Smoking ban with children in the car

[slimreaper]

You do realize the government would be making more money if they were with cigarette companies instead of against them. You know how much they spend to raise awareness about the negatives of smoking?

The goverment makes 100 billion every year on drug busts. Imagine cigarette money

 

[Supacharjed]

Common sense isn't very common.

Common sense is the least common of the senses.

 

[Aim64C]

Pretty sure that law is in Australia too.

How many people actually get stopped for it?

I support it 100%.

I support the idea that parents should not smoke in the car with their children. I also support the idea that people should simply not smoke. It is healthier for them.

It is also healthier for people to eat properly. In fact, I think I will write a law about what you will be able to feed your children and instate a government program to come raid your refrigerator.

Next, we need to make sure you're teaching your kids proper morals. So we're going to raid your book shelf, as well. We can't have you teaching your kids anything that is wrong or controversial, poisoning their minds.

Smoking is terrible.
Children getting secondhand smoke is worse.

There is no such thing as second-hand smoke.

It has never once been substantiated in clinical trials.

I want to outright ban smoking, although the fallout would be terrible.

We should ban donuts, soda (think of the dentistry bills saved... especially in the nations with socialized healthcare), aluminum pans (alzheimer's), cell phones (because there's as much evidence they cause cancer as there is of second hand smoke being a substantial factor), and MMOs.

In fact, why don't we just stop beating around the bush?

Since we know what is best for people, we should put them in little camps where they can be instructed on what to do, when to do it, and how much better off they are for doing what is best for them?

We'll call them "Worker Satisfaction Focus and Containment Groups."

There were some visionary individuals who used these highly efficient and enlightened forms of human optimization, before, but the world was simply too ignorant to understand the true depth of their vision and enlightenment.

 

[Fresco]

How can you not see it's a money gimmick?

Disregarding government data aside, it really isn't a money gimmick, it's a deterrent. The article says the fine will be around $70, so I doubt they get more than a few thousand dollars. (Or pound since this is UK)

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Lol, look who came here to save the day.

 

[Fresco]

Lol, look who came here to save the day.

We're talking cigarettes here and someone had to bring up internment camps...

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

We're talking cigarettes here and someone had to bring up internment camps...

It's that typical black or white view they have. No grey area, smh.

 

[Anorien16]

While Brits often go around over stepping their limits ... Like how they want to regulate the content shown in Porn (Like no face sitting etc ... S:

You must be registered for see links

) Or wanted to Spy on toddlers as a measure of Anti Terror Plan (S:

You must be registered for see links

) .....

This is just making a good practice a Law ... dunno how that would be enforced though. Though, The Police can simply harass someone claiming that he broke the Law, where as the accused really cant provide any proof (Unless UK have more surveillance than I am aware).

So we can not really fault the intent ... but the means is indeed worrisome.

Funnily, I think people who regularly speak against Police Brutality and Unfair treatment ... will wholeheartedly support this move giving them a bit more power to potentially harass people.

We're talking cigarettes here and someone had to bring up internment camps...

Actually it is kind of a reference to North Korea like dystopia.

 

[slimreaper]

It's that typical black or white view they have. No grey area, smh.

I hate that nonchalant attitude towards giving goverment power. Once given it's nearly impossible to take away

 

[Fresco]

I hate that nonchalant attitude towards giving goverment power. Once given it's nearly impossible to take away

I hate slippery slopes, which is why I tend to avoid them.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I hate that nonchalant attitude towards giving goverment power. Once given it's nearly impossible to take away

It's really not that big of a deal, in this case.

 

[slimreaper]

I hate slippery slopes, which is why I tend to avoid them.

You know Hitler was democratically elected right? It's not a slippery slope if it's happened before. Especially on the same continent in the last 70 years. Ironically under the name socialists

 

[Supacharjed]

How many people actually get stopped for it?



I support the idea that parents should not smoke in the car with their children. I also support the idea that people should simply not smoke. It is healthier for them.

It is also healthier for people to eat properly. In fact, I think I will write a law about what you will be able to feed your children and instate a government program to come raid your refrigerator.

Next, we need to make sure you're teaching your kids proper morals. So we're going to raid your book shelf, as well. We can't have you teaching your kids anything that is wrong or controversial, poisoning their minds.



There is no such thing as second-hand smoke.

It has never once been substantiated in clinical trials.



We should ban donuts, soda (think of the dentistry bills saved... especially in the nations with socialized healthcare), aluminum pans (alzheimer's), cell phones (because there's as much evidence they cause cancer as there is of second hand smoke being a substantial factor), and MMOs.

In fact, why don't we just stop beating around the bush?

Since we know what is best for people, we should put them in little camps where they can be instructed on what to do, when to do it, and how much better off they are for doing what is best for them?

We'll call them "Worker Satisfaction Focus and Containment Groups."

