Smoking ban with children in the car

[Uzumaki Macho]

You would honestly rather live under a totalitarian government that to ride in a car with a smoker?

Please tell us how not being able to give our kids secondhand smoke in the car is going to make us live under a totalitarian government.

 

[slimreaper]

I guess since there's a fine for speeding, we're living under a totalitarian government now? This is why no one takes Libertarianism seriously.

as opposed to a hypocrite? You allow things like McDonald's to target kids yet you attack the parent who smokes.

 

[Aim64C]

Okay, I'll bite.
While the extreme cases of socialism are atrocious. Nazism and Communism

Provide a case against garden variety mild left Socialism.

There is no such thing as "mild socialism."

The premise of socialism is that individuals do not own the means of supply and production - those are essentially the property of society, collectively, because society is both reliant upon and the benefactor of those sources and means.

In other words - the farmer doesn't own the farm, the people do. The farmer is simply the one who is managing the means of food production.

However, this is often presented as the following: "Food is necessary for all the members of society and, therefor, food should be a secure right of the people." This is the same thing presented from the angle of the consumer - arguing that what the farmer produces is essentially the property of the people.

Many of you would probably agree with this idea. Everyone should be paid enough in their place of work to eat.

This has a second implication, however. Labor is now owned collectively. Every job must now pay some arbitrary amount to afford some arbitrary standard of living.

Sounds great, right? You're bobbling your head in agreement.

There's a drought this year and, try as he might, the farmer can't produce enough food to meet demand. Prices in the stores increase as supply and demand dictates. Now we have a huge problem. People assert the right to own a certain standard of living that the society can't currently provide. Under normal free markets, prices increase and people naturally begin to reduce spending.

However - we have already stated that the people essentially own the food and they own labor because they are to be guaranteed a standard of living (usually with the stipulation that they work - though not always).

Rising prices are always met with demands for increased pay and/or increased price managing/fixing schemes by the government.

It is inevitable that every socialist state will gravitate towards powerful centralized bureaucracies headed by a dictator.

The premise of socialism is that the means of production exist to benefit society and therefor the government will always incline towards increased intrusion into market dynamics, individual choice, and individual liberty. In response to farmers planting crops that are more profitable than others, the government will insist upon instating controls upon planting. In response to increased price, the government will insist upon imposing cost fixing schemes at the stores.

And, of course, there will always be enterprising individuals who are willing to do things 'off the record,' have a knack for finding things that 'fall off the truck' (a lot of the Russians who moved here in the 90s love that phrase), etc. Some individuals will outright refuse the demands by the government to comply with its mandates.

In order to cope with this, specialized police forces will be necessary to impose these mandates - to root out the black markets, and to force compliance with the planned economy. This leads to a very strong internal military presence aimed at the population, and those who can gain influence within this type of system will ultimately use that system against political enemies until they have essentially centralized the power and authority under their own control.

Socialism is an entirely artificial system that is built upon the instinct to control. Humans attempt to control each other by appealing to a collective interest that most frequently suits the claimant and detriments the claimed. It is unnatural and causes disruption in the economic system (the only true one being the free economic system). This generates artificial swells and busts in this economic system that are used as arguments by socialists for the need of more control to make things work.

It never 'works' - it always fails - and there is always the appeal to more control with the promise of greater prosperity for the people most harmed by the previous expansion of control.

It is a slow march to totalitarianism that is often finished in a momentous sprint.

OT:

Second hand smoke doesn't have to be clinically tested. It's just common sense, especially in a small space.

If you want to claim it as being science, then, yes, it requires clinical trials.

But there's a problem... when clinical trials are done:

You must be registered for see links

" The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers.

The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as “borderline statistical significance.” Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes “there’s no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It’s either significant or it’s not,” and the reported hazard ratio was not. "

The clinical trials don't support the argument that second-hand smoke constitutes a substantial risk.

You must be registered for see links

" Perhaps one of the better studies was published in the British Medical Journal by epidemiologist James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat (2003). Their study of 35,000 Californians showed that lifelong exposure to a husband or wife’s smoke produced no increased risk of coronary heart disease or lung cancer among the non-smoking spouses. As with most who oppose the anti-tobacco lobby, Enstrom was forced to defend his study on the basis that it had received funding from a tobacco company. The study was condemned as biased, even though it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the statistics were not flawed, and the conclusions were sound.

...

