning smoking in public places, offices, restaurants, bars, etc. The impetus behind this legislation was that secondhand smoke is harmful to workers (who do have some kind of choice whether to be exposed to smoke) and they should not have to quit their jobs to protect their health.

Obviously, smoking in a confined area that is not sufficiently ventilated causes harm to adults. It it also harmful to children. According to the smoking laws referred to above, the issue isn't the right to smoke, it is about the rights of others to be free from having to inhale a substance that is a proven carcinogen.

It's a very tricky area, as I also can't stand the increase in paternalistic laws designed to protect us from ourselves. However, it is also a serious public health issue and I think it needs to be addressed.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. should women who use cancer causing agents to clean her house and

nail polish remover and hair spary indoors with children in the house be prosecuted? :eyes:

[kerouac]

47. YES- if they make their kids DRINK it.

or should adults be able to subject helpless children to any toxin they choose?

[mike1963]

43. You wanna fine her also when she feeds them fat filled happy meals?

:grr:

[kerouac]

48. answered above. nt

[NoPasaran]

46. Warning: Sarcasm

Why not require smokers to be sterilized? If they take up smoking after having kids, the government should take the kids away from them.

Sarcasm off.

[liberalhistorian]

56. Frankly, at this point,

with all the knowledge about how bad smoking is and what it does to children who are constantly exposed to it and WHO HAVE NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER, WHEREAS AN ADULT DOES HAVE THAT CHOICE, I have no patience at all with people who smoke around their children and I repeat that it is, frankly, a form of child abuse.

[sugarmags]

63. I agree!

I don't have any tolerance for people with smoke around their
children and even those pregnant women that smoke during
pregnancy. 

[Blue Gardener]

110. I Commend You

I could not agree with you more about this issue. Another point, what about the distraction of smoking? Put out the cigarette, hang up the cell phone, and pay attention to the road! These people are carrying precious cargo and don't need yet another excuse to take their attention away fron driving and getting to their destination safely.

[drdigi420]

54. not if the kids belong to them

not sure otherwise either

if you dont want your kids to ride with a smoker, pick em up yourself

[camero]

62. Tell ya what

When you are ready, and I mean really ready meaning civil disobedience, to address the pollution caused by industry which is much greater than the pollution caused by any one cigarette then I will grant you the power to tell other individuals how to live their lives.

We all fall for the line that it is automobile exhaust and cigarettes which are killing everybody but don't even try to address the serious pollution issues as pertains to corporations.

When you're ready to knock out the big boys then you can pick on the little people. Not until.

Flames away.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

67. exactly camero...

[PVnRT]

95. Right on

n/t

[Jose Diablo]

64. Clearly the woman was abusing her children

The police should not only suspend her license for at least 5 years, they should put her children in foster homes. What kind of parent could she be, smoking cigarettes.

[kerouac]

71. wow. that's really heavy. nt

[Jose Diablo]

154. Chuckle..chuckle

:eyes:

[durutti]

68. Absolutely.

Children are not property.

[wuushew]

79. The culture of tobacco needs to be destroyed now

Firstly by allowing regulation of nicotine as a drug by the FDA

Secondly by ending subsides for domestic tobacco producing after offering a substantial buy out period.

Libertarian arguments regarding the right to smoke are absurd. Although many other things are bad for the human body such things are often necessary evils tolerated in society for a greater good.

A big Mac is not healthy but it is still usable as food to prevent starvation. Car exhaust is a pollutant but is necessary to earn a living and prevent homelessness and destitution(And hydrogen cars are coming so that will be a mute point). All or nothing approach to debate here are inappropriate. In life many things are separated by a matter of degrees. Nicotine and smoking are the egregious examples of poor personal choices, threats to public health and a waste of tax and health care money.

I do not advocate banning either marijuana or alcohol however. Even though these substances may be harmful in some respects they also have benefits. Smoking has zero benefits. Every puff is a small bit of your health and life expectancy gone. As it is for others around you. Nicotine is extremely addictive, and I would argue that a person who is chemically addicted to something has lost the full range of rationale decision making.



Angry smokers please chime in.

[stopthegop]

82. inconsistent, convenient arguement

(non smoker btw)...nicotine is unhealthy..so is alcohol..nicotine is addictive..so is alcohol...alcohol kills third parties at a much higher rate than nicotine...good comes from nicotine in the form of pleasure to the user...same for alcohol...
let me guess...you don't smoke tobacco, but use marijuana and/or alcohol

[wuushew]

85. How is it inconsistent?

A glass of wine, a beer or shot of vodka reduce your chances or heart disease.