There were some visionary individuals who used these highly efficient and enlightened forms of human optimization, before, but the world was simply too ignorant to understand the true depth of their vision and enlightenment.

This is the biggest slippery slope argument I've seen here.
You make a point though.

 

[Supacharjed]

You know Hitler was democratically elected right? It's not a slippery slope if it's happened before. Especially on the same continent in the last 70 years. Ironically under the name socialists

Hitler was elected after killing most of his opponents.
He also promised to return Germany to its former greatness.
The Nazi party was the most right wing party in the country, not socialists.

 

[Anorien16]

It's really not that big of a deal, in this case.

No ... It might be a big deal depending on the level of evidence required to levy the fine. If a solid evidence of smoking with children in required then it wont be much of deal ... But just if the officers word or mere indication is enough, then we have potential issues of miscarriage of power and false accusation (A person can smoke outside and get in the car and be accused of smoking in the Car).

And British are not known for wise policies ... As I mentioned they wanted teachers to spy on children and send government the data as a Anti-Terror Measure.

 

[slimreaper]

Hitler was elected after killing most of his opponents.
He also promised to return Germany to its former greatness.
The Nazi party was the most right wing party in the country, not socialists.

Really? Do you know that NAZI is a acronym for national socialist party. And Hitler was democratically elected, look it up

 

[Aim64C]

Disregarding government data aside, it really isn't a money gimmick, it's a deterrent. The article says the fine will be around $70, so I doubt they get more than a few thousand dollars. (Or pound since this is UK)

It's a form of discretionary weapon. There are far more laws on the books than any law enforcement agency can actually enforce, and the nature of many of those laws make them next to impossible to enforce outside of invasive procedures or 'citizen snitch' reporting.

This always causes such laws to be used as weapons. Political enemies become primary targets for such laws, or neighbor feuds end up involving reports to law enforcement (true or not) regarding infractions.

Generally speaking, however, these types of fines are 'add-ons.' Someone gets pulled over for a bit of speeding, then dinged for not wearing a seatbelt, then hit for smoking in the car with a kid, then hit for wearing last year's fashion trend, and whatever else.

I'm having difficulty generating traffic stop statistics for the UK, but according to the wiki:

" Between 1 December 2007 and 30 November 2008, traffic officers patrolled 2,025 miles (3,259 km) of (Highways England managed) motorways and trunk roads across England, every hour of every day and attended over 281,000 incidents, an average of one incident every two minutes.[5] Due to government budget cuts in 2013, traffic officers no longer patrol the network. They are instructed to be reactive and only attend reported incidents. "

Frankly - they don't even patrol any longer, so the law may as well not even exist as the only way it will be enforced is if someone reports it... or if it is added on to another response. Wreck and smoked in the car with your kid? There's a fine for that.

Even so, if we assume just 5% of the incidents would result in a hit for the fine and the number of incident responses is remotely similar to 280,000 - that's 14,000 incidents that can hit upon a fine of $70 - which is an estimated revenue of $980,000 on incidents that would be responded to, anyway and contribute to officer time.

Further, many of these types of laws have "second infraction" additional fines. Similar laws that have been enacted in States and municipalities in the U.S. may be an initial fine of $20 but then elevate to over $100 for second infractions.

Generally speaking, they aren't an effective deterrent. They are simply an added fee they can cache in on when they are responding to another issue. Just like seat belt laws.

 

[Anorien16]

Really? Do you know that NAZI is a acronym for national socialist party. And Hitler was democratically elected, look it up

Ummm ... I dont think it was as much as Democratically Elected as much as the 'Wiser Contenders Decided to Step Down'. But in essence yes, Hitler had Popular support. Heck he was even a Noble Peace Prize Nominee.

 

[Aim64C]

Hitler was elected after killing most of his opponents.
He also promised to return Germany to its former greatness.
The Nazi party was the most right wing party in the country, not socialists.

Everyone in Europe is a socialist.

The question is just whether or not you are a "liberal" socialist (left) or a "conservative" socialist (right). Liberal and conservative distinctions in Europe define Globalist and State mentalities, respectively.

The idea of there being anything other than socialism is generally lost on most of Europe. It is not a meaningful political distinction. Which is largely why "conservative" and "liberal" discussions in America make no sense to the rest of the world.

You must be registered for see images

Hitler was convinced in the advancement of Germany over the rest of the nations. This contrasts with "Liberal" European views that believe more in the abolition of national borders and the unification of mankind under a single system of socialism.

Hitler embodies "conservative" views in European politics. National power and dominance.

The EU embodies "liberal" views in European politics - collective power and globalism.

 

[slimreaper]

Ummm ... I dont think it was as much as Democratically Elected as much as the 'Wiser Contenders Decided to Step Down'. But in essence yes, Hitler had Popular support. Heck he was even a Noble Peace Prize Nominee.

Also times man if the year in 1939. All he needed was to be appointed chancellor.