In a study spanning 16 U.S. cities, the U.S. Department of Energy researchers placed monitors on nonsmoking bartenders and waiters who worked in smoke-filled bars and restaurants to measure the amount of environmental tobacco. The conclusion was that the monitors detected minuscule amounts of tobacco products. (Jenkins, et al, 1999) The harm that might come from such minuscule amounts of exposure was calculated as “none” to “improbable harm”. The anti-tobacco forces have condemned this study because it was partly funded by the R.J. Reynolds Company. Later, a group of individuals visited the establishments and concluded that since they saw few individuals smoking, the study was flawed. In spite of this study being done by Oak Ridge National Laboratories, it was painted with a broad brush because of the funding from the tobacco industry.

...

The press frequently overlooks inconsistent data when reporting about environmental tobacco smoke. The most recent example was when a group of radiologists noted that one-third of patients who had never smoked, but were exposed to “high levels” of second hand smoke, showed MRI changes in their lungs similar to the changes seen in smokers. What failed to make the mainstream news was that two-thirds of the patients who were listed as non-smokers, but exposed to “high levels” of second hand smoke, paradoxically, had lower diffusion through the lungs than the “low exposure” group. That is, they showed the opposite of changes seen with heavy smokers. Again, what made the news in most circles was that this was more proof about the negative effects of environmental tobacco smoke. What did not make the news was that the paradoxical report might prove the opposite of their conclusion. (Science Daily, 2007)

"

There is no substantial increased risk from second-hand smoke.

That's not saying everyone who gets second hand smoke will die, that's me saying if you are in the vicinity of someone smoking, you will breath it in.

I don't agree with the law because as Slim said it's an overstep in my opinion. It should simply be common sense and you should not be smoking while driving anyway.

I can't speak for Slim, but from my own standpoint, I must say that I am not saying that people -should- smoke inside, that they -should- smoke around their children ... or even that it is 'okay' to.

I'm just tired of the myth being imposed upon the world by the anti-science gestapo of politics, and I'm also tired of the anti-freedom brigade that seems to do nothing but sit around and come up with something they can dispatch armed men to correct you on.

This.

Stepping in on people's freedoms? I suppose you think the children who have inhale that crap have a choice to do so, right?

No, they don't.

There's a reason, in the U.S. our Constitution avoids the concept of individual rights. Individual rights don't exist, to begin with, and are impossible for mankind to create as a legal guarantee - specifically because of issues like these.

A child doesn't have any natural right. A child is dependent upon a care taker for literally everything. That care taker (usually the parents), feeds the child, protects the child, teaches the child how to speak, teaches the child many basics of the world, instills concepts of behavior ethics, etc.

The child has absolutely no control over any of these things, and it is completely unreasonable for anyone to expect a child to be extended a choice as to what language he/she will be raised in, what religion his/her parents follow, the dietary patterns of his/her parents that will be reflected upon the child, etc. The child has no reasonable right to choose what stories his/her parents have to read at bed time (assuming the parents do that), to choose what things the parent will or won't teach him/her and when.

So, no, a child doesn't have rights.

Children are and always have been a difficult aspect of law because of this. Laws regarding child abuse are frequently abused by neighbors in feuds. Standards of abuse can be difficult to define and even more difficult to prove - and there is always dispute over what, exactly, constitutes abuse of a child.

I was spanked with a belt a few times. Some people consider that child abuse. I don't - and I've seen what happens to kids who aren't given a good smack across the rear, and consider it mutual abuse between child and parent where no one truly has any authority and chaos reigns.

Forget whether or not spanking kids with a belt is child abuse. I and my brothers don't smoke despite my parents being smokers and living/working in environments around smokers.

The kids who weren't beat with a belt? They come up and ask their mother for cigarettes and run off with the car for three hours and cause their mother to be late for work.

Yet the people who would send armed men to arrest me for disciplining my children will never see that side of it and will continually use the 'for the children' argument to throw an endless gauntlet of legal persecution upon those who do things they don't like.

I've been in a smoker's car on more than one occasion and it was unpleasant to say the least but unfortunately, since the child is lower on the pecking order, they don't have the place to tell the adult to stop.

They don't have the place to tell the adult to stop - but they can ask and let their desires be known.

Most people I've known who smoke are not complete and total dicks about it and will refrain from subjecting others to it once prompted. Many of them may just not think about it - that is the way most people are. They aren't intentionally trying to be dicks, they just don't understand that what they are doing is inconsiderate - usually because they were raised in a different environment.

So rightly so, some other adult with authority has to do something on their behalf. Let the smoker waste away if he wants, but nobody should expect a child to have to suffer the consequences.

"Rightly so?"

I question your sense of judgment.

What if I see you loading your shopping cart full of cola for your kids?