Pot is theraputic for a wide range of pain, cancer and eyesight problems. Obviously both of these substances can and are abused but the effort if society allowed it would be counterproductive if one attempted to eliminate these abuses in a draconian manner.

Since smoking has zero benefits any effort expended to curb it or eliminate it would be positive. To that extent such a campaign should be carried out to a point at which the positive benefits to society equal the negatives. The situation would not be analogus to prohibition. I am not judging anyone mearly offering one possible way to view the ethical issues surrouning smoking vs. societal freedom.

[stopthegop]

86. you say there are zero benefits to tobacco..

I bet others would disagree...alcohol and tobacco are both unhealthy in any substantial amount...should be treated the same...

[Pithlet]

87. what would those others say?

Really, I'm not for tobacco prohibition, yet I can't think of a single benefit.

[stopthegop]

91. I presume people enjoy smoking to some degree..

at least at first..and after a while, feel better after smoking..but I've never smoked..

[Pithlet]

93. That's not the same

as actual, physiological benefits. Smoking does not actually benefit you physically in any manor. It has been proven to do exactly the opposite. There are no side benefits to consumption in moderation, as there are with alcohol and some other illicit drugs.

[stopthegop]

96. true enough...I was thinking of subjective benefits...

like pleasure...but still..alcohol kills more people than tobacco (in the US)...and to my knowledge smoking does not lead to increased crime and sexual assault...

[Pithlet]

111. Are you talking

about direct causes of death? If so, I think tobacco would probably have alcohol beat. It's not the alcohol that kills me, it's the automobile of the drunk driving it smashing into me. Both automobiles and, to a lesser extent, alcohol, have non-subjective benefits. Both, when used responsibly and correctly, aren't in themselves dangerous.

When talking about the effects on society, subjective benefits don't mean much. There is a direct link between smoking and cancer, even if you use the product exactly as it is intended, and in reasonable amounts. There is no benefit to keeping tobacco use prevalent. There are for automobiles, and, to a lesser extent, alcohol and marijuana.

[stopthegop]

114. when a drunk driver kills someone

the cause is not the car..it's the drinking...
and I don't agree with your dismissal of subjective benefits...people have a right to make stupid choices (like smoking) if you decide the benefits outweigh the costs

[Pithlet]

118. Read my post again.

I specifically stated that I'm not for prohibiting tobacco.

Alcohol, cars, marijuana and other drugs have non-subjective benefits. Tobacco does not. There is my post in a nutshell for you. The poster you were responding to was not talking about subjective benefits.

If you're talking about actual physical benefits, subjective ones don't matter. A cheeseburger sure tastes good as it is clogging my arteries, but it is also providing SOME nutritive value, even if small. When I smoke a cigarette, it is not providing me any kind of physical benefit whatsoever.

edited for clarity

[plurality]

180. nictotine calms the nerves

it helps relieve stress, and eases tension. why do you think people that are in high stress jobs are also usually smokers? because they all want to look cool? believe me, most people didn't start because the commercials made you think you'd become the marlboro man or joe camel. we're not as dumb as rob reiner would have you believe.

[PVnRT]

98. Zero benefits

I'm sure you could find several things that have "zero benefits" to society in general. Should we outlaw everything that you find of "zero benefit"? What "benefit" does advertising have? Or pornography?

Furthermore, your post just keeps proving my point about liberals - outlaw everything you don't like, but everything else is OK.

[wuushew]

109. I will explain my world philosophy to all interested parties

Fistly based based on politicalcompass.org I am apparently more liberal than Ghandi(lower left quadrant).

However I feel that the needs of society always trump the needs of the individual. In an ideal world such trade offs are synergystic. That is why economic libertarianism is sheer folly. Small sacrifices by all can lead to net gains for everybody. I beleive if we exhault the freedom of the smoker we do not realize this synergy. Hopefully these needs are tangible and the most basic to the good of society. Since many on the left advocate universal health care and a reduction of poverty these are the lowest and according to Maslow the most important needs that need to be met. Smoking it could be argued lies near the top of his needs pyramid. I would not object the this other than smoking has an negative and scientifically signifant effect on the health needs of others.

Many fools believe that Iraqi's are enjoying their freedom. This is impossible since in addition to many giving their lives they have sacrificed health, shelter and saftey for the dubious claim by the right that have achieved self-actualization. I believe that needs can be ranked and liberal ideas are compatible with many humanistic theories.

[stopthegop]

112. don't take this the wrong way..

but your post is largley incoherent to me...almost all psycho babble...how about explaining why it's my place to keep you from hurting yourself? as in 'destroying the culture of smoking'?

[wuushew]

116. Its simply collectivism vs. libertariansim

how and why we draw distinctions.

Also let me clarrify I do not endorse mary jane purely on medical grounds. I believe fighting the drug war aids in the fight against racism in the justice system and the interests of big corporations like Du pont.

Comparing and contrasting alcohol prohibition is valid but since it was tried once in U.S. and found to be a failure I am not worried about that particular slippery slope argument.

[PVnRT]

130. You explain nothing

All I continue to see is someone who hate cigarettes, and trying to justify their prohibition and the demonization of those who use them through a bunch of senseless psycho-babble.

Let's extend your analogy about affecting the health of others. Are you going to outlaw management? After all, management personnel instill a lot of stress in others, and we all know that stress is a very negative condition.

For that matter, what else do you want to outlaw for the good of society?

[wuushew]

140. No as explained by myself and others many things are detrimental

however aside from the pleasant nicotine high, smoking cigarettes has no medical benefit. If you must get high why not use the patch?

I don't understand if we rank the ills of society, why everyone would not agree that using tobacco products provides very little benefit( if any) for an extreme amount of risk. Therefore in terms of public health it must be addressed first.

[PVnRT]

142. What about pornography?

It really provides no benefit, other than the brief pleasure by the viewer. You could argue that it contributes badly to society.

And if you want to talk about hurting people, you have factories and chemical plants chugging out pollution constantly, cars belching out pollution...and, if you've ever studied science, you'd know that it is impossible to create any kind of process that does not have some kind of inefficiency in it. What do you do about those?

Will you provide money so that smokers can quit? Or is it all up to them? Do you feel the same about crack addicts? Heroin addicts?

[wuushew]

155. Yes I would provide money for people to stop smoking

Such programs would represent a net savings in dollars.

Pornography does not harm anyone, it is exercises in intellectual freedom. I ask only for reasonable restrictions on its display in public. Morality and health are too dissimilar to compare. That is the key difference between the left and right. Both may propose severe restrictions on society but almost always the right cites subjective reasons in their arguments, such as in prohibition of gay marriage. I favor eliminating the sale of tobacco products and give my reasons based on health costs, rates of cancer, etc. At least my reasons can be debated and argued.


Civilization does harm the environment. The industrial revolution and advances in agriculture have allowed both increases in the total human population and average lifespan, so again depending on your viewpoint such things have not come without gains(whether such a civilization such as ours is sustainable is another matter, I believe it is not).


Regarding crack addicts I believe their addiction is a medical problem which is best served by offering free treatment. Both heroin and crack should remained controlled substances. heroin users should have the added benefit of clean needles at tax payer expense.

[smirkymonkey]

167. I think outlawing management

is a brilliant idea!

[camero]

102. Pot also has the same carcinogens as cigarettes

It's hypocritical to pick on tobacco while at the same time endorsing the use of mary jane.

[PVnRT]

104. Shhhhhh!

Pot good! Nicotine bad!

I wonder if people who make that argument realize that it will be THE SAME TOBACCO COMPANIES selling joints if marijuana is legalized as sell cigarettes now....something tells me that's a big no....

[camero]

108. I know. I should keep my yap shut.

:) While we're at it, how about the affect of 70+ years of nuclear testing on cancer rates? It only has a half-life of say, oh, 50,000 years. Or toxic waste in our drinking water. Or the chemicals in our food.

We have much bigger fish to fry than this.

Edit: bad grammar.

[wuushew]

117. Can you "prove" anyone ever died from pot?

And don't cite that U.K. man, those results are highly disputed.

[camero]

123. Can you prove that the science is correct?

They come from the same corps that say everything about individual use of tobacco and other things and say nothing of the environmental effects of nuclear testing on cancer rates. Give me a mnute while I google. Thank you.

[camero]

124. some links

http://www.teenchallenge.net/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID88198%7CCHID213740%7CCIID760038,00.html

The major psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Over 400 other chemicals are found in marijuana, including tar and carcinogens.


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Smoking_Marijuana_May_Increase_Cancer_Risk.asp


A study by researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, and Arizona Cancer Center has linked smoking marijuana with an increased risk of head and neck cancers.

Their study, published in the December 1999 issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is not the first to link marijuana to such cancers. Earlier research has shown marijuana cigarettes contain more tar and higher levels of certain cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco cigarettes. DNA mutations have been found in respiratory system cells of marijuana users and several case reports have found an unexpectedly high number of marijuana users among patients with cancers of the head and neck region, including the mouth, tongue, throat, and larynx.

This is the first study to examine whether smoking marijuana increases risk of head and neck cancers," said Zuo-Feng Zhang, MD, lead author of the study and member of the Jonsson Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles. "Most people don’t think about marijuana in relationship to cancer. The carcinogens in marijuana are stronger than those in tobacco. The big message here is marijuana, like tobacco, can cause cancer."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/17/home/main141183.shtml

Researchers at UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center are reporting, for the first time, that smoking marijuana may increase the risk of head and neck cancers.