Isn't it "rightly so" that someone with the authority should come along and make sure your kids can choose from more healthy beverages? Aren't you subjugating them to unhealthy consumption?

Maybe it can be done more subtly... we'll just tax beverages designated as 'unhealthy' until they are equal in price to beverages designated as being more healthy.

We'll call it a 'future health awareness' program and claim to be putting that money into a special account to help with future medical costs of kids subjected to these heinous beverages of society... but then we'll actually swap out the accounts for some other treasury bond so we can spend the money on the failed renewable energy schemes or to bail out Greece every few months.

The premise that you are setting is that children belong to society and the parents are simply the managers of the child's well-being.

Look to my first part of this post, where I illustrate what happens when the means of production are assumed to belong to society and the 'owners' simply the managers of those means (socialism). Same process happens when we socialize children, as well.

 

[Transcendence]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's already here in Canada, but my dad never followed it... To this day he still smokes. Wish he didn't though.

 

[Aim64C]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's already here in Canada, but my dad never followed it... To this day he still smokes. Wish he didn't though.

Call me a cynic... or just dense...

But how is it that there is nothing wrong with a law that can be so freely ignored?

 

[Transcendence]

Call me a cynic... or just dense...

But how is it that there is nothing wrong with a law that can be so freely ignored?

I didn't mean it in that way. I meant that to oppose the OP's point. In my father's case, he's just extremely stubborn. He's the main source of income in our family, so if we ever badger him about smoking in the house or in the car he always brings up that he payed for the car or that he pays the mortgage. I'd assume it's different in other cases.

 

[Bronze]

You see, that is a hypocrisy of freedom. It's a huge problem in the British society. Violation of religious right is very common in Britain; British people want to promote hate speech against non-British culture and enforce it with freedom of speech, but as the British government enforces protection of religious rights, British people say it's a violation of freedom. Incredible logic from the West. :bdpf:

 

[slimreaper]

You see, that is a hypocrisy of freedom. It's a huge problem in the British society. Violation of religious right is very common in Britain; British people want to promote hate speech against non-British culture and enforce it with freedom of speech, but as the British government enforces protection of religious rights, British people say it's a violation of freedom. Incredible logic from the West. :bdpf:

If the British government wants to defend religious affiliates from speech, then freedom was never their intention.

 

[Bronze]

If the British government wants to defend religious affiliates from speech, then freedom was never their intention.

There is no such thing as freedom. It's a freedom if you're okay with it.

 

[Aim64C]

I didn't mean it in that way. I meant that to oppose the OP's point. In my father's case, he's just extremely stubborn. He's the main source of income in our family, so if we ever badger him about smoking in the house or in the car he always brings up that he payed for the car or that he pays the mortgage. I'd assume it's different in other cases.

You... don't understand the concept of "law," do you?

Your father broke the law. It isn't a question of who pays for what - society has authorized armed men to administer fines, court summons, and ultimately death for his refusal to comply with the law. End of story. It is not negotiable.

Law isn't a "suggestion." It isn't a "this is what you should do on a good day." Law is "you will refrain from doing this or else..."

Let's transcribe this scenario to other illegal activities - dog fighting is illegal in many western nations. If I am breeding dogs to fight, organizing fights between those dogs, whether I am making a profit/income off of it or not - it is illegal. But I raised those dogs. I fed them. I selected the breeding patterns. I built up the clientele.

That doesn't matter. Armed agents will, upon learning of my activities, break down my door and place me under arrest at penalty of death should I resist. I don't get to say: "yeah, but..."

If I am allowed to run my dog fighting ring and even get brave enough to openly advertise with no repercussions... does the law exist in reality?

No.

The purpose of such laws is argued to be to protect dogs and other animals. If I can just disregard the law, then the law is failing at its purpose.

If a law can be freely ignored then it is meaningless - or, worse, the only time those laws will be enforced is as an additional fine atop a related infraction. I've got my illegal dog fighting ring going and nothing gets done about it until I get into a fight with a prostitute and she reports me - at which time I get hit up with a bunch of other fines and punishments related to my illegal dog fighting ring.

The stated purpose of the law is to protect children.

Did it protect you?

There is no such thing as freedom. It's a freedom if you're okay with it.

There is no such thing as exemption.

There are consequences for every free action taken - no one is exempt from those.

The problem that Europe tends to have is that no one wants to be offended by anything. Example - Sweden just condemned gay pride parades as offensive to muslims. Which is just downright hilarious on every level.