Results of an epidemiological study of more than 340 people are outlined in an article published in Friday's edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.

"Most people don't think about marijuana in relationship to cancer," said Zhang, lead author of the journal article. "The carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than those in tobacco. The big message here is that marijuana, like tobacco, can cause cancer."

Edit: One more.
http://www.gwu.edu/~cade/marijuana.html

Marijuana vs. Tobacco

It's true that both marijuana and tobacco contain toxic chemicals such as tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. But marijuana smoke has more cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco. As stated before, it contains more than 400 harmful chemicals, which includes cancer-causing carcinogens. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same carcinogens and toxic chemicals as tobacco, but in higher concentrations. The amount of marijuana smoke inhaled per puff is two thirds larger than a typical puff of a tobacco cigarette. The reason behind this is that marijuana is smoked differently than tobacco. Marijuana smoke is inhaled deeper into the lungs, and is held there up to four times as long. These long drags force the rapid absorption THC by the lungs, the active ingredient in marijuana. As a result, the toxic chemicals in marijuana smoke can do much more damage to the lungs than cigarette smoke.

[Pithlet]

127. I believe

that the same restrictions that are held to smokers should also be used for smokers. It should be just as legal, and non-smokers should have protections against pot smokers as well as tobacco smokers (work place rules, public places, etc.)

[PVnRT]

129. Where did I make that claim?

But, if you want to pursue that route, both cigarettes and joints involve breathing combustion by-products of former living material. I have a feeling that if people smoked marijuana as much as they smoke cigarettes, you would see similar occurences of cancer. Of course, if you smoke grass that much, you wouldn't know it, as you would be high out of your fucking skull. Which is why no one can smoke it as much.

[Djinn]

187. I say this as a long time pot smoker

marijuana is ONLY benefial over-all if you eat it or breath in vapours. As the VAST majority of pot users SMOKE it - pretty much all of the purported benefits (they're not all proven) are negated by the carcinogens - there's more in the average joint/bong than ciggies

[kerouac]

84. smoking is a choice, and I support that choice.

I'm not for taking away the right to smoke, but I am against forcing second hand smoke on infants unable/powerless to escape it in confined spaces.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

197. But addiction is not choice. Addiction is coercion and tyranny. n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Reality

In reality, this post calls for yet more state interference in our lives. Sure, to object to ONE child having smoke around him or her might make sense. To make a law for all children is a horrible example of lawgiving gone wild.

[OhioStateProgressive]

126. agreed

It is so illogical to fine individuals for smoking around children that it is hard to organize a case against such Draconian practices.

[Lars39]

103. A very dear cousin of mine is dying right now of lung cancer.

She's about 65 yo. Never smoked. Never worked anywhere where smoking is allowed. She's lost 2 out of 7 siblings to lung cancer. They had never smoked either. Her parents died from lung cancer. They both smoked "like chimnies" the whole time their kids were growing up.

[Indiana Democrat]

121. Sounds like your cousin has some bad genes...

...unfortunately.

[Pithlet]

122. You don't have any clue

whether it was genes, or the fact that they grew up in a smoke-filled environment, or both, any more than the poster does. In fact, lung cancer in people that haven't been exposed to tobacco smoke is very rare, and since two of her siblings also had it, it makes the genes only theory a little suspect.

[Speed8098]

125. Are you a research doctor

I only ask because you make statements as if they are fact.

In fact, lung cancer in people that haven't been exposed to tobacco smoke is very rare, it makes the genes only theory a little suspect.

In fact, it make the gene theory stronger.

Some cancer has been proven to be hereditary.

[Pithlet]

136. Are you? edit

I didn't make any claims at all. I merely said the person had no info to base their claim. They were the one who automatically leaped to the conclusion that it was probably genes.

It wouldn't necessarily make the gene theory stronger. It would depend on if the defect is a dominant or recessive trait, and if that family indeed has the trait in their background. None of which they know.

Smoking causes cancer. A person and her siblings contract a cancer that is known to be caused by tobacco smoke overwhelmingly more often than any other factor. I just don't' see the automatic, obvious leap to the conclusion that it was probably genes.

Edited because I realize I was responding to the wrong poster.

[smirkymonkey]

172. Lung cancer, however, is due

more to environmental factors than heredity...

http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/hnp/hddflash/issues/00059.html

>>> NCI TWINS STUDY: HEREDITY PLAYS A MINOR ROLE IN MOST LUNG CANCER <<<

In the largest study of twins, on the role of heredity in the development of lung cancer, researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have found that heredity plays a role in no more than a small fraction of lung cancer cases. (Results of the study published in the August 13, 1994 issue of the Lancet)

For the purposes of lung cancer prevention, "The message is that smoking-induced lung cancers in men greater than 50 years of age should be attributed to smoking cigarettes -- not to the genes they inherit from their parents," said M. Miles Braun, M.D., a senior research investigator in NCI's Division of Cancer Etiology and the study's principal investigator. "It could be a fatal mistake for a smoker to believe that he will not develop lung cancer just because he has close relatives who smoked for a long time and did not develop lung cancer."

Of course, this study refers to smokers, but it also shows that the connection between genetics and LUNG cancer is very weak.

[camero]

134. Let's go after the big boys, huh?

http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/other/news/030102ExposureNYT.html

In a preliminary study that takes into account not only
nuclear tests in Nevada but also nearly all American and
Soviet nuclear tests conducted overseas until they were
banned in 1963, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has found that virtually every person who has
lived in the United States since 1951 has been exposed to
radioactive fallout.

The new study, which was completed in August 2001 and was
first revealed yesterday in USA Today, suggests that for
all Americans born after 1951 "all organs and tissues of
the body have received some radiation exposure." The study
says in highly guarded terms that the global fallout could
eventually be responsible for more than 11,000 cancer
deaths in the United States.

Still, given the widespread exposures indicated by the
study, its tentative conclusions show that the government
has inadequately explained the cancer risks from nuclear
tests, said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who says
the follow-up research must be carried out.

The United States conducted more than 200 above-ground, or
atmospheric, tests of nuclear weapons from 1951 to 1963,
about half of those at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, and the others in the Marshall
Islands and elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Over the same
period, the Soviet Union exploded some 200 nuclear weapons
in tests on its own territory.

[Pithlet]

138. Why was this in response to my post?

Was that a mistake?

[camero]

145. Not a mistake

You have no idea whether it is rare or not. A link would be nice. The tone of the posts I have seen from you so far suggests punitive measures against people with pretty much no power but not the same vegeance to find out actually who is really screwing us.

Until then, maybe I should just take your rantings with a grain of salt.

[Pithlet]

146. What?

I have suggested no punitive measures. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

[camero]

157. I took your last post out of context. My apologies

The one marked I believe. But the prior statment about cancer in non-smokers being a rarity could be construed as ostracization of a group who are more victims than criminals. My great grandmother also never smoked in her life and died of cancer. But she was around at the start of Atomic Testing.

I say victims because of the advertising of cigarettes in the 50s (remember the lucky strike commercials?). While the health risks have been known since the 60s, the actual citations of the addictive power of nicotine were not published till the 80s. Well after most smokers started smoking. Nothing is being done to help these people. The states are merely using tobacco money to fund pet projects.

[Pithlet]

174. I agree.

I didn't mean to ostracize a group; my intention was to point out that there is a direct link between cigarette smoke and cancer, and that if someone has been exposed to massive amounts of it, and gets cancer, that is more than likely what caused it. I agree with everything you said about victims, and I think the way the states have been using the money is a disgrace.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kerouac]

148. ouch, that hurts.

I was a bit pissed at the time I posted the poll since I just got home after sitting at a light looking at this woman just smoking away with all those children forced to inhale it, and she didn't even -crack- a window..

Smoking is a choice. I support that.

Smoking in a car? Sure.

Confining infants and tots in seatbelts and forcing them to inhale your smoke in an area as confining as a minivan - it's sickening.

Maybe better education is enough, but the threat of a ticket also make people think twice. I have to use hands-free to make a call, or pull over, when driving. Otherwise I might get a ticket. Same with carseats for infants, and seatbelts for kids in the back. Laws that many people complain about, but they protect kids. Isn't this the same thing?

[Speed8098]

150. Which is it?

I just saw a woman smoking a cigarette while driving a minivan
(with the windows down)

and she didn't even -crack- a window

Either the windows were up, or they were down. Which is it?

[kerouac]

151. holy cow - the windows were up not down.

That sucks. I meant UP, not down. They were totally up.

on edit.
I tried to edit the poll to point out the mistake, but it won't let me. I wonder if that would have changed anyone's votes..

[camero]

162. I think you merely changed your hyperbole

Now that other views are being presented, you have changed the wording from the window being up to down. I doubt the window was actually up or not cracked. This is merely propaganda and spin. Changing tactics to bring people to your point of view.

[kerouac]

164. Screw you. How's that for hyperbole?

How's that for hyperbole?
I typed down instead of up. Sue me.

On edit:
It was freezing in Syracuse today. Had it been warmer, maybe they would have been down of opened.