See - Afghanistan had a long debate about the proper way to execute homosexuals. Some argued that a wall needed to be built and then pushed down atop said homosexuals. Others argued that it was just more expedient to use a bulldozer to push over existing walls atop homosexuals.

ISIS seems to have reached a compromise and simply throws them from atop walls.

But let's not offend the muslims with rainbow flags.

Meanwhile, if a Christian expresses even the slightest reluctance to support homosexuals, compulsory sodomy is essentially the sentence dished out by mob justice.

This is why Europe is going to implode and kill a hundred million of themselves or so.

Freedom means that you have to be willing to tolerate people saying things you don't necessarily like, although there does need to be an awareness of law. The other thing is that the law must be aware of its own limitations. You can't control what people think and you can't use law to try and engineer how people feel about each other.

People are going to have different opinions and people are going to argue.

Only totalitarian sociopaths believe it possible to define 'hate speech' and write a law against it.

 

[Bronze]

Freedom means that you have to be willing to tolerate people saying things you don't necessarily like, although there does need to be an awareness of law. The other thing is that the law must be aware of its own limitations. You can't control what people think and you can't use law to try and engineer how people feel about each other.

Actually, that's not what freedom means. Freedom defines as privilege to do as one likes and wants. However, it does not include toleration because freedom includes hate speech, which leads to violations of certain rights and religious rights is one of them. Gay pride parade is a violation of religious rights, because religions do not accept homosexuality.

A Jewish stabbed 6 people during a gay pride parade -

You must be registered for see links

Muslims are not the only ones against homosexuality, all religions are and the Jewish man (God bless him) was provoked by the gay pride parade, which again takes us to the conclusion: freedom of gay pride parade is a violation of religious rights.

There is no freedom and no one needs to tolerate something that provokes them. Would you tolerate someone who insults your family in the name of freedom of speech?

A person is free to do say or do what he/she want, but there is a consequence for it. Remember that.

Only totalitarian sociopaths believe it possible to define 'hate speech' and write a law against it.

There should be a law to limit freedom, as that would decrease violence and violations of rights.

 

[slimreaper]

Actually, that's not what freedom means. Freedom defines as privilege to do as one likes and wants. However, it does not include toleration because freedom includes hate speech, which leads to violations of certain rights and religious rights is one of them. Gay pride parade is a violation of religious rights, because religions do not accept homosexuality.

A Jewish stabbed 6 people during a gay pride parade -

You must be registered for see links

Muslims are not the only ones against homosexuality, all religions are and the Jewish man (God bless him) was provoked by the gay pride parade, which again takes us to the conclusion: freedom of gay pride parade is a violation of religious rights.

There is no freedom and no one needs to tolerate something that provokes them. Would you tolerate someone who insults your family in the name of freedom of speech?

A person is free to do say or do what he/she want, but there is a consequence for it. Remember that.



There should be a law to limit freedom, as that would decrease violence and violations of rights.

There is no such thing as hate speech

 

[Bronze]

There is no such thing as hate speech

There is.

You must be registered for see links

 

[slimreaper]

There is.

You must be registered for see links

Speech is speech, crime is crime. The "hate" moniker is a liberal construct

 

[YowYan]

Essentially, this new law does not sound out of place to me.
However, it's very typical for governments to subtly erode civil rights in a way we won't notice how much of natural freedoms are defied. We don't have anything against this law perse, yet it doesn't feel 100% right. Any sound mind would understand the subtle approach the elite have to make us passively accept their plans, bit by bit.

 

[NineSNS]

Freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

People (children) shouldn't be forced to breathe carcinogens and toxic fumes in an enclosed space.

Kind of sad that a law is required to enforce what should be common sense.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

People (children) shouldn't be forced to breathe carcinogens and toxic fumes in an enclosed space.

Kind of sad that a law is required to enforce what should be common sense.

But if we take away people's rights to smoke in little kids' faces, we will eventually be put in internment camps, according to Aim.

 

[slimreaper]

Freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

People (children) shouldn't be forced to breathe carcinogens and toxic fumes in an enclosed space.

Kind of sad that a law is required to enforce what should be common sense.

are you down for a ban on children eating fast food? There are proven negative health affects to that as well. Where does it end?

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

are you down for a ban on children eating fast food? There are proven negative health affects to that as well. Where does it end?

Kids can choose to eat fast food, they can't choose to suffer from seckndhand smoke.

 

[slimreaper]

Kids can choose to eat fast food, they can't choose to suffer from seckndhand smoke.

What a hypocrite. Why don't you just ban smoking all together then? We kniw that's what you want. Faking interest in the health of children to advance political control is a standard socialist practice