[camero]

165. Nice of you to wait hours to do it.

I don't believe you.

[kerouac]

168. I did it as soon as it was pointed out.

I did it as soon as it was pointed out.

[camero]

169. And you supposedly saw this.

It's just a change of tactics plain and simple. It would not have had to be pointed out to you if it was true.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

176. So tell me. What took you so long to realize your "mistake"?

An error is one thing. An outright distortion is another. Typical of how the RW argues. Not that I am saying you are RW. Just that they are not the only ones that cheat when they get behind.

BTW, I am construing your term "anal" as a personal attack. Thank you.

[kerouac]

186. Personal attack?

Personal attack? Hmmm, like callin' me a liar? Please accept my sincerest apolo.. yeah right.

I didn't see my error until it was pointed out to me, mr. inquisitioner, because I only read my own post once or twice and didn't catch it. I looked at the votes cast, but that was about it. I was more concerned with comments and alternative viewpoints.

As for "getting behind," this wasn't a game and it wasn't some hubris-driven self-masturbatory indulgence of mine. I wanted some other opinions and I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss it with others (with the exception of your comments, of course, seeing as you've done nothing by waste our time focusing on a window).

And guess what, I have the uncanny ability to have my mind changed after thoughtful discussion -- which is not something you even attempted to engage me in.

Just like the RIGHT WING, you saw fit to attack me and make baseless accusations. You have yet to discuss the ISSUE with me in this thread. You have simply called me names and accused me of making things up -- not that I'm saying your are RW or anything..

[camero]

189. You waited 3 1/2 hours to retract your original statement

Note the times. I can confront somebody when they are changing tactics. Your description of me as "nuts" and "anal" are adjectives attempting to ridicule another poster. namecalling is a "personal attack". Also, a crutch to somebody who is losing a debate.

[kerouac]

193. this is not a debate.

You are not debating me. You are calling me a liar and calling my "tactics" Right Wing. I find those to be EXTREME personal attacks on me. I also called the minivan a car a few times, you wanna get a firing squad on me?

You have yet to engage me in the issue of smoking with children in the car. I find it nuts that you are citing irrelevant times of posts and that you obviously refuse to take the time to listen to what I have been saying. Talk about RW.

Recap:

I didn't see my window up/down mistake after posting the message and I didn't spend any time RE-reading my post.

HOURS passed and it was pointed out to me at a little after 5pm.

I looked up at the original post and saw the screw up and immidiately said that I had screwed up when I typed in the question.

CASE CLOSED.

If you want to discuss the issue (minivan, children, smoke), that's fine, but I am no longer going to deal with your personal attacks.

[camero]

194. Hmmm. if the results don't match my opinion

Then it's not a debate, eh? Then what is it?

[kerouac]

198. you are kidding.

You have to be because you have NOT engaged the topic, you have engaged in personally attacking me for a SIMPLE mistake. That is not a debate. You call me a liar, I disagree. That is not a debate.

[camero]

200. Actually I have engaged the topic.

You can only pick on the powerless and not the powerful. Have you even read any of my posts?

[kerouac]

205. only the ones you made to me

By powerless, are you referring to the infants and children in the back seat choking on cigarette smoke?

[camero]

207. Average citizens and not powerful ones.

Try looking at my other posts. It would be nice.

[kerouac]

209. some good posts.

I wasn't really involved in those threads and I kind of blew off some of the pot-related ones. I did have other things to do today. Seems like you're taking a position against industry and saying that we shouldn't take it out on the average person by way of punishment. Address the (powerful) causes.

[camero]

211. Exactly

It's called pickin on someone your own size. Noone is saying that there is no harm in tobacco. But treating them like we do druggies is not the way to go about it.

[camero]

178. Time of original post: 1:23EST. Time of retraction: 5:03EST

That is plenty of time to correct a mistake.

[kerouac]

188. Stop wasting my time with conspiritorial nonsense

I NEVER saw the mistake until it was pointed out to me at 5:03. I replied at 5:05. The original post has nothing to do with it. I didn't sit here all day staring at my original post. I would just check back and respond to replies and discuss the topic.

Please stop wasting my time with conspiritorial nonsense.

[camero]

190. Uh huh. Ok, anything you say.

Your posts speak for themselves.

[camero]

191. and to top it all off

You actually wondered if it would change the poll. Gee if the wording was just different, would I get the results I want?

These are your words, not mine: I tried to edit the poll to point out the mistake, but it won't let me. I wonder if that would have changed anyone's votes.

[kerouac]

196. Good God man.

You have got to be kidding me?

YES - of course I wonder if the results would have been different if I had typed the question CORRECTLY in the first place. Have you even been paying attention?!?

I tried to go up to edit the post - and I would have noted the original error in the edit.

[camero]

199. nobody "forgets" things like that

And they certainly don't wait 3 1/2 hours to remember. Yes, I have been paying attention. And your rhetoric gets more and more heated the more you're confronted.

[kerouac]

204. who said I forgot? you.

I didn't say I forgot. Now you're making stuff up. Typical. You realize your talking nothing but trash so you make stuff up. But, I'm sure you see that as somehow different than me typing down instead of up.

I typed down instead of up when I posted the question. I said car instead of minivan a few times. I didn't get the exact age of the children or the license plate number, either. Make, Model - not sure.

It's so simple even a CHILD should understand. When I saw my mistake was when I saw it. What was I to do then, eh? Correct and clarify it and move on.

[camero]

206. Correct maybe you did, clarify you did not

Only wondered whether you would get the desired result. Funny, But maybe you should be more careful when you post next time. It makes you more credible.

[kerouac]

208. now that's something I can agree with.

You got that right. I did preview the post, but I kept having to reword the poll subject to fit the character limit and I didn't pay enough attention proofing the rest. I was not happy to see that I screwed up the damn window in the original post. Even my wife said that she may not have been as disturbed if the van windows had been down, but it was a pretty disturbing sight with all those kids in there.

[camero]

210. There is no character limit in a post.

There is a 400 character limit in the sig line. The mods can correct me if I'm wrong. The discrepency as you say was in the content of the post and not the poll.

So ticket for windows up, no ticket for it down. Isn't that sort of arbitrary? Don't you think? I think you are just trying to say that you know what is best for everybody. It is quite arrogant.

[kerouac]

213. subject line is cut short at about this many letters or characters right h

See the subject line above, it got cut off. That's the line I kept changing to fit - not the post. I ended up not reading my actual POST well enough and missed my mistake.

As for the ticket thing, I mentioned my wife's opinion wavering - which is fine. I'm not so arrogant as to attack someone for changing their mind and I'm not so stubburn as to not allow someone else's valid argument to change mine.

[camero]

214. The subject line is not what is in debate.

Changing your mind is fine. But taking what was initially a minor point and making it a major issue when confronted with it and then hoping to achieve a desired result with the change in the tone is intellectually dishonest.

And telling others how to live when you don't know the specifics is arrogant. Read your actual post next time and don't wait until midway through the discussion after other points are brought up to change it.

[kerouac]

217. I didn't blow the point up or seek a specific result.

If you're still talking about the mistake in my post, I didn't make it into a big issue. It bothered me that I made a mistake and I said that. You implied, at the very least, that I intentionally lied in my original post - which I did not - and that the story was fabricated (which it is not). That is what I took issue with. I did not try to change anything to achieve a desired result. All I wanted to do was address my initial error. I have no problem with the poll going overwhelmingly towards no.

Afterwards, I did wonder whether or not the mistake with the window position made a difference in the results, and I think it's okay for me to wonder that. If I typed it in correctly, window up, would the poll result be more evenly divided? I don't really think so.

You recently misread my post about subject length, taking it as post length or sig length. I did not berate you for not quite reading my post correctly. I think most people will agree that they occassionally make a mistake in a post that they don't catch, some more important than others.

As for telling others how to live and arrogance. If that's the case, then everyone that posts here is arrogant because we would all be hard pressed to know everything about everything. We are all entitled to our opinions and discussing them with others is productive.

Now, I'm going to bed.

on edit:
On the subject thing, re: not reading my actual post well enough. I wrote the post, then pasted part of it in the subject and it got cut off. So then I was removing words and shortening them to make them fit and then I just posted it and left. When I came back, I looked at the yes/no votes and went to the replies to read people's opinions. Like you said, it was hours later before I saw my mistake in the actual post. It looks like the subject line cuts off at around 80 characters, maybe less.

[camero]

220. Nice of you to put words in my mouth

I believe your original post was correct and you attempted to change the course of debate when a different tact was pointed out to you.
That is not exactly calling you a liar but that you may be cheating to win so to speak.

Excuses Excuses. Good night.

[gyopsy]

135. No

but that doesn't mean I approve of it.

[Malva Zebrina]

139. mind your own business

eom

[NashVegas]

153. Good Afternoon, Oh Great "I Know What's Best for You" Lobby

Your energy would be so much better appreciated if it were spent towards public education and away from legislation.

[no one in particular]

160. I'm a smoker, but...

I'm a smoker, but I never, ever smoke in my kids' presence. I've made a ventilation system in my basement where I smoke and never smoke in the car when they are there.

I'm not sure I'd fine people for it, but it is very selfish and inconsiderate to subject children to smoke.

[arcos]

161. yes... all smokers should be jailed for life too. n/t

[Quahog]

181. It's the hypocrisy, stupid

Marijuana and heroin and cocaine and methamphetamines are illegal in this country because they have supposedly been proven to harm people. And yet, cigarette smoke (first and second hand) accounts for more deaths per year than the rest of these combined. If a parent were sprinkling crystal over their kids' breakfast cereal, they would be jailed. But subjecting them to a lifetime of inhaling carcinogenic chemicals while their lungs are developing is A-OK.

My wife suffers chronic lung disease because her parents chain smoked around her. There is no other explanation, there is no history of such problems in her family. But she and her brother have have asthma and chronic bronchitis, the least little cold is likely to put either of them in the ER. I have to live with seeing my wife's lips turn blue because of her parents' exercise of their freedom.

The argument about opening the car window and exposing the kid to exhaust fumes is so much drivel. NONE of us have any choice about the atmosphere we breathe when we are outside in the "fresh air," the government has determined a level of toxicity in the air that is "acceptable," and unless you're Michael Jackson and can afford to sleep in a plastic tube, you're gonna have to breathe the same air as everyone else.

But cigarette smoke gives people lung disease. It damages human health quickly and efficiently. If, as a society, we are willing to accept that children are being poisoned by their parents in the name of "freedom," then we should stop being such cowards and let the parents expose their kids to everything... smoke, drugs, alcohol, whatever. But to pretend that cigarette smoke is not bad while other arbitrarily chosen stuff IS bad is purest hypocrisy. The bottom line is, whatever industry has the most powerful lobby is the one that produces the least harmful product. Pot growers need to organize, pool their funds and send their money to Washington, and marijuana will be legalized overnight.

BTW, before you get on my ass about being anti-smoke or anti-freedom, I was a two pack a day man for much of my life. I'm going in for a lung biopsy tomorrow morning because the CT scan I had last week indicates that I may have lung cancer. I quit when my wife called me and told me she was pregnant with our son. I have two kids now, ages 10 and 7, and I don't know how long they're going to have a dad.

Tobacco is poison. If we are going to allow tobacco to be legal for people over 18 in this country, then alcohol and marijuana and cocaine and meth and ecstasy and LSD and PCP and heroin should all be legal for people over 18 as well. The idea here is that adults can weigh the risks and make their own decisions. It's hypocritical to say that we are able to make these judgements about one poison but not about another.

But to force-feed these substances to children should be a criminal offense. It IS a criminal offense for all of the substances but tobacco. Can anyone explain the logic of that to me, without invoking the "right to smoke" or the "right to parent?" Because I could invoke my right to drink Bacardi 151 and my right to parent by pouring Bacardi 151 down my daughter's throat, and I doubt that any of you would come to my defense.

[camero]

183. How bout we make cars illegal?

Since we "choose" to drive. And anyone who drives gets a citation for driving because of the pollution it causes.

The smoke wars are just like the drug wars. And usually it's the ex-smokers who are the biggest zealots. Try that zeal about industrial pollution. We do have a choice there. It more of a matter of picking on somebody your own size.

[justinpower]

182. Just what we need, More Laws

I think not

[JohnOneillsMemory]

185. Laws are what make up CIVILISATION. Not harming each other codified. n/t

[DemCam]

195. Where do we move now?

My guess is...not Sweden. Or maybe Canada...But other than that.....

[camero]

202. BC ruled anti-smoking laws unconstitutional

Canada might be good. :)

[lostnfound]

216. I agree, it's deplorable..but fines? NO WAY!!

Raising children? Incredibly stressful.
Raising children as a single parent? Inhumanly stressful.
Trying to quit smoking while raising children as a single parent?

It's not a perfect world. You have NO idea what that person is trying to cope with. Or how you might just push them over the edge.

Would you also want to outlaw screaming at them, or fine parents for letting kids eat at McDonalds? It's not a perfect world, and it's a very very hard job.

[JackRiddler]

226. Now THIS is the kind of question

that turns people off the party and creates the idea of the Democrats as PC behavior fascists gone wild, with no regard for privacy or private faults, on a permanent crusade to expand the Nanny State until every single thing not prohibited is required.

And never mind that the behavior you are describing is atrocious.

Let's see, this is the left so we are all for freedom of sexual orientation, but given the danger of AIDS, shouldn't the Democratic Party seek to ban unprotected sex between unmarried people? Condoms only, I say. Dental dams. While we're at it, shouldn't there be a heavy fine for excessive drinking? Bad for health, raises insurance rates. And what about loudness? This is a proven stressor that weakens immune systems. We need to shut up loud people, I say. And boisterousness in general can complicate the depressions of others.